D&D (2024) Martial/Caster fix.

[ECMO3]

I do not think that Fighters beat out Bards, or many other spellcasters at Tier 2, or even earlier.

Fighters beat everyone at level 2-4 at skill checks. The key for the fighter is the Tactical Mind is only used after you fail the check and it only consumed if you make the check after failing it. Spells do not offer that sort of flexibility.

Comparing spells:
Enhance Ability is the only spell that offers the sort of flexibility tactical mind offers. It is generally a little less powerful on a single check most of the time (although that varies with DC). However you have to precast it. So you cast it and it is possible you would have passed all the checks anyway, or you still fail the checks, and the resource is used in either of those cases. As a full caster you can you get no uses at all at 2nd level, 2 uses a day at 3rd and 3 uses at 4th. Tactical Mind is more than that at 2nd level and equal with no short rests at 3rd and 4th.

Pass Without Trace this is mathematically much more powerful than tactical mind for stealth checks, but it is only a single skill it works on, and again you use the resource and it is consumed even if you would pass anyway. The resource is still used in the unlikely event you fail too.

Animal Friendship only works on beasts, is mathematically weaker generally and the resource needs to be used ahead of time.

Charm Person only works on beasts, is mathematically weaker generally and the resource needs to be used ahead of time.

Enlarge only works on strength checks, is mathematically weaker generally and the resource needs to be used ahead of time.

Friends is weaker, requires a precast and has a huge downside

Guidance is probably the closest thing to Tactical Mind at this level. However compared to tactical mind it is far weaker, needs to be precast and needs to be a specific ability. Like Expertise it is mathematically possible for guidance to be better than Tactical Mind with many checks. But that is highly situational; where you have a chance to precast it, know specifically which ability to call out and will be doing it over and over again. In combat Guidance also has an action and concentration cost where Tactical Mind does not. The changes to guidance that make it target a specific ability make it much weaker than 2014. Going into interogating a bad guy I can Guidance Insight or Intimidation but not both and I need to choose ahead of time. Sneaking into the bad guy lair i can Guidance Stealth or Perception but not both.

I think that is all the spells available to PCs from level 2-4 that effect skill checks.

Tier 2 has a lot more spells available, I don't think it is possible for a caster to be good in combat and keep up with a fighter when it comes to skill checks. With the wider selection of spells they can probably specifically tailor a PC to be competitive, but they will be VERY weak at combat if they do that.

Bear in mind that 2 short rests might be what the game was allegedly calibrated around, but it is relatively unusual for 2 short rests to be the norm for a game, with 1 being closer to the average in most it appears.

Even with no short rests they can use Tactical Mind 2 times at level 2-3 and 3 times at level 4, which is equal or more uses than a spell caster has for 2nd level spells.

The two factors you are not taking into into account I believe are:
1: Ability score distribution: Assuming that each character picks skills according to a reasonable understanding of their strengths, a Fighter will have Perception with a +0 ability bonus, Athletics with a +3 ability bonus, and two other skills with probably no, or a small bonus.
A spellcaster might have Perception at a +0 bonus, and three other skills at a +3 ability bonus.

I disagree with this. All classes either have the same point buy or the same chance of rolling for skills so if you are using those systems it is a wash. If you are using standard array though Fighters are better than most full casters

If you are using Standard Array:

Fighters have a +2 Strength, +2 Dex, -1 int, 0 Wis, +1 Charisma.

Wizards are -1 Strength, +1 Dex, +2 Int, +2 Wisdom, 0 Charisma

Clerics are +2 Strength, -1 Dex, 0 Int, +2 Wis, +1 Cha

Sorcerers are 0 Strength, +1 Dex, -1 Int, +1 Wisdom, +2 Charisma

Warlock are -1 Strength, +2 Dex, +1 Int, 0 Wis, +2 Charisma

Druids are -1 Strength, +1 Dex, +1 Int, +2 Wis, 0 Charisma

I think the fighter stacks up pretty darn well there having the maximum in Strength and Dexterity, a +1 in Charisma and their only negative is Intelligence which is among the least important in play. Warlock is probably better overall getting +2 in both Dex and Charisma, but the others are either equal or worse than fighter IMO.


