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

[doctorbadwolf]

I know right. He might have actually equaled the other three combat characters in the game. Your definition of insane is a bit different from mine.

Considering he’d have made more attacks per round, with more damage per hit, and had no rounds spent fixing a gun, he’d have been in the top 3 easily.

Again, he did the most damage in a single round. Not only that, the top 3 spots on the list of most damage per round are all Percy.

Like seriously Percy was very nerfed from what he could have been. Repeating heavy and hand crossbow, and a subclass that adds damage to his attacks, and not having to give up attacks for reloading, and we’d be seeing double the damage in some fights. Gunslinger and Exandria guns are extremely bad.

 

[Yaarel]

"I know a guy who knows a guy whose brother-in-law is an air elemental, and he gave me some pointers in exchange for a hot tip on some owlbear races."

That pointer is probably a kind of "ritual".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Your 20th level fighter can never fly a Spelljammer ship.

This is really bad design on a game level. The fighter doesn’t need to change to meet this, this needs to change.

The world itself wants casters to be needed, and that is often more of a problem than any class design.

 

[bloodtide]

A flying monster is pretty common at any level. There's LOTS of stuff that can fly. Or heck, even climb well. I doubt there's a single CR from 1-20 that doesn't have at least one critter that can fly.

Though you would be hard pressed to find detailed rules that say you somehow "must" use flying foes as they are "common".

Then of course there is the adventure focus problem. Sure "monster X" is "very rare" all over the world. Sure you can walk through whole kingdoms and never see a "monster X". Oh, but head over to the Cursed Ruins of Azal-Zah, and guess what "monster x" becomes common.

OTOH, creating an anti-magic zone is a pretty obvious DM thing. It's the DM very clearly giving the casters a giant middle finger.

But the DM doing lots and lots of things directly against the mundane character is not "giving a finger", right?

Anti-magic is, honestly, super rare. That's an 8th level spell. Not really something your 5th level party should be bumping into every day.

I'm fairly sure I have never seen this "rule". Yet many DMs do it.

And again, "anti magic" is rare in the Farmlands of Gorll......but how "rare" is it in the Magical Tower of Zorn the Mad?

Plus the Antimagic Field spell negates ones own magic.

I know in my quick example I only mentioned anti magic. So to be more clear I'm also talking about: Dead magic, wild magic, suppressed magic, absorbed magic, and lots and lots of other types of effects that effect magic.


My bigger point is how nearly ALL DMs have NO problem telling the player of a mundane character "sorry your character is useless, go sit in the corner" ALL the time.

BUT

Those same DMs would NEVER EVER even DREAM of saying something like that to a player of a spellcasting character even for a couple minutes.

Example Two:

Player of mundane character: "Ok, I get out my axe and will chop through the wooden door...."

DM- "Oh your axe just bounces off the door and you can't cut into it at all!"

Player of mundane character: "Ok, I get out my tools and will take the door off it's hinges..."

DM-"Oh..um...no...you CAN'T the door is too well made! It's impossible!"

VS

Player of spellcaster: "Ok I will use Magic Hand to touch the door..."

Dm: "At the touch of your MAGIC spell the door swings OPEN!"

 

[Hussar]

This is really bad design on a game level. The fighter doesn’t need to change to meet this, this needs to change.

The world itself wants casters to be needed, and that is often more of a problem than any class design.

No disagreement.

It’s an example though. Just one of many many examples where if you’re a fighter, either you are taking aback seat while the casters sort things out or you are not needed at all.

And can you PLEASE stop with Percy? Good grief your own statistics don’t back you up. He was the least damaging of ALL the fighter types. In a group with no wizards or sorcerers.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that

 

[Chaosmancer]

Lots of responses to my last point. Not going to reply individually.

The fact that some casters benefit in some ways doesn’t change the fact that casters cast spells by definition. When they’re doing that they aren’t benefiting from the magic items (and if they aren’t doing that then what’s the point of being a caster)

Sure a cleric can benefit from better armour. But not to as great an extant as the fighter because the fighter will always be in the front ranks fighting whereas the cleric sometimes won’t they’ll Be healing or buffing.

Sure the bladesinger can benefit from a magic sword, but everytime they cast a spell they aren’t.

Fighters benefit more. Because they get more use from these things.

So a caster gets less benefit from a cloak of protection +2 that increases their AC and all saves... because they will be casting spells and therefore no one will attack them or force them to make a saving throw? This doesn't make any sense. A cleric with magical armor who isn't attacked isn't suddenly not benefiting from the armor. And what about archer fighters? Do they not benefit from armor as much, because they are in the back lines?

