D&D 5E Truly Understanding the Martials & Casters discussion (+)

[Asisreo]

The point of this thread is to get into the meat-and-potatoes of the ongoing discussion about martials and casters. By now, it's been 8 years since WoTC released 5e, and the debate has built up more and more over the years. It's been covered almost exhaustively and there are even threads continuing that debate. I also fear that this very thread may invoke a 50+ page war, but I'm hoping that it won't be too cumbersome.

This thread is for understanding each other's point-of-view. It will involve disagreements, but the point isn't to agree, it's to understand. This let's homebrew creators understand the desires of those they're homebrewing for, as well as seeing things from beyond your own perspective.

So, I would like to start by going through some surface level arguments that represent both sides of the discussion as well as counter-arguments that I have commonly experienced. Feel free to quote whichever argument you would like to expand on or explain your disagreements with.

Martials have equal combat-effectiveness, so there should be no problem.

Counter: The divide between martials and casters stem from the lack of versatility both in-and-out of combat. A caster has the tools to end the encounter too easily and quickly while a martial can only rely on damage to end the encounter and are much less flexible. Outside of combat, the caster can do everything the martial can do and more.

counter-counter: "Caster" is being used broadly to cover a large amount of classes. Most classes have the spellcasting feature yet there are some classes that have limited or no access to certain abilities. They also have a limit to how much they can prepare/know, so it's not fair to look at any possible spell since they might not have access to it, especially known-spellcasters like wizards, Bards, Warlocks, and Sorcerers.

Most games take place with few encounter days, which means casters can NOVA through them while also having powerful utility.

Counter: The game's balance is set for 6-8 encounters in a day so it's expected that balance fails going below this criteria. Martials are very useful for longer stretches of days since they can always run with maximum efficiency until the end of the day.

Counter-counter: 6-8 is ridiculous for most narratives and is a slog. Even if they aren't all combats, most noncombat encounters can be resolved without expending resources. Also, martials have limited resources, not only with HP, but also most have a resource like Action Surge, Ki, or Rage. So they actually don't run on maximum efficiency.

Just reflavor the casters into a martial by reflavoring magic.
Counter: Reflavoring can only go so far. How would you reflavor dispel magic stopping your attacks? And what would spells that can't translate nonmagically like illusions or teleportation or mind manipulation work? They can't.

Counter-counter: With a DM, they can reflavor anything with ease. A dispel-magic can be Disrupt Focus so it explains why both a martial and caster doesn't get the benefits. Teleportation can be extremely quick and far movement or bursts of supernatural speed. Illusions and mind manipulations may be done with homemade smoke and mirrors or by dazing/confusing the opponents with words. Or they can be excluded from your martial play entirely.

I want high-level martials to feel like a superhero/mythical figure/demigod. Casters get to feel that way, but martials do not.
Counter: Not everyone wants a martial that can throw buildings or destroy mountains. It wouldn't fit my fantasy or it would force a fantasy that I'd dislike.

Counter-counter: High-level casters get to force their fantasy. Plus, if you dislike the one class that can throw buildings, don't play them. I do not want all other classes removed, I just want my one complex, powerful, utility martial.

---

I don't necessarily believe everything above, but I've seen the topics before and want to get a head-start. Clarifying is more than welcome, but try to avoid restating the same points posted above. I don't expect you to read everything in this thread, but also try to avoid restating other's responses as best you can.

Please be kind and courteous to your fellow forum-goers. Expect to be disagreed with and try to truly understand. Don't shame or make others feel bad, and ask as many genuine questions as you can. Also, please avoid trolling. I'm hoping to get better insight.

Thank you for your time,
Asisreo

Edit: Hmm...it seems I accidentally started something else. Although the additional points, counter-points, and counter-counters are welcome.

 

[payn]

Nerf magic down to Martial level to even out the divide.
Counter: I dont want magic nerfed, I want martials buffed. I expect gonzo fantasy at some point in the system.

