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

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
tables were rigged to favour fighters and this was a part of the game. Clerics not using swords was a balancing factor - which included 40-80% of all magic weapons being swords (depending on edition) and swords going up to +5 while almost every other weapon went only to +2
Well that's why I usually rank 0e and 1e high.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Stalker0

Legend
Basically to achieve the "slaughter 1000" result, the army has to be composed of poorly trained, poorly equipped Keystone cops.
If you want the real numbers for true "mooks", I already did the math for you in an earlier post:



The truth is, no 5e fighter is going to be slaughtering 1000s unless you use naked mooks with 0 intelligence or tactics.
 
Last edited:

DND_Reborn

Legend
If you want the real numbers for true "mooks", I already did the math for you in an earlier post:



The truth is, no 5e fighter is going to be slaughtering 1000s unless you use naked mooks with 0 intelligence or tactics.
Wow, I didn't give my guy nearly as much magic, but did a build, and he was killing more without my mooks being as mooky as yours! FWIW, I went Champion instead of BM, so that makes a huge difference with the Survivor feature.

Not the place for it in this thread, but it would be interesting to dive into further at some point...
 

Stalker0

Legend
Wow, I didn't give my guy nearly as much magic, but did a build, and he was killing more without my mooks being as mooky as yours! FWIW, I went Champion instead of BM, so that makes a huge difference with the Survivor feature.

Not the place for it in this thread, but it would be interesting to dive into further at some point...
hehe this thread has already swung the gambit of OT conversations, and yeah it would be good to dig in to.

I used a very basic math model.

1) Picked a number of starting mooks
2) Those mooks times their average damage * .05 (can only hit the fighter on a 20) = DPR (if mooks were in melee in my later scenarios I reduced their DPR to a maximum value for 8 mooks, if they were archers, then they did as much damage as they could). Some scenarios the mooks did double their DPR if crits were possible.
3) The hero was hitting and killing .95 mooks per swing (only misses on a 1, and minimum damage kills the mook). 8 swings on the first two rounds (for action surge), 4 swings on every other round.
4) I subtracted the mooks killed into the next round, and subtracted the DPR from the fighter's hp (I already included
5) I just filled in the excel, each row representing the next round of combat.
6) If the mooks went to 0 before the fighter's HP went to 0....mooks win. Otherwise, fighter wins.
7) Continue to adjust the starting mooks until just below the number where the fighter loses to get the total number of mooks they can beat.
 

Hmm, ok, just to make certain I am understanding you (please correct me if I'm wrong):
1. Spamming attack is a problem because it is tedious (short of using a magic item this was an issue from the beginning of D&D IMO). In combat, pure martials are always attacking in one fashion or another (Paladins and Rangers obviously have spells, which is why I say "pure").
There's a difference between attacking and spamming. In real combat if there is time to think fighters should be mixing things up - it is not only boring to spam but means you aren't thinking like a fighter.
2. Your conception to master the battlefield via brains (more or less some form of tactics I would think?) is trying to influence the scope of the encounter in a more meaningful way. Similar to how a single spell could turn the tide due to mass effect, finding something that martials could do would even the field (no pun intended).
Yes - and in 4e most attacks had riders and they couldn't be spammed. Things like attacks that would hit every enemy around them, trips that also did damage, and cutting through the foes and attacking multiple.
Can you give me an example of something you feel that would take away from the dichotomy, particularly outside of combat?
First, let's start by giving a lot of the monk's abilities to the fighter. I mean getting physically faster and getting better at all saving throws. And then able to read people.
Using magic in a fantasy game is not superheroic, it is magic. :rolleyes: That is what casters are about. To remove it would be like playing a martial without hands or feet.
So you do not actually have a problem with superheroes. You are literally rolling your eyes at the idea of playing a D&D without what are, by your definition, superheroes. You openly accept that this is entirely about preventing "mundane" classes from getting them while literally two thirds of all classes have open superpowers.

And to that I would say that being larger than life is also part of a fantasy game. My fantasy started with legends - where we get people like Hercules literally able to carry the weight of the world, Galahad whose strength was as the strength of ten because his heart was pure, and Beowulf holding his breath for an hour. And this goes further and deeper into the fantasy genre than everyone playing casters who spam spells like Harry Potter.

If magic is a part of fantasy and it allows people to be superheroes then that should apply to fighters. The AD&D 1e fighter's level name was literally "superhero" at level 8.

