D&D (2024) Can A Spell Caster Out Damage a Martial Consistently?

[^Dagon^]

To answer the OP question: Depends on the adventuring day and that holds true in all editions, from 1st to 5.5. If the time between rests drags for long enough, a fighter will outdamage a mage no matter what. This is a core concept of D&D and other systems as well and there is no need to change it because it is an excellent tool for the DM to keep things enjoyable for everyone. Let all characters have their moments of glory, it adds to the fun!

 

[DinoInDisguise]

You made the anecdotal claim about GM's you've encountered, the plural of anecdote is not data.

What is the Oberoni Fallacy?

In my travels across the internet, I've occasionally seen mention of a logical fallacy relating to roleplaying games called the Oberoni Fallacy. What is this fallacy, and where does it come from?

rpg.stackexchange.com

@^Dagon^ has a valid point that should be discussed on it's merits. Not dismissed with a non-fallacy.

The "Oberoni Fallacy" is just RPG slang dressed up in a logic cape. It's not a real fallacy—just a frustrated way of saying, "I don’t think rules should need DM intervention to work."

To quote Snarf on this topic;

Generally, though, the problem with this so-called fallacy is that people aren't discussing actual rules inconsistencies, so much as trying to shut down people who are offering their advice with dealing with specific issues. On a higher level, the Oberoni Fallacy isn't a fallacy, it's simply a statement as to the philosophical approach one takes to gaming; one might as well say, to coin a phrase, "Rules, not rulings."

On a side note; sorry Snarf. I quote your wonderful post a lot. But it's only out of respect and admiration for your way with words. It's definitely not because I'm too lazy to argue it myself. Okay maybe that too, but just a little.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

If a blaster I'm thinking ignore fireball or acid sorcerer and transmute.
We are using chromatic orb a lot for blasting.

Indeed. Generally however I've found that the way spellcasters consistently out-damage martials is through the use of persistent duration spells (spike growth, cloud of daggers, summon spells, etc.) combined with lower level or at-will effects.

To answer the OP question: Depends on the adventuring day and that holds true in all editions, from 1st to 5.5. If the time between rests drags for long enough, a fighter will outdamage a mage no matter what. This is a core concept of D&D and other systems as well and there is no need to change it because it is an excellent tool for the DM to keep things enjoyable for everyone. Let all characters have their moments of glory, it adds to the fun!

The issue is that in most situations, I've found the fighter will have run out of their resources before the point at which they have caught up with the mage.

 

[tetrasodium]

@^Dagon^ has a valid point that should be discussed on it's merits. Not dismissed with a non-fallacy..

It was discussed. There was quite a bit of discussion from myself and others on the flaws. Rehashing that from scratch without even an acknowledgement that any of it took place seems like the start of an endless & unproductive loop.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Indeed. Generally however I've found that the way spellcasters consistently out-damage martials is through the use of persistent duration spells (spike growth, cloud of daggers, summon spells, etc.) combined with lower level or at-will effects.

Wouldn't surprise me. Sustain has value. Spikes are useful if they end a fight quickly. 5.5e has generally tried to take a nuanced approach between supporting and reducing sustain, e.g. they buffed witch bolt (which is good because the original sucked), but they had to nerf things like CME because they scaled much too well and were too good at sustain.

The issue is that in most situations, I've found the fighter will have run out of their resources before the point at which they have caught up with the mage.

Precisely. Because everyone is already running on a resource that is functionally finite outside of long rests and long-rest-based (or longer/permanent) resources: hit points. Very limited non-LR sources exist (again, excluding more permanent consumables like potions).

 

[Zardnaar]

Indeed. Generally however I've found that the way spellcasters consistently out-damage martials is through the use of persistent duration spells (spike growth, cloud of daggers, summon spells, etc.) combined with lower level or at-will effects.



The issue is that in most situations, I've found the fighter will have run out of their resources before the point at which they have caught up with the mage.