Counter-counter: I expect a lower power level from the system and casters are the problem from where I'm standing.

Casters can do too much in each pillar, martials can not do enough outside combat.
Counter: Wizards are much weaker early on. GMs dont follow the rules correctly to curb caster power as intended.

Counter-counter: Martials need more non-combat class abilities if the game is truly intended to be 3 pillars.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

"The power difference between casters and non-casters all too often leads to conflict, negatively affecting groups and especially DMs."

Counter: "Balance is context-specific in D&D, and thus always requires DM effort. DMs need to learn to address problems when they arise; trying to swat down every possible problem is doomed to failure, so we shouldn't try."

Counter-counter: "While the DM's role is vital, we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The DM role is already demanding enough, and efforts to make problem-solving easier would be better for the game's current and future health."

"Things every character can do should not be considered when evaluating class balance."

Counter: "They absolutely should. Much, perhaps most of D&D is made of 'things every character can do,' and ignoring that aspect of the experience means designing for only a subset of what D&D is."

Counter-counter: "While we should not totally ignore these things, the whole point of class choice is the differences between them. Each class should account for the common, shared actions, but it must also bring its own contributions."

 

[HammerMan]

Okay, from my POV (and that of at least 2 player/DMs in my circle of friends one who was reading the first PHB I bought with me long long ago) the problem is that casters control major points of the game that marshals can not... when classes get made to effect such things they are just given spells (see EK and AT subclasses).

I will consider if you run 6+ encounters per day (every adventuring day) and play at 12th or less level you will find the divide small enough that some house rules and some general agreement between players can adjust it. Of course we can not aggree on WHAT house rules and agreements work enough so that is still an issue.

the issue comes up when people want to play complex characters (options on sheets... some like to dismiss this as video gamey 'button pushing') and then find that every one of those is some form of caster. SO they play 1 caster, then another... and we find that no one is playing anything but casters.

Our work arounds already have been to give martial boons trained by other 'heroes of legend' but it is hard to work on your own subsystems... or to take spell casters (especially 1/2 and 1/3 casters but sometimes bards as full casters) and pick spells and refluff them until they are martial... but that often falls flat when you still need to reference the spell.

My proposed goal is to keep the simple fighter (the same way warlock is a simpler caster) and make 1 or 2 new classes more in line with the power scope and complexity of wizards and clerics.

 

[HammerMan]

"Things every character can do should not be considered when evaluating class balance."

Counter: "They absolutely should. Much, perhaps most of D&D is made of 'things every character can do,' and ignoring that aspect of the experience means designing for only a subset of what D&D is."

Counter-counter: "While we should not totally ignore these things, the whole point of class choice is the differences between them. Each class should account for the common, shared actions, but it must also bring its own contributions."

in my thread about Shenagins I pointed out that I counted out the ones casters did and the ones non casters did (that we could remember) but then readjusted becuse some of the things a caster player did a fighter COULD have done...it didn't need the subsystem of spells.

Spoiler: quote myself

I have at least 2 dozen stories that I can tell about characters doing things like that... things that blew me away as a DM.

In one such case I literally had a 11th level party kill a Divine rank 30 mindflayer god in a surprise round, and I argued I could free action say something before I died... so I chose "I just want to go on record as saying this is bull naughty word, this was my plan" then he died...

So I went back through my head how many of these were level 10+ (about 2/3 of the ones I could think of) how many were epic level (21+ and not many only 2 one in 4e one in 2e) So then I started thinking how many where item/rp/anyone could do and it was a few (including the above example of the god death, and a fighter picking up and suplexing the tarrasque in 3.5) but almost all of them involved spells. SO I asked last night my tuesday night group to make a list with me after game... and so we did.

we stopped at 32 times we could more or less esialy remember, then we went back and through them to see how many where arcane spells cast... 22. of the 10 left 3 were divine/primal-nature spells (some of the 22 were on both divine and arcane list though) leaving 7 that were not 2 of those used psychic abilities (in 3e+ that is easy to gage level but in 2e the system just wasn't level based) and 5 were things done by (or could be done by because 1 is still a warlock story and 1 is still a wizard story just without spells...that tent still bugs me)

