• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

I don't fully agree. But alot depends on whether we view the game on the individual PC level or on the PC group level. Melee has alot of inherent advantages on the group level that always get left out of these discussions. Easier advantage (prone, reckless attack, etc). Disincentivizing enemies from targeting backline allies (combination of DM roleplaying the NPCs and OA's). Assisting other frontline characters survival by making it more likely they spread their attacks over more PC's. Dealing more damage with OA's when enemies move by them. These aren't trivial advantages IMO.

Also, most ranged play assumes the party is playing very tactically to gain big advantages. That's not the case for most groups IMO. The less tactically minded the party the less inherent advantages ranged has.

Point isn't necessarily that melee equals ranged, but their advantages are often not even considered.

This is why ranged becomes more important at mid-high levels. PCs and monsters have more resources to tactically set up. Adventures leave the confines of dungeons more often.

This is they the weak on paper ranger worked. A good ranger player, once they go enough spells, could set up fights on their terms. But if your table wasn't tactical or enviroment lacked strategy points, the 5e ranger was weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeak,
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I agree. Reducing spell scaling by caster level made a massive difference to wizard spellcasting. Keeping it in cantrips was a very necessary balancing method. I don’t think it came close to making up for the loss in power. It’s a gesture to stop wizards firing crossbows in my opinion. A kin to the str fighter picking up that longbow. Not terrible, but not optimal.
I agree with most here, not sure what loss in power you are referencing

Of course Hp and AC are nice. They’re useful. But to put it another way. A fighter is having their hp and AC tested and stretched in most rounds of combat. How many times is that effecting a wizard… if they’re on their own and exposed then sure a lot. If they have a fighter in combat taking the pressure off then not a lot. A lot of the best wizard buffs - blink and mirror image being my two favourites - dont even interact with AC or hp.
That depends heavily on playstyle. Some DM's target wizards over Fighters even if it would mean an OA.

Shield is only good if wizards are targeted infrequently because of its limited uses in which case it is excellent. But this relies on wizards not getting targeted. 4 rounds of combat from multiple attack creatures and the wizard is out of shields.
A wizard attacked 20 times in a day. With mage armor only he gets hit by about 10 attacks. Using his level 1 slots on shield he causes 4 of those would be hits to miss. He only gets hit 6 times. Shield decreased your chance to be hit in this instance by the equivalent of +4 AC despite only 4 uses. It doesn't take many uses of shield to greatly increase survivability.

I agree that hybrid characters acting at range and close up are fun and versatile. The changes to full attack make this far less important than it was. You used to be able to kite around a single monster so it only got 1 attack. Not so much now.

While it does mean foes can also get through back ranks easier I do think the simplicity of AOO and the reduced methods of avoiding them means monsters pay a price if they do. When I’m DMing my monsters don’t usually take AOO unless they have to, even without Sentinel.
With AOO it's definitely a playstyle difference. My tables run alot like yours, but many don't.
 

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.
Too many assumptions. Off the top of my head:
  • All that matters is damage, ignore defense.
  • All damage is equal, doing a decent amount of damage to a lot of targets is often less effective than focused damage on one.
  • Targets are not resistant or immune to fire and don't have spell resistance.
  • Since fireballs set fire to unattended objects, such objects are never encountered in the AOE of fireballs.
  • Caster never has to worry about friendly fire.
  • Enemy appears in fireball formation.
  • Infinite fireballs.
Don't get me wrong, fireball is great when it makes sense. Personally I enjoy evokers so I can at least not worry as much about friendly fire. But it's different from what the fighter does.

There are sooo many different campaign, DM and group styles out there. I don't see how there can ever be a one size fits all solution, there are always going to be compromises.
 


Isn't dislike of execution the whole point of the Barbarian, Ranger, Monk, and Paladin existing?
No. They're different concept, not an existing concept except super.

So a supernatural mythical martial class could be needed because D&D currently does not support always on, at will mythic superpowers that is common in myths, legends, epics, and tall tales.

Many of the powers of such legends and special folk don't run out. They usually have full on weakness or require curses to not have their powers work. Samson, Gilgamesh,and Hercules' strength doesn't run on uses. Achillies is 99.9% invulnerable even when he dies. Most mutant's powers don't run out and this is source of great stress for them. Alucard and Blade's Vampiric Speed doesn't shut off.