You also mention Perception and that is the perfect example for how powerful mind is:

DM: you walk into a room there are some dusty rags on the floor, shadows from your torches dance around the corners of the room, everyone roll a perception check.

Fighter: I rolled a 15.

DM: Ok

Fighter: Did I pass because if I didn't pass the check I want to use Tactical Mind.

DM: Well you don't know if you passed or not.

Fighter: Well if I failed I want to use Tactical Mind

DM: Ok roll for Tactical Mind

Fighter: 9 so now it is a 24.

DM: Ok you sense that there are ......

There is no other ability I know of that would have worked here like this.

2: Spells. The bonus granted by Tactical mind is quite similar numerically to that granted by Advantage.

It depends on the DC. 5.5 is generally slightly better than advantage. However it is only used if it turns a failure into a success making the mean not a good measure of its mathematical power. Its actual median for the resource cost is actually higher than 5.5.

Even if the spellcaster does not have a spell that will resolve the situation without requiring ability checks, the Enhance Ability spell grants advantage to ability checks as a mere level 2 spell.

And you have to precast it, you need to choose an ability and at level 4 it only can be used 3 times a day and you can burn the resource and still fail. Tactical Mind will turn an ability check into a success 3 times a day minimum at 4th level and more if you get any short rests.

Sure the wizard or whatever is burning their combat resource for non-combat situations, but so is the Fighter if they are using Tactical Mind.

Ok to start with you only use the resource if you turn a failure into a success. This can't be understated. You can try Tactical Mind on every single failed check and never burn a use until you succeed because of it. This is extremely important in this discusssion, because attempting tactical mind does not use any combat resources. Only passing a check does.

That said in the 2024 rules using it, and turning a success into a failure, is no signficant loss in combat power for most players from level 2-4 because there is usually no reason to use Second Wind in combat from level 2-4. In the 2024 rules a potion of healing can be used as a bonus action, making 2nd Wind irrelevant (at that level).

In 2024 a level 2-4 fighter who uses 2nd Wind for anything other than an ability check is wasting resources unless for some reason you did not buy potions of healing.

As a result, I don't see second wind in combat at all between levels 2-4 any more. I do see it at level 5+, mostly for the movement boost, often with max hit points and only for the movement boost. I also see tactical mind in combat for skill checks (usually escaping a grapple or climbing).

(I'm not counting Guidance since we generally end up comparing fighter to wizard, but it is definitely a consideration if the spellcaster isn't a wizard.)

I included it above when I broke all the spells available at 4th level.

 

[Ashrym]

It looks something like this --> action surge, green flame blade one guy, damage second guy, attack second guy, attack second guy, maybe nick attack second guy, Action Dissonant Whispers on first guy (disadvantage on save), reaction attack on first guy, bonus action wrathful smite on first guy (disadvantage on save). Now the guy is a full move away from you and frightened and can't move back closer. The thing with the frightened guy is if you keep hitting him with one attack he keeps making his save at disadvantage. You can do that exactly like that twice a day with free casts, after you burn your free casts you have to go to doing one or the other, but then you have push you can use instead of Dissonant Whispers - less effective without the disadvantage on the save and using a lower DC but with slightly more damage.

I just wanted to point out that at high levels a battle master can combine menacing attack with push using any weapon from tactical master to play the frighted and away game.

Relentless makes it once per turn, not two free casts in a day, plus spending superiority dice can due it to up to three targets. EK's burn through slots fairly fast with wrathful smite and dissonant whispers if they try to maintain the strategy.

They also don't need to worry about an off casting stat to make up with disadvantage. Battle master's tend to have either a good STR or DEX score.

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.

BMX Bandit / Angel Summoner appeals to absurdity from a faulty premise. It's not that casters don't have powerful abilities -- it's that casters don't always have those abilities available unless the 5MWD is in play. BMX Bandit / Angel Summoner also assumes a lack of powerful options for BMX Bandit, which isn't correct because martial damage is a useful and powerful option in D&D.

It is funny though.

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.

Tactical mind is nice, but it's built off a shared resource. Granting bardic inspiration can be done far more often, and reliable talent is still the best option IME.

Combining tactical mind with some of the battle master maneuver bonuses can make for a big bonus though. This is more prevalent after relentless.

