D&D 5E Casters vs Martials: Part 1 - Magic, its most basic components

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

In reality, abilities are only flavor. If a caster casts polymorph into T-rex, all they did was change somethings statistics for a limited time. Otherwise, the details don't matter. You could make the T-rex blue, gold, or wooden as long as the statistics are the same. In fact, it could even be a giant chicken if that's what they want.

And that can be extended to out-of-combat. I don't think it would be unreasonable if the barbarian wanted to do a cool knee-drop entrance from 300ft and create a massive crater so long as he still takes the appropriate damage. The rogue can appear and disappear like a DragonBall z character, with the speed lines and all so long as they were hidden beforehand and not hidden afterwards.

The DM is being overly hostile if they won't let you flavor the mundane however so long as they allow magic to be flavored however they want

I agree with this. I like flexible flavor. People are arguing that the martial classes often don't have the mechanics to flavor.

You make it seem like the problem is that high level Fighters can reliably jump 1000ft as part of their class features, but some DMs make them decribe it as the mundane "hopping and parkouring from surface to surface" while some people want to decribe it as a mythical "hulk jump". It would be great if that was the problem.

This is actually a great example of how mundane and mythical could exist with the same mechanics and different flavoring. We just need the mechanics in the ruleset.

 

[MichaelSomething]

We also need to understand "mundane" stuff can be pretty powerful too. Tony Hawk proves you don't need illisionary powers for a public person to go unnoticed...

Okay, bad example. Superman can literally cause illusions in some continuities, which is how Louis doesn't realize Superman but with glasses is also Superman.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

See what I mean ? To me, in order to have any sort of meaningful dialog about mechanics, I would think we need to understand what sorts of char concepts those mechanics relate to. Not every martial character should be able to do every sort of supernatural, fantastical, magical thing that exists just b/c they're "a martial". So what should they be able to do ? Well, it depends on the char concept.

This is true. 'Not every martial character should be able to do every sort of supernatural, fantastical, magical thing that exists just b/c they're "a martial".'

But the flip side is kind of what starts these threads. Most people would also believe "Not every magic using character should be able to do every sort of supernatural, fantastical, magical thing that exists just b/c they're "a magic user".'

D&D magic users are just too broad. I think that ship has sailed but we'd be having much less talk about martial deficiencies if say each Wizard had mid level combat ability and only 1 of the following other kinds of spells: transportation, social, divination, healing, building, illusion, etc.

 

[Asisreo]

You make it seem like the problem is that high level Fighters can reliably jump 1000ft as part of their class features, but some DMs make them decribe it as the mundane "hopping and parkouring from surface to surface" while some people want to decribe it as a mythical "hulk jump". It would be great if that was the problem.

The mechanics can match if the DM realizes the flavor is the only reason they're permitting magic users to also do insanely fantastical feats.

Why can the wizard turn invisible? Because it's magic. But invisibility is just the flavor for a set of mechanics. All of those mechanics can be obtained by a martial as well, it just won't be labeled "invisibility."

But also the mechanics are all just fast-and-loose anyways. As a DM, I don't need to wait for the game to tell me that someone gets advantage or disadvantage. I can decide that on my own. The same with Jump distance. The rules are explicit about increasing jump distance, the DM just has to arbitrate. And that's the same for all the flavorful mechanics. What's the difference between teleporting into a room and opening the door? The DM has to decide if there is one.

So saying that a wizard can fly 2,000ft in the sky isn't incorrect, but the DM can just arbitrate that, for some reason, it isn't feasible. And the same can be said for a fighter jumping 2,000ft.

And, for balances sake, they're both doing something that isn't an easy insta-win. The Wizard uses up a spell slot, something possibly precious for the party. The fighter must engage in a game of chance, assuming the price of failure is significant.

And actually, most spells also have a degree of failure. Some just work, but usually most spells have conditions like failing if the destination is an obstacle or needing a saving throw or debilitates the user. Spells that just work and do none of these things are kinda just broken and should be examples of poor game design rather than examples of what a martial should do.

Simulacrum's power is basically exploiting the action/spell slot Economy. It was meant to be a DM exclusive spell or legendary magic item tier reward based on its material component cost, but Wish let's it get away with being a viable player option, which it has no right being. It should have been like the Lich ritual: only usable after acquiring a specific magic item.

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

This is true. 'Not every martial character should be able to do every sort of supernatural, fantastical, magical thing that exists just b/c they're "a martial".'

But the flip side is kind of what starts these threads. Most people would also believe "Not every magic using character should be able to do every sort of supernatural, fantastical, magical thing that exists just b/c they're "a magic user".'

