D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[GMforPowergamers]

Okay. Let's dig into this then. To what degree are these martial/weapon-focused/etc. classes "broadly comparable" with these spellcaster/magic-focused/etc. classes? I won't bore you with the details, but I've crunched some numbers here. If we focus only on class and ignore subclass, at 5th level a Wizard's damage output (assuming all spells are spent on damage) is in fact nearly the same as a purely damage-focused greatsword+GWF Fighter (~88.80%), and better than the Dex+Rapier+Shield+Duelist mixed-defensive Fighter (~106.35%.) While Battlemaster allows the Fighter to pull ahead relative to a subclass-agnostic Wizard, strong Wizard subclasses like Diviner and Bladesinger completely fill or even eclipse that gap. The superior spells (and larger amount of spells) by level 8 totally outshine the benefits of the bonus ASI unless it's very specifically spent on a strong feat, and even the extra Superiority dice can't keep up. I'll need to do a more thorough analysis for 11th level because there's a lot more math involved (more spells, more spell levels, more attacks, etc.), but...frankly it doesn't look good.

yup... I did the math in another post and came up with you could do this with 2 damage spells of each level and 1 defensive buff of each level... most likely you don't need all 3 of each level. so yeah you still have swiss army functions

Wizards can choose to be as good as a baseline Fighter, across a meaningful span of commonly-played levels, while also having ritual magic and non-offense cantrips. If they end up not needing their full mojo spent on offense, they have a plethora of options for incredibly powerful non-combat problem solving too.

very corect

The extra power from a few extra feats would actually let martial characters be clearly, unequivocally better at combat, the thing they are hyperfocused on and cannot choose to do less of in order to do other things. The Wizard should pay for their flexibility with lower potency compared to someone who cannot choose to be more flexible.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

yup... I did the math in another post and came up with you could do this with 2 damage spells of each level and 1 defensive buff of each level... most likely you don't need all 3 of each level. so yeah you still have swiss army functions

very corect

My math did not allow for the defensive buffs, but I was trying to be as Fighter-favorable as possible. I assumed relatively conservative stuff (AoE spells applied to only two targets, with 60% chance to fail the save.) If the Wizard is better at managing AoE effects, or using mind sliver to soften up targets before casting a save-based spell and other such tactics, then yes, you could probably get away with shaving off at least a couple of the lower-level spells. I wouldn't spend any of the highest-level spells on defensive buffs myself. Defense buffs tend to have relatively constant power across levels (e.g., shield remains about as powerful at level 7 as it was at level 1), while offense usually gains a lot from casting high-level spells. Especially for 3rd and 5th level spells, due to the influences of traditionalism making certain spells OP for their level range. Lookin' at you, fireball.

 

[NotAYakk]

Okay. Let's dig into this then. To what degree are these martial/weapon-focused/etc. classes "broadly comparable" with these spellcaster/magic-focused/etc. classes? I won't bore you with the details, but I've crunched some numbers here. If we focus only on class and ignore subclass, at 5th level a Wizard's damage output (assuming all spells are spent on damage) is in fact nearly the same as a purely damage-focused greatsword+GWF Fighter (~88.80%), and better than the Dex+Rapier+Shield+Duelist mixed-defensive Fighter (~106.35%.) While Battlemaster allows the Fighter to pull ahead relative to a subclass-agnostic Wizard, strong Wizard subclasses like Diviner and Bladesinger completely fill or even eclipse that gap. The superior spells (and larger amount of spells) by level 8 totally outshine the benefits of the bonus ASI unless it's very specifically spent on a strong feat, and even the extra Superiority dice can't keep up. I'll need to do a more thorough analysis for 11th level because there's a lot more math involved (more spells, more spell levels, more attacks, etc.), but...frankly it doesn't look good.

I assume something like 8 encounters per day, 2 short rests per day, 3 rounds per encounter (24 per day), and "nominally medium" encounter difficulty?

Do you account for "damage received/healed" at all? (A level 5 fighter in plate is going to have more AC and soak than a level 5 wizard is).

