D&D 5E (2024) Can A Spell Caster Out Damage a Martial Consistently?

[TheSword]

Unless you're allowing short rests much more freely than long rests, you're still running off a lot less effective HP than party A.

2 short rests in a 24 hour period feels like the minimum reasonable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because the martial healing I mentioned isn't all based on hit dice and hit dice recovery during a long rest is irrelevant in a discussion where long rests aren't applicable. The parties start the day with full everything. They cannot start a long rest until at least 16 hours after the previous long rest. They're taking short rests. Short rests recover some spell slots once for wizards and some sorc points once for sorcerers. Short rests recover a rage, a second wind, and all focus points.

In that 16 hours to start another long rest and then 8 hours to complete the long rest the all martial group can take many short rests even if long rests become part of the conversation.

The comparison was between a party with a barbarian, fighter, monk, and rogue vs cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard at 10th level in a 10th level adventure. Looking at HD that you mentioned that's 10d12, 10d10, 10d8, and 10d8 hit dice for self-healing for the martial group; and the fighter and barbarian likely have 16 CON while the monk and rogue likely have 14 CON. That's ~310 hp of HD healing. The caster party has 10d8, 10d8, 10d6, and 10d6; and it's possible the Cleric and Druid have 16 CON while it's more likely the sorcerer and wizard have 14 CON going for DEX instead IME. Benefit of the doubt favoring the casters all having 16 CON would give the casters ~280hp of self healing that way, running -30hp deficit even with that benefit of the doubt.

The 10th level fighter (champion) has 4 second winds that heal ~62hp and the fighter recovers 1 second wind every short rest for 15.5hp each or possibly for other uses instead but given the heroic inspiration available the likelihood of that need is low. But the fighter can take a short rest and heal that 15.5hp regardless many times if needed.

The barbarian (world tree) has 4 rages. Each rage grants the barbarian 10 temp hp (40) and the start of each of the barbarian's turns lets the barbarian grant 3d6 (~10.5) temp hp to an ally near him. Rage lasts up to 10 minutes but combats don't. 3 rounds of combat is about 31 thp, and using bonus actions after the fighting is over to continue raging allows for topping up to a higher average leading into the next combats. The upper limit is 190 thp total but the realistic number is ~60-70 between what's the barbarian's 10 thp and what he hands out. That's per rage so ~240 thp plus ~60 per additional rages recovered on short rests.

The barbarian also only takes half damage on most typical attacks while raging.

The monk (way of mercy) has 10 focus points that he can fully renew once per day with Uncanny Metabolism and also renew every short rest. Uncanny metabolism also heals the monk ~14.5 hp in the process. Mercy monks can replace 1 attack with their Hand of Healing for free when they use Flurry of Blows. IE the Nick monk spending 1 ki does 2 attacks with extra attack, 1 off hand attack, 2 attacks with flurry of blow, and one healing touch or a 3rd attack with flurry. Assuming 20 DEX and 16 WIS for this build, Hand of Healing heals ~7.5 hp at that level so spending maybe 7 focus points out of 20 before short rests that day would be ~52.5 hp of healing. Maybe 3 uses for each short rest afterwards for ~22.5 per short rest. This leaves a lot of focus points for other uses.

The monk also has evasion at no resource cost, and deflect attacks with unlimited uses on reactions. A 20 DEX monk deflects ~20 damage per use with the ability. A monk deflecting 2 attacks in 8 encounters prevents ~320hp of damage.

The assassin doesn't add healing. Rogues are just good at avoiding damage with Cunning Action, Cunning Strike, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, and in the assassin's case possible use of Roving Aim via kiting.

How many short rests can this group take in the same amount of time it takes the casters to take a long rest? I'm not going to get into that because it turns into some huge numbers but I wanted to make that point. 2 or 3 short rests in pretty easy to accomplish, however. So the HD disparity is ~30hp, That's ~700hp of healing and thp before defensive abilities that prevent damage including the 30 hp deficit. With HD healing that's over 1000hp the martial party has in a day without pushing it.

