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

[HammerMan]

This isn't quite true. If you look at any of the good fighter subclasses (i.e. not Champion or Arcane Archer) or good fighter feats (Greatweapon Master, Polearm Master, Sentinel, Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter) one of the things that almost all of them have in common is that they get extra attacks or attack-equivalents out of their bonus actions, interrupts, or both.

except compare apples to apples

a fighter level 10 or less with the same weapons and only 1 ASI/Feat more then an equal level cleric with the same weapon and same feats (Minus 1 ASI/feat)

the fighter gets action surge and second wind 1/short rest, that 1 ASI/feat (but the best 2 the other can take it is only the 3rd that is missing) indomitable 1/day... and the cleric gets 5th level spells, 4th level spells, 3rd level spells 2nd level spells 1st level spells, cantrips, and channel divinity...

part of me wants to put a 11th level fighter (so they get that 3rd attack) against an 11th level cleric with equal build and just count all the things one can do over the other...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

This isn't quite true. If you look at any of the good fighter subclasses (i.e. not Champion or Arcane Archer) or good fighter feats (Greatweapon Master, Polearm Master, Sentinel, Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter) one of the things that almost all of them have in common is that they get extra attacks or attack-equivalents out of their bonus actions, interrupts, or both.

Those aren't fighter feats though. Moreover, there's no high level feats like there are with spells. No feat chains. Each subsequent feat is the next best choice. Same problem with Battlemaster maneuvers. Good concept, garbage execution. Hey Sorcerer. You get only 1st level spells, but don't worry, you can upcast them! Actually that's still better than maneuvers, which scale worse than upcast spells.

I'm gearing up to run a Darksun game, so might try out giving the fighter an ASI/Feat every even level. They'd have 5 by 10, vs the 3 they do now. 2 backgrounds for fighters/barbs/rogues/monks might also help even the gap. Downtime activities they should get 2-3 choices, because magic takes time to learn and all.

 

[Umbran]

It's called a joke. Hence the smiley.

Mod Note:
Sorry, but "it is a joke" isn't a shield for snide commentary. If you're going to continue to be disrespectful, you'll be leaving the thread.

I would seriously love to see you done, but we both know you'll be back tomorrow to shout down anyone who doesnt love wallpaper paste.

You are making this very personal, and are going to be done soon yourself if you don't change your approach to folks.

Everyone - from this point, if you make yourself more trouble than you are worth to the thread, you are apt to simply be removed from the conversation without warning.

 

[Mort]

This isn't quite true. If you look at any of the good fighter subclasses (i.e. not Champion or Arcane Archer) or good fighter feats (Greatweapon Master, Polearm Master, Sentinel, Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter) one of the things that almost all of them have in common is that they get extra attacks or attack-equivalents out of their bonus actions, interrupts, or both.

A well built 5e fighter CAN truly excel in combat - especially if feats are allowed.

A Battlemaster with crossbow expert/sharpshooter or Greatweaponmaster/polemarm master is VERY effective (if, IMO, a bit boring) and a variant human can do this by level 4. But:

1. You have to know how to build it and play it, which is why IMO fighters are, in many ways, more complex than wizards. and more importantly;

2. You will still have no tools (other than those available to everyone - such as backgrounds) to contribute to the other 2 pillars of play. I'll reiterate - Even if fighters excell at combat, it's not quite enough because ALL the classes are good-excellent in combat. Let's see improvement in the other tiers!

 

[Mind of tempest]

A well built 5e fighter CAN truly excel in combat - especially if feats are allowed.

A Battlemaster with crossbow expert/sharpshooter or Greatweaponmaster/polemarm master is VERY effective (if, IMO, a bit boring) and a variant human can do this by level 4. But:

1. You have to know how to build it and play it, which is why IMO fighters are, in many ways, more complex than wizards. and more importantly;

2. You will still have no tools (other than those available to everyone - such as backgrounds) to contribute to the other 2 pillars of play. I'll reiterate - Even if fighters excell at combat, it's not quite enough because ALL the classes are good-excellent in combat. Let's see improvement in the other tiers!

