5e ditched a lot of what made 4e the best version of the game todate instead of updating and fixing the parts that needed fixing... part of that was kneww caping all the non casters... and the 'fix' was eldritch knight and arcane trickster...
D&D 5E Casters vs Martials: Part 1 - Magic, its most basic components
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
the short answer is yes,yes,yes...
longer answer:
Should a martial be able to fly ? this is the hardest to justify but it is a pretty common trope for modern brick characters to do, so it would take some work.
Having said that, the Jump spell tripples your jump ability... if you gave an option for ANY character to take a similar ability at level 3+ as 1/short rest or prof/day it breaks nothing...
Should a martial be able to create earthquakes ? Yes, strong characters taking a "stomp" or "punch ground" and cause earthquakes... it should be high level but possible.
Should a martial be able to power word kill ? No, i don't want them wispering a word and someone die, but a '1/day target 1 creature in weapon range and if they have 100hp or less they die' death blow sounds like a great option for 17+ level fighters.
How would I know how to make an assessment of those things ? simple... "if one character can do it and the game runs fine, figure out if there is any way you can bend or tweak it to make it work for anyone... or atleast something similar...
if they want to... yes. I could totally see a barbarian level 5 ability that matches or is similar to call lightning.
a barbarian getting a wildshape like power that turns them into a 'war form' instead of rage sounds like a GREAT idea. Maybe even mix and match (X level barbarian has Y rages, but can swap up to Y for these war forms) dragon, werewolf, t rex are all great war forms
now we are to the fact that "should an abjurer be able to animate dead?" we have spells that are super specific to there types and aren't organized for the most part... I would rather my Necromancer get the invocation from warlocks that turns speak with dead to a cantrip, then give abjurer animate dead... the whole system either needs an overhaul or just give option and let the player decide..
Ex: I became an Abjurer to protect the living, letting the dead stand between us and the enemy IS PROTECTION...
okay, but either that applies to wizard and sorcerer or it shouldn't to fighter rouge and barbarian (and monk and ranger and bard)
no give them a limited number... make them choose and build what they want
yeah and concepts don't have to be "Storm Barbarian" or "Dragon Barbarian" it can be "Blue dragon/shaman Barbarian" and get powers that would fit in both of the former...
the difference is when a wizard can be anything... and martials have such limits. The DM doesn't need to buy in for my Abjurer above to get animate dead, or for me to play 'sorcerer supreme' who can pull from everything... heck even my necromancer complaint I can take a feat at some level and get that warlock invocation (I think... maybe not by RAW I can't remember wording)
every sorcerer at 20th level would kill to know 44+ spells... they know 15. a wizard at level 1 starts with 6, and gets 2 per level... so at level 6 they know as many spells as a 20th level sorcerer... is spellbooks and scrolls better to have then not YES... but you can play a wizard in a stingy game.
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
Generally, Fighters are the "typical example" of a martial character, although by no means the only one. It is very much worth noting that not all fighters are pure martials: Eldritch knights, Rune Knights, Echo knights are all examples of fighters that aren't purely martial any more. Rogues and Barbarians have similar specific subclasses in the same manner. Classes like Paladins, Monks, Rangers are also all explicitly magic users and so are generally viewed more generously when it comes to allowing them to pull off unusual ideas through use of their class abilities.
No. This is about whether martials get to have non-combat power within the game at the same level that spells grant the spellcasters, without needing to get DM buy-in.
You gave the Tony Stark example as an example that a martial doesn't need DM buy-in to be as effective in non-combat situations as a spellcaster; "Take away the suit (magic item) and what is left that is just granted by class features?
I'm guessing that you didn't intend to move the goalposts, and you just forgot where that example came from. But it does kinda prove our point.
They make no appreciable difference than the caster ones.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.
Because both are almost entirely combat-focused.
So in a discussion about how martials generally need the DM to grant them magic items to perform as well out of combat as the spellcasters without items do, you chose to only allow combat-based items to be considered for the comparison.
