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

[lingual]

It happened more than once in the chroma conclave arc. And his character even had a magic item that enabled throwing great weapons.

Now that would be a nice feat! Allow tossing of great weapons.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A Wizard that can on average hit 4 enemies with his fireballs and 2 enemies with his shatters (using all slots on those spells) will do pretty similar damage to a greatsword battlemaster with max str that spends every superiority dice on riposte, brace and near miss precision attacks and is always close enough to be able to attack with the greatsword on his turn. IMO, wizard will likely slightly outdamage such a level 7 battlemaster.

Start adding in feats, variant human and a +1 magic weapon and that wizard starts to fall behind very quickly.

I'm pretty confident that the wizard pre-level 7 is already far behind. Of course damage is not the best thing he can do so it's far from a perfect comparison, but at least it shows some fighter builds are able to maintain a niche.

Perhaps, when I am less tired, I can crunch the numbers. I really don't think it's going to be as dramatic as you claim, considering (as I noted above) that a Wizard can compensate for over 100% of the expected daily bonus damage a Champion gets purely by hitting only two targets per fireball (and just one fireball per combat, either with exploiting Signature Spells or upcasting a couple times.) It would, of course, require a fair amount of calculation and thus I am only interested in doing so if people agree not to invoke "white room" arguments, but that is a thing I could do.

 

[FrogReaver]

Perhaps, when I am less tired, I can crunch the numbers. I really don't think it's going to be as dramatic as you claim, considering (as I noted above) that a Wizard can compensate for over 100% of the expected daily bonus damage a Champion gets purely by hitting only two targets per fireball (and just one fireball per combat, either with exploiting Signature Spells or upcasting a couple times.) It would, of course, require a fair amount of calculation and thus I am only interested in doing so if people agree not to invoke "white room" arguments, but that is a thing I could do.

Champion is dead to me. Long live the Battlemaster.

P.S. I did crunch the numbers.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd feel like this was more of an effective retort if feats didn't cannibalize ASIs and previous arguments for fighters didn't aso depend on having feats as well.....

Don't apply the arguments of others to me, please. The post you responded to here made no use of feats at all.

 

[Azzy]

Don't apply the arguments of others to me, please. The post you responded to here made no use of feats at all.

Hookaaay, then.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Be that as it may, if one considers getting 6th-9th level spells as a caster's primary big features, then what does a Rogue or Fighter get that can possibly keep up with that? Extra attack and sneak attack? IMO, Rogues don't get much that's interesting or competitive in the latter half of their class progression that impacts how they play their base class. And it seems like some of their later abilities, which are mostly passive - e.g., Elusive, Blindsense, Slippery Mind - would be fine at earlier levels.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Give me Achilles,

Fighter.

Samson,

Barbarian probably makes most sense here.

Wolverine,

Definitely a barbarian.

Aragorn,

Ranger class literally is based on him.

Wonder Woman

Fighter, though a hella OP one, probably way more than even a level 20 character should be. (Though DC depictions of character powers is super inconsistent, sometimes she is Superman level, sometimes seems much more toned down.)

Red Sonja.

Barbarian.


I think you perfectly demonstrated the thing I dislike. These characters have already have classes to represent them in the game, but you want to create duplicate parallel classes because you don't like the execution. I would rather improve the existing classes if they're lacking (and they're a bit.)

 

[TheSword]

Doesn't even really have to be packed that closely. @tetrasodium had peak level 20 dpr with no misses and gwm at 110 damage. Fireball at 8dd does 28 avg dmg per target (with no saves) which puts the break-even-plus-a-little-bit at 4 targets... vs the area of fireball which takes up like 44 squares (depending on how you draw your sphere).

So, if like 10% of your fireball aoe is occupied, you do a little better than break even against a lvl 20 fighters peak damage with feats and magic weapons..and you do it with a third level spell.

So there are a few issues with the white rooms set up here.

• Firstly the creatures may be large. There are plenty of large minions out there. Dire wolves, ogres etc
• Secondly while fireball may be great for clearing out large numbers of low CR creatures it tends to be the single high CR creature leading the group that is the greatest threat.
• Thirdly it is better tactically to kill an enemy and remove its contribution to the enemy side, than deal damage to lots of creatures but leave them in the fight. Particularly when a minions participation can hangs on the presence of a single creature.
• Fourthly the wizard can’t mix his damage, it gets spread evenly. So the wizard can end up wasting 2/3 of his fireball damage. While the fighter can attack until dead, move then attack the next person till dead.
• Fifth, the fighter doesn’t have 1-4 attacks depending on level, they have 1-6. Because they may well be triggering extra attacks from Great Weapon Master and Sentinel, Polearm Mastery, Off hand attack, Batttlemaster abilities etc whichever route they have taken.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So there are a few issues with the white rooms set up here.

