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

[HammerMan]

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,

I missed this how?

There are still battle master manouvers,

That is a subclass so not in unless you want us to factor in caster subclasses

bonus reaction additional attacks from sentinel,

Circumstantial at best

Magic weapons that add additional dice of damage as well as fixed bonuses.

Some do but as a player you have 0 control on weather you get one or not.

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

There are only 4 non caster classes fighter rogue monk barbarian. I do often say fighter /rogue is better then the sun if it’s Parts.

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

 

[TheSword]

There are only 4 non caster classes fighter rogue monk barbarian. I do often say fighter /rogue is better then the sun if it’s Parts.

Paladins don’t need to cast spells, they can use their slots purely for weapon damage.

Yes if we’re comparing level 17 then that’s 6 levels where the fighter already has their third attack to play around with.

 

[TheSword]

To the original posts point, I think it was proved quite early on that there is no ‘magical dependence’ in 5e only ‘magical convenience’.

 

[HammerMan]

To the original posts point, I think it was proved quite early on that there is no ‘magical dependence’ in 5e only ‘magical convenience’.

Okay then you can’t help us remove something you can’t see

 

[HammerMan]

Paladins don’t need to cast spells, they can use their slots purely for weapon damage.

So to prove spell casters are not important you want to take a half caster and use there spell slots.

Yes if we’re comparing level 17 then that’s 6 levels where the fighter already has their third attack to play around with.

I do think a fighter 11 rogue 6 is better than a fighter 17 so you got me there.
Of course warlock 14 paliden 3 is better still

Oh bard 10 warlock 5 paliden 2 is better stiil

Cleric 17 is better yet. Maybe Druid 17 is better depending on wildshaoe rules.

 

[TheSword]

So to prove spell casters are not important you want to take a half caster and use there spell slots.

I do think a fighter 11 rogue 6 is better than a fighter 17 so you got me there.
Of course warlock 14 paliden 3 is better still

Oh bard 10 warlock 5 paliden 2 is better stiil

Cleric 17 is better yet. Maybe Druid 17 is better depending on wildshaoe rules.

I’ve never said casters aren’t important. Just that they aren’t essential. They are helpful but not indispensable. It is not an automatic choice to play a caster and people who chose to play martials aren’t dumb/naive/ or short sighted not to see the amazing wonder that are casters. Playing a martial isn’t a drag on the party ticket and it’s clear that some people considering martials aren’t that familiar with what they are capable of.

Just to reference your comment about subclasses. The fighter subclasses add more to damage potential than wizard ones do. Subclasses have already been assumed given one of the first comparisons was with a bladesinger.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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 seriously think that the fact that wizards get TWO ways to attack and the fighter only gets one is a point in your favor?

Frankly the fact that fighter's basically are incapable of doing anything except attacking AC and dealing hp damage is a point of this conversation, just not one that is good for your position.

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.

You are right, the Bladesinger is doing a significant fraction of the damage of the Greatsword Wielding Battlemaster... and has superior AC, and access to far more powerful control abilities than the Battlemaster. I mean, I'm certain you'll try and tell me that the ability to knock a single enemy prone on a save is somehow far superior to knocking an entire mass of enemies unconcious, and that somehow the battlemaster's ability to do a little more damage isn't being overshadowed by the Bladesinger's ability to utterly reinvent what the battle even looks like.

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.

Barbarians do less damage, but you want to know what makes Paladin's crazy? Spells. That flying mount? I could be a fighter and hope to find one and maybe capture it and spend multiple sessions training it, and then mourning it when it was inevitably killed... or I could be a paladin and use magic to summon a better, more powerful, and immortal flying mount.

And this is only combat, this is the last refuge you have. Fighter's are abysmal in anything other than combat, and even if you can convince me that mages can't outperform martials in combat, they can easily get 85% of the way there. So 100%, 100% and 85% superior. That's not looking good for martials.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

You know, if you were approaching this as "Wow, casters are so much weaker than they were in 3.5!" I don't think anyone would even bat an eye. You are right, casters are a lot weaker than they were in 3.5

But, at the end of the day, you aren't getting the problem. Sure, maybe the fighter isn't doing 1d8+8, maybe they are doing 2d12+3d6+12. But, at the end of the day, they are only capable of dealing damage one attack roll at a time. If a fighter comes to a door, then their plan is to open the door and attack whatever is on the other side. And if they lose initiative, then they will attack on their turn. And if they win initiative, then they will attack on their turn. And if the enemy outnumbers the fighter... they will attack on their turn.

I'm actually reminded of a situation a friend of mine dealt with. He was transported to a demiplane to fight by a powerful being. He was a high level cleric. He was fighting zombies. An actual endless horde of zombies. We stopped keeping track of how many zombies he killed. He unleashed all his destroy undeads, all his castings of blade barrier, then started in on spirit guardians.

A fighter wouldn't have had any option other than attacking, one zombie at a time. My friend's cleric never even got touched by a single zombie, while killing hundreds of them. A fighter in the same situation? Likely would have been killed, because every turn he'd have been attacked by 9 zombies, without fail.

Casters have more options. They don't have to just attack AC. They don't have to just deal damage. They can do those things, and do them incredibly effectively, but that is not the ONLY thing they can do. It is the only thing pure martials can do. They have no other tools.

 

[Incenjucar]

Out of curiosity, are there any existing well-regarded 5E mythic fighters in the community, via Drive Thru etc? I'm wondering if there's a well-used example of this sort of thing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Paladins don’t need to cast spells, they can use their slots purely for weapon damage.

Using a spell slot to deal extra radiant damage on hit is still using spells.