D&D (2024) Martial vs Caster: Removing the "Magical Dependencies" of high level.

[Gammadoodler]

I just asked ChatGPT and it agrees with me

And with such a neutral prompt..
Remarkable.

Edit: Not for nothing, I asked too..

can you explain the similarities between warping reality and manipulating reality

Both warping reality and manipulating reality involve altering the state of reality to change its perceived properties or characteristics.

Warping reality typically involves changing the physical and spatial properties of reality, such as bending or distorting space-time to create a wormhole or a portal to another dimension.

Manipulating reality, on the other hand, can refer to changing any aspect of reality, including physical, mental, or spiritual properties. This can involve altering the perceptions or emotions of individuals, changing objects or entities, or shifting the fundamental properties of reality itself.

Both concepts involve changing the nature of reality itself, but the specific mechanisms and outcomes can vary significantly depending on the context and methodology used.
This message has been generated by Nova - download it for free:

Nova - AI Chatbot

Nova is a revolutionary AI chatbot powered by ChatGPT.

novaappai.page.link

 

[Emberashh]

Something Ill preemptively add here is that suggesting the class disparity issue isn't as severe as suggested (because things like Improvise Action exist) isn't the same thing as saying there isn't still a problem.

There is, and its important to understand precisely what that problem is so solutions can be comprehensive and, most importantly, not causal to even more issues.

If we aren't accurately identifying where martials sit relative to casters (and not identifying where casters should be sitting other than where they are, for that matter), then that is a surefire recipe to overcorrect (and undercorrect, in regards to casters) the issue and just cause even more problems.

Making use of Improvise Action doesn't "fix" martials, but recognizing its a part of what they can do does mean the fixes they still need don't need to be that intensive; you don't need to, for instance, copy and paste an expansive maneuver system to half the classes when you could instead just make IA more of an integrated option.

The Mighty Deed is a much more elegant approach than a big list of buttons to press that don't have any interaction with each other (See my own Battle Combo system) and doing something like that even helps to bridge the gap between those who want more mundane and those who want more mythic, as the system can easily adapt to and satisfy both wants without having to trod on the other to do so.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The issue though, and why it gets the "mother may i" treatment, is that because the rules aren't clear on these "abilities" the Fighters (and actually, everyone else) potentially have, they don't have them at all tables. If they don't have these "abilities" at all tables, then how can we take them into account?

It's no different than "my Fighter is great in my DM's game, because he has a Flametongue sword, +2 armor, and a Cloak of Displacement!" vs. "After playing for seven months, we finally found a magic item, a magic spoon that creates gruel!".

No, it isn't. The game doesn't operate on the assumption that you won't allow meaningful improvisation. If the DM isn't using part of the game, that's on them, not the rules.

every character can improvise. However casters have more base options to base that importation on.

a fighter has 6 stats, 4 skills 2 tool prof and a good attack bonus and good hp along with action surge to impovise with at 3rd or 9th level
a wizard has 6 stats 4 skills 2 tool prof an okay attack and bad hp along with how many built in exception rules?
same with bard same with warlock...

For a lot of players, the Champion Fighter can do anything, and the Battlemaster Fighter can do what's list as it's character abilities. That's why so many people advocate for stripping some classes of any dial and lever with defined action and consequence, because they remember when they played a dnd where only one/some classes had anything beyond "describe what you are trying to do, and the DM will adjuticate how it goes", and in that game they simply did more than they do in modern dnd.

And as much as I like dials and levers and widgets and whatnots, I get it. I see it at every table where I see new players. The more loosely defined their actions are, the more wild stuff they try to do. The more specific the character sheet is, the more they draw inside the lines.

And I think it's really, really critical to playing 5e that people remember that you can do things that your character sheet makes no reference to. You can trip, disarm, climb on the dragon, use a big shield to block a line or cone of damage, smash through a wall of force, etc, and it's arguably bad dming to not let characters do those things.

And yes, that does mean that some players will be just as creative with casters and their spells. Okay. Great.

