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

[Remathilis]

The Wizard works because the class defines a character that utilizes magic by research and learning. The Sorcerer works as a class because it defines a spellcaster that inherits or embodies a type of magic. The Cleric works as a class because it defines a magic user with divine servitude. I can go on like this with all spellcasting classes. The Fighter fails because it tries to be all warrior archetypes. If they were willing to give the Fighter extra classes and broke it down into more strongly defined archetypes with greater identity, then I would guess that we would see better outcomes with better and more flavorful mechanics.

I want to print this post out and staple it to the forehead of every poster who says "X class should be a subclass of Y" (for example: sorcerer should be a subclass of wizard).

...And I have a ream of paper and a staple gun.

 

[Eubani]

I want to print this post out and staple it to the forehead of every poster who says "X class should be a subclass of Y" (for example: sorcerer should be a subclass of wizard).

...And I have a ream of paper and a staple gun.

It's worse than it looks because the Champion and Battlemaster were so flavorless and lack in identity it magnified the problem as not only would the Fighter cause many to say no new class needed, but also these flavorless no identity subclasses made these people say no subclass needed for xyz as Champion/Battlemaster cover these. Hell the section in Tasha's (pg46-47) shows this, no need for subclasses just pick these maneuvers and pretend this is enough to play that. It looked like they were taking every step they could to kill off any further Fighter development.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No, what I stated was that fireball is exceptional against multiple weak targets. I mean, are we acting like it's news that fireball is kind of OP?

Most other AoE is more balanced, either because it's weaker or trickier to position (i.e. no one complains about lightning bolt, even though it does the same damage as fireball). But sure, I agree that casters tend to be better at AoE than ST (again being cautious, since this argument tends to constantly devolve into fighters and wizards, without even accounting for subclass). More because of control than damage, IMO; a cleverly used web spell can be encounter changing.

A clever use of web can be encounter changing, even at high levels. So can a hold spell, or force cage, or literally any control spell. Which brings us to this.

Yeah, legendary resistances are aimed right at save or suck spells. The point being? Legendary resistances are very much a thing in this game that spellcasters have to deal with. Good thing there are no legendary resistances to "great sword to the face." For that matter, there are all kinds of other resistances that mostly affect spellcasters, especially at high level play.

Do you know why there isn't a legendary resistance to Greatsword to the face? Because no one cares. The solution to fighters is literally just giving the monster more hp. That's it. But more hp doesn't matter in the face of casting. The only way to keep boss monster's relevant, was to give them an anti-spellcasting ability.

The example given was a dragon battle. We've all probably run our fair share of those. Given the options offered, I stand by my argument that I would rather have two fighters and two rogues rather than two wizards and two clerics (though obviously one of each would be more optimal, which is the design intent).

Edit: Hmmm...mathing it out...I dunno. I think for sure the fighters are excellent in the dragon encounter - high DPR and survivability. The rogues are a lot weaker. With the clerics hopefully tanking the wizards could try to focus on burning through those resistances to get off a lucky polymorph on the dragon or something, though the problem will be surviving long enough to do so - dragons are smart and mobile and can feasibly kill a level 15 wizard (probably, what, 75 or so HP?) in one round, two on the outside unless the wizards are focusing their magic on survivability, but then it's a matter of diminishing returns - can the clerics do enough damage to get the dragon off the wizards? Probably not.

Thinking about the encounter frankly makes me more impressed with 5e's design balance.

Fighter's are excellent in the dragon encounter if they are archer fighters and designed to fight the dragon.

Wizard's and Clerics are able to take down the dragon as long as they know they are fighting a dragon. Like, seriously, your entire point is "will the wizards and clerics live long enough to win" and if the clerics and wizards know that they are fighting a dragon, the answer is yes.

I mean seriously, this is kind of even a ridiculous question. Let's make the most powerful fighter's we can with their most powerful options. Archer fighters with sharpshooter, magic bows, the works. They are going to fight the dragon in a knock down drag out fight. I mean, the fighter's can deal... 1d8+18 = 22.5 x 3 = 66.5. +13 to hit, -5 = +8 vs AC 19 is 50% accuracy. 66.5 x 0.5 = 33.25 per turn per fighter. Rogue goes in with... well, nothing. Can't exactly sneak attack. So their contributions will be minimal.

If I don't max out the Dragon's hp (using an Adult Red by the way) that is about 4 turns of combat, let's say three turns with Action Surge and special abilities. On average.... assuming the Dragon Fear doesn't hit them. Because dragon fear would lower their accuracy. But the fighter's can re-roll that DC 19 wisdom save, so I'm sure they will make it right? And the dragon's breath if they fail the DC 21 save is about 50% of their health, so I mean they'll likely be at a 75% health after that, and then dealing with the Dragon's attacks which could finish them in... Well, the dragon does about 53 damage a turn and the fighter has about 139 hp. So... Might be close. And if I increase the Dragon's hp.... that could go very badly.

But surely the wizard's and cleric's do worse right? Let's give them their best tools too.

