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

[Gammadoodler]

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.



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.


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.

By "bad at long distance", I am referring to large maps. Especially those with raised or fortified positions.

 

[Gammadoodler]

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

This is true for particular subclasses and not most of them.

 

[Yaarel]

This is true for particular subclasses and not most of them.

I am just saying, the "fragile" squishy 1e "magic-user" is less true today in 5e, when most casters are also melee.

5e hasnt completely escaped it − the Wizard does still kinda suck in combat encounters during the lowest tier. But generally that design paradigm is obsoleting.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The problematic is the UA weapon masteries. On the one hand, the warrior players greatly enjoyed the mechanic. They appreciated having interesting things to do, and loved dealing huge damage reliably.

On the one hand, the weapon masteries mechanically boost combat power. Combat encounters arent where the warriors need a boost. The result actually made them overpowered compared to casters in a combat encounter.

Generally speaking, it is necessary to keep the weapon masteries, because the mechanic really did make the game more fun and engaging for warrior players, and perhaps this is the most important criterion. However, warriors are already extremely powerful in combat, and to make warriors even more powerful in combat guarantees imbalance compared to other classes.

"the martials were overpowered compared to the casters"

"The sorcerer casts Arcane eruption, deals big damage to all the enemies, and nearly incapacitates every enemy on the field. Later does it again, hurts the barbarian more than the entire encounter and blinds multiple allies"

"Martials only knocked some enemies prone and dealt melee damage"

Kraken Priest? Taken out with hypnotic pattern. And some of those prones were from Tashas.

Another thing to remember? That first fight against that hydra sure sounded impressive right? Those martials dealt over 100 damage in a single round of combat... but it was one enemy, and it was essentially attacked 13 times with action surge (Barbarian 2, Bladelock 3, Champion 6, Paladin 2). That is less than 10 damage per attack.

Sure, it SOUNDS impressive, but when you break down what happened, it really wasn't THAT out of line. And we know that everyone was pretty suspicious about the one-handed, light, dual-wielded lance. I don't think the casters were overshadowed at all, they just didn't dominate the screen like they normally do.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

I'd be fine reducing the damage, but not replacing it entirely. Too many casters can deal damage and inflict a status move or battlefield control. Even with their cantrips. (Vicious mockery, Repelling Blast, Ray of Frost, Chill Touch, ect)

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

No offense, but why do you speak for everyone? Why?
At our table, a table full of vets just as experienced as you and anyone else here, we have had people play champions. Guess what? They enjoyed them - no houserules!

Of course vets like the champion. It's designed for people who don't want to think about the game part of the game, and D&D has long cultivated the attitude of "if you don't want to think about the game, play a fighter". It's circular. Its designed for the old school grognards who didnt care that their class impacted the game less than magic-users and just wanted to have a beer, chuck some dice, and joke around with their buds. Gygax said "seroius players play magic-users" and designed the fighter for people who just didn't care (or likely ran multiple characters alongside their "real" character, the mage). Anyone who wanted more played a different class or a different game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

sigh

And this ignores the power of casters to say that a warrior is "extremely powerful" at low tier combat.

There is no level 1 fighter in the world that kill four goblins in a 1v4 fight, without taking damage and risking life and limb.

At 7 hp a pop, for a total of 28, a level 1 wizard casting sleep which averages 22.5 health of enemies only has to roll above average. And they may well, under the right circumstances, pull out that victory without taking a single attack. It is difficult, but doable.

By level 3, the fighter is no longer risking as much (they have more hp) but they still often can't take out four enemies in a single turn. The Wizard now has to only roll average on sleep, which is 31.5.

/////////////////

Yes, martial characters are good in a fight, but nothing in that Treatmonk video went beyond anything I've seen before. Heck, using the optional flanking rules and you have pretty much the exact same scenario, except the casters can participate at range. It demonstrated nothing that means we need to start talking about nerfing fighters.

Prone is not some god condition that is so beyond the pale of combat. It was just a good option in that scenario.

 

[Umbran]

Can I have my Mythic Fighter now?

Mod Note:
I can't give you a mythic fighter. I can give you the trip out of the discussion you just asked for.

 

[Umbran]

Do you understand the meaning and intent of the word "every" when its placed in front of a noun?

Mod Note:
Being testy in this thread is probably no longer a good move.

Being snarky in this thread is probably no longer a good move.

Doing things that might get you reported in this thread is no longer a good move.

While I am replying to Emberashh here, that warning goes to everyone.

 

[Yaarel]

I'd be fine reducing the damage, but not replacing it entirely. Too many casters can deal damage and inflict a status move or battlefield control. Even with their cantrips. (Vicious mockery, Repelling Blast, Ray of Frost, Chill Touch, ect)

A tradeoff. The more powerful the condition, the less damage possible.

That goes for balancing spells too. Each slot needs to have a clear amount of design space that each spell within it must conform too. Right now, because of the "legacy" spells from earlier editions, some spells are too overpowered for their current slot, and some spells are underpowered for their slot. The entire 5e spell list needs vetting, and various individual spells need reslotting or rewriting.