D&D (2024) 2024 Class Rankings (from nat1gaming.com) for ppl who believe that stuff.

[Gradine]

Particularly in a cooperative and collaborative game, players like feeling that they are contributing significantly to the success of the group.

The beautiful thing is that it's increasingly difficult to build a character that can't do that

 

[Ashrym]

Assuming barbarian is raging and attacking recklessly and the bladesinger isn't actually using any of their spells to deal damage....

There were arguments that the bladesinger was using up their spell slots on false life, shield, and song of defense. The issue there is that doesn't leave much room for those other damaging spells. Bladesingers cannot use the same spell slot on 2 different things so one or the other or both drops.

It is a playable option now, and will likely be updated. Generally the bladesinger is used as the comparison caster to martials because it is more directly comparable. It literally does the same thing (melee or range attack roll damage), as the martials but also has spells.
Trying to calculate what impact a diviner wizard's portent ability has is hard, but a bladesinger making one Booming Blade and one standard attack plus their summon's attacks can be directly compared to what the fighter or barbarian is doing.

Its for the same reason that we compare damage in threads like these. We know that its only a tertiary focus of the caster, but martials generally have so rudimentary capabilities in other aspects that they cannot be compared at all. A world tree barbarian might be able to be compared with a wizard in terms of control capability, but its hard to quantify. Single target damage gives actual numbers that can be calculated and compared between characters.

One of my main points was that bladesong is not always up. Whether the class is a playable option or not right now is a DM choice, but in allowing that choice still doesn't allow for bladesong to be up any time it's needed. If we're comparing then rage can be used more times and for longer durations.

A bladesinger wizard is still going to hit the same issues as other wizards using spells for direct damage. That approach doesn't work well given the limited number of slots and high hp of opponents.

 

[TwoSix]

Its for the same reason that we compare damage in threads like these. We know that its only a tertiary focus of the caster, but martials generally have so rudimentary capabilities in other aspects that they cannot be compared at all. A world tree barbarian might be able to be compared with a wizard in terms of control capability, but its hard to quantify. Single target damage gives actual numbers that can be calculated and compared between characters.

Exactly this. If the caster does 15 DPR, and the martial does 50 DPR, then I readily concede the martial has a place in the party that can't be usurped by a caster. Raw damage is absolutely its own utility.

But if the caster does 22 DPR, and the martial does 32 DPR, then I start thinking the superior versatility and nova capability of a caster would be a better option.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Question of efficiency

I think there is another point that is often overlooked when it comes to the martial/caster discussion. That of efficiency.

Casters are versatile but that versatility also comes with a certain amount of waste. A Spellcaster’s powers come from the intersection of prepared spells, spells slots and action economy. All involve a degree of waste. Whereas martial characters are generally tooled to do a few things very reliable and efficiently. Namely kill things and survive. Something that generally comes up a lot in D&D. A martial’s powers are reliable and convey very little waste. They are generally cumulative and make them better at what they do already. They also usually require very little action economy or lead in.

The spellcaster has to guess what spells they might need at the start of a day. Love fireball? Well if your foe happens to have fire resistance you’re a bit stuffed. Love suggestion - let’s hope they don’t have immunity to charm or that they understand your language. Sure you can have redundancy built into your choices with enough spell slots but that very redundancy is not particularly efficient. It means a big chunk of your abilities are not going to be useful in any given circumstance. Being able to change a spell after a short rest helps but only if you have an hour warning of what spell is going to be needed. Most spells act independently of each other. Very few spells make spells more effective. There are a few like mind spike but they require actions of their own and have limited effects.

Look at a fighters powers: weapon masteries, extra attacks, fighting styles, action surge, studied miss, manouvers, improved crit etc etc all making the fighter better at doing what they already do working cumulatively with each other. I also think there is a strong argument that 2024 feats boost physical attacks much more than they boost spells. No guesswork, no soul searching. In some ways 5e martial’s are far more quadratic than 5e casters.

Secondly the consumable resource of spell slots means you always have to be keeping an eye on the tank. Your most effective abilities use your higher slots which you get precious few of in a day. Arcane recovery helps somewhat but only to return the equivalent of one of your highest slots. The truth is unless your DM is formulaic/predictable: your party is happy to rest as soon as you find it convenient; and you can rest safely without interruption you can’t use your entire complement of spells without considerable risk. More inefficiency.

Martial abilities are usually unlimited by charges or if limited are rechargeable through a short rest. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions. Round after round, a martial delivers and can work at an almost peak efficiency every round.

