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

[TheSword]

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 don’t read your meaning here. I can’t work out if you are being insulting or acknowledging that you are wrong?

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.

You’re not factoring increased weapon damage from other sources that are readily available and extra attacks from multiple sources off hand/feats/attacks of opportunity etc. You’re also forgetting the benefit of the other subclass abilities - improved crit isn’t the only benefit. Not to mention the fact that it’s likely that a Battlemaster will use some superiority die for other things.

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.

A spell every other round is not good. Particularly when some of those are presumably being sucked up by the seemingly ubiquitous shield, hp renewal, misty step etc to keep the wizard alive. So in truth more like a meaningful spell every 3 rounds. Not very good at all. The caster is down to winging it with a cantrip a round.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don’t read your meaning here. I can’t work out if you are being insulting or acknowledging that you are wrong?

The latter. I'm not sure what I said that would be insulting, but I apologize for giving insult nonetheless.

You’re not factoring increased weapon damage from other sources that are readily available and extra attacks from multiple sources off hand/feats/attacks of opportunity etc. You’re also forgetting the benefit of the other subclass abilities - improved crit isn’t the only benefit. Not to mention the fact that it’s likely that a Battlemaster will use some superiority die for other things.

None of those things make a difference between Champion and Battle Master. You get maybe, MAYBE a couple extra attacks a day from opportunity attacks. And no, it isn't likely that the BM will do that, because as I said anything else will necessarily be BETTER than doing damage. This is a minimum floor of benefit. Not a ceiling of what might be possible.

Even if it weren't, the gulf here is MASSIVE. 4d8 per short rest as opposed to 4d6 per LONG rest? Even if the BM is using half their superiority dice for things that have jack-all to do with any of that, you'd still be looking at less. And if they dual-wield to get those benefits? Yeah that's even worse, because now you're critting with fewer weapon dice!

A spell every other round is not good.

Yes, it is. Until you recognize this fact, or genuinely prove that it it is not good (which I find extremely unlikely that you could do), we cannot have a conversation.

Particularly when some of those are presumably being sucked up by the seemingly ubiquitous shield, hp renewal, misty step etc to keep the wizard alive. So in truth more like a meaningful spell every 3 rounds. Not very good at all. The caster is down to winging it with a cantrip a round.

Exceedingly good. One AoE spell is worth multiple rounds of Fighter damage. And cantrips are nothing to sniff at. They are a pretty solid fraction of the baseline damage of Fighters for a significant range of levels.

If you are so supremely confident that it sucks? Prove it. Do the math. I've done the math before, with 5.0. I've shown my work. Are you willing to do the same?

Further, now you're trying to skewer me--yet again--by pretending that I've somehow argued that every single Wizard definitely always runs the Bladesinger Tank build or whatever else. They don't. That was merely a thought exercise to show that IF a spellcaster wants to, they absolutely can do the same kinds of things a "Big Stupid Fighter Barbarian" does while, with time, gaining extra spells to use on other things too. An actual, smartly-played Wizard isn't going to bother with most of that because it's far, far less efficient than many other things they could do instead.

Meanwhile, you are still allowed to pick whatever subclasses you like, make arguments that depend on having specific feats or specific weapons or whatever else, and that's totally kosher? No. This "discussion" is nothing short of radically biased, where every assumption I make is an unacceptable flaw, but every assumption you make is perfectly justified and warranted and correct. That isn't acceptable.

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.

There is exactly the same magnitude of difference between 0 and 1 as there is between 1 and 2.

I said "0-1". Generally, it hews closer to 1, but there will occasionally be days where the party only does two, maybe three combats, so a short rest simply isn't necessary and the casters can blow through all their spells lightning-fast. Yes, I have personally experienced this. More than once. WotC's own data supports this, that's why they tried to make changes in 5.5e. I am quite confident those changes were not anywhere near sufficient.