Agreed!

We do have some of those sorts of differentiating aspects in the game, eg wizards don't get much healing for example, but they're often inconsistent or insufficient, eg sorcerers get mass polymorph but not shape change or true polymorph. Subclasses also go somewhat towards creating some distinctions, but again, results are inconsistent.

Even as a player, with the vast array of spells available, how do you choose which ones to take? This is why I say I think a differentiating char concept is so vital.

D&D magic users are just too broad. I think that ship has sailed but we'd be having much less talk about martial deficiencies if say each Wizard had mid level combat ability and only 1 of the following other kinds of spells: transportation, social, divination, healing, building, illusion, etc.

I strongly disagree with this though. Some wizards might want to have very low combat ability and be stronger in say enchantment. Others might be trained war mages and be blunt instruments with no subtlety at all. Pidgeonholing them all as mid combat ability is just as bad as Pidgeonholing all martials as mundane IMO. Again, what's the char concept?

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I strongly disagree with this though. Some wizards might want to have very low combat ability and be stronger in say enchantment. Others might be trained war mages and be blunt instruments with no subtlety at all. Pidgeonholing them all as mid combat ability is just as bad as Pidgeonholing all martials as mundane IMO. Again, what's the char concept?

Sure, just an example. They should be able to slider that combat ability as well. But it should be a trade! My point was just with narrower Magic Users, there wouldn't be as big a push for the uber broad martial to match the uber broad Magic User.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Yes, but what sort of martial? "Martial" is a very broad bucket term, it's not a character concept. How are you going to discuss the mechanics of what a char can do, vs what it should be able to do, if you don't have a concept to relate it to ?

Should a martial be able to fly ? Should a martial be able to create earthquakes ? Should a martial be able to power word kill ?
How would I know how to make an assessment of those things ?

Should a barbarian of the storm be able to throw around lightning bolts ? Ooh, now that I can see, b/c it totally fits the concept. Let's have a mechanics discussion about how much dmg those lightning bolts should do and also a story discussion about how it happens - do primal spirits fight for/with them, do they channel the power of their ancestors, does their rage manifest in physical elemental form, etc. Should a barbarian of the storm be able to change into a dragon ? Umm ... no I don't think so, because I can't see any link to the char concept.

Should a draconic instinct barbarian be able to transform into a dragon ? Oooh, yeah that might work, let's a conversation about the mechanics of the dragon form to ensure it's balanced and a story conversation about how it happens - does their rage make them forget their identity and an ancestral one takes over, etc. Should a draconic instinct barbarian be able to throw around lightning bolts ? Umm ... well .... probably not because it doesn't seem to fit the concept.

See what I mean ? To me, in order to have any sort of meaningful dialog about mechanics, I would think we need to understand what sorts of char concepts those mechanics relate to. Not every martial character should be able to do every sort of supernatural, fantastical, magical thing that exists just b/c they're "a martial". So what should they be able to do ? Well, it depends on the char concept.

This is nigh on exactly opposite to how I see things. I'd much rather provide a set of cool things a character can do, and let the players and DM figure out the concept that makes it work.

Personally, i think the biggest "problem areas" for 5e martials specifically relate to melee, so powers I'd focus on would be abilities that improve melee.

• I might include greater and/or more versatile mobility. Maybe actual flight, maybe teleportation, maybe more effective leaping or climbing or maybe just a faster ground speed.
• I'd also probably look at including tools to add options to spread or focus damage. The fantasy is to "cleave through enemies like wheat" or whatever, but there aren't many tools to support that fantasy within 5e. Like, if you ever want to kill more than 9 guys on a turn, its just not gonna happen for you. On the other end of the spectrum, there's the "crazy power in a single, focussed strike" fantasy which is similarly unsupported.
• I might provide tools more relevant to exploration. Maybe busting through castle walls like the kool-aid man, maybe causing gusts of wind with a flick of your weapon, maybe some version of enhanced perception, hearing heartbeats, feeling vibrations on the ground, smelling fear, seeing the future.
• It'd be nice if there were better, more available options for control/debilitation. There are 11 negative statuses (excluding incapacitated and unconscious). Of those, most martials have access to 2 (grappled and prone), and they might get access to one or two more through their subclasses. Does it really make sense that no fighter or barbarian can inflict "blinded", "deafened", "paralyzed", or "restrained"? That no rogue can inflict "poisoned"?

Note these were off the top of my head and are all concept neutral. It's just "stuff they can do". You certainly can organize them and give some version of warrior some of those things, and other versions of warrior different things. The point is to start with what they can do in a general sense, balance, iterate, and flavor to taste.