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?

I would argue monks and rogues aren't that simple, and I can build a mechanically simple warlock; a warlock that's simpler than my rogues or monks.

The generic fighter is not behind in skills, they are WAY, WAY ahead in skills as compared to a Rogue or any other class at levels 2-5.

I disagree with this pretty hard.

The issue isn't the bonuses or the ability score spread (because both can be DEX based) but the fact the rogue has more skill proficiencies and expertise all the time while the fighter has two or three uses of second wind that recover one use on a short rest, and those are also used up healing the fighter instead.

Even using tactical mind for all second wind uses is only a couple of bonuses and that is not as good as more smaller bonuses. It's comparable but not ahead. Reliable talent kicks tactical mind to the curb when it comes online.

2: Spells. The bonus granted by Tactical mind is quite similar numerically to that granted by Advantage. Even if the spellcaster does not have a spell that will resolve the situation without requiring ability checks, the Enhance Ability spell grants advantage to ability checks as a mere level 2 spell.
Sure the wizard or whatever is burning their combat resource for non-combat situations, but so is the Fighter if they are using Tactical Mind. (I'm not counting Guidance since we generally end up comparing fighter to wizard, but it is definitely a consideration if the spellcaster isn't a wizard.)
Past level 3, the chance that a spellcaster will have a spell that will just be able to resolve the situation increases, but the relative resource cost decreases for them, since they not only gain more level 2 slots, but also higher-level ones as well.

Advantage doesn't help much hitting a DC 20 action when the bonus is +0 but tactical mind can increase that chance a lot. A bonus makes it possible to hit a higher number and two rolls does not. Two rolls makes it easier to hit an easier DC.

Enhance ability also comes at the cost of maintaining another concentration spell, and maintaining it for longer periods of time becomes costly on slots.

OTOH, enhance ability can be applied to a lot more checks than burning through second wind uses. Either has advantages.

Rogues used to be arguably the best skirmishers and skill monkeys for the first two tiers of the game...which according to WotC is around 97% of D&D. Now monks are unquestionably better skirmishers all the way to 20, fighters unquestionably better skill monkeys at those lower tiers, and other classes also got relevant upgrades - even barbarians.

The issue with tactical mind is the limited resource that's shared with healing. It's a useful bonus on a limited basis but it doesn't overshadow bards with expertise and jack of all trades, or rogues with expertise because those can come into play far more often.

Font of inspiration granting a lot of bonuses more often is easily better, and so is reliable talent. Bards and rangers add spell support as well.

Fighters get a good bonus once in a while but are not the best.

Neither class got much of a combat boost. Rogues are still inexplicably left out of getting extra attack at level 5, and rangers remain a solid but uninspiring choice as a ranged attacker (though better than many realize as melee fighters, but that's not the archetype that a lot of folks are going for).

Cunning strike and devious strike are pretty good additions, as well as some weapon mastery.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I'd say rogues don't get extra attack because of how sneak attack scales, that's their damage ramp, not extra attack.

i think most people who suggest it aren't considering it so much through the angle of a damage ramp but as a way to increase rogue's consistency of getting their SA damage in the first place, as with only one attack it makes them a bit of an all of nothing gamble, i know light weapons exist but that means the rogue doesn't get to be using a different mastery.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

An easy Wizard nerf:

• d4 HD
• No Cantrips
• No Arcane Tradition

I think that we're looking at bringing classes closer to parity with each other in the various aspects of the game, not making the caster experience worse. We're after equality, not punishment.
Also, none of those changes really address the main issue of the martial/caster discrepancy, which is the capability to do interesting and impactful actions in and out of combat.

 

[Clint_L]

I'd say rogues don't get extra attack because of how sneak attack scales, that's their damage ramp, not extra attack.

It doesn’t scale well enough to keep pace with the damage increase that other martial classes got.

TBH, I think rogues should be ahead on damage, given that they are behind on survivability. Right now, they are behind in both, and are mediocre scouts. They don’t have a great niche in 2024.

 

[Clint_L]

I think that we're looking at bringing classes closer to parity with each other in the various aspects of the game, not making the caster experience worse. We're after equality, not punishment.
Also, none of those changes really address the main issue of the martial/caster discrepancy, which is the capability to do interesting and impactful actions in and out of combat.