Further, as noted, you set an absolute MINIMUM FLOOR of 2. As in, it should NEVER be less than 2. Now you are softening that dramatically, down to 1-2, maybe even just 1 some of the time. That's huge! That's cutting out a third of the resources the martials are relying on.

 

[Zardnaar]

The latter. I'm not sure what I said that would be insulting, but I apologize for giving insult nonetheless.


None of those things make a difference between Champion and Battle Master. You get maybe, MAYBE a couple extra attacks a day from opportunity attacks. And no, it isn't likely that the BM will do that, because as I said anything else will necessarily be BETTER than doing damage. This is a minimum floor of benefit. Not a ceiling of what might be possible.

Even if it weren't, the gulf here is MASSIVE. 4d8 per short rest as opposed to 4d6 per LONG rest? Even if the BM is using half their superiority dice for things that have jack-all to do with any of that, you'd still be looking at less. And if they dual-wield to get those benefits? Yeah that's even worse, because now you're critting with fewer weapon dice!


Yes, it is. Until you recognize this fact, or genuinely prove that it it is not good (which I find extremely unlikely that you could do), we cannot have a conversation.


Exceedingly good. One AoE spell is worth multiple rounds of Fighter damage. And cantrips are nothing to sniff at. They are a pretty solid fraction of the baseline damage of Fighters for a significant range of levels.

If you are so supremely confident that it sucks? Prove it. Do the math. I've done the math before, with 5.0. I've shown my work. Are you willing to do the same?

Further, now you're trying to skewer me--yet again--by pretending that I've somehow argued that every single Wizard definitely always runs the Bladesinger Tank build or whatever else. They don't. That was merely a thought exercise to show that IF a spellcaster wants to, they absolutely can do the same kinds of things a "Big Stupid Fighter Barbarian" does while, with time, gaining extra spells to use on other things too. An actual, smartly-played Wizard isn't going to bother with most of that because it's far, far less efficient than many other things they could do instead.

Meanwhile, you are still allowed to pick whatever subclasses you like, make arguments that depend on having specific feats or specific weapons or whatever else, and that's totally kosher? No. This "discussion" is nothing short of radically biased, where every assumption I make is an unacceptable flaw, but every assumption you make is perfectly justified and warranted and correct. That isn't acceptable.


There is exactly the same magnitude of difference between 0 and 1 as there is between 1 and 2.

I said "0-1". Generally, it hews closer to 1, but there will occasionally be days where the party only does two, maybe three combats, so a short rest simply isn't necessary and the casters can blow through all their spells lightning-fast. Yes, I have personally experienced this. More than once. WotC's own data supports this, that's why they tried to make changes in 5.5e. I am quite confident those changes were not anywhere near sufficient.

Further, as noted, you set an absolute MINIMUM FLOOR of 2. As in, it should NEVER be less than 2. Now you are softening that dramatically, down to 1-2, maybe even just 1 some of the time. That's huge! That's cutting out a third of the resources the martials are relying on.

Treantmonk did the math at 4 encounters each 4 rounds 1 short rest. His sorcerer build low tier 3 got an A for damage. The martials were still S tier.

I think I can beat his numbers on paper white room theory crafting.

High tier 3 ad 4 it's all CME which means the answer to my question is no. Espicially at levels people actually play out.

I've gone through 3 powergaming youtube type channels, my own power gamers and a discord server plus reddit. I merged several sources to improve Treantmonks build.

Most theory craft builds are crap until level 12 or so. My more realistic ones are playable from level 1 but trade off those Uber damage numbers.

Fireballs very situational in 5E now. Unless DMs essentially feeding large groups into it that won't out damage martials either. At least consistently.

 

[TheSword]

The latter. I'm not sure what I said that would be insulting, but I apologize for giving insult nonetheless.

I appreciate this because it seems to be getting pretty heated.

None of those things make a difference between Champion and Battle Master. You get maybe, MAYBE a couple extra attacks a day from opportunity attacks. And no, it isn't likely that the BM will do that, because as I said anything else will necessarily be BETTER than doing damage. This is a minimum floor of benefit. Not a ceiling of what might be possible.

