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

[HammerMan]

Now show me how it works out over several dozen sessions at high level at a real table.

Didn’t you dismiss mine and @OldSchoolGamerGirl giving actual experience ?

I love spellcasters I think they’re a lot of fun to play. I also think martials are a lot of fun to play too and very effective. Even at 11th level I’ve seen martials mash up legendary creatures far faster than the casters could.

I can’t imagine how optimized the non caster has to be and how unoptimizable the caster must be.

 

[HammerMan]

And what is the constant refrain we hear about the Tarrasque?

"Too weak, too easy to kill"

That is perfectly said

Everything we are told fighter's should aspire to, massive AC (25), massive hp, great saves, massive number of attacks, massive damage... and it is a joke.

Yup that’s it in a nutshell.

 

[TheSword]

Arcane Grimoire +1/+2/+3 increases spell save DCs, if that's what you are asking about.

Or unless there is an enemy with a ranged attack. Or unless an enemy charges them from a different direction. Or unless the fighter is out of position.

Trust me, I know EXACTLY what they are capable of. Had a DM weep for joy the single time he hit the bladesinger in our group. Over the course of the entire campaign, the guy was hit a single time.

And the problem is, an okay caster is still incredibly powerful, and you only NEED to be "okay" at martial things to be just about as good as a martial.
And if you want to compare nova between a caster and a martial, you are going to be very very sad for martials.

Parry isn't a feat, do you mean Defensive Duelist?

Also, Elven Accuracy is fun, it allows for increases on rolls that use dexterity.... and intelligence, wisdom or charisma. Who do you think makes more attacks using intelligence and charisma? Martials or spellcasters?

Following up, note how you used Polearm master twice? It is one of the ONLY feats in the game that has combos, and it ONLY works with polearms, and what is the thing I was literally told this month about magical polearms? "Well, if you want magic weapons, you shouldn't have specialized. Everyone knows that magical swords are far more common than magical polearms, that's the point." Kind of weird that the single most powerful melee choice is to have one of three identical weapons, and then you end up risking not getting magical items from specializing too much.

One of the more recent One DnD interviews. Probably this one?

Cheers. Not gonna watch it now but will try and check it out later.
i was referring to defensive duelist.

Arcane grimoire is a good example. Except it’s only benefiting a portion of the spells the wizard casts. Just the ones with saves. Whereas a fighters weapon is affecting every single attack. So it kinda elaborates my point.

You don’t need to be okay at martial damage to beat a martial. The bladesinger with their one handed weapon, and green flame blade is doing a fraction of the damage a Great weapon mastery, great weapon wielding, Battlemaster, with sentinel or mage slayer for extra reaction hits. They can conceivably be doing 8 attacks in a round twice per encounter with a short rest to refresh. This is just the fighter. Multiclass some martial classes together or play a barbarian or a Paladin and it gets even more crazy. Sit on the back of a mount for advantage against smaller targets. Flying mount to totally circumvent all the nonsense about flying foes.

Y’all talking like you’ve never played a high level martials.

 

[SteveC]

I’ve been reading treant since 3e. I know where he stands. Part of it being that a wizards strength is enhanced by working with the martials not in competition with them.

Your wizard gets to reshape reality. Then they lose the power. next. Your white room theory wins
Now show me how it works out over several dozen sessions at high level at a real table.

So you're saying "you just reshaped reality, but what are you going to do NEXT? I can keep hitting things all day." I honestly don't see how that's an argument. As someone who's played since the White Box era, and played high level adventures many times over, wizards and spellcasters are playing a different game than anyone else. They have been since day one, but a lot of the balancing mechanics from the old days are not in 5E.

I'm not saying fighters aren't fun to play for people. They just aren't in the same league as spellcasters in almost every edition of the game. If you don't see how force cage or shape change or wish or plane shift or time stop or maze or control weather or reverse gravity or ... any of dozens of other example of things that a fighter can't do put them in a different category I don't know what to say.

This thread being about magical dependency and what to do about it can't even start if you say "there isn't a problem." I know that I'm coming across as rude here and I 100% do not mean to be, I'm just sort of stunned at this notion.