Like, a PAM+Spear fighter hitting 65% of attacks with 18 strength and 14 con and a shield has 20 AC, 44 HP, and 3d10+15 (31.5) self heal, does 2d6+1d4+18 (27.5) damage if everything hits from an action (+9.5 on a crit). At 24 rounds + 3 action surges this comes to 27*.65*27.5+27*.05*9.5=495.5 damage budget.

A wizard with 18 intelligence and 14 dex and 14 con has 12 AC and 32 HP. Firebolt is 2d10 (11) with the same 65% accuracy 5% crit for 184.5 baseline. Each round not using firebolt costs 7.7 less baseline damage.

A 5th level wizard has 4 1st level, 3 2nd level, and 2 3rd level spells, and can recover 1 3rd level spell per day. Assuming each of those takes an action, the wizard casts 4+3+3=10 less firebolts, meaning only 107.5 firebolt damage.

So the fighter gap is 495.5-107.5=388 damage to be made up with leveled spells. Lets do this!

A fireball does 28 damage, 2 targets, 60% failure rate. .6+.3*.5 is 0.75 average multiplier, *2 is 1.5. So 28*1.5=42 damage per fireball. x3 is 126.

388-126 is 262 gap remaining.

For 2nd level spells, lets go with scorching ray and shatter. Shatter is 3d8 (13.5) aoe for 20.25 damage per cast. Scorching Ray is 3*2d6 = 6d6 for 14.7 damage per cast. Shatter wins.

3 casts of shatter is 20.25*3 = 60.75 damage. 201.25 gap remaining and only 1st level spells. This doesn't look good for the wizard.

Burning Hands is probably our best choice. 10.5 damage AOE for 15.75 damage per cast, times 4 is 63 damage.

136.25 damage gap remaining.

Huh.

Fighter total: 495.5
Wizard total: 359.25
Wizard: 75% of duelist fighter damage

Fighter total HP (including half rounded up HD) per day: 95
Wizard total HP (including half rounded up HD) per day: 48.5
Wizard: about 50% of Fighter's durability

Wizard AC: 12, but can boost to 15 by losing a burning hands (probably a good idea).
Fighter AC: 20, reduced to 18 if they want to avoid disadvantage on stealth.

No subclass used for either.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I assume something like 8 encounters per day, 2 short rests per day, 3 rounds per encounter (24 per day), and "nominally medium" encounter difficulty?

Do you account for "damage received/healed" at all? (A level 5 fighter in plate is going to have more AC and soak than a level 5 wizard is).

The comparison referenced was damage, so damage is what I focused on. I have been told more than once (IIRC, including in this very thread) that the Wizard's best friend is never getting hit in the first place, so defensive comparisons are not particularly relevant. I only ran the Dex+Rapier+Shield+Duelist Fighter numbers for the sake of contrast.

And "8 encounters per day" is flagrantly unrealistic. The vast, vast majority of players do not play that way. Jeremy Crawford has explicitly said (in a youtube video a while back) that this is the reason why their UA designs have moved to PB/LR rather than SR-based resources, because players don't face nearly as many encounters (nor nearly as many rests) as they were supposed to under 5e's intended design. Which is a criticism that's been levied at 5e since it was still called D&D Next; it's the modern incarnation of the 5MWD. (In specific, he said that this resulted in the Warlock being underpowered relative to what was intended, because people weren't playing long enough days nor taking enough short rests, causing Warlocks to fall behind.)

If we're going to ignore levels beyond 11 because nobody (for a given definition of "nobody") plays them, we should ignore the "6-8 encounters per day, a short rest at least every other encounter" thing as well. Because "nobody" (for a given definition of "nobody") actually plays that way.

 

[NotAYakk]

The comparison referenced was damage, so damage is what I focused on. I have been told more than once (IIRC, including in this very thread) that the Wizard's best friend is never getting hit in the first place, so defensive comparisons are not particularly relevant. I only ran the Dex+Rapier+Shield+Duelist Fighter numbers for the sake of contrast.