There are any number of magic items that would have been germane to the subject at hand that would have made a massive difference in out-of combat performance for the martial: Apparatus of Kwalish, Carpet of Flying, Cloak of Invisibility, Cubic Gate, Helm of Teleportation to name a few.
But you chose to only allow items for the martial that give basic numerical bonuses, primarily only useful in combat, to be used for the comparison.
Why?
Really? It would seem that they do not in this case.
Generally because playing a batman-equivalent would require not only way more gold than a character can start with, but also either magic items or spells to replicate the many gadgets that he relies on. Since magic items aren't generally easily available for sale, and having spells takes the character out of the purely martial realm, this rather proves the point that a martial would need DM generosity to play a concept that many casters could without needing the DM to put their thumb on the scales.
That statement does indeed make sense, but it has very little to do with what was being discussed.
Gammadoodler brings up the example of Morgana as a fully developed character with effective ways of influencing and taking part in non-combat challenges. As compared to King Arthur, whose influence and capability to deal with high-end non-combat challenges has to be granted by the DM because it is not given by class features.
Another fighter has very little effectiveness in such challenges unless the DM also gives them that ability, whereas another spellcaster still has that capability baked in to their class.
Wizards get to learn 44 different spells at base. That is almost three times more than a sorceror. They are fine without finding any scrolls - extra ones are just a power boost rather than being necessary. Heck, a wizard even gets to memorise a lot more spells than a sorceror, and cast more in a day.
In my experience, stinginess lead to wizard favoring combat spells over utility (except wish becomes mandatory because of its widening power) when leveling up. Sorcerers can replace spells when they level up with other, closer to their max level, while wizard can't, so their 44 spells tend to be much more skewed toward the bottom end.
Neonchameleon
Legend
It's trash because it takes 7 days. There is no other class feature I can think of in D&D 5e that takes more than a single extended rest to carry out. It just operates on a different timescale from the rest of the party and to use has everyone else twiddling their thumbs.
Which brings me on to a serious problem with the 5e fighter and rogue. The fighter just gets more of the same abilities they already have and the rogue gets no new active abilities (with the arguable exception in both cases of their level 20 abilities. The level 11 features are good in both cases (the third attack gives the fighter more attacks than any other class, and the rogue take 10 is awesome). But after that the fighter gets ASIs, which they already have, extra uses of Indomitable, an extra use of action surge, and one more attack than other high level fighters. And the rogue gets blindsense (utterly useful unless the enemy uses invisibility and is a creature), slippery mind (again not something that expands the rogue's options) and you can't even normally plan round Stroke of Luck. The barbarian is little better off; persistent rages still only last a minute and indomitable might is something but not incredible.
Fundamentally 5e stops the three-ish caps the growth of the martial classes in flexibility at level 11 while not actually making it explicit that that's where they cap. I can see the argument behind a "mundane cap" that if you want to pretend that the classes are mundane (and were fine with hit points) capping them at level 12 or lower makes sense. But pretending the classes then continue is my problem.
A problem they are less likely to address since their market research show that very few people play above level 10. Unfortunately the answer to LFQW in 3.5 was to nerf spellcasters heavily, especially in the utility department instead of empowering martials. And I don't see them going in the reverse direction now.
I've recently argued that "martial" is a combination of 4 archetypical power sources and not really one.
1) The Weapon And Armor Skill (Fighter)
2) The Science and Knowledge skill (Ranger, Warlord)
3) The Raw Athletic Talent (Barbarian, Acrobat)
4) Underworld work and other Skullduggery (Rogue)
Too much zoomed in the 4e concept of powersource to see the wide range of "martialness"
and when you watch an assassins' or thief or grifter make a fake id in a movie or book it take minutes not days...
yes
Gammadoodler
Hero
...And the stereotypical setting is pseudo-medieval with inefficient means of communication and data storage.
How often are characters being asked to provide proof of their identity..just generally?
I can't think of a single time across multiple campaigns with differing DMs.
Similar Threads