I've had fairly poor luck with summons due to concentration mechanic.

I'll be playing soon tempted to try a Warlock summoner.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It was discussed. There was quite a bit of discussion from myself and others on the flaws. Rehashing that from scratch without even an acknowledgement that any of it took place seems like the start of an endless & unproductive loop.

@DinoInDisguise linked the quote. The quote is from my thread here:

Thread 'Fallacious Follies: Oberoni, Stormwind, and Fallacies OH MY!'

Oct 20, 2023

I occasionally discuss my dislike of internet conversations that derail into people arguing about arguing, as opposed to discussing the issue at hand. So, instead of having yet another interjection regarding it, I thought I'd go into detail in a thread about two things that I always find particularly pernicious in conversations about RPGs; first, of course, is when someone brings out the dreaded "informal logical fallacy" into a discussion. Second is the choice to create new logical fallacies in order to pwn one's opponents; which is an issue closely related to the misuse of jargon...

• Snarf Zagyg

• 
• 

You will note that there is absolutely zero discussion from you (and no credible discussion IMO from others) "on the flaws" of what I posted. But that's okay! Look, if you want to believe that labeling something a "fallacy" is productive, that's your business.

Generally, though, the problem with this so-called fallacy is that people aren't discussing actual rules inconsistencies, so much as trying to shut down people who are offering their advice with dealing with specific issues. On a higher level, the Oberoni Fallacy isn't a fallacy, it's simply a statement as to the philosophical approach one takes to gaming...

In other words, the purpose of writing is communicating. When you use the term, you are, in fact, communicating. But what you are communicating is not a logical argument (either formal or informal)- you are communicating your status as part of a group.

Don't get salty, bruh. No cap.

 

[^Dagon^]

Indeed. Generally however I've found that the way spellcasters consistently out-damage martials is through the use of persistent duration spells (spike growth, cloud of daggers, summon spells, etc.) combined with lower level or at-will effects.



The issue is that in most situations, I've found the fighter will have run out of their resources before the point at which they have caught up with the mage.

DoT spells are good, that's true. They are actually almost the only damage spells worth taking if you play 5e vanilla (or 5.5). The problem with this kind of spells is that their mechanic is not a full caster's job in general/traditionally. Yes, he can do it, it will work, but there is plenty of other classes that do it too with their skills. DoT spells always existed, they are not new in 5e+ but I think they got buffed while burst damage (which was always a staple for arcane full casters and something no one else could do) got nerfed severely, when it should have been the other way around (or, better still, left as they were).

Hit points are a resource too but how limited are they? Depends on many things, defensive magical items being one of them, number and efficiency of healers being another etc. 5e doesn't really favor defensive builds of warrior classes that much (even looking at the skills, traits etc makes that clear) but if the DM tosses in a few defensive trinkets, things change.

To sum it up, in the end, everything depends on how the campaign is set by the DM. Pacing, number of encounters, tactics of enemies and many many others.

 

[FrogReaver]

The problem with blasting spells is they are mostly very variable in damage output due to multi target. Then there’s the question of whether multi target damage should be discounted.

Thus most of our time isn’t spent actually analyzing the problem, it’s spent arguing over what specific scenario should be baseline (or to weight various scenarios).

My take is that it would be better to define scenarios where casters can out damage a martial than to ask if they can and then argue about what’s the average base case to look at.

 

[Zardnaar]

The problem with blasting spells is they are mostly very variable in damage output due to multi target. Then there’s the question of whether multi target damage should be discounted.

Thus most of our time isn’t spent actually analyzing the problem, it’s spent arguing over what specific scenario should be baseline (or to weight various scenarios).

My take is that it would be better to define scenarios where casters can out damage a martial than to ask if they can and then argue about what’s the average base case to look at.

Well they can't do it before level 13 or so ans that's iffy.

Exception would be very favorable fireball bait encounters.