Of course. But this has nothing to do with whether the character is a martial or a caster. This is about getting DM buy-in to play a char concept that has implications for the shared world. You would need this regardless of whether you are wanting to play a martial or a caster.

Correct. It was your assertion that Iron Man could be effortlessly modeled by a D&D martial, an assertion you supported with a set of conditions that had near nothing to do with existing martials' class mechanics. And, as you said DM buy-in, has nothing to do with differences between casters and martials.

Sure, but this is just b/c that example happened to have a magic sword. The exact same thing is true of a Miyamoto Musashi WITH the Sword of Kas and one without. The one without can't do the stuff the one with it can do.

Fair. I think @Cap'n Kobold cleared this up. IIRC the original argument was Arthur+Excalibur=Morgana, and this is ok since martials get more/better magic items than casters do.

But since our wannabe Arthur is missing the kit, he doesn't get to operate at Morgana's level of power/capability. And he had no control over this beyond failing to choose a spellcaster.

Ok, now this is something we can have a mechanics discussion about !
What would be the big caster items ?
Staff of Power & Robe of the Archmagi ? +4 AC, spell attack and save DC - the spell save DC is likely to go from 18-ish up to about 22-ish
What about for martials ?
Pick any 2 of the following: Armour+3, Shield+3, Weapon+3 & Belt of Giant Str (I guess depending on whether you're going for offense of defense or a mix of both ?) - those are pretty impactful too.
Do you think they make way more difference than the caster ones ? I'm not convinced that's so.

The interesting bit about this argument is that it suggests that there might be an issue with the "martials get more/better stuff" argument.

That said, I think you've chosen to look at the items with the most easily quantifiable impact at the expense of the most transformative ones (with the possible exception of the belt). Things like boots of flying, goggles of night, several of the rings, some of the cloaks, luck blade, dwarven thrower.

The unifying feature for most of these that changes the way a martial is able to play is by giving access to some limited spellcasting.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The mechanics can match if the DM realizes the flavor is the only reason they're permitting magic users to also do insanely fantastical feats.

Why can the wizard turn invisible? Because it's magic. But invisibility is just the flavor for a set of mechanics. All of those mechanics can be obtained by a martial as well, it just won't be labeled "invisibility."

But also the mechanics are all just fast-and-loose anyways. As a DM, I don't need to wait for the game to tell me that someone gets advantage or disadvantage. I can decide that on my own. The same with Jump distance. The rules are explicit about increasing jump distance, the DM just has to arbitrate. And that's the same for all the flavorful mechanics. What's the difference between teleporting into a room and opening the door? The DM has to decide if there is one.

So saying that a wizard can fly 2,000ft in the sky isn't incorrect, but the DM can just arbitrate that, for some reason, it isn't feasible. And the same can be said for a fighter jumping 2,000ft.

And, for balances sake, they're both doing something that isn't an easy insta-win. The Wizard uses up a spell slot, something possibly precious for the party. The fighter must engage in a game of chance, assuming the price of failure is significant.

And actually, most spells also have a degree of failure. Some just work, but usually most spells have conditions like failing if the destination is an obstacle or needing a saving throw or debilitates the user. Spells that just work and do none of these things are kinda just broken and should be examples of poor game design rather than examples of what a martial should do.

Simulacrum's power is basically exploiting the action/spell slot Economy. It was meant to be a DM exclusive spell or legendary magic item tier reward based on its material component cost, but Wish let's it get away with being a viable player option, which it has no right being. It should have been like the Lich ritual: only usable after acquiring a specific magic item.

I'd be surprised if magical flavor was the sole reason DMs are permitting magic users to perform fantastical feats.

I rather suspect that it is the presence of 90+ pgs explicit guidance provided by the game designers in the form of spell descriptions, and that these spells are usable by spellcasters that leads DMs to the conclusion that these feats should be permitted for those spellcasters.

Symmetrically, I suspect that the absence of equivalent guidance is what leads to DMs being less permissive of martials attempting equivalent feats.

It's kind of like if you say the assasin can make good fake ids as class feature. If you do, it's hard to let other characters make good fake ids.. since they don't have that class feature.

 

[HammerMan]

Skill powers took some steps towards that also
Better martial practices would have taken more steps

yeah I had hoped way back when that 5e was going to take them and the idea of 'martial exploits' and run with them making a game that was better... but they abandoned things too easily.

 

[HammerMan]

Why not just abandon the martials as PCs and keep them around as NPCs and hencmen only?

that is very much a Gary Gygax thought process...