Well, we are working with this number of spell slots 4/3/3/3/2/1/1/1 per character, which is 16/12/12/12/8/4/4/4

Four Death Wards will prevent instant death. Then both wizard's cast Simulacrum, giving you two additional wizards. That gives us another 8/6/6/6/4/2/0/2 spell slots. Heroe's feast makes them immune to dragon fear and increases max hp. Can probably get away with some 5th level Aid's? That's more max hp. Don't want to do concentration from protection from energy, but I can have the wizard's simulcrum cast invisibility at 5th level. Sure, Dragon's have blindsight 60 ft, but they have normal sight farther, and we just need to get close

Man, used a lot of spells right, we are down to...

24/18/18/14/9/5/2/6

huh.

Clerics still have a mass of healing spells. And some things like banishment. Wizard's can wall of force to keep the dragon pinned. If they get really lucky with the initiative that alone could trap the dragon into a blade barrier and wreck it. Or, what about throwing four feebleminds. Damage is low, only 16d6 or 56 damage (about 1/5 of its health) but if it fails any of those intelligence saves (at a +3 vs DC 18 that is a 70% chance of failure) then their INT and CHA is reduced to 1.

Charisma saves become a mere +1 vs DC 18 (80% chance of failure) against things like banishment to keep the dragon from attacking the party, and their intelligence saves become literally unpassable. Allowing the wizard's to hit it with Mental Prison multiple rounds. That is 5d10 damage, restrained, then another 10d10 damage if they attack out of it. Which they will, because 1 Intelligence. So, that is 15d10= 82.5 x 4 = 330 damage...

So the dragon's only chance would be to kill the wizard's in round 1... which it can't. And then get lucky with the feebleminds, which at a minimum likely eat up all its resistances, and then avoid...

Sure, this required specific spells, and it isn't like the wizards are guaranteed to have these spells. But... This also isn't unreasonable. I didn't really name any spell people typically avoid. And you only need one of the wizard's to get the spell for both to have it. And... other than redesigning the dragon... it can't win.

 

[Chaosmancer]

When those options become problematic for game balance because I made an off-the-cuff ruling? Not strange at all. Basically what happened was (and I don't remember everything) but basically I'd said that a called shot would give the enemy a debuff (blind in one eye, unable to use a hand, that short of thing). What started happening as a result was enemies would be quickly rendered functionally useless but still alive with hit points remaining; in effect, I had allowed the players to do end runs around hit points.

I then tried to come up with hit point thresholds (ie, to get a debuff, you had to deal a % of the target's hit points), but as enemies got tougher, I quickly had players griping that an enemy took an arrow to the eye and wasn't effected, which made "no sense" to them. I eventually scrapped the whole idea, and it went the way of critical fumbles in my games.

Yeah, this is a big problem with what Emberash was proposing. Because improvised actions are off the cuff, and often based on gut feeling, you can end up with things that don't match the mechanics you want. It is far better to have a system that is defined, because that avoids those situations where you might oops into a problem you didn't foresee.

 

[Mistwell]

From the hints we're getting the plan is to pair back the power of spells while increasing the damage output and utility of martials. We have not seen the spells yet so it's hard to see how that works.

 

[Eubani]

Another claim I want to debunk is that not needing to spend resources to act and having greater base defence + HP, means that when spellcasters are low on HP and running low or out of slots the martial classes will carry the day. NO, that is when the adventuring day ends unless the DM has to add reasons to force continuation and when the DM has to add in such contrivances to cover design decisions problems will add up further. Also I notice that spellcasters are getting more ways to either recover spells or hot swap which means that they will likely have a way to solve the issue or spend a resource to gain a way to solve it. Spell slots are becoming less and less a way to limit spellcasters. the only other real control is spell components which largely gets ignored at many tables. I would like to see spellcasting have inititiative penalties for the round cast, be disruptable, cause AoO and have shorter ranges. Also tweaking utility spells so that there is a downside to casting a spell that replicates a skill vs using the skill.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The 'utility' martials have gotten so far is proficiency with one more skill.

 

[Hussar]

Cantrip dealing similar damage to fighters… are you cantripping?

Why is your cantrip not similar damage?

Typically 3d8 or d10 by 11th level. Fighter is dealing 3d weapon +stat. It’s not all that far off. And the non fighters only ever get two attacks.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Another claim I want to debunk is that not needing to spend resources to act and having greater base defence + HP, means that when spellcasters are low on HP and running low or out of slots the martial classes will carry the day. NO, that is when the adventuring day ends unless the DM has to add reasons to force continuation

YES! ^THIS!

No one plays with a group that is going to look at their caster friend, who has saved their lives multiple times and say "We are moving on, even if it kills you".

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The example given was a dragon battle. We've all probably run our fair share of those. Given the options offered, I stand by my argument that I would rather have two fighters and two rogues rather than two wizards and two clerics (though obviously one of each would be more optimal, which is the design intent).

In 5E, having two wizards and two clerics at high level really means having two wizards, two clerics, and potentially a pile of bound air elementals, nycaloths, and couatls or generic "celestials" from Summon Celestial.

In 5E, wizards and clerics can make warriors, but warriors can't make wizards and clerics.

Therefore you want the two wizards and two clerics... but that isn't fun! Characters want to achieve their goals and survive. Players want to have interesting problems to solve--players want to feel like they almost lost but didn't. There's a tension there that wouldn't exist if Planar Binding and Animate Dead and Create Magen and so on were eliminated from the game.