So I asked everyone to think about it. Saturday some of us (and a couple others) get together. I will see what we get for different answers. I did wake up this morning to 2 other "OMG" moments texted to me by becky and both were 2e fighter moments we didn't think of last night (so up to 34 7 of them didn't need magic at all)

To be fair we didn't count some things. the first time anyone used a "once per day when you die" epic destiny power we all remember from Ross's first warlord we didn't count becuse as cool as it was at the moment we all had uses of those abilities and it only stands out as everyone being like "WTF," but we got used to it. (so that was martial) and 3 different dumb jokes we make that have stuck from campaign to campaign (I do push ups for insight) because we didn't think just being memorable was enough it had to be a positive impact AND remember able.

We did also discount a lucky bard set of attacks from 2e that kind sorta didn't need magic but kinda did and was house ruled (a bard that was made useing skills and powers so he could specialize in daggers who had been gifted by the good of speed a semi permanent haste. He made 5 or 6 attacks we couldn't remember the exact number with his +5 knife and his +3 dagger. He dropped on teh table his dice for his attack and 3 of them landed on 20... while dominated by a bad guy and hitting the mage/thief(me) and me jaw dropped saying "3 twenties what are the odds" and I survived with single digit hp, but by the next turn he was still dominated and he dropped the dice this time in the dead center of the table and 3 came up 20 to my now dead character and all I could say was "Ow come on 3 twenties again?!?"

if we added those we would have 36 (so slightly more then 1 per year) 9 of witch martial characters could do...

this is my problem. wizards have A LOT of easier ways to say "Hey lets change the game real quick" in general caster do over non casters...

and remember this isn't counting all of the (humdrum just what casters do) times we saw teleport, on a spell negate a hit, or flight superseding encounters, or even just knock making the rouge ask why he put points in open locks. This isn't counting all of the healing, the ressurecting, the divination, the SoDs that ended encounters...

 

[Asisreo]

I expect a lower power level from the system and casters are the problem from where I'm standing.

Where does this expectation come from? Previous editions? The tone from previous, more mundane adventures that occur before the high-level things? Or from the way the book is written? Personally, from the way the book describes high-level adventures, I can understand why people expect all characters are assigned powers that seem to scale appropriately to the danger at-hand.

Martials need more non-combat class abilities if the game is truly intended to be 3 pillars.

I suppose the implication is that the three pillars are equally as important. With the terminology "pillars," I can understand that it may imply that they are supposed to be equivalent or the whole structure will be lopsided, but the game doesn't mention that exploration and social encounters actually share equal importance as combat. Frankly, it makes sense. In "typical" D&D, the only time your character is threatened with death in 5e is using combat stats. Failed speech might lead to combat, and your combat stats are still relevant in exploration.

"While the DM's role is vital, we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The DM role is already demanding enough, and efforts to make problem-solving easier would be better for the game's current and future health."

At the end of the day, D&D is a game that the designers just cannot predict. They can go the way of the board game with well-established, unyielding rules of play, but that tarnished the TTRPG experience. Even if the rules were completely balanced RAW and were required, some groups will end up homebrewing and getting frustrated by the rules without realizing how their homebrew effected it anyways. Like in monopolies case.

"While we should not totally ignore these things, the whole point of class choice is the differences between them. Each class should account for the common, shared actions, but it must also bring its own contributions."

Do those contributions have to include out-of-combat utility? In combat, all classes add unique contributions that differentiates them far enough that even playing a barbarian or fighter can greatly change the way you play and the roles you fill, despite them seeming similar on the surface.

Note: I'm not being hostile in these discussions. I would like clarification and understanding exactly what you're expecting and desire.

 

[Weiley31]

I'm still happy that during my second session ever as a Half-Elf Battle Master, I took out seven Drow assassins with one attack (Combat Maneuver: Sweeping Attacking) and it was hella cool.