You listed a bunch of characters that clearly match already existing D&D classes, except some of them have superpowers. But having level one demigod is an incoherent concept, just like level 20 dirt-farmer is. This simply is not how D&D works nor how it should work. There are games that are designed around playing superheroes, even fantasy demigods like in Exalted. And that makes sense as in those games are not designed around 'from zero to hero' levelling experience; the starting characters are already really powerful, so it makes sense for them to be demigods. But 'level one Hercules' is not a thing that makes sense, it cannot and shouldn't exist.
 

Too many assumptions. Off the top of my head:
  • All that matters is damage, ignore defense.
  • All damage is equal, doing a decent amount of damage to a lot of targets is often less effective than focused damage on one.
  • Targets are not resistant or immune to fire and don't have spell resistance.
  • Since fireballs set fire to unattended objects, such objects are never encountered in the AOE of fireballs.
  • Caster never has to worry about friendly fire.
  • Enemy appears in fireball formation.
  • Infinite fireballs.
Don't get me wrong, fireball is great when it makes sense. Personally I enjoy evokers so I can at least not worry as much about friendly fire. But it's different from what the fighter does.

There are sooo many different campaign, DM and group styles out there. I don't see how there can ever be a one size fits all solution, there are always going to be compromises.
IMO. the Fighter has a slew of even bigger potential disadvantages.

Besides, the goal isn't to bake in every assumption it's to create a reasonable semblance of how the classes compare at damage (the only thing the fighter actually does well).

And ultimately, even if the Wizard is better at damage in general due to AOE, that doesn't mean a single target specialist wouldn't also be worthwhile to a party.
 

But 'level one Hercules' is not a thing that makes sense, it cannot and shouldn't exist.

It's literally the whole concept of the X-men or the Jedi. Or even the D&D monk.
You get one power and get better at it and learn new ways to use it as your level.
You can argue that it isn't appropriate for D&D as D&D's magic is resource management game. However getting better as you level is a fully D&D concept.

But a farm boy who gets hit by stray magic lightning and can now shoot lightning or a noble family who all super strength due to a cloud giant ancestor seems via D&D.
 

We have heard earlier how concentration isn’t really a limit on power as a wizard can just cast another spell. I disagree with that viewpoint but it’s worth acknowledging as an argument.

I do think Warcaster does increase power and is a must take for every serious caster. An extra spell is very good too though hampered by how rarely it will happen.
If a long adventuring day with multiple encounters is supposed to reign in the wizard by making them spend their slots, then not having to cast it again is saving you slots and making you effective for longer. It also matters for stuff like Hypnotic Pattern, if you lose concentration they're all freed, and may be able to act before you can cast it again.
Alert is no guarantee of going first. It also offers a very real toss up between buffing yourself in the first round or casting that fireball. Depending on the foes faced. The swinginess of Initiative means that this is by no means a given. That said it is effectively giving you an additional to if you get in first so does increase power. Of course it only works if other people haven’t got it. Initiative is relative. In a party of rogues, rangers and Dex fighters it probably won’t help at all.
It gives the same bonus as a 20 dex, so you'll likely have the highest even in a dex party. Especially good for Chronurgy wizards since they add their Int to it as well. Doubly good against surprise attacks, since you can act in the surprise round and likely go before the enemy.
More spells doesn’t increase power. It maybe useful for reasons of versatility but it isn’t making what you do more effective.
For a Wizard, more spells is pretty much more power, it's their whole thing. Take Fey Touched, you get Misty Step, which you'd definitely want anyway, and an enchantment or divination 1st level spell, say, Silvery Barbs.

You get teleportation and the ability to make an enemy reroll their saving throw against your spell, then have them always prepared to use with spell slots, and a free use for each. Both are useful pretty much through all levels, and allow you to prepare other spells instead, it's two new spells since those two are so good you'd definitely want them annyway.

