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

[Asisreo]

casters have a subsystem noncasters don't some casters can equal non casters at more generalized thing (combat/skills ect)

I am cool if you have better terms

It feels like such a narrow term, though. At that point, it's not even 4 full classes. It's 3 and some change if you don't count monks and totem Barbarians as casters despite them being able to cast spells as well.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Didn't the wizard players slap an option out of the sorcerer's mouth when some splat was about to drop? I can't remember the details, but it would have let Sorcs prepare spells and that was a stone too far into hurting Special Class's niche.

There was this from UA.

In Tasha's it was changed to changing a cantrip or metamagic when you gain an ASI.

 

[HammerMan]

There's a lot that is campaign dependent, I'm not sure you can ever achieve perfect balance. If I think a fighter in a game I'm DMing is falling behind or feels like they can't contribute I can compensate. Lacking in damage? A belt of giant strength is going to add significantly to their DPR and is one of those things that will help them more than any other class.

yeah we also kinda self police. Like if I am in a game with the players I normally do and a cleric is too overshadowing of the fighter the cleric will hold back. the problem isn't we can't adjust around it... the problem is over time us adjusting becomes just stop playing concepts that are not in 1 way or another casters...

Personally I'd put prices back in for all magic items, just don't assume the magic item treadmill we've seen in previous editions. But while the wizard is burning all their gold to scribe spells into their book (especially at high level) it would be nice to let the fighter buy a belt of hill giant strength or boots of flying. Then they can invest in other abilities or make themselves more useful out of combat. That's part of what I do now.

yeah I want a mythic crafting system... something like "go kill a giant, take his blood make your own belt' but that goes even further away from this thread.

 

[Minigiant]

In some ways I agree. In others….

If we cared that the wizards toes got stepped on their would be no sorcerer or bard. If we cared that the clerics toes got stepped on their would be no Druid. If we care that the fighters toes got stepped on their would be no ranger, barbarian or Paladin.

D&D is full of classes designed to step on other classes toes.

It's not stepping on the toes we don't like but how hard and broad.

We are fine with barbarians and fighter both occupying the same damage tank space. This is because we agree the the barbarian shouldn't be a good ranged attacker.

Simplicity offers no nuance. A simple fighter that does what we want would step on every toe at will simultaneously.

 

[HammerMan]

sorcerers at level up choose spells then have spell slots and sorcerer pts to manage
wizards prep spells every long rest (in my experience you have a standard lay out or 2 standard lay out you alternate between then switch out for special things) plus choosing at level up, but they still have to balance slots.

warlocks choose the spells at level up like sorcerers, but there spells hit different and mostly you will see warlocks spam at wills or melee more then the other two.

new 1st time players can totally grab a warlock as easy as a fighter, but still have meaningful and flavorful choices

IMO, All the full casters are roughly as complex as each other.

Warlock’s complexity is debatable but IMO it falls in line with all the full casters.

my thoughts are above...

 

[HammerMan]

It feels like such a narrow term, though.

okay give us a better one I am all ears.

At that point, it's not even 4 full classes. It's 3 and some change if you don't count monks and totem Barbarians as casters despite them being able to cast spells as well.

yeah to be honest its 2 classes that get left in the dust (fighter rogue) 1 that gets a good run but still behind (barbarian) and one that is all over the place (monk) then it is full and partial casters... and some monks fighter and rogues can also cast spells.

 

[Mort]

okay give us a better one I am all ears.


yeah to be honest its 2 classes that get left in the dust (fighter rogue) 1 that gets a good run but still behind (barbarian) and one that is all over the place (monk) then it is full and partial casters... and some monks fighter and rogues can also cast spells.

I don't think the rogue is left nearly as far behind as the fighter!

The rogue contributes just fine in combat (with the addition of steady aim, some people grumble that it's too fine).

And the rogue actually has some nice tools to contribute across the other pillars. SIGNIFICANTLY more so than the fighter.

Now, I don't think that it's too controversial to say that the mechanically "best" rogue subclass is also the one that casts spells - and that's a bit irritating. But most of the other rogue subclasses hold their own across multiple pillars.

 

[Guest 7034872]

other then artificer they are all full casters... ignore artificer then

I certainly always try to.

 

[FrogReaver]

Starting with the sorcerer, what would you strip down to have a "simple wizard"? Don't worry about balance, I'm interested in what it would look like to you.

Thought about this a bit. All I can say is I wouldn’t start with the sorcerer for a simple wizard. I’d design from the ground up. Hard to say what that would end up looking like exactly.

your welcome to try your hand and I’d be happy to evaluate how complex I think it is.

 

[TwoSix]

Starting with the sorcerer, what would you strip down to have a "simple wizard"? Don't worry about balance, I'm interested in what it would look like to you.

Warlock, strip out all the spell casting, replace with more invocations.

Mage Hand Press's Warmage fits the bill pretty well.