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

[Chaosmancer]

@Emberashh

I'm argeeing with you.
What I am saying is D&D need to step up an define what level 15 is.

Are level 15 PCs...
1)Human
2)Inhuman
3)Superhuman
4)Myths

Then dseign ALL the classes to match that.

Which one is my Warforged? Are they merely human?

 

[Yaarel]

Brainstorming here:

Game of Thrones
Student (1−4) with Professional (5−8) as cap.

Lord of the Rings
Professional (5−8) with Master (9−12) as cap.

Batman
Master (9−12) with Grandmaster (13−16) as cap.

X-Folks X-Men
Grandmaster (13−16) with Legend (17−20) as cap.

Superman
Legend (17−20) with Epic (21−24) as cap.

Compare D&D 5e and Marvel Super Heroes.

D&D 5e	MARVEL SUPER HEROES
Zero tier (level 0)	Shift-0 (0)
Zero tier (level 0)	Feeble (2)
Student tier (1−2)	Poor (4)
Student tier (3−4)	Typical (6)
Professional tier (5−6)	Good (10)
Professional tier (7−8)	Excellent (20)
Master tier (9−10)	Remarkable (30)
Master tier (10−12)	Incredible (40)
Grandmaster tier (13−14)	Amazing (50)
Grandmaster tier (15−16)	Monstrous (75)
Legend (17−18)	Unearthly (100)
Legend (19−20)	Shift-X (150)
Epic (21−22)	Shift-Y (200)
Epic (23−24)	Shift-Z (500)
...	...

Something like that. There is a sense of where to locate each superhero within D&D. Thus what D&D Fighters can do.

Both gaming engines are a bit arbitrary and inconsistent (D&D spell effects at each level, MSH power effects). Nevertheless, it seems possible to smooth out the math and expectations for both engines with a similar math curve.

(Sometimes I disagree with the official Super Heroes stats. For example it has Storm at "Amazing" Weather Control, but I would place her at "Unearthly", or in one episode even at Shift-X or higher. But, it is easy for these superheroes to level up in both systems. This is more about the math for the setting, rather than the details of specific character.)

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not really sure 20th level actually applies to those last two. For one, a knight of a powerful kingdom? At 20th level? That's bit overkill dontcha think? I mean, we're talking about a more or less unique individual here. There's very likely only one 20th level character of this class on the entire planet. I'm thinking that the actions of that character getting to 20th level has likely superseded the concerns of a single kingdom.

And a trash character that can't buy beer? Again, how? How could you possibly advance to 20th level and not be sitting on a mountain of gold in D&D?

You spent it all on NFTs (Non-Fungible Tridents) because your insight score is crap and you ran into a sleazy bard.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No, the original point that was made, which I have quoted repeatedly, was, once again:



So don't accuse me of moving the goal posts. That's what you are doing. I have referred directly back to that quote repeatedly in my responses. Nor did I state:


So don't put quotation marks around your straw man version of my argument, as if you are quoting me when you are just making stuff up. Thank you.

You are right. You didn't say that. The person I was actually arguing with before you jumped in WAS saying that. Sure, quote Hussar at me, I never once said whether he was right or wrong and never once got involved in your discussion with him.

But hey, love to see that you will accuse me of changing an argument I was never participating in. Instead of, you know, the argument I WAS participating in.

My argument, which I have made very plainly, repeatedly, is that contrary to the challenge issued by Hussar, quoted above, casters cannot be "number 1. Every time." That when we look at actual records of games, for which I used Critical Role because there is a large sample that has been meticulously tracked, we see that casters are rarely the top damage dealers, and when they are it is typically because of AoE.

Oh, so Casters CAN be the top damage dealers? Cool. See, I never once said casters are always and forever and ever the top. I said they can be the top, if they want to be. But, it is kind of weird. Why are phrasing it as "and when they are it is typically because of AoE." As if being because of AoE's means it doesn't count? I mean... do AoE's not deal damage? Are we not looking at damage? What's the problem with that being when casters are the top of the damage dealing?

If you don't like the Critical Role example, please, present some evidence of your own. From actual play, that can be verified, not an imaginary scenario designed to support your argument - anyone can do that. If your hypothesis is strong, then it should stand up to objective evidence.

Why do I need evidence when you just agreed with me? And what sort of evidence would you accept as "verified"? Can't be any of my games, because you can't verify them. Do I need to go and track down another actual play podcast where someone tracked all the combat data just to show that spellcasters can be the top damage dealer? A position you ALREADY conceded?

Having presented actual evidence, not made up evidence, I stand by my assertion that martial classes are the primary damage dealers in most situations. Nor have I disputed that casters are more versatile, though your claim that they have "hundreds of additional options" is confusing. Do you mean in aggregate - like all casters put together? Or one caster with hundreds of options, which doesn't seem possible.

I was talking about spells. Sure, one caster in play doesn't have hundreds of options... but when building a caster you DO have hundreds of options. Martials don't.