Action economy is huge in the game. The most effective characters are able to meaningfully use an action, a bonus action and a reaction every round to maximise their utility. What reaction does a caster use every round? Shield? It takes up a prepared spell, uses a spell slot and only comes in handy if the caster happens to get hit. If your caster isn’t tooled for frontline combat then they likely aren’t going to be hit. If they’re struck by a save based effect or a high attack roll, shield doesn’t do anything for them. Similarly bonus actions spells and abilities are thin on the ground for a wizard. They are spells that grant bonus action effects but they almost all use higher level slots (3+) and need concentration, not to mention a whole action to cast in the first place. As I mentioned in my earlier post that mirror image is also going to take an action… another round gone without contributing to the fight.

When it comes to action economy a martial’s abilities generally use bonus actions or reactions (if any action at all). Off hand attack, second wind, tactical shift, action surge, weapon mastery, tactical mind, sneak attack, cunning action, rage, tactical action, manouvers, defensive duelist, improved crit, heroic warrior, savage attacker, charger, dual wielder, great weapon mastery, mage slayer, polearm mastery, Sentinel. Some of those don’t even use any action type or grant actions! The plethora of useful bonus actions and reactions makes for very efficient turns.

Lastly many spells are unreliable. Some need enemies to group together, some need friends not to be in the way. Some can be hard to cast in melee. Some can be saved against. Some come with penalties (haste). The variable length of duration for otherwise good spells makes them unreliable. Many can also be overcome simply (sleep/hypnotic pattern) and magic resistance/immunities/resistances can make them less effective. Most of all, only the ones with attack rolls get any benefit for advantage/Inspiration. All this builds more inefficiency into the system.

Whereas, hitting things with a weapon is one of the most reliable things in the game. There is an AC - which is easily outpaced by bonuses as levels scale. Advantage and inspiration both benefit this and are very easy to obtain. Very few things have resistance beyond the basic magic of weapon which is pretty much a given. No saving throws needed. No legendary resistance applicable.

As a result of these substantial changes that came about through 5e, casters benefits are overestimated and a martial’s benefits are undervalued. Skewing the martial/caster debate. 2024 seems only to have made these points more pronounced.

There is a converse side to this "efficiency."

On one-for-one terms, spells are always the most efficient way to do a thing. Get through a door? There are spells, plural, for that. Learn a piece of information? Man, we've got spells galore. So on the very very small term (as in, "what can you achieve with a single action?"), spells are more efficient. And then on the long term, averaged over several adventuring days where the caster can adapt spells over time to better suit an adventure, spells again rise in efficiency, especially when players are able to take rests more or less when they like. It's only on the medium-term, for long adventuring days where casters are locked in and martials get enough time to do their stuff, that efficiency favors them over casters. Martial solutions are time inefficient on the short and long term, but time efficient on the medium term.

But by and large, all this is saying is "spells are more complicated to use than basic things are to use." Nobody has questioned that. We are assuming that both players are playing smart. Not hyperintelligent prescient geniuses, but...just being a smart player and trying to leverage things.

Min-maxing is a thing. You go in aware of the weaknesses, and take steps to mitigate them. Long Rest early and often, so you have the most resources you can get. Select broadly useful, effective spells, not ultra-niche weird spells. Remember that creatures succeed on their saving throws sometimes, so favor spells that don't need them or target typically weak saves. Scope out your opposition/obstacles in advance, so you can prepare.

Like, you seem to be thinking that what people are saying is "spellcasters are beter AND EASIER", and that couldn't be further from the truth. Spellcasters "pay" for their power with a higher skill floor. But the skill ceiling is out in outer space, while the skill ceiling of martial characters barely rises above sea level.

 

[mellored]

Soooooo......

A bladesinger isn't in the 2024 rules. That has to be allowed from past splats by the DM. That option isn't indicative of all spellcasters and doesn't have all the abilities of all spellcasters either.

Per WotC, nothing was removed. Only updated.

 

[Ashrym]

Per WotC, nothing was removed. Only updated.

Are you claiming DM's don't allow which supplements are allowed in their campaigns?

 

[James Gasik]

So what are the parameters of this discussion, then? Only 2024 products? No legacy content?

 

[Zardnaar]

So what are the parameters of this discussion, then? Only 2024 products? No legacy content?

There isn't one. Original list was lvl 20 presumably 2024 rules.

 

[TheSword]

There is a converse side to this "efficiency."