Even if it weren't, the gulf here is MASSIVE. 4d8 per short rest as opposed to 4d6 per LONG rest? Even if the BM is using half their superiority dice for things that have jack-all to do with any of that, you'd still be looking at less. And if they dual-wield to get those benefits? Yeah that's even worse, because now you're critting with fewer weapon dice!

I’m not going to bicker about which version of martial’s is superior, I’m simply saying it is more complicated than you are giving credit for. I don’t think a couple of extra attacks a day is all you get from Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master or Sentinel but I don’t think it’s worth the argument.

Yes, it is. Until you recognize this fact, or genuinely prove that it it is not good (which I find extremely unlikely that you could do), we cannot have a conversation.
Exceedingly good. One AoE spell is worth multiple rounds of Fighter damage. And cantrips are nothing to sniff at. They are a pretty solid fraction of the baseline damage of Fighters for a significant range of levels.

If you are so supremely confident that it sucks? Prove it. Do the math. I've done the math before, with 5.0. I've shown my work. Are you willing to do the same?

Honestly, perhaps this is the crux of the problem. While I freely admit the top level spell may be as good as 2-3 rounds of fighter action, if the stats align, the foes are in the right position, the enemy save are unlucky etc. I just don’t believe the lower level spells are. I certainly don’t believe in normal circumstances a 1st or 2nd select spell is as good as good as 2-3 rounds of fighter actions with everything that brings. I don’t need to prove it to you because it’s my opinion.

Further, now you're trying to skewer me--yet again--by pretending that I've somehow argued that every single Wizard definitely always runs the Bladesinger Tank build or whatever else. They don't. That was merely a thought exercise to show that IF a spellcaster wants to, they absolutely can do the same kinds of things a "Big Stupid Fighter Barbarian" does while, with time, gaining extra spells to use on other things too. An actual, smartly-played Wizard isn't going to bother with most of that because it's far, far less efficient than many other things they could do instead.

If it isn’t going to see play at the table maybe it’s not worth talking about so much. It makes the discussion even more white room than it is already and it distracts with edge case examples that are usually pretty exceptional and not very efficient.

Meanwhile, you are still allowed to pick whatever subclasses you like, make arguments that depend on having specific feats or specific weapons or whatever else, and that's totally kosher? No. This "discussion" is nothing short of radically biased, where every assumption I make is an unacceptable flaw, but every assumption you make is perfectly justified and warranted and correct. That isn't acceptable.

I think you’ll find when I talk about martials it very rarely involves the subclasses. There are too many to compare and I don’t think I need to start adding in all the additive differences when your earlier point about whether a spell is worth 2-3 rounds of fighter actions is really the crux of the matter. I only compared champion because I felt you’d missed an important part of a fighters action economy.

There is exactly the same magnitude of difference between 0 and 1 as there is between 1 and 2.

I was talking in percentage terms.

I said "0-1". Generally, it hews closer to 1, but there will occasionally be days where the party only does two, maybe three combats, so a short rest simply isn't necessary and the casters can blow through all their spells lightning-fast. Yes, I have personally experienced this. More than once. WotC's own data supports this, that's why they tried to make changes in 5.5e. I am quite confident those changes were not anywhere near sufficient.

That’s not a problem. Some people think the problem is bigger, some people think it isn’t a problem at all. Some compromise is probably a good thing. Had long rest recovery become a thing of the past there probably wouod have been uproar. Same if 5 min short rests had been a thing.

Further, as noted, you set an absolute MINIMUM FLOOR of 2. As in, it should NEVER be less than 2. Now you are softening that dramatically, down to 1-2, maybe even just 1 some of the time. That's huge! That's cutting out a third of the resources the martials are relying on.

