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

[Minigiant]

I don't really see a problem with 3, at least on the DM side.

I make high-fantasy scenarios at tier 3+ do it's not like I'm afraid of a everyone having access to magic in some form.

Thanks for sharing your experiences!

I think the only reason I never encountered player disinterest with martial PCs is because in 1E/2E you had a lot of magic items for martials, as well as things like claiming land, building armies, etc. made it interesting.

I never had the experience with your issue #1 or #3, though.

Spellcasters can obtain magic items too.

IME That was the where the chore and favoritism came from. DM would have to shaft casters on magic items or they could easily overshadow.

"The chest contains a +2 longsword, a +1 dagger, a shield of fire resistance, goggles of the night, and a wand with 1/4 of its charges"
Maybe that was just NY DMs.

 

[Asisreo]

Spellcasters can obtain magic items too.

IME That was the where the chore and favoritism came from. DM would have to shaft casters on magic items or they could easily overshadow.

"The chest contains a +2 longsword, a +1 dagger, a shield of fire resistance, goggles of the night, and a wand with 1/4 of its charges"
Maybe that was just NY DMs.

Seems like a regular treasure hoard to me.

It should be noted that not all magic items are distributed equally.

In a Tier 4 Treasure Hoard, there is a roughly 70% chance the items are "Minor items" which are mostly consumables. These consumables are more likely martial-oriented utility consumables than anything else.

For example, the obvious Potions of Giant Strengths are in all those tables and a Wizard probably won't be able to draw out its best usage.

Then, you have Potions of Flying or Invisibility. While a wizard could use them, at tier 4, the wizard probably doesn't want to use a consumables for an effect they can easily replicate. But a martial can also use these abilities to greater effect. A flying wizard is standard but a flying fighter can make fights against dragons epic.

So I don't think Magic Items are lopsided.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Maybe that was just NY DMs.

LOL it could be, but a lot of my gaming was done in college in PA and AZ.

Spellcasters can obtain magic items too.

Sure, which (especially with casting times in AD&D) made it easier for them to make certain their spells happened since activating a staff could not be foiled in the fashion casting a spell could be.

Also, if you look at the relative power between strong items in AD&D, let's review/compare from 1E the Staff of the Magi and a Holy Avenger. First the staff. It functioned at 8th level always, regardless of the caster's level. It required 2 segments to activate a function (so really quick compared to casting times in general), and had limited charges, up to 25 (though you could replenish them easily).

And the Holy Avenger (in the hands of a Paladin): Always +5 to hit/damage, base 50% magic resistance and failing that, dispels magic at a level of magic use equal to the paladin's level. And let's not forget that incredible +10 bonus damage to CE opponents!

The Holy Avenger always makes the Paladin better. The Staff of the Magi frees up the Magic-User to reserve lower level spells slots for other spells (which remember had to be memorized individually for each casting you might want!), but a 20th-level Archmage casts a 20d6 fireball in AD&D, the staff only an 8d6 version.

So, while yes, I agree casters also got magic items, their items (compared to the relative power of the PC) was not as big when you compared augmenting a high-level martial PC with a powerful magical item.

 

[Stalker0]

really? like what? as i see it most casters can can sing "anythng you can do I can do better, I can do anything better then you" to well made martial classes...

lets take a party of fighters (1 champion, 1 battlemaster) and rogues (1 assassin 1 thief) . Then take a party of a Moon Druid, a Lore Bard, a Bladesinger Wizard, and a Hexblade/blade pact warlock... lets make all of them human. What can that 1st party do over the second (other then be stopped by a magic warded dooor)

So if we allow for specific individuals within those parties:

1) Perform two actions in the same turn
2) Take a fireball to the face and suffer no damage
3) Crit on an 18-20
4) Guarantee an attack roll will hit
5) Disarm a trap as a bonus action
6) Use magic items that only work for clerics and paladins (maybe the warlock has something for that, not sure)
7) Go twice in the same round (you could argue simulacrum or time stop will do this, but technically that is a weaker version of yourself going, not quite the same thing).

Now I'm not here to say martials or casters are equal (I wrote the OP for a reason afterall), but there are definately things that martial classes can do that spells don't completely overwrite.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I would be curious to find out just how many players aren't having fun with their martial PCs, even at the highest levels? How many people are actually dissatisfied?

This isn't asking quite the right question. Before 4e I always played casters outside one-shots. In 4e I played a fighter, a couple of warlords, a monk, and a barbarian. In 5e I've played a shadow monk - and the only other martials so far I've even considered have been an echo knight and a soulblade rogue. Because the rest just look tedious to me. It's not about the archetype, it's the implementation. I do not like spamming attacks and not having out of combat options; my conception of the fighter includes using their brain to master the battlefield.