I find the versatility a far more pressing problem as it is at all levels of play including level one, and it effects more than just fighter it includes my beloved monk.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I would love that, but it will never happen. They tried to lower the power of casters in 4E and it was a full fledged riot. Pathfinder responded by UPPING caster power (and nerfing martials even!), like a recently divorced dad showering their kids with gifts and privileges on visitation weekend.

Have you checked out PF2e? It is surprisingly also a take on lowering caster power. Lower level casters are even arguably too weak and could use a little boost. Casters catch up and seem fun to play at levels 7 or 9+

It does have some stuff I don't like -- older vanican casting, skill feat gates, a few too many modifiers, etc. -- but it is certainly a better take on caster / martial balance than 5e.

Like 4e, the Fighter is not particularly mythical at higher levels -- they have just tamped down the power of casters especially against "boss" higher level then party types and given the Fighter some tricks to shore up it's traditional weaknesses like a feat to down fliers, etc.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Why not? Its the reality of high level D&D save for a handful of chump classes.

Or conversely it's what high level D&D has been except for when a few spells and abilities dragged things off the rails. That's the point -- no two people have the same idea about what the game is supposed to look like, and the game -- be it 5e specifically with the martials and casters being so far apart or the game as a whole across editions -- has been completely scattershot about the issue, effectively ignoring any dissonance the rules (or just rules support, as in the case of anemic non-magical resolution mechanics rules or heck the whole keep and lordship and domain rules which was in theory the perk fighters got in the TSR era in comparison to magic user plane-hopping or wish-making) create.

I lay a lot of blame at Gary's feet, what with the combined 'what kind of chump needs rules for levels 11+? You're never going to get there.' and 'what kind of chump needs to defeat gods for their power fantasy, now excuse me while I put out more books of artifacts, level 7-9 spells, and actual combat stats for said gods' attitude. However, what I really blame is the issue D&D has had with trying to have it both ways as to whether it is a specific implied setting or a generic fantasy RPG engine (thus leaving the exact tone and epicness of the game an open question, and thus one where opinions naturally diverged).

 

[Mort]

I find the versatility a far more pressing problem as it is at all levels of play including level one, and it effects more than just fighter it includes my beloved monk.

Sure. Exacerbated by the fact that wizards are SO versatile that even other casters can pale in comparison . For ex. It is MUCH harder to design a well rounded sorcerer (one not just built for combat) than a wizard!

And yeah, monks. Monks are versatile in the sense that they CAN do a lot of stuff. But since almost all of it draws from a very, very limited resource (Ki) that versatility is more theoretical than actual - especially at the levels people actually play. I think the latter monk subclasses (such as way of mercy) have done a decent job at addressing some of the concerns - but it doesn't help the core class (or some of the earlier subclasses such as 4 elements, which could be so cool - but isn't).

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Have you checked out PF2e? It is surprisingly also a take on lowering caster power. Lower level casters are even arguably too weak and could use a little boost. Casters catch up and seem fun to play at levels 7 or 9+

It does have some stuff I don't like -- older vanican casting, skill feat gates, a few too many modifiers, etc. -- but it is certainly a better take on caster / martial balance than 5e.

Like 4e, the Fighter is not particularly mythical at higher levels -- they have just tamped down the power of casters especially against "boss" higher level then party types and given the Fighter some tricks to shore up it's traditional weaknesses like a feat to down fliers, etc.

I'd been meaning to, thanks for the recommendation. I particularly like that the new AP's are only 3 adventures, so already had my eye on it!

 

[nevin]

Have you checked out PF2e? It is surprisingly also a take on lowering caster power. Lower level casters are even arguably too weak and could use a little boost. Casters catch up and seem fun to play at levels 7 or 9+

It does have some stuff I don't like -- older vanican casting, skill feat gates, a few too many modifiers, etc. -- but it is certainly a better take on caster / martial balance than 5e.

Like 4e, the Fighter is not particularly mythical at higher levels -- they have just tamped down the power of casters especially against "boss" higher level then party types and given the Fighter some tricks to shore up it's traditional weaknesses like a feat to down fliers, etc.

I think PF2 is a perfect illustration of this entire argument. I don't see much hype for the game. It doesn't even seem to be putting a dent in PF1 players. Though I will note the PF 1 forums are far more polite now that PF2 has their own forums.