Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 8238667" data-attributes="member: 6802951">That quote is from a discussion about general power, not just at-will and single-target damage.But while we're on the subject, do you think spellcasters should have equal single-target at-will damage to martial classes, and if not, what sort of ratio feels right to you?Do you have a link for the source of this please? I'm interested in this as well, and I'd like to see WotC's official figures for evaluating magic and non-magic damage myself.Yeah. Resistance or immunity to magic weapons usually reduces damage potential of martials considerably, but doesn't usually negate it.  Its quite rare that a character has a magic version of the optimal weapon for them, but they often have a magic something by the time they regularly run into resistant opposition. (I have fond memories of my artificer being the MVP of most of a Curse of Strahd campaign simply by providing the right kind of magic weapons when needed.)Although to add insult to earlier insult, many of the spellcasters that step on the roles of the martial classes in high, sustained single target damage automatically get magic damage as part of their kit. (Warlocks (both bolt and blade), moon druids.)Do you feel that LFQW is not bad?Or that spellcasters are currently underpowered compare to pure martials in D&D as a whole?What would be required to "correct  the dial on the other spell design elements"?I'm not sure what the next bit means. Are you saying that its like the casters saying the martials have to become become casters themselves?You said that in many cases the power ceiling was lower for spellcasters than it was for martial classes.That isn't saying that casters need a buff, but it does seem to be saying that casters are generally less powerful than martials.That isn't a common sentiment, so I was curious, and asked for more details.</blockquote>

Verification