By contrast someone in one of my old groups who'd been playing since the 70s used to either play wizards and struggle with spell juggling or play fighters and have a not great time. But he took to playing a 4e elementalist pyromancer like it was the character he'd always been trying to play, mixing the simplicity of a fighter with the burnination of a wizard.

The right question is how many players are finding their characters arbitrarily restricted by this "wizards smart, martials stupid" dichotomy?

Spellcasters can obtain magic items too.

IME That was the where the chore and favoritism came from. DM would have to shaft casters on magic items or they could easily overshadow.

"The chest contains a +2 longsword, a +1 dagger, a shield of fire resistance, goggles of the night, and a wand with 1/4 of its charges"
Maybe that was just NY DMs.

If you look carefully at oD&D and 1e the loot tables were rigged to favour fighters and this was a part of the game. Clerics not using swords was a balancing factor - which included 40-80% of all magic weapons being swords (depending on edition) and swords going up to +5 while almost every other weapon went only to +2

 

[Gammadoodler]

LOL, didn't I sing that upthread?

Anyway, you know, upthread there was a poster who said they wanted their "arch-martial" (my term) power-level character to be able to wade into an army and mow them all down.

Well, depending on your encounter set-up and just what you consider an "army", a level 20 Fighter (Champion) built right with a few magic items (mostly AC boosting so a natural 20 is needed to hit), could defeat well over 1000 "guards" with short bows. Depending on just how many attacks are coming each round, it could be more or less. If you had less than 40 attacks per round (with my set up), the PC could kill any number of guards, theoretically. If you want the full information I used, let me know and I'll post it.

I discussed it with my players last night, and frankly they were amazed by that number, and we all agreed that seemed superheroic to us.

Could archmage also do it? Of course. Given the right spell, I can't think of anything a martial can do that a archmage couldn't...

But to make that happen, certain spells would need to be removed from the game IMO. But it also seems to me (in some ways) spells just get more powerful over all.

I think the mook scenarios that involved a fighter killing 1000 people in an army required enemy AC not more than 12 or 13, and HP not much more than 11..and tohit somewhere around +2 (though this could likely get up to about +5 assuming a fully AC based defensive loadout). I believe the assumptions also included the enemy only using clubs in melee and not rotating or readying attacks.

Deviations from these assumptions cause wide swings in the results, if suddenly your fighter can miss or not guarantee a kill on a hit, their efficiency drops like a stone. If baddies can hit on a 19, you've cut survivability in half. If more than 8 baddies can attack a turn, similar and separate drop in survivability. If baddies have readied attacks to expend before they get slaughtered..another drop.

Basically to achieve the "slaughter 1000" result, the army has to be composed of poorly trained, poorly equipped Keystone cops.

Now..change that to shortbows, and things are several orders of magnitude worse. Because then you have to add an assumption that your fighter has gotten into melee range at full health, instead of taking attacks from anyone within 320 feet (1/400 chance to hit at long range, but 4200 something squares are within range and close to 300 squares would be within normal range. Some amount of damage will get in, likely a lot considering you need 6 turns of movement to close.)

Fighter has a budget of somewhere around 80-100 hits they can take assuming 3.5 avg dmg from shortbow dice without any modifier or crits (another significant assumption). From short range alone, you could be looking at 7-14 hits/turn without rotation (add in another 3-7 hits with rotation). Fully kitted fighter goes down in like 15 rounds max, possibly in as few as 5 just from short range + walking distance from short range.

Our fighter dies to an army that can fit in a decent-sized auditorium having killed a number of enemies that could fit in some city buses.

TL;DR
Any scenario that leads to a melee fighter having a meaningful impact against massed enemies with ranged weapons relies on a dubious and extremely brittle set of assumptions.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This isn't asking quite the right question. Before 4e I always played casters outside one-shots. In 4e I played a fighter, a couple of warlords, a monk, and a barbarian. In 5e I've played a shadow monk - and the only other martials so far I've even considered have been an echo knight and a soulblade rogue. Because the rest just look tedious to me. It's not about the archetype, it's the implementation. I do not like spamming attacks and not having out of combat options; my conception of the fighter includes using their brain to master the battlefield.

(bold added)

Hmm, ok, just to make certain I am understanding you (please correct me if I'm wrong):
1. Spamming attack is a problem because it is tedious (short of using a magic item this was an issue from the beginning of D&D IMO). In combat, pure martials are always attacking in one fashion or another (Paladins and Rangers obviously have spells, which is why I say "pure").

2. Your conception to master the battlefield via brains (more or less some form of tactics I would think?) is trying to influence the scope of the encounter in a more meaningful way. Similar to how a single spell could turn the tide due to mass effect, finding something that martials could do would even the field (no pun intended).