I find that what is missing from a lot of these conversations is much attention on the drawbacks faced by pure casters, especially in 2024: low reliability and low damage output in most situations, especially in tiers 1-2 (ie almost all of D&D).

Your barbarian will seldom have a combat where they don’t contribute anything. That happens with pure casters all the time. Casters are very reliant on having prepared the right spells and foes failing clutch saves. Their reliable damage is also very low.

As a DM, I notice which characters had a rough session in terms of their character not having much success. Especially in my beginner campaigns, it’s usually pure casters.

 

[Belen]

I find that what is missing from a lot of these conversations is much attention on the drawbacks faced by pure casters, especially in 2024: low reliability and low damage output in most situations, especially in tiers 1-2 (ie almost all of D&D).

Your barbarian will seldom have a combat where they don’t contribute anything. That happens with pure casters all the time. Casters are very reliant on having prepared the right spells and foes failing clutch saves. Their reliable damage is also very low.

As a DM, I notice which characters had a rough session in terms of their character not having much success. Especially in my beginner campaigns, it’s usually pure casters.

I have a very similar experience. I have never had games where the casters outshone the martials. The most power players in my current campaign are the fighter rune knight and the barbarian monk. They wipe the floor with the casters every session.

 

[James Gasik]

So I'm running a game with an all-caster party. Here's what I've noticed:

*Fights take awhile, as the party has to whittle down vast HP pools.

*About 50% of battles (unless I can find ways to really get them to stretch their resources) are almost pointless to actually run. The enemies are alive and kicking, but they're often rendered impotent by magic, and most of the fight is waiting for their hit points to run out.

*The other half of fights, they're on the back foot, and have to dig deep to just stay alive. I can expect someone to go down and have to be brought back up with magical healing at least once.

It's really kind of wonky, as I never know which fight is going to turn into a cakewalk or a total nightmare. The CR system really breaks down here, because battles that by the numbers shouldn't be that hard have gone way south, and battles I thought would be a PITA were won fairly easily.

Another game a friend of mine is running is martial-heavy, and what he reports is that, the party has great damage and tends to end fights quickly, but has little staying power, as they simply hemorrhage hit points in battle (no shield users, Barbarians are always using Reckless Attack, he has a melee Rogue in the party). Sometimes they're wanting to take short rests after each fight, which isn't viable, and the most combats he can pack in a "game day" comes out to 3.5 on average.

With no real way to reliably crowd control large packs of enemies (outside of the Cleric's Spirit Guardians) or get enemies to focus on hard targets (outside of, ironically, the Cleric's Spirit Guardians), the enemies will jump the biggest threat and pound them into paste because nobody has any active defenses (like Shield) to mitigate incoming damage (I mean, the Barbarian has Rage, but he's like the one Barbarian in existence that doesn't have the Bear Totem power, so there's lots of damage he can't cut in half). Plus, there are some kinds of encounters he simply can't use against the party, because they lack answers for them, and he dreads any time he has to use a spellcaster- usually they go down fast, but the wrong spell can really mess up the group- they live in fear of Slow and howled in fury when a Druid used Spike Growth against them.

Which I guess makes sense, the game kind of wants you to have a balanced party for just these reasons. The problem is, there's this rather common belief that it doesn't really matter what you play, as long as someone has the ability to cast healing spells.

 

[Clint_L]

So I'm running a game with an all-caster party. Here's what I've noticed:

*Fights take awhile, as the party has to whittle down vast HP pools.

*About 50% of battles (unless I can find ways to really get them to stretch their resources) are almost pointless to actually run. The enemies are alive and kicking, but they're often rendered impotent by magic, and most of the fight is waiting for their hit points to run out.

*The other half of fights, they're on the back foot, and have to dig deep to just stay alive. I can expect someone to go down and have to be brought back up with magical healing at least once.

It's really kind of wonky, as I never know which fight is going to turn into a cakewalk or a total nightmare. The CR system really breaks down here, because battles that by the numbers shouldn't be that hard have gone way south, and battles I thought would be a PITA were won fairly easily.

