D&D (2024) Martial/Caster fix.

[Theory of Games]

Simple solution:

 

[CreamCloud0]

How is it a "penalty" if the PCs are all on the same team? Looks more like a discussion players should have about what kinds of characters everyone is playing and what roles those characters will fill.

because BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner syndrome, even when the players are on the same team and working towards the same goals they typically desire to feel like they're equally worthwhile and contributing as much as their teammates.

How are you being "penalized"? Having fewer options is a feature, not a flaw, for a lot of folks - I am currently playing a martial class as my main, and in general I have never much cared for wading through a catalogue of spells or other options as part of my game play. It's good that there are different options for different tastes, and if you want a more complex fighter or rogue, there are options for that as well.

I played a berserker barbarian (2014 rules) for a campaign and loved it. I never felt like my character wasn't making strong contributions - they were both the primary tank and strong damage dealer, plus pretty decent at the exploration aspect! Why should I be "penalized" by having that option taken away?

Having different options for different tastes is not "penalizing" folks. It's just having different options. You're not being "penalized" when a class isn't exactly to your personal taste.

your martial having less options isn't an issue if it's a choice but it frequently isn't, at least it's not a choice between a simple martial and a complex one, if players want to have a simple loadout that's fine by me, my issue is in having less effective options and that being decided by the aesthetics of the character i want to play, you can have your wall of beef barbarian but where is my field controller master tactician that can lock down enemies as well as a wizard with hypnotic pattern or web? or my field medic? if i want to play a martial healer what are realistically my options? a bag full of potions? but that's not really dependant on my class, i could have that AND have the full lineup of cleric or druid spells, and i'll quote @James Gasik from a few pages ago where they neatly outlined a half-dozen situations of what i'm talking about where martials just have less and often worse tools to work with.

In my experience, it comes down to two things:

1- "Martial" classes (ie, ones that are intended to solve problems with more mundane means, like Attack Actions and skill checks) can encounter situations where neither of these is sufficient to the task.

Look, I know that someone is going to tear apart any examples I make, or say something like "skilled play", or "Improvise Action", or "just house rule it", because I've been in a lot of these discussions, but here's a few:

*NPC caster flies away/teleports/goes ethereal to escape. The Martial can't even track them, they're just, gone, man.

*You come upon a door that has been magically sealed, say, with Arcane Lock. You simply cannot hit the DC's required to open or break the door down.

*You're fighting a creature resistant to (or even immune to) normal weapons, but is vulnerable to cold damage.

*Your enemies decide to ambush you. Pass Without Trace makes the DC to detect them almost (or maybe even) impossible.

*You want to ambush your enemies. Oops, turns out they had an Alarm spell going. Or are resting inside a Tiny Hut.

*You get into a fight with a Medusa. One of your allies is turned into a stone statue. Unless the DM adds it to the game, the default answer to this is....magic!

*In a crucial fight, you get trapped inside a Wall of Force and must watch helplessly as your allies fight.

//snip//

Now D&D is a team game, and it's intended to give everyone equal "spotlight" time. But there are things non-casters cannot do, and very few things casters can't do. It's great if you're really good at making skill checks, or attacking eight times a turn, but there are scenarios those things can't solve.

And yeah, sure, there are things magic has a hard time with, like Magic/Legendary Resistance, or DM's deciding to toss "antimagic fields" everywhere, lol, but in a lot of games, it can seem like the game is designed for the answer to a lot of problems is "magic man".

 

[ECMO3]

because BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner syndrome, even when the players are on the same team and working towards the same goals they typically desire to feel like they're equally worthwhile and contributing as much as their teammates.

I know this is true, but I have never personally experienced it.

your martial having less options isn't an issue if it's a choice but it frequently isn't,

First off it is not universally true that martials have less options in 2024. You can build a martial with tons of options and often more options for a specific situation than a full caster has.

Second the only time it is not a choice is if people do not understand the rules. If someone understands the rules and is playing a PC build with less options it is because they chose to play a build with less options. Now I will agree that some people, especially on this board, want to be able to chose what they call a "martial" and have the same number of options at high level as someone who chooses a highly complex caster build, but those people still make a choice to not have those options if they choose to play that "martial"

 

[ECMO3]

No you don't.

Like I said before, the Barbarian, Fighters, and Monks (I'll use the Playtest term Warrior Group) are balanced with Priests at tiers 1&2.

Warriors have the best damage
Priests have the best support.
Experts have the best skills.

This is just not true. You are way oversimplifying this.

These three things change radically over levels.

Fighters have THE BEST skills at levels 2-5. Not good skills, THE BEST by a wide margin. It is not even close. They are way better than any experts at these three levels and still generally better than experts until level 9 (and still better than Rangers even well past level 9).

 

[ECMO3]

the issue as i see it is that it creates an inequality in the viability of my options based primarily on the flavour/archetype of the character i want to play, why should i be penalized for wanting to play a badass claymore swinging knight or a skilled and sneaky dagger throwing rogue rather than a mysterious magic-weaving mage?

