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

[Gammadoodler]

As long as the action that inflicts a condition is sacrificing damage-dealing, then the trade-off should balance fine.

Seems like it'd be a balance, the same way that spells often do damage and impose conditions.

And in general, for a melee martial, to get to a position where they could impose such a condition, they've had to close distance, expending their movement, and put themselves in harms way.

I'd expect that you could model some of the debilitating actions off of some paladin smites and be in the right ballpark.

 

[Yaarel]

Seems like it'd be a balance, the same way that spells often do damage and impose conditions.

And in general, for a melee martial, to get to a position where they could impose such a condition, they've had to close distance, expending their movement, and put themselves in harms way.

I'd expect that you could model some of the debilitating actions off of some paladin smites and be in the right ballpark.

Spells do less damage than warrior damage does.

Spells sacrifice damage for the sake of inflicting conditions, mobility/containment, stealth/surveillance, etcetera.

If warriors want these kinds of nondamage effects, it requires trading out for less damage dealing.

 

[Minigiant]

The warriors are extremely powerful in combat encounters − especially at the lower tiers.

The difficulty that warriors face happens in noncombat encounters − especially at the higher tiers.

To boost warrior combat powers even further at the lower tiers looks already breaking or broken.

It's even more simple.

The warriors are extremely powerful in lower tier combat encounters and decent in lower tier noncombat encounters.

The difficulty that warriors face happens in any type of encounter that includes high tier aspects.

To boost warrior combat powers even further at low tier aspects breaks both low tier style encounters and high tier style encounters.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The warriors are extremely powerful in combat encounters − especially at the lower tiers.

The difficulty that warriors face happens in noncombat encounters − especially at the higher tiers.

To boost warrior combat powers even further at the lower tiers looks already breaking or broken.

I think we've all seen the melee martial thing where they wind up sitting on their thumbs because they cannot reach any enemies with their movement.

Likewise, when there are a bunch of enemies, the proportion of enemy combat power a fighter can eliminate in a turn shrinks significantly since they can only affect a single target at a time.

Warriors are not universally strong in combat all the time. They are great in dungeons and other small-scale encounters. Fine at medium distance, and ok to bad at long distances.

 

[Yaarel]

To boost warrior combat powers even further at low tier aspects breaks both low tier style encounters and high tier style encounters.

I agree. Boosting warrior combat at low tiers makes them broken. Meanwhile boosting warrior combat at high tiers is moot, because the warriors still lack capabilities to cope with scenarios that require magical effects to overcome. So the warriors stay underpowered at the highest tiers, despite being overpowered at the lowest tiers.

 

[Emberashh]

 

[Gammadoodler]

Spells do less damage than warrior damage does.

Spells sacrifice damage for the sake of inflicting conditions, mobility/containment, stealth/surveillance, etcetera.

If warriors want these kinds of nondamage effects, it requires trading out for less damage dealing.

Most spells can be cast safely from range.

Melee martials do not operate safely from range. They are, of necessity, within melee range of the enemy.

I think there is an argument that they've traded safety for potence and/or availability.

Maybe there is still an argument for a certain level of trade-off between damage and control, but I don't think its as cut and dried as you make it seem.

 

[Yaarel]

I think we've all seen the melee martial thing where they wind up sitting on their thumbs because they cannot reach any enemies with their movement.

Mobility is a good example of where warriors can fail frequently at the highest tiers.

The Treantmonk playtesting was in the mid tier, and they specifically mentioned how much they appreciated the warrior having Cloud Jaunt because of its mobility.

Likewise, when there are a bunch of enemies, the proportion of enemy combat power a fighter can eliminate in a turn shrinks significantly since they can only affect a single target at a time.

That seems fair too. An onslaught of mooks should be something a mythic warrior should be able to manage.

When comparing spells, each 9 damage (2d8) that a single target spell deals, corresponds to 7 damage (2d6) that a multi target spell deals. Multi target deals less damage than single target, but it is still substantial.

Warriors are not universally strong in combat all the time. They are great in dungeons and other small-scale encounters. Fine at medium distance, and ok to bad at long distances.

Of course, we are talking about "typically", during official "standard" encounters. It is about frequency during gameplay.

When you say "bad at long distances" I assume you mean the casters gain frequent long rests.

The rest schedule is a separate issue.

Personally, I make every rest a short rest. However, twice per LEVEL, a player can change any particular rest into the effects of a long rest. This represents a "deep" rest, a return of hope, a new look on life, a rallying in morale. Because the deep rest only happens twice per level, the slot casters always have the same schedule as the at-will classes.

 

[Minigiant]

I agree. Boosting warrior combat at low tiers makes them broken. Meanwhile boosting warrior combat at high tiers is moot, because the warriors still lack capabilities to cope with scenarios that require magical effects to overcome. So the warriors stay underpowered at the highest tiers, despite being overpowered at the lowest tiers.

It's not just boosting martials at lower tiers.
It's boosting martials at lower tier style fights.

Everything works fine with small goblins.
If you go from small goblins to medium goblins to large goblins to large goblins. From wood doors to stone doors to metal doors. The game skews.

The second you add high tier stuff, the martials are locked out and the casters are forced to prepare specific spells.

 

[Yaarel]

Most spells can be cast safely from range.

Melee martials do not operate safely from range. They are, of necessity, within melee range of the enemy.

I think there is an argument that they've traded safety for potence and/or availability.

Maybe there is still an argument for a certain level of trade-off between damage and control, but I don't think its as cut and dried as you make it seem.

Only the Wizard class avoids melee. Some Wizard builds welcome melee.

Cleric, Druid, Bard, even Warlock and Sorcerer are all competent in melee.

Most Humanoid foes have ranged weapons that can target players that "kite", whether casters or archers.