• Firstly the creatures may be large. There are plenty of large minions out there. Dire wolves, ogres etc
• Secondly while fireball may be great for clearing out large numbers of low CR creatures it tends to be the single high CR creature leading the group that is the greatest threat.
• Thirdly it is better tactically to kill an enemy and remove its contribution to the enemy side, than deal damage to lots of creatures but leave them in the fight. Particularly when a minions participation can hangs on the presence of a single creature.
• Fourthly the wizard can’t mix his damage, it gets spread evenly. So the wizard can end up wasting 2/3 of his fireball damage. While the fighter can attack until dead, move then attack the next person till dead.
• Fifth, the fighter doesn’t have 1-4 attacks depending on level, they have 1-6. Because they may well be triggering extra attacks from Great Weapon Master and Sentinel, Polearm Mastery, Off hand attack, Batttlemaster abilities etc whichever route they have taken.

Since several of these are fair criticisms, stated in advance, rather than after-the-fact gotchas, I would like to offer you the chance to pick whatever build of Fighter you like, subject to the following restrictions:
1. No rolled stats
2. Race is factored out for everything except racial stat bonuses (so, no crit-fisher build dependent on half-orc).
3. No more than 2 feats, 3 if one is provided by race.
4. You may use a magic item, but not one that adds extra damage dice. Pick a plus value appropriate to level (e.g. +3 is not appropriate for a presumed typical 11th level character.) If this is too loosey-goosey I can set a fixed value.
5. A mixture of pure solo, pure large-group, and solo-with-flunkies fights will be used. My suggestion would be 3 large group fights, 2 solo-with-flunkies, and 3 pure solo fights.
6. Regardless of the potential to do so, you may not benefit from spells that would raise your damage, whether cast by yourself or others. I mean this to compare "pure" martial skill and see the magic item as already a concession on that front.
7. We agree, in advance, on baseline numbers for average chance to hit, and average chance for an opponent to fail a save. The two characters may exceed this value only with documented sources of improvement or enemy detriment (e.g. a condition that makes them weaker).
8. It will be assumed that any character stat-dependent values are based on a score of 20 unless you choose a level for the builds which is too low to achieve this (but I would request that you please not go so low, as it will make things hella complicated.)
9. Each character gets equal amounts of probability boost in the appropriate form, i.e. if the Fighter gets advantage on half of their attacks, the Wizard forces enemies to roll with disadvantage on half of saves. If you dispute this, I'm willing to discuss what you think should be fair, but I will expect at least some enemies to have disadvantage on saves.

I would likewise abide by all of these or the closest equivalent (e.g. no self buff spells that improve offense, only one magic item), plus the following:
1. I will not make use of the Wizard's ability to learn additional spells. Only the starting 6 plus 2 per additional character level will be used.
2. Moreover, to support a more diverse character, I will not take more than 2 spells of a given level as damage spells, and will generally assume that at least 1 spell slot of each level 1-5 is used for non-damage benefits.
3. I will not cast any spells higher than 5th level, neither innately nor by upcasting. This will not be used as a gotcha later; I am assuming that these spells are all cast for some other benefit unrelated to combat.
4. I will not assume that the Wizard can be perfectly 100% safe without effort. This may take the form of some of the aforementioned non-damage spells.
5. I will use Arcane Recovery, but will abide by its restrictions and only use it with optimum efficiency if that is actually feasible (e.g. I have to spend 10 spell levels' worth of spells before I can benefit from it fully).

Do these meet with your approval? I am trying, as much as possible, to make something I hope you will consider equitable and well-defined in advance so that we can agree on the results, even if others do not. This means I hope you will take a charitable reading of the restrictions placed on each of us.

As a further consequence, I would like you to define what cutoff range(s) you feel are necessary for the damage output of the above characters. E.g., I don't personally think the Fighter "wins" this contest if it only achieves 1 or 10 more points of expected daily damage. The Fighter is sold as being dramatically superior at combat, and I am hoping to test a Wizard that prepares well for combat but does not exclusively focus on it. So, what thresholds would you consider qualifying as the Fighter being moderately superior vs significantly superior vs overwhelmingly superior? I may haggle with you some on these but at least in principle I am open to what values please you, whether absolute numbers or percentages.