 

[TheSword]

So you're saying "you just reshaped reality, but what are you going to do NEXT? I can keep hitting things all day." I honestly don't see how that's an argument. As someone who's played since the White Box era, and played high level adventures many times over, wizards and spellcasters are playing a different game than anyone else. They have been since day one, but a lot of the balancing mechanics from the old days are not in 5E.

I'm not saying fighters aren't fun to play for people. They just aren't in the same league as spellcasters in almost every edition of the game. If you don't see how force cage or shape change or wish or plane shift or time stop or maze or control weather or reverse gravity or ... any of dozens of other example of things that a fighter can't do put them in a different category I don't know what to say.

This thread being about magical dependency and what to do about it can't even start if you say "there isn't a problem." I know that I'm coming across as rude here and I 100% do not mean to be, I'm just sort of stunned at this notion.

I’m saying you can’t measure the effectiveness of an entire group of classes based on one spell that you can only do a couple of times in your entire career. It’s great for a one shot, it’s good every other time. Until it’s gone.

There are whole new balancing mechanisms. Chief of which is concentration which has changed the way spells play together in the field. The second is the 1 spell limit, even for quickened spells. I played the heady days of 3e where casters could spend 5 rounds before a fight spelling up and toss off multiple significant spells in a round. It just doesn’t work like that anymore.

Breaking concentration - is a substantial risk. I see it happen all the time in the games I’m playing - it’s a substantial risk.

There’s also a lot of assumptions that the timing is always favouring the caster. As soon as the wizards initiative is worse than the foe (or the other people in the party) that fireball/meteor swarm becomes a lot harder to cast because now the foe is amongst you.

I’m happy to agree that wizards can do amazing things out of combat. I agree with that. I just recognize that combat is a big part of 5e and that 17th level fighters don’t walk around doing 1d8+8 damage.

 

[HammerMan]

that 17th level fighters don’t walk around doing 1d8+8 damage.

the playtest got rid of the great weapon power attack -5 to hit for +10 damage.
If you get a +3 longsword and have a 20 Str you DO deal 1d8+8 per hit

Now the example I saw the other Peter give was d12 or d10

But let’s go best case 2d6 is the best weapon in the game that is 2d6 plus stat mod plus magic

 

[TheSword]

the playtest got rid of the great weapon power attack -5 to hit for +10 damage.
If you get a +3 longsword and have a 20 Str you DO deal 1d8+8 per hit

Now the example I saw the other Peter give was d12 or d10

But let’s go best case 2d6 is the best weapon in the game that is 2d6 plus stat mod plus magic

We haven’t seen how the playtest will come out yet. We’re talking about 5e as it stands now.

I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it but I’m seeing spells like banishment being nerfed too which is a good thing:

 

[MichaelSomething]

Dungeon Crawl Classic?

...wouldn't the better answer be to just...redesign the game so that you don't have to give anyone the finger for them to be on par?

 

[HammerMan]

We haven’t seen how the playtest will come out yet. We’re talking about 5e as it stands now.

You are in the wrong forum. This one is labeled 5.5.
So take ing out the thing the rook out makes sense.

So what can I add to my 2d6+8?

To be fair if we do d8 we can add+2 from fighting style. If we do the 2d6 we can reroll 1s and 2/ for lower min.

 

[TheSword]

You are in the wrong forum. This one is labeled 5.5.
So take ing out the thing the rook out makes sense.

So what can I add to my 2d6+8?

To be fair if we do d8 we can add+2 from fighting style. If we do the 2d6 we can reroll 1s and 2/ for lower min.

Well the discussion arose several dozen pages back because someone said casters currently out damaged martials. Something I strongly disagree with at this point.

There are lots of ways of increasing damage beyond weapon+stat bonus x base attacks

Great weapon master does still add some damage in the playtest, just not the huge volume it did before. There are still battle master manouvers, bonus reaction additional attacks from sentinel, great weapon mastery or mage slayer. Magic weapons that add additional dice of damage as well as fixed bonuses. Like sun blade, flame tongue, frostbrand or holy avenger. The effect of critical hits and the abilities that boost critical hits. It will still be plausible for a fighter to get 8 attacks in a round twice in a single combat for multiple encounters in a day.

A fighter can also get a lot of benefits multi-classing with other martial classes.

Looking to the future it will be interesting to see what happens with weapon types in the final shakedown.