Okay yeah, the Druid of the party helped with the set-up, but shhhhh, I had fun.

 

[Brotton Goodfellow]

Don’t know if this is the time to bring this up, but I have a hard time understanding the so-called issue. As in, I haven’t experienced it as a player or have it be a problem in any of the games I run. I typically play a martial class, Barbarian being my favourite (Me big, me stronk). And I’ve never felt outclassed or out-powered by a wizard (not that any of my Barbarian characters would ever admit that!).
I will say this however: The rules changes I’ve made as a DM in my current campaign have perhaps “toned down” casters. The biggest changes are:
1. No more spell slots. Once a spell is cast, it’s gone for the day. Cantrips do not apply.
2. Magic users have to roll a 10 or higher to cast spells. Cantrips and spells that require a spell attack roll, need not be rolled for. This is rarely an issue as ability modifiers are also added to the roll, but when it does come up, it brings some tension to being a caster. I’ll also add that if the roll fails you don’t lose the spell for the day, you just burn an action.
So in a way I guess I agree that there is some disparity, but maybe not enough to launch forum jihads against my fellow gamers. Wow, I learned something about myself just now.

 

[HammerMan]

Don’t know if this is the time to bring this up, but I have a hard time understanding the so-called issue. As in, I haven’t experienced it as a player or have it be a problem in any of the games I run. I typically play a martial class, Barbarian being my favourite (Me big, me stronk). And I’ve never felt outclassed or out-powered by a wizard (not that any of my Barbarian characters would ever admit that!).

as one of the biggest proponents of "martials need more toys" I will say, I understand your POV on this.

I will (as an olive branch across the isle) add that my ex brother in law NEVER understood why someone would play a caster and felt fighters and Barbarians were the best 2 classes... when Becky would complain she wanted to play a martial swords master he would always tell her "Pop a high str and con, throw on some armor"

I will also say that in my first roll20 campaign I played in our MVP was a barbarian that threw crazy damage (27 str, huge size axe for 3d12 damage) and he was lots of fun... but that player did get board alot, and even ended up splitting time between playing x box and playing with us on lap top because even dealing the most damage, have the most hp having the best AC (when the rest of us didn't pop something like shield) and half damage from all non psychic damages... he felt he didn't do much OTHER then fight.

 

[payn]

Where does this expectation come from? Previous editions? The tone from previous, more mundane adventures that occur before the high-level things? Or from the way the book is written? Personally, from the way the book describes high-level adventures, I can understand why people expect all characters are assigned powers that seem to scale appropriately to the danger at-hand.

I'd say you got the right of it. The old school sword and sorcery definitely shaped many older gamers perceptions.

I suppose the implication is that the three pillars are equally as important. With the terminology "pillars," I can understand that it may imply that they are supposed to be equivalent or the whole structure will be lopsided, but the game doesn't mention that exploration and social encounters actually share equal importance as combat. Frankly, it makes sense. In "typical" D&D, the only time your character is threatened with death in 5e is using combat stats. Failed speech might lead to combat, and your combat stats are still relevant in exploration.

This begs the question, if only combat matters, then why are casters and rogues so good outside of it? I believe the game goes well beyond combat. If you cant pick a lock, then you could be forced down a more dangerous path. If you cant circumvent traps besides walking into them face first, that can be pretty lethal. If you have no way to work with people to gain favors or collect clues, you cant progress the adventure.

Some argue for a rock, paper, scissors kind of thing. Martials good at fighting, bad at skills and social. Rogues good at skills and social bad at combat. Casters tho, good at everything due to nature of spell casting. Some folks are fine with this as they see the game as a niche protected team sport. Others, want equal ability in each category. Others still, just want some ability in each pillar for any class/character. YMMV.

Note: I'm not being hostile in these discussions. I would like clarification and understanding exactly what you're expecting and desire.

No hostility detected. Also, im not saying all these things, im just saying them in spirit of discussion.