And "8 encounters per day" is flagrantly unrealistic. The vast, vast majority of players do not play that way. Jeremy Crawford has explicitly said (in a youtube video a while back) that this is the reason why their UA designs have moved to PB/LR rather than SR-based resources, because players don't face nearly as many encounters (nor nearly as many rests) as they were supposed to under 5e's intended design. Which is a criticism that's been levied at 5e since it was still called D&D Next; it's the modern incarnation of the 5MWD. (In specific, he said that this resulted in the Warlock being underpowered relative to what was intended, because people weren't playing long enough days nor taking enough short rests, causing Warlocks to fall behind.)

If we're going to ignore levels beyond 11 because nobody (for a given definition of "nobody") plays them, we should ignore the "6-8 encounters per day, a short rest at least every other encounter" thing as well. Because "nobody" (for a given definition of "nobody") actually plays that way.

I mean, I asked for your assumptions, not a lecture. What are your assumptions? I just want you to state them, they could be reasonable or not, but if you don't state them I have no idea what you are basing your beliefs off of.

Also, I edited in a model based on the assumptions I listed of a duelist fighter vs a level 5 blaster wizard, neither with a subclass.

I will note that if a wizard was a fighter with no durability, it would be a crappy class. So I did a really basic durability pass.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean, I asked for your assumptions, not a lecture. What are your assumptions? I just want you to state them, they could be reasonable or not, but if you don't state them I have no idea what you are basing your beliefs off of.

Level 5, so 18 primary stat, identical 60% chance to hit or to fail saves (meaning, for actual attack rolls, 55% chance to hit, 5% chance to crit.) AoE spells targeting exactly two targets, scaled appropriately (e.g., 60% chance to do full damage, 40% chance to do half damage if relevant, which it usually is other than for cantrips.) Expected ~5 encounters per day, average 4 rounds apiece (technically, treated as 20 combat rounds, however those get divvied up.) Two short rests, which may be a little on the high side but I prefer not to assume non-integer amounts of short rests even if 1.5 is probably more accurate. That (essentially) ensures full use of Arcane Recovery and provides the Fighter with three uses of Action Surge. Did not factor in HP/AC/etc.; the Fighter is more durable, sure, but is forced to take far greater risks because of having to attack and move in melee. No magic items of any kind, no feats, no racial features, etc. Just class vs class. Subclass factored in separately, as noted.

Edit: And yes, I used fireball, shatter, and magic missile as the damage spells here. Toll the dead was used instead of firebolt because it has superior damage dice against targets that have taken any amount of damage, which is effectively guaranteed given the offensive spells used (as all either do half damage on a passed save, or always hit.)

 

[Clint_L]

Okay. Let's dig into this then. To what degree are these martial/weapon-focused/etc. classes "broadly comparable" with these spellcaster/magic-focused/etc. classes? I won't bore you with the details, but I've crunched some numbers here. If we focus only on class and ignore subclass, at 5th level a Wizard's damage output (assuming all spells are spent on damage) is in fact nearly the same as a purely damage-focused greatsword+GWF Fighter (~88.80%), and better than the Dex+Rapier+Shield+Duelist mixed-defensive Fighter (~106.35%.) While Battlemaster allows the Fighter to pull ahead relative to a subclass-agnostic Wizard, strong Wizard subclasses like Diviner and Bladesinger completely fill or even eclipse that gap. The superior spells (and larger amount of spells) by level 8 totally outshine the benefits of the bonus ASI unless it's very specifically spent on a strong feat, and even the extra Superiority dice can't keep up. I'll need to do a more thorough analysis for 11th level because there's a lot more math involved (more spells, more spell levels, more attacks, etc.), but...frankly it doesn't look good.

Wizards can choose to be as good as a baseline Fighter, across a meaningful span of commonly-played levels, while also having ritual magic and non-offense cantrips. If they end up not needing their full mojo spent on offense, they have a plethora of options for incredibly powerful non-combat problem solving too.