Spell healing was so bad 2024 rules had to buff it. You can show the spell healing, thp from wild shape, and channel divinity and we'll compare further. Then I'll keep on track and point out that each spell used for healing or temp hp is a spell not used for damage (or control or versatility).



Except skills don't run out and can be used from start until finish, but spell slots run out and cannot go all the way, which is the day point. A lot of spell options when slots runs out becomes an illusion of choice.

You again assume groups that take many many many short rests, which is not accurate to how people play. Jeremy Crawford explicitly said so in his video (IIRC, shortly after the announcement of official "One D&D" stuff?) talking about the problems with the Warlocks being left behind by other spellcasters. Not enough short rests, too many long rests.

You harp on this "you need SIXTEEN HOURS!" thing, but sixteen hours can be filled by doing, I dunno...nothing? That's a thing people can choose to do. Nothing. Or it can be filled by doing other useful things that aren't going into combat. Which is what many, many, many groups do. 6-8 combat encounters per day does not happen, even though that's what 5e was designed to expect. (The designers...played fast and loose with the truth when they said 6-8 encounters of any kind; several features, like the Champion critical hit bonus, only begin to come into alignment with other features, like Battle Master dice, if you get at least an absolute minimum of 6 encounters per day, unless those are hella long and typically very grindy combats.)

And, again, you assume these people have all of their hit dice all of the time, AND assume subclass features for the martial characters but none for the spellcasters. When I mention specific subclasses, I'm in error and presuming far far too much, but when you do it it's perfectly okay and justified? So already we should be cutting that martial healing nearly in half for any adventure that lasts longer than a single day, while magical healing keeps on trucking completely unaffected.

Unless some things change pretty sharply here, I'm done. I'm tired of goalposts that move every other post.

I've played enough 5e. I've had at least 8 totally distinct play groups at this point. I've seen the damage firsthand. Martial healing objectively failed to keep up with damage intake. Period. Every single time. And the most recent one WAS a party with good Con scores, where my Warlock was the only spellcaster. (Open Hand Monk that eventually went Monk/Barb, Fighter/Rogue, Totem Barb using Wolf rather than Bear to enhance ally attacks.) Oh, and that's another place where you're presuming eternal use of one and only one feature (Bear Rage, even more specific than a subclass!) and yet that's totally fine.

So yeah. Who is dealing in "white room theory" now? Where are the partisans so eager to eviscerate anything that smells of inaccurate assumptions? Where are the insistent arguments that you can't presume people will make certain choices?

They're absent or silent because this white room theory serves their interests.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

2 short rests in a 24 hour period feels like the minimum reasonable.

According to Crawford himself, too many people took 0-1 per LR in 5.0. That was why they tried to kill the unique Pact Magic feature, because Warlocks were being left behind.

Why would you think that 5.5e would somehow magically induce the player base to stop doing that and instead get an absolute minimum of two per day?

 

[TheSword]

According to Crawford himself, too many people took 0-1 per LR in 5.0. That was why they tried to kill the unique Pact Magic feature, because Warlocks were being left behind.

Why would you think that 5.5e would somehow magically induce the player base to stop doing that and instead get an absolute minimum of two per day?

Because there are more classes that benefit from them to a greater extent since 2024 and are therefore more likely to push for them. As I said you get all HD back on a long rest so can survive for much much longer on short rest healing. 95 hp for level 5 fighter. There simply isn’t the driving need for long rest for a lot more classes.

Short rests are easy. If the DM allows long rests to be equally easy then of course they will be taken. That’s a DM problem though. We certainly don’t follow the Baldurs Gate approach to a long rest.

Regarding your previous points on combat length, there have been a number of polls on EN world which leave the median number of encounter on average at 3-4 per adventuring day with the average combat length being 3-6 rounds. That’s plenty of time for martial’s to get their grind in and plenty of rounds for the casters to run out/need to ration slots.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Except skills don't run out and can be used from start until finish, but spell slots run out and cannot go all the way, which is the day point. A lot of spell options when slots runs out becomes an illusion of choice.