Another game a friend of mine is running is martial-heavy, and what he reports is that, the party has great damage and tends to end fights quickly, but has little staying power, as they simply hemorrhage hit points in battle (no shield users, Barbarians are always using Reckless Attack, he has a melee Rogue in the party). Sometimes they're wanting to take short rests after each fight, which isn't viable, and the most combats he can pack in a "game day" comes out to 3.5 on average.

With no real way to reliably crowd control large packs of enemies (outside of the Cleric's Spirit Guardians) or get enemies to focus on hard targets (outside of, ironically, the Cleric's Spirit Guardians), the enemies will jump the biggest threat and pound them into paste because nobody has any active defenses (like Shield) to mitigate incoming damage (I mean, the Barbarian has Rage, but he's like the one Barbarian in existence that doesn't have the Bear Totem power, so there's lots of damage he can't cut in half). Plus, there are some kinds of encounters he simply can't use against the party, because they lack answers for them, and he dreads any time he has to use a spellcaster- usually they go down fast, but the wrong spell can really mess up the group- they live in fear of Slow and howled in fury when a Druid used Spike Growth against them.

Which I guess makes sense, the game kind of wants you to have a balanced party for just these reasons. The problem is, there's this rather common belief that it doesn't really matter what you play, as long as someone has the ability to cast healing spells.

Good post. I agree with your general experience, especially about parties that are too heavy on casters or martials being kind of wonky to run (unless you have experienced players who know how to compensate, but none of my players are @ECMO3).

I just ran a game with a group that was missing their two main casters (sorcerer and cleric) but were pretty easily handling some tough encounters through sheer damage output and toughness...and then two ghosts, which I thought would be a fun but not dangerous encounter, with a CR of "easy" according to the encounter builder, almost TPKed them.

 

[Corinnguard]

So I'm running a game with an all-caster party. Here's what I've noticed:

*Fights take awhile, as the party has to whittle down vast HP pools.

*About 50% of battles (unless I can find ways to really get them to stretch their resources) are almost pointless to actually run. The enemies are alive and kicking, but they're often rendered impotent by magic, and most of the fight is waiting for their hit points to run out.

*The other half of fights, they're on the back foot, and have to dig deep to just stay alive. I can expect someone to go down and have to be brought back up with magical healing at least once.

It's really kind of wonky, as I never know which fight is going to turn into a cakewalk or a total nightmare. The CR system really breaks down here, because battles that by the numbers shouldn't be that hard have gone way south, and battles I thought would be a PITA were won fairly easily.

Another game a friend of mine is running is martial-heavy, and what he reports is that, the party has great damage and tends to end fights quickly, but has little staying power, as they simply hemorrhage hit points in battle (no shield users, Barbarians are always using Reckless Attack, he has a melee Rogue in the party). Sometimes they're wanting to take short rests after each fight, which isn't viable, and the most combats he can pack in a "game day" comes out to 3.5 on average.

With no real way to reliably crowd control large packs of enemies (outside of the Cleric's Spirit Guardians) or get enemies to focus on hard targets (outside of, ironically, the Cleric's Spirit Guardians), the enemies will jump the biggest threat and pound them into paste because nobody has any active defenses (like Shield) to mitigate incoming damage (I mean, the Barbarian has Rage, but he's like the one Barbarian in existence that doesn't have the Bear Totem power, so there's lots of damage he can't cut in half). Plus, there are some kinds of encounters he simply can't use against the party, because they lack answers for them, and he dreads any time he has to use a spellcaster- usually they go down fast, but the wrong spell can really mess up the group- they live in fear of Slow and howled in fury when a Druid used Spike Growth against them.

Which I guess makes sense, the game kind of wants you to have a balanced party for just these reasons. The problem is, there's this rather common belief that it doesn't really matter what you play, as long as someone has the ability to cast healing spells.

The first time I participated in a 5e adventure, I was the only martial (Fighter) in a party dominated by arcane spellcasters (College of Eloquence Bard, Wild Magic Sorcerer, Bladesinger Wizard). The group had a single teleporter.

Anyhow, while the game wants the party to be balanced, it's really something everyone in the group has to agree on in session zero IMO. Otherwise, everyone is going to create their own character without thinking about party composition. There is nothing wrong with that as this approach is pretty RL.