DnD has rarely been a game where balance means everyone can do things on the same exact scale. That's good. It's boring for a lot of people to play a purely martial character who is doiing the same type of stuff as a spellcaster. It makes the game feel like the mechanics don't ever represent anything. *

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

Well thats not what Im talking about. If you're a caster and your choice is to either cast Wall of Force or Improvise some action, why would you choose to improvise?

yeah, why does the fighter have to improvise instead of having something as cool as wall of force?

Martials have a lot more room in their toolbox to spend actions on improvising something to get ahead. Casters don't, because their spells are too valuable.

spells are too valuable is the problem not the solution.

It is a team game after all. Casters going out of their way to trod all over what Martials can do, just to prove they can, isn't being a team player.

right it's a team game and as part of that is the game was made (way back before I was born) to be a warrior a skill guy and two casters one arcane one divine.

However you can do better as a team with 4 casters then that.

so I am not comparing my fighter to Joe's wizard and Jen's Druid... I am comparing a team of a fighter wizard and druid to a team of a full caster melee focused person and a wizard and a druid.

You're not wrong that Martials need more explicit options, but you're conflating into this what is essentially a really bad player with a really bad attitude.

no I have not complained about a player yet, I mean I am sure I CAN remember a problem player or two in the last 15 years of gaming, but that isn't the problem.

the problem is I sit down to make my new character based on a mix of Xena and Sailor moon and SHe ra (new one) and I think what is the best options to give me cool melee and cool options and give me the most in play room to do things... and non caster is NEVER the answer.

Its one thing for Gish types to be doing martial things (the entire point is they can do both after all), but if you're just a bone standard Abjuration Wizard and you're hopping into melee to grapple just to go "SEE YOU MARTIALS ARE USELESS" thats just bad form.

again, if that bone standard abjuration wizard has 1pt less of AC then the fighter but can cast shield and it's a 5th level game so you have 13hp less then the fighter what is the difference?

That, of course, isn't what you're trying to say happens or would happen, but that sort of player is what you're describing by asserting casters can waste turns on grappling.

no it isn't.
A melee focused front line character can be a full caster a pact caster a half caster or a non caster. In any given night if you have the choice the correct answer is full or pact caster.

Its a team game, and regardless of intra-character balance players aren't in a competition to be the person that solves the problem or does all the cool stuff.

in a team game we shouldn't have the option to make a warcleric a blade singer and a hexblade that can each do 85+% of what a fighter can do but also through around 9th level spells

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

For a lot of players, the Champion Fighter can do anything, and the Battlemaster Fighter can do what's list as it's character abilities.

I hear a lot about these theoretical players but only meet ones that either improvise and do 'cool things' with most of there characters or ones that don't. I have never seen someone go from champion to battlemaster (or rune knight to bladesinger) and get less creative.

I am not saying you never met them, but I xan't believe they are as common as some make it sound.

That's why so many people advocate for stripping some classes of any dial and lever with defined action and consequence, because they remember when they played a dnd where only one/some classes had anything beyond "describe what you are trying to do, and the DM will adjuticate how it goes", and in that game they simply did more than they do in modern dnd.

I never played that D&D so I don't know

And as much as I like dials and levers and widgets and whatnots, I get it. I see it at every table where I see new players. The more loosely defined their actions are, the more wild stuff they try to do. The more specific the character sheet is, the more they draw inside the lines.

that is not my experience at all

And I think it's really, really critical to playing 5e that people remember that you can do things that your character sheet makes no reference to. You can trip, disarm, climb on the dragon, use a big shield to block a line or cone of damage, smash through a wall of force, etc, and it's arguably bad dming to not let characters do those things.

now you know what could help them remember they can do those things and help the DM rule on trying them... giving the fighter cool special abilities.

