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

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

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!

PF2e seems like a good game but I haven't had a chance to extensively play it yet. It is very, very different than 3.5e/PF1e and 5e even though on the surface is looks similar.

There are some cool things that come from the 3 action economy, like martials are better off using their 3rd action to do something other than attack and have those options like debuff through demoralize. And movement and positioning is more important (although not as important as 4e) because for example if you move away from a monster that could deny them a 3 action super attack, etc. There is a little more emphasis on team tactics (although again not as much as 4e) vs. individual play, etc.

Also note that like 4e they screwed up the initial adventures, creating some bad impressions. The encounter building budgets actually work but the initial adventures frequently contained encounters that were "severe" and "extreme". These kind of encounters create a dynamic that really shouldn't be the norm -- lower than ideal hit chances, frequent crits by the enemy, spells not landing, etc. I think they are ok for that ocassional boss fight of course because they are really challenging. Later adventures have corrected this a bit and people that homebrew have had great success with "moderate encounters" with more enemies as the norm which are still challenging but helps with spellcaster relevancy as well.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

LOL nothing so drastic, I just wouldn't play it.

So, if 6E comes out and they have ultra-super-uber-awesome stuff that is way over the top for my style, I won't play that, either.

We haven't been talking about a total shift though. What if 6e was exactly the same as 5e except also including 1 self contained martial class that had way over the top stuff but was less powerful, versatile, and narrative controling then the Wizard?

Would you walk away from 6e or just ignore that Class you don't want?

 

[FrozenNorth]

I recently watched Arcane, League of Legends on netflix. I enjoyed the show. But the style and visuals that included ridiculously oversized would weapons and power fists would never work for me in a standard D&D game. A PC that could lasso a tornado would not fit into a game I would want to play. I don't see any way it could be done in a complete vacuum even if I banned it at my table.

…unless of course, they do so using magic. Like the 2nd level Dust Devil Conjuration spell. Then it’s fine.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I know things get spicy in this thread and others that deal with the Martials-vs.-Casters dynamic, but in keeping with Asisreo's original ambition for the thread, perhaps we could harness the energy this discussion has generated.

Those who most strongly oppose buffing martials and/or nerfing casters, what do you say are the best reasons for someone to support doing so despite your clear objections? What are their best arguments, in your opinion?

Those who most strongly support buffing martials and/or nerfing casters, what do you say are the best reasons for someone to oppose doing so despite your clear objections? What are their best arguments, in your opinion?

My thinking is that if we can get a solid consensus on those questions, not only will we likely become less angry through our efforts better to understand those with whom we disagree, we'll also acquire a much clearer collective understanding of the landscape and so understand our own positions better.

Tentatively, I'm of the opinion that the martials are too underpowered and should be buffed, but not hugely. I'm also of the opinion, though, that if that doesn't happen, I'll be fine with playing martial characters as they already stand, too. I think I tend to be one of those players who instinctively think about the party more than they think about their own character.

Okay, so since I favor making some modest changes, what do I say are the best reasons against doing so?

1. Like I said before, the Law of Unintended Consequences. As a young man, I underestimated the power of this law way too much not to respect it now that I'm middle-aged.
2. Balance isn't really the point. The game was not built on a principle of all classes and all races being well-balanced against each other in terms of strength and flexibility; it was built, I'd say, on Middle Earth being awesome and people wishing we could go there instead of just reading about it. No way are orcs and elves evenly balanced in Tolkien's world. Uh-uh.
3. As my disclaimer intimated, it's been my sense that in D&D teamwork counts for more than individual achievement. Bilbo is a weenie compared to Thorin, and let's not even bother making a comparison with Gandalf. So what? He was just the weenie they needed, and it made for a great story. (This point might fit under (2), but I think it merits elaboration.)
4. Fighters aren't magical and in a world saturated with powerful magic, that almost has to put them at some kind of disadvantage, doesn't it? This objection in particular is one I've seen a lot on this thread (unless I'm misinterpreting folks).

Those, I say, are the best reasons against making any official changes to the dynamic. Nay-sayers to changes, am I leaving out any of your biggest reasons?

 

[Fanaelialae]

So just bear in mind that most adventures the enemy wants to engage with the PCs not avoid them. Occasional encounters may make this relevant, however in most cases enemies do more damage in melee as well.

That fighter can draw a ranged weapon like a throwing axe or javelin and be doing reliably large amounts of damage. Meanwhile the enemy is flying 20 ft away and able to do very little.