That is a lovely thought in principle.

In reality, again per Crawford himself, parties simply wait or just take a long rest right away, rules be damned. As a result, which he very specifically called out, classes with daily spells got far too many slots to play with, making them much more powerful.

Your "illusion of choice" only happens when players aren't able to set the pace of their rests. Casters are better able to set the pace of their rests than martials. Casters can juice their resources in a way martials can't. Casters can effectively force a group to stop doing things and wait for them to recharge.

I've seen it happen. Never in an openly controlling way, I wouldn't play at a table where something so blatant occurred. But unless the party is in a "every hour is precious, we can't afford to stop" situation, arguing for a long rest so that all the fat heals and big spells are there just in case? Dirt easy, and nearly every martial character will be hard pressed to reject it. Which is one of the biggest problems of making so-called "short" rests so goddamn long. If you're in a situation where eight hours is an utterly unacceptable wastage of time, you're in a situation where wasting 2-3 hours is also pretty damn close to unacceptable too. One of 5e's worst design decisions, which is an impressive feat.

 

[TheSword]

That is a lovely thought in principle.

In reality, again per Crawford himself, parties simply wait or just take a long rest right away, rules be damned. As a result, which he very specifically called out, classes with daily spells got far too many slots to play with, making them much more powerful.

Your "illusion of choice" only happens when players aren't able to set the pace of their rests. Casters are better able to set the pace of their rests than martials. Casters can juice their resources in a way martials can't. Casters can effectively force a group to stop doing things and wait for them to recharge.

I've seen it happen. Never in an openly controlling way, I wouldn't play at a table where something so blatant occurred. But unless the party is in a "every hour is precious, we can't afford to stop" situation, arguing for a long rest so that all the fat heals and big spells are there just in case? Dirt easy, and nearly every martial character will be hard pressed to reject it. Which is one of the biggest problems of making so-called "short" rests so goddamn long. If you're in a situation where eight hours is an utterly unacceptable wastage of time, you're in a situation where wasting 2-3 hours is also pretty damn close to unacceptable too. One of 5e's worst design decisions, which is an impressive feat.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-many-short-rests-do-you-routinely-take.697457/

D&D 5E - Short Rests: How many does your group get/take between long rests, on average?

Further to my previous point about encounters per day and length of combats. Here are two polls that suggest that most groups avers 1-2 short rests per day. And one of them is your own poll

Can we put to bed this idea that groups don’t take short rests please.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because there are more classes that benefit from them to a greater extent since 2024 and are therefore more likely to push for them. As I said you get all HD back on a long rest so can survive for much much longer on short rest healing. 95 hp for level 5 fighter. There simply isn’t the driving need for long rest for a lot more classes.

Well color me goddamn shocked. I've literally never heard of this "all HD on long rest" thing. That's bloody huge and yet you are, I am not kidding, the first person to ever mention it anywhere I have looked.

I fundamentally disagree on the need for long rests. But at this point I'm beginning to believe we simply cannot come to an agreement on this. I look at the sphere and say it's white. You look and say it's black.

Short rests are easy. If the DM allows long rests to be equally easy then of course they will be taken. That’s a DM problem though. We certainly don’t follow the Baldurs Gate approach to a long rest.

Doesn't matter. It's a notorious issue that plagues the system. I've seen it happen firsthand. The only reason it didn't happen firsthand with Hussar's group was that we were all SR-based (as noted, I was a Warlock).

You can insist all you like that it won't happen. It does. A lot. The designers literally introduced changes specifically to address this issue, because they knew they couldn't just force it, and their previous attempts to address it had failed.

Regarding your previous points on combat length, there have been a number of polls on EN world which leave the median number of encounter on average at 3-4 per adventuring day with the average combat length being 3-6 rounds. That’s plenty of time for martial’s to get their grind in and plenty of rounds for the casters to run out/need to ration slots.