Ok I have a few issues with this. First the inequality is very much level specific. We keep talking about classes (or more accurately class categories) but ignore that the relative power changes drastically based on the specific level you are talking about. Saying "full-casters" are stronger than "non-casters" (classes with no spells) is just simply not true across the board, it is not even true for most levels when comparing some "full-caster" classes and some "non-caster" classes.

The Rogue, Monk and Fighter are not "penalized" at all at some levels. At some level they can be better than any Wizard or Sorcerer you can build.

Further when it comes to characters that are "penalized" for weak thematic choices, that is more true for casters than it is non-casters based on spell selection. Full Casters who choose weak spells for thematic reasons are weaker at all levels than Martials or other full casters who make more powerful choices. I agree that at high levels Wizards and Sorcerers can be much more powerful than Fighters, Monks, Rogues and Barbarians can be ... but if and only if they choose the best spells. If they choose the weakest spells (for thematic reasons) then they are far weaker than Fighters and Monks can be. Aren't those caster players then being penalized in the same fashion as you claim martials are penalized?

At the end of the day it boils down to choice. The Wizard player who makes a choice to choose weak spells for thematic is not being penalized and likewise a player who chooses to play a Barbarian at level 17 for thematic reasons. Those are just gameplay choices.

 

[cbwjm]

That whole BMX bandit/Angel summoner thing is also something which I've never experienced. I think in the real world, people just pick a class and settle down to play, they don't really care what other options others have and instead get down to playing and having fun. I sort of feel like it's the internet crowd who have made up the issue, for those not perpetually on forums or social media talking about it, it's a non-issue.

 

[Minigiant]

This is just not true. You are way oversimplifying this.

These three things change radically over levels.

Fighters have THE BEST skills at levels 2-5. Not good skills, THE BEST by a wide margin. It is not even close. They are way better than any experts at these three levels and still generally better than experts until level 9 (and still better than Rangers even well past level 9).

Yeah. Only fighters. And specially tailored ones. The generic fighter is behind in skills unless they are decent based due to the imbalance of ability scores.

And fighter lack the magic to help bypass limitations like bards and rangers or brute force versatility of rogues

Throwing out Tactical Mind for that +5.5 to a check is nice though.

Doesn't help Barbarian and Monk. Although Barbarian did get a lot better by being able to roll some skills as Str.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I've formed a few groups over the years at different locations (west coast and east coast). I talk to gamers IRL weekly. There just isn't this discussion about "the problem of martials vs. casters" in the real world. It's only a thing on forums like this.

Nah it's a real problem, and we know it's a real problem because

1: Not only is it a recurring subject in every D&D-related forum I've ever been to, but...

2: It's also interestingly not a recurring subject in several discussion forums where D&D isn't the main system being discussed, and finally...

3: I know several people irl who refuse to play several systems or classes specifically because of the caster martial imbalance issues. Systems in question? D&D 5, PF1, D&D 3.0-3.5.

How are you being "penalized"? Having fewer options is a feature, not a flaw, for a lot of folks - I am currently playing a martial class as my main, and in general I have never much cared for wading through a catalogue of spells or other options as part of my game play. It's good that there are different options for different tastes, and if you want a more complex fighter or rogue, there are options for that as well.

I played a berserker barbarian (2014 rules) for a campaign and loved it. I never felt like my character wasn't making strong contributions - they were both the primary tank and strong damage dealer, plus pretty decent at the exploration aspect! Why should I be "penalized" by having that option taken away?

Having different options for different tastes is not "penalizing" folks. It's just having different options. You're not being "penalized" when a class isn't exactly to your personal taste.

I'm not objecting to simplicity of design, but I'd prefer if simplicity of design wasn't used as a cudgel to beat down martials. Why is it always that martials have to be simple? Why can't we have a mechanically complex martial class? Why can't we have a mechanically simple caster?

 

[Theory of Games]

Nah it's a real problem, and we know it's a real problem because

1: Not only is it a recurring subject in every D&D-related forum I've ever been to, but...

2: It's also interestingly not a recurring subject in several discussion forums where D&D isn't the main system being discussed, and finally...

3: I know several people irl who refuse to play several systems or classes specifically because of the caster martial imbalance issues. Systems in question? D&D 5, PF1, D&D 3.0-3.5.


I'm not objecting to simplicity of design, but I'd prefer if simplicity of design wasn't used as a cudgel to beat down martials. Why is it always that martials have to be simple? Why can't we have a mechanically complex martial class? Why can't we have a mechanically simple caster?

It's a problem that no one can do anything about, except play some other system (where you will run into the exact same "problem"). IME, Spellcasters dominate all systems, even superhero ttrpgs.

There is no escape

 

[TwoSix]

That whole BMX bandit/Angel summoner thing is also something which I've never experienced. I think in the real world, people just pick a class and settle down to play, they don't really care what other options others have and instead get down to playing and having fun. I sort of feel like it's the internet crowd who have made up the issue, for those not perpetually on forums or social media talking about it, it's a non-issue.

I've 100% seen it play out in real life, most specifically in 3e. I remember vividly having two wizards and a cleric bring the warrior and rogue to a safe place for a tough fight because we didn't have the slots to spare to buff them to keep them upright. And this was at level 12.