Should you not wish to take up this challenge, that is fine, I don't doubt someone else will. Especially since I'm the one offering to make all the mistakes crunch all the numbers for this particular competition. (That is only half joking; I expect that I will make several errors so I beg forgiveness from anyone who takes up this challenge.) Note that I will only crunch the numbers once though, apart from any corrections due to math errors. I am emphatically NOT asking every single person in the thread to come up with their own "Wizard-defeater" build of Fighter for me to crunch numbers on.

 

[TheSword]

Since several of these are fair criticisms, stated in advance, rather than after-the-fact gotchas, I would like to offer you the chance to pick whatever build of Fighter you like, subject to the following restrictions:
1. No rolled stats
2. Race is factored out for everything except racial stat bonuses (so, no crit-fisher build dependent on half-orc).
3. No more than 2 feats, 3 if one is provided by race.
4. You may use a magic item, but not one that adds extra damage dice. Pick a plus value appropriate to level (e.g. +3 is not appropriate for a presumed typical 11th level character.) If this is too loosey-goosey I can set a fixed value.
5. A mixture of pure solo, pure large-group, and solo-with-flunkies fights will be used. My suggestion would be 3 large group fights, 2 solo-with-flunkies, and 3 pure solo fights.
6. Regardless of the potential to do so, you may not benefit from spells that would raise your damage, whether cast by yourself or others. I mean this to compare "pure" martial skill and see the magic item as already a concession on that front.
7. We agree, in advance, on baseline numbers for average chance to hit, and average chance for an opponent to fail a save. The two characters may exceed this value only with documented sources of improvement or enemy detriment (e.g. a condition that makes them weaker).
8. It will be assumed that any character stat-dependent values are based on a score of 20 unless you choose a level for the builds which is too low to achieve this (but I would request that you please not go so low, as it will make things hella complicated.)
9. Each character gets equal amounts of probability boost in the appropriate form, i.e. if the Fighter gets advantage on half of their attacks, the Wizard forces enemies to roll with disadvantage on half of saves. If you dispute this, I'm willing to discuss what you think should be fair, but I will expect at least some enemies to have disadvantage on saves.

I would likewise abide by all of these or the closest equivalent (e.g. no self buff spells that improve offense, only one magic item), plus the following:
1. I will not make use of the Wizard's ability to learn additional spells. Only the starting 6 plus 2 per additional character level will be used.
2. Moreover, to support a more diverse character, I will not take more than 2 spells of a given level as damage spells, and will generally assume that at least 1 spell slot of each level 1-5 is used for non-damage benefits.
3. I will not cast any spells higher than 5th level, neither innately nor by upcasting. This will not be used as a gotcha later; I am assuming that these spells are all cast for some other benefit unrelated to combat.
4. I will not assume that the Wizard can be perfectly 100% safe without effort. This may take the form of some of the aforementioned non-damage spells.
5. I will use Arcane Recovery, but will abide by its restrictions and only use it with optimum efficiency if that is actually feasible (e.g. I have to spend 10 spell levels' worth of spells before I can benefit from it fully).

Do these meet with your approval? I am trying, as much as possible, to make something I hope you will consider equitable and well-defined in advance so that we can agree on the results, even if others do not. This means I hope you will take a charitable reading of the restrictions placed on each of us.

As a further consequence, I would like you to define what cutoff range(s) you feel are necessary for the damage output of the above characters. E.g., I don't personally think the Fighter "wins" this contest if it only achieves 1 or 10 more points of expected daily damage. The Fighter is sold as being dramatically superior at combat, and I am hoping to test a Wizard that prepares well for combat but does not exclusively focus on it. So, what thresholds would you consider qualifying as the Fighter being moderately superior vs significantly superior vs overwhelmingly superior? I may haggle with you some on these but at least in principle I am open to what values please you, whether absolute numbers or percentages.

Should you not wish to take up this challenge, that is fine, I don't doubt someone else will. Especially since I'm the one offering to make all the mistakes crunch all the numbers for this particular competition. (That is only half joking; I expect that I will make several errors so I beg forgiveness from anyone who takes up this challenge.) Note that I will only crunch the numbers once though, apart from any corrections due to math errors. I am emphatically NOT asking every single person in the thread to come up with their own "Wizard-defeater" build of Fighter for me to crunch numbers on.

Thanks for the offer. I don’t really think modeling is best conducted by people with a strong bias either way. I also am not confident that the modeling would be able to reflect the gaming table. You’d have to conduct hundreds of models with small variations and nuances, repeated to account for randomization. Build a computer program that does that and we can see.