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

[HammerMan]

I always stay out of these fighter-versus-caster discussions because I feel like nobody wants to hear my anecdotal opinion, but maybe this is the thread for it.

then as someone that I think has oppisit experence... let me listen (well read)

I have played two pure martial characters up to level 12, and I am perfectly satisfied with the experience compared to my experience playing casters. The characters in question are a thief rogue and a drunken master monk. I have taken no feats that give them any kind of magical abilities.

both are cool concepts and things that I would love to play.

The main things that make me happy about them are all the skills of the rogue and the crazy mobility of the monk. Huge movement speed, free disengages with a flurry of blows, running across liquid and up walls ... all of that makes every turn I play as the monk feel extremely flavorful.

100% agree

For comparison, I also play a level 13 abjuration wizard, and I sometimes feel like that character's toolbox is less useful because I have to accurately predict which spells I'm going to want each day. There's nothing more frustrating than thinking, "Wow, I wish I'd prepared enlarge/reduce today."

this is were I am seeing the disconect.

the drunk master can not prep X or Y they ALWAYS have Z. So you don't feel like you wasted preping Z it was your only option.
I will disagree with this becuse that is also true with plenty of casters "My waarlock took X spell and is locked in instead or Y"

So whenever people go on the "martials suck" rants (or the "monks suck" ones), it doesn't match my experience. I feel like they're trying to persuade me that I'm having less fun than I am, and I don't want to be persuaded of that!

I have never wanted to tell anyone they did or will or am having less fun. I am sorry if it comes off that way. However I am explaining why as both a DM and a player I HAVE HAD LESS FUN, or more honestly, we (my group) have found over time we just avoid straight non caster options until it feels like everyone just plays casters... sometimes we house rule or just player agreement to allow for a fighter/monk/rogue (those are or not multiclass) has something no one else does... even if it means the cleric avoids the melee combat domains and promises to never (or atleast almost never) self buff.

 

[Mort]

If a player cares about doing things outside of combat there are all sorts of options. Backgrounds and the ability to customize is one of the strengths of 5E.

I love backgrounds - they add some nice depth. But again, everyone gets one.

What can the fighter get here that the wizard cannot?

Spells rarely make a difference to the stories we've told at the D&D table over the years, or even if they did there would have been a different way of overcoming the obstacle.

Players tend to go for the most readily available solution to the problem (and why wouldn't they?)

Since D&D magic is 100% reliable it's often the easiest go-to. And since it's so reliable and obvious it often fades into the background. 5e HAS taken some steps in this regard (3e made it way too easy to have a scroll for every occasion and spells like knock had no problematic elements what-so-ever, so a wizard could just keep a scroll or 2 of knock etc.).

As for the second part (there would be another way)? Sure, if the DM is willing to go that route, there are plenty who don't tailor their games that way though. It's not a guaranty at all.

The ones who have an edge up in non-combat stuff in my games have been rogues and occasionally bards.

The decisions a player make will always have more impact on my campaigns than the magic that they cast.

I do really like how Rogues get enough skills and are good enough at them to truly shine outside of combat, and generally in a completely non-magical way. This just shows that it's not THAT hard to allow a class to shine outside of combat without resorting to magic!

 

[TheSword]

I think one of the reasons The martial-caster divide is lessening is that martials now are all capable of having powers, that let them do fantastic things a number of times per day. It’s just rolled into the spellcasting for Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Paladin or Ranger. Multiclass spell casting has never been easier so a half caster or 2:3 caster is more than possible (rather than the 1:3 caster).

It means if you want to play a warrior who can fly under their own steam you can. They aren’t going to be able to teleport, but that’s where specialization comes in.

What people seem to be wanting, is powers that do similar things to spells, without the limitations. That are as powerful at high levels as high level magic, without the sacrifices wizards make. It’s just seems to be wanting your cake and eating it.

• Simple pure non-magical fighter, play a Battlemaster
• Little bit of magic, play an Eldritch Knight.
• Hybrid, play an Eldritch Knight with a few levels of wizard or sorcerer
• High level magic, play a bladesinger or wizard/sorcerer with the right stats and weapon and armour proficiency.

Essentially you can play a super hero character that can fly, empower their weapons, turn invisible, and see invisible creatures with 5e rules as they stand now. The rules are in truth extremely flexible. More flexible than they have ever been.

What they won’t do is create a new type of magic. Just for martials. In essence the problem has already been solved.

 

[HammerMan]

I love backgrounds - they add some nice depth. But again, everyone gets one.

What can the fighter get here that the wizard cannot?

nothing... average 2hp per level, action surge and slightly more damage is about it... and in some variable (by level and table) # of encounters the wizard can do better at taking attacks and dealing damage if they choose to.