A Wizard isn't like a Fighter, they don't have one thing they'll always want to do, sometimes damage, sometimes save or suck, sometimes buffing, having more spells gives them more options to use and makes them more powerful overall.
The problem with this spell is that it is so circumstantial. Many energy types don’t have a great spell of that type at every level. In the same way that the resistance is highly circumstantial, the benefit is highly circumstantial too.

The 1’s become 2’s boost is so negligible as to be almost useless. A fireball booster to level 7 doing 12d6 damage will do an extra 2 points of damage on its roll on average.
I meant it for Fireball, pretty much. If you're fighting resistant people, it's pretty good, but definitely situational. Does increase their power anyway though.

Most invocations won’t improve a wizards spellcasting power. Unless they have taken the Eldritch Blast feat. They just add more choices
As always, more choices is more power for a Wizard. Say, at-will Mage Armor saves them slots to use on other stuff or Devil's Sight counters the weakness of non darkvision for variant humans, so they don't have to carry stealth-ruining torches or waste a prepared spell and slot on the Darkvision spell.
My personal favourite feat. Definitely makes wizards more powerful but in a very limited way. To put it in context if you quicken that spell, you can still only cast a cantrip… once per day. You can only twin up to 2nd level. Good but not amazing at the point you get the feat. 2 sorcery points and your options are limited.
I was thinking more about Subtle Spell, you can use it twice. Great for casting while not being noticed, or to not be counterspelled if you're fighting another caster.
It’s a great feat. Great for everyone. But of a wizards main role - acting spells - many if not most of a wizards spells don’t have an attack roll. Fighters become much more powerful with this feat. Much more so than wizards. Ironically this feat is best used for Eldritch Knights (rangers, paladins etc) as they can take a full attack action and cast a spell. It’s far more useful for them than for wizards.
It can be used to reroll saves, including concentration ones, or save or suck ones that'd make you drop concentration, or damage ones that'd drop you to low health. Also, on Counterspell and Dispel Magic ability checks.
Sure but as discussed your wizard isn’t intended to be in the front line. You can try and expend resources to make your wizard like a fighter but they still won’t be as tough as a fighter. It also doesn’t help your spell casting power.

Same principle as the previous post. [Edit] Both are addressed in more detail in my next post to Frogreaver.
As I had mentioned above, "Frontline" is a shaky concept, it's really hard to set up if you don't have a chokepoint or the DM isn't playing along. Ranged attacks can still get you, flying or teleporting creatures can go right next to you, and even the ones on the ground can just walk past the melee boys since all they can do is do an opportunity attack most of the time, and a single attack doesn't do much damage even to rather low CR creatures that have dozens of HP each.

It definitely ties back to the spell casting power, since it'll save you slots. If you have more AC, they'll hit you less, you'll have to Shield less, and have more spells to cast later. More HP means you survive longer, so if you get attacked there's less chance you'll be KO'd, drop your concentration spells, and, like, die.
 

It's literally the whole concept of the X-men or the Jedi. Or even the D&D monk.
You get one power and get better at it and learn new ways to use it as your level.
You can argue that it isn't appropriate for D&D as D&D's magic is resource management game. However getting better as you level is a fully D&D concept.

But a farm boy who gets hit by stray magic lightning and can now shoot lightning or a noble family who all super strength due to a cloud giant ancestor seems via D&D.
IMO, farm boy wouldn't be the class it would be the background.
The noble family with super strength wouldn't be a class in D&D, it would be a mythical Boon.

Maybe that would be a good way to make mythical fighters is to create a mythical Boon subsystem.
 

It's literally the whole concept of the X-men
Which are not medieval fantasy characters, if you haven't noticed. D&D doesn't need to, nor it even should try to, reproduce X-men.

or the Jedi.
Not really. And the jedi are just space mages.

Or even the D&D monk.
Not at all. Monks have no special inborn mojo, they learn their abilities.

You get one power and get better at it and learn new ways to use it as your level.
You can argue that it isn't appropriate for D&D as D&D's magic is resource management game. However getting better as you level is a fully D&D concept.

But a farm boy who gets hit by stray magic lightning and can now shoot lightning or a noble family who all super strength due to a cloud giant ancestor seems via D&D.

You cannot make a duplicated supers version of every class! Being a half-giant is not a class, it is a race! Goliath, basically.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top