mellored
Legend
But are they still martials if they are casting fireball each round.
Also, Artificer 11/thief rogue 3.
D&D (2024) Can A Spell Caster Out Damage A Martial Consistently "Archer"?
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
Also, Artificer 11/thief rogue 3.
At high level you are going to have that stuff. And it not just wands, necklace of fireballs, bead of force ..... pretty much anything that requires a magic action to activate could be used more efficiently by not giving up a PC action to use it.
The cat's meow is a ring of spell storing that you load up with more spells that your Warlock can even cast without a short rest.
The thing magic items become more available about the same time as the poison ability and or damage is becoming less reliable.
Zardnaar
Legend
And how are you getting said items?
Potions of Healing are regular adventuring gear, cheaper than most high level spell components and a Familiar can go around administering them to party members (in addition to taking an action) even if you find nothing else.
Just about every published adventure has magic items, some more than others, but more importantly more at high level than low level. The point is a Warlock familiar is typically very effective both at low levels and high levels because of this, and it is a very rare game indeed where you don't have minor magic items at high level.
Heck even in a wierd game where you are not getting any magic items at 10th level or so, there is a ton of ordinary gear that is very effective in 5E - rope, chain, manacles, oil (on an area), caltrops all use Utilize, meaning there are no limits on a familiar using them, and they are all situationally very powerful in 2024 rules for an effect that does not cost any PC action economy. If it really has nothing else to do it can take the study or help action.
I think the people who find Warlock familiars not useful at high level are sitting them in a corner and having them do nothing in combat instead of doing effective things your main PCs don't have the action economy to accomplish.
Last edited:
Zardnaar
Legend
More lack of reliable wands.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
IMO, any character that can cast any spells from a source that is not a feat or a magic item is a spellcaster. I give feats the tiniest bit of leeway, but if that feat is giving a cantrip that is an absolutely critical component of the character achieving the goal described, that character is pretty clearly a spellcaster, just a minor one.
Conversely, a character that does not use spells is presumptively a martial character, with a few exceptions, like Monk, which is neither a spellcaster nor a martial by this metric, but rather a non-spellcaster supernatural character.
So: most Fighters (exceptions include EK and Rune Knight), most Rogues (exceptions include AT and Soulknife, and probably Phantom), most Barbarians (exceptions include Wild Heart, World Tree, and Wild Magic). If there were a spell-free Ranger, it'd fall here too--and with careful "spell" selection, you may be able to pick out things that are using things that really should've been class features but got offloaded onto the spell list because Reasons.
For example, an EK that leverages cantrip damage alongside Extra Attack? No, not a martial character anymore, because the player has intentionally made outright spellcasting a critical part of their relevant actions (in this case, damage-dealing). Conversely, I would actually kinda-sorta grant that a to-the-nines Bladelock is about as close as one can get to a "martial" character despite being unequivocally a spellcaster, especially if those spells don't factor in (e.g. no hex, no CME, no Eldritch Smite, etc.); that's definitely an intentional grey area on the part of the designers.
Conversely, a character that does not use spells is presumptively a martial character, with a few exceptions, like Monk, which is neither a spellcaster nor a martial by this metric, but rather a non-spellcaster supernatural character.
So: most Fighters (exceptions include EK and Rune Knight), most Rogues (exceptions include AT and Soulknife, and probably Phantom), most Barbarians (exceptions include Wild Heart, World Tree, and Wild Magic). If there were a spell-free Ranger, it'd fall here too--and with careful "spell" selection, you may be able to pick out things that are using things that really should've been class features but got offloaded onto the spell list because Reasons.
For example, an EK that leverages cantrip damage alongside Extra Attack? No, not a martial character anymore, because the player has intentionally made outright spellcasting a critical part of their relevant actions (in this case, damage-dealing). Conversely, I would actually kinda-sorta grant that a to-the-nines Bladelock is about as close as one can get to a "martial" character despite being unequivocally a spellcaster, especially if those spells don't factor in (e.g. no hex, no CME, no Eldritch Smite, etc.); that's definitely an intentional grey area on the part of the designers.
mellored
Legend
Artificer gives reliable wands.
Assuming the latest UAs, and an ally next to your target..
Armorer (infiltrator) 6/Theif 5
7 Magic Missiles charges + drain for level 2 slot + transform another item into wand of magic missile, is more than enough. But still assuming 1 charge per round.
(1d6+5)* 2 * .65 = 11.05
+1d6+3d6 * 0.8775 = 12.285
+3d4+3 = 10.5
= 33.835
Really, you'd be dropping web the first turn each combat. Also with both expetise and advantage on stealth, you should be able to pre-cast a buff most of the time.
Zardnaar
Legend
Not reliably in terms of DM letting you be one. Or playtest material.
mellored
Legend
A DM can prevent you from playing a Sorcerer too, so not sure that's a point.
And this is the second UA for it, and I'm using stuff that passed the first time. So I don't expect many, if any, changes.
Not that I beat the dart thrower anyways.
Potions of healing, ropes and manacles are all adventuring gear.
Similar Threads