By contrast someone in one of my old groups who'd been playing since the 70s used to either play wizards and struggle with spell juggling or play fighters and have a not great time. But he took to playing a 4e elementalist pyromancer like it was the character he'd always been trying to play, mixing the simplicity of a fighter with the burnination of a wizard.

My first PC was a magic-user, and back then my concern was just keeping him alive until he had enough HP to handle common threats.

The right question is how many players are finding their characters arbitrarily restricted by this "wizards smart, martials stupid" dichotomy?

Well, I don't know if that is the right question, but certainly a valid one!

As far as the martials stupid thing, to me that is mostly about the player. But, I get your point, because even a clever player is limited by the scope of what their PC can do. But even in that light, many of the suggestions still revolve around combat (understandably) or don't really take way from the "stupid" thing (Hulk leap and smash, for instance!).

Can you give me an example of something you feel that would take away from the dichotomy, particularly outside of combat?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Um... no, I'm not. All those examples (fighting men like Hulk or Hercules) are still superheroic-types.


Yep, they are basically playing superheroes, too.

A first level wizard who can cast Burning Hands and Shield is a superheroic type (and far more of a superheroic type than someone who merely doesn't age). If you don't want superheroic types then you need to ban 100% of all spellcasting. Including two thirds of D&D classes.

If on the other hand you want to allow wizards to be superheroic types then it is rampantly hypocritical to say fighters can't be. You're asking the martial characters to play muggles in a highly magical world.

LOL go ahead and complain! Myself (and others IIRC) have already agreed magic in D&D at high levels is superheroic!

High level = first level. If you don't want superheroic characters then spellcasters all have to go.

I've nerfed casters over all so much for MY game because instead of raising martials to be superheroes also, my preference is to bring casters down to the heroic level instead.

And to do that you need to turn the casters into conjurers and illusionists, capable of preparing tricks that must work through mundane means.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think the mook scenarios that involved a fighter killing 1000 people in an army required enemy AC not more than 12 or 13, and HP not much more than 11..and tohit somewhere around +2 (though this could likely get up to about +5 assuming a fully AC based defensive loadout). I believe the assumptions also included the enemy only using clubs in melee and not rotating or readying attacks.

Deviations from these assumptions cause wide swings in the results, if suddenly your fighter can miss or not guarantee a kill on a hit, their efficiency drops like a stone. If baddies can hit on a 19, you've cut survivability in half. If more than 8 baddies can attack a turn, similar and separate drop in survivability. If baddies have readied attacks to expend before they get slaughtered..another drop.

Well, instead of assuming what my scenario was, you could have just asked.

Seriously, though, yes "guards" with AC 14 and 11 HP, +3 to attack. Standard guard stat block except I gave them all short bows, but you can really replace it with any d6 weapon. Making it d8 would certain make things worse, but it still roughly 750 (a smaller "army"). Even allowing them to hit on a 19 as well would still keep the number at well over 300 (maybe not an "army" anymore, but still incredible!). BTW, those reductions are still assuming 50 guards are attacking each round...

Basically to achieve the "slaughter 1000" result, the army has to be composed of poorly trained, poorly equipped Keystone cops.

Really? You consider the guard stat block, your basic soldier really, "poorly trained, poorly equipped Keystone cops?" Interesting.

 

[DND_Reborn]

A first level wizard who can cast Burning Hands and Shield is a superheroic type (and far more of a superheroic type than someone who merely doesn't age). If you don't want superheroic types then you need to ban 100% of all spellcasting. Including two thirds of D&D classes.

Using magic in a fantasy game is not superheroic, it is magic. That is what casters are about. To remove it would be like playing a martial without hands or feet.

If on the other hand you want to allow wizards to be superheroic types then it is rampantly hypocritical to say fighters can't be. You're asking the martial characters to play muggles in a highly magical world.

Well, as written in 5E any martial without magical features is a muggle, aren't they? But they are (especially at higher levels) HEROIC muggles, and depending on just what it takes to satisfy your definition of "superheroic", superheroic muggles.

High level = first level. If you don't want superheroic characters then spellcasters all have to go.

Nope. If you think first level = high level and characters are superheroic, you're playing a different 5E than I am. Even the designers (and most players IMO) would levels 1-2 are often thought of as the apprenticeship levels.

A first level wizard could get defeated by a group of commoners pretty easily, especially depending on what spells he has prepared.

And to do that you need to turn the casters into conjurers and illusionists, capable of preparing tricks that must work through mundane means.

Not at all. We decreased spell slots, nerfed damage cantrips so you can't spam them repeatedly, and made all casters known casters.

But hey, you play in your world and do what you want.