 

[Oofta]

I'm already well aware that in your opinion there isn't an issue. What I'm interested in is how would you rate the three pillars in terms of their relative importance in your game?

Combat is the spice of my games, everything else is the main course. I don't really split up the other two pillars because I'm not sure there's much consensus to what exploration is. Is searching a room for clues to a murder mystery exploration? I assume it is, but for others it might mean literally exploring wilderness.

People start businesses, try to establish trade routes, have fights with their families who just want them to settle down and stop risking their necks and want them to get over this adventuring phase. None of that requires spells or special abilities.

 

[TheSword]

nothing... average 2hp per level, action surge and slightly more damage is about it... and in some variable (by level and table) # of encounters the wizard can do better at taking attacks and dealing damage if they choose to.

They can get proficiency Arcana, History etc that Wizards already have. They can muscle in on traditional wizard territory like wizards try and muscle in on Fighter territory.

 

[Asisreo]

Does that sound like a game that is working fine-as-is, and that your average D&D player would want to play a wizard in?

That depends on the player. There are systems that basically run like that. As for the average D&D player, I don't even know if the average D&D player likes D&D rather than them playing the most popular system. But as long as this style of play is stated upfront. I don't see why it would fail outright or anything.

At level 20, the disparity is tremendous. The fighter has improved marginally in their out of combat capacities. Maybe they have Remarkable Athlete and can jump a few feet farther. The wizard, on the other hand, can literally do just about anything with the right spells.

In a different perspective, the wizard player has to keep up with their massive spellbook and pay astute attention to the game and the implications of using spells in the context of the given scenario. That's a mental load not every player wants to engage with.

 

[Oofta]

I love backgrounds - they add some nice depth. But again, everyone gets one.

What can the fighter get here that the wizard cannot?




Players tend to go for the most readily available solution to the problem (and why wouldn't they?)

Since D&D magic is 100% reliable it's often the easiest go-to. And since it's so reliable and obvious it often fades into the background. 5e HAS taken some steps in this regard (3e made it way too easy to have a scroll for every occasion and spells like knock had no problematic elements what-so-ever, so a wizard could just keep a scroll or 2 of knock etc.).

As for the second part (there would be another way)? Sure, if the DM is willing to go that route, there are plenty who don't tailor their games that way though. It's not a guaranty at all.



I do really like how Rogues get enough skills and are good enough at them to truly shine outside of combat, and generally in a completely non-magical way. This just shows that it's not THAT hard to allow a class to shine outside of combat without resorting to magic!

Magic frequently comes at a cost though, even if it is reliable. Sometimes quick and easy is also dangerous. Rogues were intended to fill the role of out-of-combat skill monkey while not being quite as effective at combat.

If we're talking skills and whatnot, yea I could see some room for improvement I'm just not sure what. Rogues were supposed to be less capable than fighters at combat for niche protection. Then people complained that DMs didn't give rogues advantage every round so the rogue couldn't keep up on damage with the fighter and they got steady shot. When it comes to combat I still think people focus too much on DPR.

Out of combat? If you use feats you can take prodigy to specialize with one of the extra ASIs you get but I don't think we need to turn them into skill monkeys.

 

[Vaalingrade]

What people seem to be wanting, is powers that do similar things to spells, without the limitations. That are as powerful at high levels as high level magic, without the sacrifices wizards make. It’s just seems to be wanting your cake and eating it.

Nope.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That depends on the player. There are systems that basically run like that. As for the average D&D player, I don't even know if the average D&D player likes D&D rather than them playing the most popular system. But as long as this style of play is stated upfront. I don't see why it would fail outright or anything.

In a different perspective, the wizard player has to keep up with their massive spellbook and pay astute attention to the game and the implications of using spells in the context of the given scenario. That's a mental load not every player wants to engage with.

Personally, based on what I've seen folks say here and elsewhere, I don't think most D&D players would be satisfied with an extremely free form spellcasting system that depended heavily on the DM deciding what actually happens. I think that if anyone suggested that the game was actually going to change that way, people who enjoy casters would scream bloody murder.

Claiming that not everyone wants to play a high level caster because they're complex is technically true, but it's also presenting a false dichotomy. Powerful does not necessarily mean complex.

I'm not presenting this as an actual suggestion for how to fix the fighter, but imagine for a moment if every high level fighter was Hercules. They have incredible strength, up to and including being able to reshape the flow of rivers, and smashing mountains. That's quite powerful. It has significant potential uses in the exploration pillar (less so social, unless you intend to intimidate). It does not increase the fighter's mental load by a substantial amount (probably significantly less than all the magic items carried by a Christmas tree fighter).