On one-for-one terms, spells are always the most efficient way to do a thing. Get through a door? There are spells, plural, for that. Learn a piece of information? Man, we've got spells galore. So on the very very small term (as in, "what can you achieve with a single action?"), spells are more efficient. And then on the long term, averaged over several adventuring days where the caster can adapt spells over time to better suit an adventure, spells again rise in efficiency, especially when players are able to take rests more or less when they like. It's only on the medium-term, for long adventuring days where casters are locked in and martials get enough time to do their stuff, that efficiency favors them over casters. Martial solutions are time inefficient on the short and long term, but time efficient on the medium term.

But by and large, all this is saying is "spells are more complicated to use than basic things are to use." Nobody has questioned that. We are assuming that both players are playing smart. Not hyperintelligent prescient geniuses, but...just being a smart player and trying to leverage things.

Min-maxing is a thing. You go in aware of the weaknesses, and take steps to mitigate them. Long Rest early and often, so you have the most resources you can get. Select broadly useful, effective spells, not ultra-niche weird spells. Remember that creatures succeed on their saving throws sometimes, so favor spells that don't need them or target typically weak saves. Scope out your opposition/obstacles in advance, so you can prepare.

Like, you seem to be thinking that what people are saying is "spellcasters are beter AND EASIER", and that couldn't be further from the truth. Spellcasters "pay" for their power with a higher skill floor. But the skill ceiling is out in outer space, while the skill ceiling of martial characters barely rises above sea level.

I’m not saying that spells are complicated. It’s that they are more wasteful, less reliable, more time consuming and don’t mesh with the core benefits of the game as well as the things that martial’s do - which is damage things and survive things. That’s before we even mention expensive spell components and focuses. You can try to broaden the argument to be about gathering information. That’s not really relevant to the argument above which is about the combat pillar.

Even when played intelligently the points I made above still apply. Spells don’t benefit from advantage or inspiration for instance, except for the few attack roll spells which are mainly very low power cantrips. Or the fact that there are a plethora of powers and abilities that prevent spells working efficiently.

Let’s also be clear that I’m not saying that spells are bad. Or that it isn’t fun to play a wizard. When it all goes right they are very effective. I’m just adding some balance to the idea that casters are some kind of ubermensch that transcends all other non-casting classes in the game as this list seems to suggest. When in truth it just did it by calculating abilities on a totally different scale.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It’s that they are more wasteful, less reliable, more time consuming and don’t mesh with the core benefits of the game as well as the things that martial’s do

Then in this, you are simply, flatly wrong. Well, not wrong about the greater potential for waste, I certainly agree with that, simply because a wasted attack roll is almost a trivial non-cost. But you are wrong that they are that much less reliable, particularly for a player who puts even basic thought into spell selection*--they are by design approximately equally reliable, and more reliable if you know your enemies and can pick their weak saves. Because Fighters don't get to pick a monster's weak defense. There's only one. AC. They're either lucky and fighting something with low AC, or they aren't, and fighting things with middling to high AC. Even the mere possibility that you can try targeting different saves, when essentially every monster has at least a couple weak saves, already puts casters in a superior position. They can actively seek out weak points. Fighters can't.

*E.g., have spells that target different saves, preferably ones that are often weak like Int or Wis; have different elements that are rarely double resisted, like fire and lightning, or cold and acid, or just flexible spells like chromatic orb; have buff spells that are essentially never not useful, e.g. enhance ability, haste, fly, etc. It's really not that hard to pick 2-3 spells per spell level that are generically good...which still leaves room for more spells later.

I would need to know what you think "the core benefits of the game" to respond to that portion.

Also, plenty of strong spells have attack rolls. Scorching ray is a great spell, and it uses spell attacks. 5.5e Wizards alone have 16 spells that either are just a spell attack, or enable you to make a spell attack (e.g. witch bolt allows you to repeat the attack against the target). Further...you don't benefit from Advantage...you instead benefit from your opponent suffering from disadvantage. Which isn't as hard to apply as you might think. Crits are the one thing that rolling attacks has but forcing enemies to roll saves doesn't.

Or the fact that there are a plethora of powers and abilities that prevent spells working efficiently.

Would you care to name them? Because I'm not familiar with that many. It would in fact please me greatly to know that the game actually provided teeth to a DM who wanted to place limits on spellcasting. I am entirely sincere on this--if you can in fact prove to me that there are a "plethora" of such things, I would be only too happy to agree!