It’s also worth noting that in most cases enemies in D&D are either guarding something or trying to block the PCs. If that enemy is flying, you simply walk away - or take cover. The enemy is then either neutered or forced to engage. In a dungeon setting, the party just walk away and close a door.

The flying enemy argument for saying fighters aren’t very good doesn’t hold up in the wild.

Presumably the flying enemy has an effective ranged attack, meaning they can be quite effective.

The fighter can only draw one weapon per round (unless they use an action to draw another). This limits them to about 1 thrown attack per round. Meaning that starting at level 5, their damage drops dramatically (50% or more).

The enemy is presumably trying to kill the party. Maybe in your game the fighter came simply walk away, but that hasn't been my experience in the games I've played in.

 

[DND_Reborn]

We haven't been talking about a total shift though. What if 6e was exactly the same as 5e except also including 1 self contained martial class that had way over the top stuff but was less powerful, versatile, and narrative controling then the Wizard?

Would you walk away from 6e or just ignore that Class you don't want?

Well, if 6E was exactly the same as 5E except for a class, I would never buy it anyway.

Seriously though, I've already walked away from just about everything post-Xanathar's, so I recognize I am not the prime target audience for a 5E to 6E progression. IMO, just about everything in Tasha's is garbage, and the stuff the seems to be based on CR is way OP anyway.

But I am also the type of player (and DM) who is not thrilled about most spells of 6th level and higher. Many are just too powerful for the style of game I like to run and play in.

I also think WotC coddled to caster players too much by making magic painless. There is no real trade-off anymore. They also made magic too common to classes IMO. Something like 80-90% of subclasses have a magical or magic-like feature if the main class already doesn't.

Frankly, the direction D&D has been going for a long time makes it more "Magic & Monsters" than "Dungeons & Dragons" to me.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Frankly, the direction D&D has been going for a long time makes it more "Magic & Monsters" than "Dungeons & Dragons" to me.

Yeah, I've certainly noticed that.

 

[CreamCloud0]

As my disclaimer intimated, it's been my sense that in D&D teamwork counts for more than individual achievement. Bilbo is a weenie compared to Thorin, and let's not even bother making a comparison with Gandalf. So what? He was just the weenie they needed, and it made for a great story. (This point might fit under (2), but think it merits elaboration.)

not to ignore the rest of your post but just commenting on this one analogy, bilbo, thorin and gandalf would absolutely not be of the same levels which throws off your point that they're fine not being ballanced because they're not being evaluated on a level playing field like player characters would be judged on especially considering the comparison being made in this thread, throughout The Hobbit bilbo is probably a lv 1 growing to lv 5 rogue, thorin a lv 10-11 fighter and gandalf a lv 15 wizard, approxamately,

 

[Vaalingrade]

…unless of course, they do so using magic. Like the 2nd level Dust Devil Conjuration spell. Then it’s fine.

Minor Illusion at will is easy to get as a caster of most stripes and can allow you to look however you want regardless of the DM's design aesthetics. My bladelock cycles through famous fictional swords and sometimes looks like that one Overdrive of Payne's from FFX-2 where she's basically wearing a gown of swords and daggers with a halo of scimitars. Again, mages can even look however cool they want while the fighter is shackled to the limits of the DM's imagination.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

But I am also the type of player (and DM) who is not thrilled about most spells of 6th level and higher. Many are just too powerful for the style of game I like to run and play in.

I also think WotC coddled to caster players too much by making magic painless. There is no real trade-off anymore. They also made magic too common to classes IMO. Something like 80-90% of subclasses have a magical or magic-like feature if the main class already doesn't.

Frankly, the direction D&D has been going for a long time makes it more "Magic & Monsters" than "Dungeons & Dragons" to me.

I happen to agree with you, but that's a different level of design. The high level caster in D&D is almost only seen in comic book supers with the power, versatility, and no pain they have.

So my position is --

I'd love to see a redesign that reins in high level casters a little so they are not supers, which makes it easier to design martials to fill niches. This would still require martials to be buffed from today especially in terms of out of combat but you might not have to have mythic martials anymore.

or

If the Dr. Strange spellcaster is deemed integral to the idenity of D&D then at least offer a mythic martial option since we are already into gonzo supers territory anyway. I'm fine with the mundane + magic item christmas tree existing as well and other options such as the magic/martial hybird. Just offer the mythic martial option as well.

There is plenty of adventure to be had at lowers levels so while I have a preference I actually don't care that much if things getting crazy at high levels, just offer the ability to play the full breadth of crazy archtypes.

I can choose to disallow some, play only to X level, etc. but adding the mythic martial to the existing game just opens up options and doesn't exclude any options or playstyle that exists in today's 5e.