I was referring to the minimum I think it is reasonable for a player to expect in a session without annoying the DM or their compatriots. Not that no adventuring day ever passes without 2 short rests. If there is no need for short rests because there is nothing happening on a random given day then there obviously won’t be short rests. That number is based on my experiences. Where we typically have 4-5 encounters in an adventuring day and usually half of those are taxing. As a DM I have no problem allowing the party to having a short rest after a taxing combat and as a player I have no problem asking for one.

 

[Zardnaar]

I appreciate this because it seems to be getting pretty heated.

I’m not going to bicker about which version of martial’s is superior, I’m simply saying it is more complicated than you are giving credit for. I don’t think a couple of extra attacks a day is all you get from Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master or Sentinel but I don’t think it’s worth the argument.

Honestly, perhaps this is the crux of the problem. While I freely admit the top level spell may be as good as 2-3 rounds of fighter action, if the stats align, the foes are in the right position, the enemy save are unlucky etc. I just don’t believe the lower level spells are. I certainly don’t believe in normal circumstances a 1st or 2nd select spell is as good as good as 2-3 rounds of fighter actions with everything that brings. I don’t need to prove it to you because it’s my opinion.

If it isn’t going to see play at the table maybe it’s not worth talking about so much. It makes the discussion even more white room than it is already and it distracts with edge case examples that are usually pretty exceptional and not very efficient.

I think you’ll find when I talk about martials it very rarely involves the subclasses. There are too many to compare and I don’t think I need to start adding in all the additive differences when your earlier point about whether a spell is worth 2-3 rounds of fighter actions is really the crux of the matter. I only compared champion because I felt you’d missed an important part of a fighters action economy.

I was talking in percentage terms.

That’s not a problem. Some people think the problem is bigger, some people think it isn’t a problem at all. Some compromise is probably a good thing. Had long rest recovery become a thing of the past there probably wouod have been uproar. Same if 5 min short rests had been a thing.

I was referring to the minimum I think it is reasonable for a player to expect in a session without annoying the DM or their compatriots. Not that no adventuring day ever passes without 2 short rests. If there is no need for short rests because there is nothing happening on a random given day then there obviously won’t be short rests. That number is based on my experiences. Where we typically have 4-5 encounters in an adventuring day and usually half of those are taxing. As a DM I have no problem allowing the party to having a short rest after a taxing combat and as a player I have no problem asking for one.

We have about 1+prayer of healing. Sometimes 2+PoH depends how beaten up they are and class composition.

I liked BG3 bard song of rest.

Occasionally 0 happen but in that scenario they're not needed anyway.

 

[TwoSix]

For folks like that, "spotlight" isn't even a remotely relevant topic. If you want to be powerful, choose to be a spellcaster. If you want to be a non-spellcaster, you clearly don't want to be all that powerful.

I mean, this is precisely why in 3e and 5e I pretty much always play casters, but with some strong gish elements so I can still feel kinda martial if I want to.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I think a core disagreement here is that in a game that is nominally "balanced" around classes with heterogenous recharge structures, I feel the relative frequency of those recharges should absolutely be a system thing, not a "let's leave the DM to figure it out" thing.

 

[TheSword]

I think a core disagreement here is that in a game that is nominally "balanced" around classes with heterogenous recharge structures, I feel the relative frequency of those recharges should absolutely be a system thing, not a "let's leave the DM to figure it out" thing.

Possibly but it seems like most tables find a reasonable way through. Judging by the polls that suggest most groups have between 1-3 short rests a day on average.

I don’t know how the game would mandate you have to take short rests.

 

[TwoSix]

Possibly but it seems like most tables find a reasonable way through. Judging by the polls that suggest most groups have between 1-3 short rests a day on average.

I don’t know how the game would mandate you have to take short rests.

I'm much more concerned with the frequency of long rests than I am with short rests.

 

[Zardnaar]

Had a thought. All the high damage builds into tier 3 are martials either the exception of the scorching ray sorcerer which is still outclassed by the martials. Until CEN takes over late tier 3.

With the nerf to sharpshooter though all those builds are melee. Ranged damage wonder if there's a lower level niche a blaster could excel at.