And yes, that does mean that some players will be just as creative with casters and their spells. Okay. Great.

not great, backwards. Now you have the creative guy who can improvise with a fighter getting not just the quick thinking improv but also all the spells

this is where the experienced tables I play at fall. 3-7 players and 1-2 DMs and everyone can and does come up with creative ways to use things, and we always find the best way to have the most options to be creative is to have casters... so we end up with parties that at our largest (I can remember right now) was 3 wizards, 2 clerics, 2 warlocks, and an artificer... two of the 3 wizards did multi class and so did one of the warlocks

DnD has rarely been a game where balance means everyone can do things on the same exact scale. That's good. It's boring for a lot of people to play a purely martial character who is doiing the same type of stuff as a spellcaster. It makes the game feel like the mechanics don't ever represent anything. *

it's boreing to you maybe, but to my group it would free up concepts we just skip now to avoide being a drain on the party.

 

[Gammadoodler]

No, it isn't. The game doesn't operate on the assumption that you won't allow meaningful improvisation. If the DM isn't using part of the game, that's on them, not the rules.

For a lot of players, the Champion Fighter can do anything, and the Battlemaster Fighter can do what's list as it's character abilities. That's why so many people advocate for stripping some classes of any dial and lever with defined action and consequence, because they remember when they played a dnd where only one/some classes had anything beyond "describe what you are trying to do, and the DM will adjuticate how it goes", and in that game they simply did more than they do in modern dnd.

And as much as I like dials and levers and widgets and whatnots, I get it. I see it at every table where I see new players. The more loosely defined their actions are, the more wild stuff they try to do. The more specific the character sheet is, the more they draw inside the lines.

And I think it's really, really critical to playing 5e that people remember that you can do things that your character sheet makes no reference to. You can trip, disarm, climb on the dragon, use a big shield to block a line or cone of damage, smash through a wall of force, etc, and it's arguably bad dming to not let characters do those things.

And yes, that does mean that some players will be just as creative with casters and their spells. Okay. Great.

DnD has rarely been a game where balance means everyone can do things on the same exact scale. That's good. It's boring for a lot of people to play a purely martial character who is doiing the same type of stuff as a spellcaster. It makes the game feel like the mechanics don't ever represent anything. *

The game also provides little in the way of guidance regarding what either the DM or player should expect is achievable within the realm of meaningful improvisation.

So mileages vary from table to table. This is both feature and bug.

The trouble is that mileages do not vary symmetrically between the casters and the martials.

There is as much need for buttons and dials in the form of spells as there is for buttons and dials in the form of martial abilities. But that is not how they've been distributed.

 

[Emberashh]

yeah, why does the fighter have to improvise instead of having something as cool as wall of force?

Improvising is their cool thing, among whatever other neat things their subclass grants them.

spells are too valuable is the problem not the solution.

I don't believe I said otherwise, particularly given Ive ranted about how magic needs to be nerfed into the ground more than once on more than just this forum.

However you can do better as a team with 4 casters then that.

so I am not comparing my fighter to Joe's wizard and Jen's Druid... I am comparing a team of a fighter wizard and druid to a team of a full caster melee focused person and a wizard and a druid.

Its not a competition.

and non caster is NEVER the answer.

Which speaks to the fact that simultaneously magic is doing too much and the systems that martials have to do things (namely skills and improv) do far too little.

As alluded to in my other post, we don't really disagree here other than in the severity of the issue with Martials, and if one is disregarding something like Improvise action, then they are overestimating the issues they have, even if you feel the difference is slight.

what is the difference?

That you both still have clear roles to play in combat and to say that the wizard wasting time grappling when they could be doing literally anything else is to say the wizard should be stepping on the fighters fun.

This is why I talk about the bad attitude player being conflated into the discussion.

Unless we're talking about such a player, no wizard player is going to go out of their way to grapple. Thats not how the game plays and the only reasons you can suggest for a wizard to do this is because they either A) want to hog the spotlight to the detriment of their friends fun, or B) want to serve the hypothetical to prove the point that martials suck.

in a team game we shouldn't have the option to make a warcleric a blade singer and a hexblade that can each do 85+% of what a fighter can do but also through around 9th level spells

Yeah, I agree with that lol. As said, my position isn't to deny the problem, its to keep the issue in a proper perspective so it can be fixed deliberately, and not just based on raw emotional desires loosely connected to the facts.

Ive used this explanation before to emphasize this point: some people suggest that to fix the issue with martials, they need to be able to cleave mountains in half.