The extra power from a few extra feats would actually let martial characters be clearly, unequivocally better at combat, the thing they are hyperfocused on and cannot choose to do less of in order to do other things. The Wizard should pay for their flexibility with lower potency compared to someone who cannot choose to be more flexible.

You seem to be focusing on one pillar - damage output. Fighters are very good at two pillars - damage output and damage reduction - at the same time (they can specialize more towards one or the other, but are never bad at either). While I would agree that wizards can specialize to match a fighter at damage output, they will be glass cannons. Conversely, they can specialize for survivability, but then do way less damage. If all the game was about was doing and taking/avoiding damage, fighters and barbarians win, hands down. The spell caster advantage comes in flexible problem solving. You've got more options. Unless you entirely specialize in damage output or something.

This is my concern about a lot of these arguments that fighters and other "simpler" classes need to also have the range of options that spellcasting classes have. Those classes do pay a price for their flexibility: they are generally more fragile, or weaker in terms of pure DPS, unless they give up a lot of that flexibility to compensate. So this almost seems like a thread about how martial classes should not have any weaknesses.

On the other hand, I like player choice. It's fun. Though I recognize that different players like different things. Some folks really like playing champion because it is simple. This doesn't make them bad players or simple people, it just means that, at least for this character, they want to play someone who is pretty straightforward. Haven't we all kind of been there, where we just want to be the barbarian smashing stuff, or whatever? So I don't think there is a one-size fits all answer.

I do think sub-classes go a long way towards addressing this issue. Champions are just one sub-class. Battle masters are a whole other thing that involve a ton of tactical decision making, eldritch knights open up a bunch of other options, and echo knights almost play like their own class.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You seem to be focusing on one pillar - damage output. Fighters are very good at two pillars - damage output and damage reduction - at the same time. While I would agree that wizards can specialize to match a fighter at damage output, they will be glass cannons. Conversely, they can specialize for survivability, but then do way less damage. If all the game was about was doing and taking/avoiding damage, fighters and barbarians win, hands down. The spell caster advantage comes in flexible problem solving. You've got more options. Unless you entirely specialize in damage output or something.

See above. A Wizard that manages things even slightly better than "always targeting exactly 2 targets with fireball" (no expectation that either fails the save) has the room to squeeze in those extra defensive spells--like shield. And Bladesinger, for example, gives you more than enough defense to make up the difference, as others have noted.

The gap is nowhere near as large as you assert it to be. If the game were exclusively about taking and avoiding damage, non-casters would be slightly better at taking damage and comparable at dealing it, only truly excelling if combats are specifically designed to be favorable to them: elemental resistances/immunities but never physical ones, never resistant to non-magical weapons, generally high saving throws but weak AC, etc. But the fact is, all of these are usually reversed: if there are elemental resistances, spellcasters are usually flexible enough to get around them, while non-casters have limited ability to work around physical resistances/immunities; many, MANY creatures are resistant to non-magical weapons; AC usually is not that weak, and saving throws are generally much more exploitable.

With the game being about a great deal more than that, and smart play letting you save lower-level spell slots for problem solving, a serious gap remains.

 

[Clint_L]

I don't think a serious gap does remain, until maybe the topmost tiers. I've played a lot of D&D, for more than forty years. I watch actual play shows. I watch various YouTubers, such as the Dungeon Dudes et al. I find fighters and barbarians to be extremely strong classes and consistently popular choices with good player satisfaction. You seem to have a different experience. Both are valid, so I think what we have here is an honest disagreement.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think a serious gap does remain, until maybe the topmost tiers. I've played a lot of D&D, for more than forty years. I watch actual play shows. I watch various YouTubers, such as the Dungeon Dudes et al. I find fighters and barbarians to be extremely strong classes and consistently popular choices with good player satisfaction. You seem to have a different experience. Both are valid, so I think what we have here is an honest disagreement.

If one person is having a very good time, and another is having a bad time, and there are ways which can improve the time of the person having a bad time while (at worst) reducing the other person's time to merely a good one, it seems unreasonable for the person having a very good time to say, "Well, both of our experiences are valid, so we shouldn't change anything."