Setting aside hyperbole, are we talking all casters/caster sub-classes, including partial casters + sub-classes, and all martial classes+sub-classes? Or is this really a wizards vs. fighters thing, again?

I have been discussing spellcasters (including half-casters) versus martials (ie those who can't cast). I don't see how that is very confusing.

 

[Hussar]

You can have whatever you want, provided it’s additive and not a replacement for stuff that is popular and fun just because it’s not to your taste.

IOW, no, we can't have what we want. Because anything we try to do will be automatically blocked by those who insist that the problem doesn't exist.

These are systemic problems that are grounded right at the root of the game. The disparity starts relatively small in Tier 1 and then gets wider and wider as time goes on. There's an absolute refusal to recognize any actual problems so, any solutions are band-aids at best. To actually solve the problem, we need a system where Level X of Character Class Y is equivalent to Level X of Character Class Z.

Without that parity, we can't solve anything. And, we aren't allowed to solve anything because there is enough people who will automatically gainsay any attempt at a fix by claiming that the problem doesn't exist or that the problem lies ANYWHERE but with the class power structures. It's bad DM's, it's bad encounter design, it's bad monster design, it's bad players. On and on and on. Anything but actually a problem with the non-caster classes.

It really is a shame.

 

[Hussar]

I don’t think I mentioned a subclass? My idea isn’t to use a subclass.

See, you're not allowed to do that according to @TheSword . Any changes MUST BE additive. You are NOT ALLOWED to change base classes. By wolfie. No biscuit for you!

 

[Hussar]

No, the original point that was made, which I have quoted repeatedly, was, once again:



So don't accuse me of moving the goal posts. That's what you are doing. I have referred directly back to that quote repeatedly in my responses. Nor did I state:


So don't put quotation marks around your straw man version of my argument, as if you are quoting me when you are just making stuff up. Thank you.

My argument, which I have made very plainly, repeatedly, is that contrary to the challenge issued by Hussar, quoted above, casters cannot be "number 1. Every time." That when we look at actual records of games, for which I used Critical Role because there is a large sample that has been meticulously tracked, we see that casters are rarely the top damage dealers, and when they are it is typically because of AoE.

If you don't like the Critical Role example, please, present some evidence of your own. From actual play, that can be verified, not an imaginary scenario designed to support your argument - anyone can do that. If your hypothesis is strong, then it should stand up to objective evidence.

Having presented actual evidence, not made up evidence, I stand by my assertion that martial classes are the primary damage dealers in most situations. Nor have I disputed that casters are more versatile, though your claim that they have "hundreds of additional options" is confusing. Do you mean in aggregate - like all casters put together? Or one caster with hundreds of options, which doesn't seem possible.

Setting aside hyperbole, are we talking all casters/caster sub-classes, including partial casters + sub-classes, and all martial classes+sub-classes? Or is this really a wizards vs. fighters thing, again?

Oh please. Talk about straw man. While yes, if you absolutely parse the sole quote you provided and NOTHING else that was said, sure, you can discount it. Of course a caster that focuses on nothing but buff/debuff effects is not going to do much damage. Gee, there's a shock. Ignoring any context while claiming that you are making a solid argument is tiresome.

Have you actually tracked the damage in your game? Have you done your due dilligence and tracked the damage totals IN YOUR GAME over 20 rounds? No? Then how about you actually do the work first before you start claiming victory.

 

[Emberashh]

the problem lies ANYWHERE but with the class power structures. It's bad DM's, it's bad encounter design, it's bad monster design, it's bad players. On and on and on.

Its both very clear you're referring to me and also very apparent you glossed over the umpteen million times Ive explained in this topic that its all of these things, and that they are not all equal problems.

 

[Hussar]

Its both very clear you're referring to me and also very apparent you glossed over the umpteen million times Ive explained in this topic that its all of these things, and that they are not all equal problems.

Oh, yes, although not solely you.

It's any or all of these things EXCEPT any possibility that it might be a problem with the fighter class itself. No matter what, no problem CAN EVER be because of the Fighter.

Like I said upthread, over seventy pages now and you cannot even admit to the possibility that the problem might be with the class. No matter what evidence is brought, no matter what arguments are made. Doesn't matter. The problem MUST NEVER be because of the class structure. So, we spend page after page after page chasing our tails and nothing ever gets suggested as a solution because the problem cannot even be discussed without being endlessly derailed. And any solution that is suggested is automatically shut down because we must never, EVER touch the base framework of the classes.

Hey, take your victory lap. You've won. You've won this argument ever since 4e got shot down in a ball of flames. It started when they tried changing fighters with Book of Nine Swords and people lost their minds. It reached the heights when 4e actually gave us the real possiblity of playing D&D without casters. Then you spiked the ball in the end zone with 5e and fighters got stuffed right back in their box again.

 

[Emberashh]

It's any or all of these things EXCEPT any possibility that it might be a problem with the fighter class itself.

Please quote where I said "except".

Better yet, explain to us all where, precisely, you are deriving the word "except" from the phrase "all of these things".