No. It isn't. I've done the math. It simply is not.

Consider a mid-level party. Let's say 6th. Most classes and subclasses have their core features active by that point.

Battle Masters get 4d8 dice per rest. These have a floor of +4d8 damage in total, because any other use they could be put to should be more valuable (e.g. Precision Attack with Great Weapon Master). I will ignore the possibility of crits on these dice, since you declare most maneuvers after rolling to attack and thus you know whether they get crit-boosted or not.

Let's say the Champion has a 2d6 weapon, so his crits are fatter. At this level, both Fighters get 2 attacks per round and one Action Surge per rest, meaning 2 bonus attacks approximately every other combat.

Per your own math, even if we take a mid-range value of 4.5 rounds (which is long, the data skews closer to 3-4, not 4-5), and the larger number of combats at 4, we still end up with only 18 rounds of combat per day. Assuming 2 short rests in that time, the BM is getting 4.5x4x3=54 bonus damage from maneuvers. The Champion? Well! 18 rounds + 3 Action surges= 42 attack rolls. One out of every 20 attacks would crit already, so that doesn't help the Champion at all. But with their features they get another...two crits on average! For the whole day! So they're getting +4d6 = 14 damage. For the whole day. As opposed to +4d8 for one rest.

And that's just comparing within the Fighter class. It isn't even touching on how much a well-played caster can achieve with their 10 (up to 13 for Wizards, Land Druids, and Clerics) spells. Which, incidentally, spellcasters at this level are already getting 2-3 spells per combat, and have enough slotted spells to cast at least one every other round.

So. You were saying how they would oh so quickly run out in the ways people actually play the game? That they would be horrifically inefficient? I'm not seeing it. The numbers don't add up.

 

[Zardnaar]

That is a lovely thought in principle.

In reality, again per Crawford himself, parties simply wait or just take a long rest right away, rules be damned. As a result, which he very specifically called out, classes with daily spells got far too many slots to play with, making them much more powerful.

Your "illusion of choice" only happens when players aren't able to set the pace of their rests. Casters are better able to set the pace of their rests than martials. Casters can juice their resources in a way martials can't. Casters can effectively force a group to stop doing things and wait for them to recharge.

I've seen it happen. Never in an openly controlling way, I wouldn't play at a table where something so blatant occurred. But unless the party is in a "every hour is precious, we can't afford to stop" situation, arguing for a long rest so that all the fat heals and big spells are there just in case? Dirt easy, and nearly every martial character will be hard pressed to reject it. Which is one of the biggest problems of making so-called "short" rests so goddamn long. If you're in a situation where eight hours is an utterly unacceptable wastage of time, you're in a situation where wasting 2-3 hours is also pretty damn close to unacceptable too. One of 5e's worst design decisions, which is an impressive feat.

You're pushing an angle that doesn't exist in most games.

Idk if you've played 5.5 lots more short rest abilities across all classes. And short rest via prayer of healing.

BG3 has had an effect as well.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

D&D General - How many Short Rests do you routinely take?

D&D 5E - Short Rests: How many does your group get/take between long rests, on average?

Further to my previous point about encounters per day and length of combats. Here are two polls that suggest that most groups avers 1-2 short rests per day. And one of them is your own poll

Can we put to bed this idea that groups don’t take short rests please.

No! Because you JUST SAID that the floor had to be 2. Now you're saying 1.5? No! I won't "put to bed" an idea that WOTC EXPLICITLY SAID WAS TRUE.

 

[TheSword]

No! Because you JUST SAID that the floor had to be 2. Now you're saying 1.5? No! I won't "put to bed" an idea that WOTC EXPLICITLY SAID WAS TRUE.

That’s my personal opinion - which is why I voted 2. Other people think and experience different so voted differently.

What isnt a widespread opinion at all is zero rests which seems to be the line you’re pushing. There’s a huge difference between zero and 1-2. Some might say an infinite difference.