D&D (2024) Youre All Wrong. Its Not A Martial vs Caster Situation

[ezo]

In all these discussions, one thing I find notable is that I see a lot of martials in play, but I see very few non-casters.

Even the Fighters and Rogues are usually sporting some spells from something, maybe 1 in 10 PCs is actually a non-caster.

Yep, this is nearly always the case IME as well. If not spells, magical features replace spells.

I can't think of the last time I had a PC who didn't have spells or magical "something" through race, class, subclass, or feats.

 

[ECMO3]

Ok. That’s fine. Then you have an ideological issue with casters rather than a practical one, and that’s of no interest to me.

Having an issue with class balance because a fighter can take magic initiate to turn them into a caster rather than a martial seems to me to miss the point of classes.

I don't have an ideological issue. I am just stating facts.

It is not "caster rather than a martial". A caster is someone who casts spells. That is a pretty simple and unassailable concept.

A martial is a bit more esoteric and open to interpretation. I would say someone who relies on weapons and gets extra attack - all Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Paladins and Rangers are martials. So are Valor Bards and Pact of Blade Warlocks.

Rogues are a bit debatable, but I think anyone's definition of martial includes fighters .... whether or not they are also casters.

That’s ok though, because WotC is making a game that frankly doesn’t care about these ideological issues,

Thank goodness!

 

[ezo]

Do you honestly think a level 1 slot or two meaningfully changes a class?

Does it have to? Of course not. Can it? Definitely!

A 1st-level human rogue with Shadow Touched has disguise self and invisibility at their disposal. That certainly makes them meaningfully better. Fey Touched with misty step and hunter's mark works potently, and in different ways. Sleep (in 2014 anyway, maybe in 2024...?) is also potent and can meaningfully change a classes potential.

Now, perhaps those are not "meaningful changes" to you? Obviously it is subjective.

 

[Zardnaar]

To be clear I said Paladin was the highest damaging caster at the largest number of levels from 1-20.

Take all the other 2024 casters (Ranger, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Warlock, Bard, Sorcerer) and go through each one of them for every level starting with level 1 and ending with level 20 and I think the new 2024 Paladin will be the highest damage at more of those levels than any of those other classes. That is what I said and I stand by it.

If you throw non-casters into that I am confident Paladin would be ahead of Monk and Rogue, but I am not as confident they would be ahead of Fighter or Barbarian.

I watched a heap of Treantmonk videos and a lot of them were reasonable. Paladins come online later than the others.

Fighters and Barbarians were fairly consistent near the top. Paladins drifted in and out (he used 4 encounters, 4 rounds 1 short rest).

If it'd less tgan say 16 rounds Paladins will be better.

Paladins offer more than damage though. Think they didn't do well tier 1.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't have an ideological issue. I am just stating facts.

It is not "caster rather than a martial". A caster is someone who casts spells. That is a pretty simple and unassailable concept.

A martial is a bit more esoteric and open to interpretation. I would say someone who relies on weapons and gets extra attack - all Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Paladins and Rangers are martials. So are Valor Bards and Pact of Blade Warlocks.

Rogues are a bit debatable, but I think anyone's definition of martial includes fighters .... whether or not they are also casters.



Thank goodness!

Caster vs martial for me is mostly primary casters. Yes technically EKs, Rangers, Paladins cast spells but most of the damage is martial.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Caster vs martial for me is mostly primary casters. Yes technically EKs, Rangers, Paladins cast spells but most of the damage is martial.

I think the line for me lays in the middle of the half-caster, artificer I consider more caster than martial, ranger more martial than caster, and paladin is smack dab in the middle.

 

[cbwjm]

I go with the following if I even need to define them.

• Caster. Base class has spellcasting
• Martial. Base class gains an ability that improves their weapon capabilities (extra attack or sneak attack)
• Hybrid. Made up of both Caster and Martial, tend to lean on one more than the other.
  • Paladin, Ranger. More martial.
  • Artificer. More caster.

I don't bother taking into account subclasses. A fighter and rogue are martial classes, it doesn't matter that they have subclasses that make them a hybrid.

 

[ECMO3]

Caster vs martial for me is mostly primary casters. Yes technically EKs, Rangers, Paladins cast spells but most of the damage is martial.

I would say that you should call that martial vs non-martial, or qualify it as full caster. Rangers and Paladins are casters by any definition .... they have spells and it is a core part of their identity and class abilities.

Aside from spellcasting, Paladins have two more specific class abilities that rely on spells and Rangers have four more abilities that are spell specific, this is aside from subclass abilities with more spells.

Now if you had one of those homebrew non-magic Ranger then it might not be a caster, but RAW they are casters by any measure.

 

[Zardnaar]

I would say that you should call that martial vs non-martial, or qualify it as full caster. Rangers and Paladins are casters by any definition .... they have spells and it is a core part of their identity and class abilities.

Aside from spellcasting, Paladins have two more specific class abilities that rely on spells and Rangers have four more abilities that are spell specific, this is aside from subclass abilities with more spells.

Now if you had one of those homebrew non-magic Ranger then it might not be a caster, but RAW they are casters by any measure.

Technically yes as in they cast spells sure. I don't regard 1/3rd casters, race or feats as casters as such.

1/2 casters I consider hybrids.

Primary casters. That means access to level 9 spells. Ymmv of course.

 

[ECMO3]

Primary casters. That means access to level 9 spells. Ymmv of course.

Primary caster is better than just caster, if that is what you are talking about. But while that logic might work for 17th level characters, 1st level Rangers and Paladins have 1st level spells just like the full casters.

On top of that, 1st level Rangers can actually cast more spells per day than any other class* and 1st level Paladins can cast the same number as Bards, Sorcerers, Clerics and Druids. If you assume PCs are using all their spell slots, Rangers in tier 1 are keeping up with full casters pretty well and in some cases will still be casting after those guys have run out of slots.

*Technically a 1st level Warlock who gets 3 short rests can cast the same number as a Ranger.

Really my point is this - if you are comparing spell casting classes to non spell casting classes you should compare classes that cast spells to classes that don't cast spells. A ton of both the Ranger and Paladin capability come from their spells. Calling them "martials" and excluding them when trying to demonstrate how relatively strong or weak "casters" are is a bit disingenuous IMO. In terms of abilities, capability and general play style, a Paladin is a heck of a lot closer to a Valor Bard or Bladelock than they are to a Rogue or Monk.