And here's the thing, the bladesinger? Whenever they cast a spell? They have determined that spell is BETTER than using their magical sword. A fighter with that same magical sword isn't benefiting more from it, they simply don't have anything BETTER to do instead of attacking.

This argument doesn't hold water.

Magic items aren’t optional in most games, neither are feats. Claiming its so is fighting against reality. If you’re playing D&D without these things well don’t complain martials are useless when the solution is right in front of you and already in play with most groups.

Don't care about most games. Care about the design of 5e. Designers made 5e to be balanced (in theory) without feats and without magical items. If fighters are only worthwhile if they have feats and magical items... then the design intent was failed.

And most groups who use feats and magical items... still say the martials aren't as powerful as the spellcasters. So, it isn't even a solution to begin with.

Fighters get plenty of fun stuff at levels. Feats are awesome. Also extremely flexible and allow you to customize your character to an extent other classes can’t. Also a feature.

Fighters get a total of two more feats compared to every other class. That's it. And while feats in theory represent an extremely flexible way to customize your character... in practice that isn't the truth. Most characters increase their ASI's to 20, taking two feats, then they get one of a few key feats. Most feats go unused. Additionally, most martial style feats are exclusionary, you can't mix sharpshooter and polearm master.

Additionally, feats that grant spellcasting? There are 21 of them. All of which improve a spellcaster by making them more flexible. Feats exclusive to weapons? I counted 15 and remember, most of these don't work together and include things like Revenant blade, Gunner, and Savage Attacker.

If we were talking a LOT more feats, or there were a LOT more synergistic or compelling options? Maybe you'd have a point. But there isn't, and they don't.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What's the DPR of a fighter without a magic weapon fighting a wererat? It's not like this is an effect that needs a 16th level caster to create. This is a pretty common CR 2 monster. And your fighter can't actually do anything to it. Every caster can hurt that wererat. Every... single... one. Your fighter gets to take damage for the encounter. Congratulations.

But but but a CLEVER fighter would grab a torch and use that to deal fire damage to the rat, and with three attacks a round that is 3 damage per round!

/s

 

[Emberashh]

But the DM doing lots and lots of things directly against the mundane character is not "giving a finger", right?

The turns have tabled.

 

[Hussar]

Though you would be hard pressed to find detailed rules that say you somehow "must" use flying foes as they are "common".

Then of course there is the adventure focus problem. Sure "monster X" is "very rare" all over the world. Sure you can walk through whole kingdoms and never see a "monster X". Oh, but head over to the Cursed Ruins of Azal-Zah, and guess what "monster x" becomes common.

I'm just going by what's written in the book.

There are literally a dozen or more flying opponents at every single Challenge Rating in the Monster Manual. So, yes, flying opponents are pretty common. If you were to remove every flying creature from the Monster Manual, the Monster Manual would be pretty darn slim.

But the DM doing lots and lots of things directly against the mundane character is not "giving a finger", right?

Again, not doing things "directly against" the mundane character. Is using a stirge giving the finger to a mundane character? Giant Eagle? Any of a thousand other flying critters in the game? There's exactly ONE monster that can cast Anti-magic Field in the Monster Manual and that's an Archmage. Which doesn't even have Anti-magic listed as a spell. The DM literally has to change the monster to do it.

As to the rest of your post, I'm sorry, but, I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Could you state your point directly, without resorting to examples? I'm having a reading fail.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I'm just going by what's written in the book.

There are literally a dozen or more flying opponents at every single Challenge Rating in the Monster Manual. So, yes, flying opponents are pretty common. If you were to remove every flying creature from the Monster Manual, the Monster Manual would be pretty darn slim.

Again, not doing things "directly against" the mundane character. Is using a stirge giving the finger to a mundane character? Giant Eagle? Any of a thousand other flying critters in the game? There's exactly ONE monster that can cast Anti-magic Field in the Monster Manual and that's an Archmage. Which doesn't even have Anti-magic listed as a spell. The DM literally has to change the monster to do it.

As to the rest of your post, I'm sorry, but, I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Could you state your point directly, without resorting to examples? I'm having a reading fail.

If I were to guess, the overall intent of the post is. The martials gets the finger all the time, couldn't casters get the finger with at least some regularity?

The answer, of course, is yes.

But because the content of the game has been designed such that martials get the finger all the time, and casters do not. As a result it feels much more like DM targeting when it happens to the caster.

Bit of a catch-22 though.