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

I think it shows one of the issues though in how martial abilities are so very spread out among classes and subclasses. Whenever a spell is introduced it's added to a pool that becomes available to some spellcasting class at some point. By contrast whenever a martial ability is introduced it either needs to be attached to a very specific subclass, or they need to create a specific subclass to support it.
these dynamics, IMO, should definitely be the other way around, a chronomancy wizard, a shadow sorcerer and a spore druid can all conjuror up the same ice storm despite it being thematically relevant to none of their specific themes apart from the fact 'it's magic', while a barbarian does not learn how to fight barefisted and the fighter does not know how to make an opportunistic (sneak) attack without specific feats or multiclassing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

By that logic, creativity is the ultimate tool.
No. It's more difficult to make plans (be creative) when you have no tools. Casters have more tools, hence they can be more creative.

Which circles back to which class you play is up to you, it’s not WrongBadFun for someone else to play a different class, different edition, or different way.
This is like the strange argument that balance doesn't matter because you don't have to pick a bad class. Bad classes shouldn't exist; all classes should be good.
 

No. It's more difficult to make plans (be creative) when you have no tools. Casters have more tools, hence they can be more creative.


This is like the strange argument that balance doesn't matter because you don't have to pick a bad class. Bad classes shouldn't exist; all classes should be good.
Good is subjective. There should be choice. There are lots of objectives when roleplaying some people consider playing a class of which damage dealing is only one. How do you balance classes when balance is being determined by the 10% end of the bell curve that wants to optimize classes. The folks who use terms like DPR and likes to white room math hammer stuff?
 

In my playgroup. most people play characters with at least some magic. Not everyone, not all the time- sometimes people are happy to play simpler characters where less thought is required. There's certainly a lot of visceral fun to be had in just throwing dice and imagining yourself slaughtering foes with a big sword, for example.

I recently polled the players in my campaign, asking them questions about not only my game but what they found enjoyable/frustrating. One player straight up admitted they don't like the complexity of casters, but they find themselves playing one all the same. They explained that when they played, say, a Fighter or a Barbarian, that they didn't have enough answers in their toolbox. It's like the old adage, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

But in this case, they often found themselves wishing they had more tools to interact with the game. Melee in particular can be brutal in D&D. Enemies can deal lots of damage, they might have riders on their attacks, special traits like auras, or reactions that can completely wreck their character.

Like, say, for example, something like a Chuul, which hits you, automatically grapples you (requiring you to use a full action to break free) and, if it so chooses, can also poison and also paralyze you so you can't even act, and the only thing you can do about is roll a decent saving throw.

But characters with spells might be able to Shield or Silvery Barbs the initial attack so it doesn't hit. Or cast a spell that increases their AC or imposes disadvantage on attacks to help them survive getting in melee. Maybe they cast a spell to boost their saving throws. And if they do get grappled, maybe they can Misty Step as a bonus action to get away without having to make an ability check and still have their Action to use.

And sure, all that stuff is limited use, but it's a resource their class just doesn't have. It's nice to be able to have an active defense in your back pocket, and so they decide they'd rather have such things than not, so they end up playing casters.

Now it's not like non-magic characters have nothing- you might have great ability checks to break free and great Con saves. Maybe your class lets you freely Withdraw or Dodge so you can weave in and out of combat. Maybe you can reduce incoming damage, gain an extra action, or have a little self healing. At high levels you might have the ability to just make a saving throw a few times per day.

But none of this lets you say "you know what? I just don't want to deal with this sort of thing today", which is something magic can let you accomplish. I started playing again recently, and just last session, I survived a Roper because I had the foresight to cast Blink. And yeah, that cost a precious spell slot, and I had to get lucky, but I was able to nope out of a bad situation. Something I wouldn't have been able to do as a Fighter or Barbarian.

Does it make my choice of class superior? Not necessarily, but it sure is nice having options. Like I said in my previous post, it's about potential power.

Now on the flip side, caster-heavy games have their own problems at lower levels. Enemies don't die as quickly as they need to, because you don't have sustained damage. You might lock down an enemy for a round or two, but you're just delaying a problem that isn't going anywhere! So ideally, you want a balanced group.

At least until the party starts using spell combos. That's enough to trigger my DM PTSD right there, when two players ask each other "Say, what do you suppose happens if I cast Sleet Storm over the area of your Evard's Black Tentacles?" and the Druid chimes in "I can cast Entangle if you want!" (Shudders).
 

Now on the flip side, caster-heavy games have their own problems at lower levels. Enemies don't die as quickly as they need to, because you don't have sustained damage. You might lock down an enemy for a round or two, but you're just delaying a problem that isn't going anywhere! So ideally, you want a balanced group.

This is what makes Gish-type character so attractive to me personally. They have both options and can go hard into melee. I am including Rangers and Paladins in that.
 

I’ll go way out on a limb on a D&D fan site here and say “The World’s Most Popular Role Playing Game” (tm) is great as is.

All editions, all settings, all tables, all classes are perfect for a lot of people - “the market has spoken”, as Stephen Colbert puts it.

If you need “everyone is like a caster”, 4e already nearly did that with encounter and long rest powers for everyone.

If you need “caster supremacy”, we’ve already told you how to get that: high level in most (all?) editions, with a DM who lets you nova and long rest every fight, and monsters that didn’t get the memo on caster supremacy. That way, your enemies don’t plan/focus/plot against your Waldorf the Magnificent, so QED for caster supremacy.

If you need Rogue or Fighter supremacy, those could be solved for too.

There are a ton of ways to do D&D. It’s not broken and it doesn’t need “more balance”.
 




True, but this is one of the few rpg related things I've seen debated online that is also discussed irl. At least where I am.

IRL I have not come across anyone who complains about the imbalance. I come across players who mention it, but they all are either ok with it or in some cases actually prefer the imbalance.

In the games I play I've actually heard more complaints about the new buffed fighter in 5 months of 2024 than I heard about full casters in 10 years of 5E.
 

Remove ads

Top