To put this in perspective, in all of DND theres only been one ability that came close to this capability, and it was an 11th level spell.

When you don't try to be objective about where Martials stand relative to Casters, you're liable to overcorrect by suggesting Martials get abilities well beyond what Casters are actually capable of to begin with, leading to you not balancing the classes but just flipping the balance disparity in the other direction and thus not really solving anything.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I hear a lot about these theoretical players but only meet ones that either improvise and do 'cool things' with most of there characters or ones that don't. I have never seen someone go from champion to battlemaster (or rune knight to bladesinger) and get less creative.

The ones I know don't play the more complex options, exactly because they feel stifled by them.

I am not saying you never met them, but I xan't believe they are as common as some make it sound.

I never played that D&D so I don't know

that is not my experience at all

now you know what could help them remember they can do those things and help the DM rule on trying them... giving the fighter cool special abilities.

Except then the players I'm talking about won't want to play 5e at all, because the experience they want isn't even an option anymore.

And like...the most popular character is standard human champion fighter. That's for a reason.

Now giving a little more explicit "permission" to improvise with skills and physical actions in the PHB, and maybe giving the fighter special "success" levers like "x/day when you make an ability check and it fails, you can instead choose to succeed", could certainly help. Or, "you gain inspiration any time you improvise an action and it succeeds. If you make an ability check, including improvised actions, and it fails, you can try to use that failure to push an ally toward success or hinder an enemy."

But a list of distinct powers? No. That belongs in optional variant features and subclasses, when it comes to the martial classes.

not great, backwards. Now you have the creative guy who can improvise with a fighter getting not just the quick thinking improv but also all the spells

this is where the experienced tables I play at fall. 3-7 players and 1-2 DMs and everyone can and does come up with creative ways to use things, and we always find the best way to have the most options to be creative is to have casters... so we end up with parties that at our largest (I can remember right now) was 3 wizards, 2 clerics, 2 warlocks, and an artificer... two of the 3 wizards did multi class and so did one of the warlocks

Over twenty years and 4 editions (2nd to 5th), I've consistently seen most players improvise less with spells than with skills. Tables that just don't even play martials because spells are always "the correct answer", I don't think I've ever seen, in that time.

it's boreing to you maybe, but to my group it would free up concepts we just skip now to avoide being a drain on the party.

It's boring to enough people that champion fighter is vastly more popular than any wizard. Not just me.

And your group should get optional variants power systems for martials just like other tables should get a dead simple all at-will warlock variant.

But all of the above is why it's probably good that we are getting a wave of new 5e variants to add to the LevelUps and the setting specific 5e-based games. One game is going to have a hard time accommodating your group and mine.

Even in 4e, which we loved, casters could create walls of elemental damage that lasted until the end of the encounter, or create shadow doubles of themselves, or balls of fire that rolled around and did damage to anything they touched and set it on fire, or melded with a creature's shadow and rode it around for multiple rounds, or teleported or flew tactically meaningful distances. The Martial classes could hit things more times, hit more things, impose a condition on a hit, force a target to move one way or another, or to focus on the PC or to ignore them, etc.

And that difference has to be there, for martial characters to be martial characters.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The game also provides little in the way of guidance regarding what either the DM or player should expect is achievable within the realm of meaningful improvisation.

5e's single biggest weakness is terrible guidance for players and DMs.

So mileages vary from table to table. This is both feature and bug.

The trouble is that mileages do not vary symmetrically between the casters and the martials.

There is as much need for buttons and dials in the form of spells as there is for buttons and dials in the form of martial abilities. But that is not how they've been distributed.

This part IMO is not true, and indeed the opposite is true. The martials have an equal need to not have the same kind of dials and buttons, as casters have the need to have them.

The only buttons martials need, IMO, are in the skill system, explicit "permission" to improvise with physical and social actions, and soft narrative control in terms of things like "spend an X to make a failure create an opportunity for you or an ally, or hinder an enemy" type stuff. Powers are great optionally, not centrally.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i had hoped this thread might've managed to go on a little longer on it's original premise before devolving into the usual martial vs caster nonsense