So you openly allow superheroics in your game for two thirds of the classes. You just ban it for a few - including the ones that were most commonly superheroes in historical fantasy and the one that was literally called a superhero in AD&D.
Nope. If you think first level = high level and characters are superheroic, you're playing a different 5E than I am. Even the designers (and most players IMO) would levels
1-2 are often thought of as the apprenticeship levels.
I was using your definitions. By which a character who can do things we don't believe happens IRL is a superhero. Which includes (a) someone who never gets sick from disease and (b) someone who remains spry until they die from old age. If your idea of a superhero includes those then any first level wizard is far more egregious.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
hehe this thread has already swung the gambit of OT conversations, and yeah it would be good to dig in to.
True, but I try to avoid it when I can. ;)

1) Picked a number of starting mooks
2) Those mooks times their average damage * .05 (can only hit the fighter on a 20) = DPR (if mooks were in melee in my later scenarios I reduced their DPR to a maximum value for 8 mooks, if they were archers, then they did as much damage as they could). Some scenarios the mooks did double their DPR if crits were possible.
3) The hero was hitting and killing .95 mooks per swing (only misses on a 1, and minimum damage kills the mook). 8 swings on the first two rounds (for action surge), 4 swings on every other round.
4) I subtracted the mooks killed into the next round, and subtracted the DPR from the fighter's hp (I already included
5) I just filled in the excel, each row representing the next round of combat.
6) If the mooks went to 0 before the fighter's HP went to 0....mooks win. Otherwise, fighter wins.
7) Continue to adjust the starting mooks until just below the number where the fighter loses to get the total number of mooks they can beat.
Got it. This was my approach:

1) Built a 20th level Champion Fighter, Hill Dwarf, STR 20, CON 20 after ASIs (3 for STR/CON) and Feats (Dwarven Fortitude, Durable, Tough, HAM; with added another +1 STR and +1 CON to his starting 16's). Dueling and Defensive styles.
2) HP: 284 given average (6) per level after 1st, Hill Dwarf bonus +20, Toughness +40.
3) Plate, Shield +1, Defense style, Cloak of Protection +1 to give AC 23.
4) Scimitar of Speed (+2 attack/damage) to allow bonus action attack, for a total of 5 attacks most rounds.
5) Attack +13, Damage 1d6+9
6) Mooks were modified guards with AC 14 (no shield), HP 11, and short bows (+3 attack, damage 1d6+1 (4), 2d6+1 (8) on crits, which all the attacks were that hit...) so more than 8 could attack (which is why I avoided melee).
7) Due to HAM and DR 3, damage is reduced to 5 average.
8) Assumed fighter could use movement to get close enough to engage 5 targets each round.
9) With cleaving through rule in DMG, resulted in 19 kills due to excess damage finishing off the hits that did minimum and failed to kill.
10) Used Actions Surges and Second Wind in early rounds. Second wind restored avg 25 hp.
11) Thereafter, with 50 mook attacks per round, waited until Survivor feature kicked in once below half maximum.
12) When HP dropped below 100, spend 1 round Dodging to use Dwarven Fortitude and regain automatic 15 HP those rounds due to Durable feat (minimum double CON +5 on d10 is 10, plus CON +5 is 15).
13) Had to use Dwarven Fortitude and spend HD to recover every 11th round at that point.
14) Finally, 220 rounds after started using Dwarven Fortitude, HD ran out, so then it was just until remaining HP was depleted.

With over 280 rounds at 4.75 kills per round, it was over 1300 guard archers before death.

Now, if you really played this out, I know it would be much less due to the fact that the guards would constantly be moving while shooting instead of just "standing there", but even so I imagine the numbers would be pretty big, certainly what I would qualify as "superheroic." 🤷‍♂️
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
In real combat if there is time to think fighters should be mixing things up - it is not only boring to spam but means you aren't thinking like a fighter.
I agree with this. One thing I would love to see in D&D is tactical options actually worth doing. For example, consider knocking a target prone. Unless you have 3 or more attacks in a turn or you have allies nearby who can also benefit from the target being down, it is worthless because the target can simply stand up without hinderance on its next turn.

But how do you balance that so people aren't always just knocking opponents prone when that becomes the better tactic?

First, let's start by giving a lot of the monk's abilities to the fighter. I mean getting physically faster and getting better at all saving throws. And then able to read people.
Interesting. So you want to steal another classes key features? Remember, monks are considered martials, too.

I will agree on the better saves. In AD&D, although they started with the worst saves, Fighters had the best saves by the end, and I do miss that. I figure that is what the Indomitable feature was meant to represent.

So you do not actually have a problem with superheroes. You are literally rolling your eyes at the idea of playing a D&D without what are, by your definition, superheroes. You openly accept that this is entirely about preventing "mundane" classes from getting them while literally two thirds of all classes have open superpowers.
Ug, I swear it is like talking to a brick wall. When did I ever say I have a problem with characters that are "superheroic" in their capabilities, which the DMG actually states the PCs should be by tier 4. But that is in tier 4. In tier 1 the powers they have are not "superheroic", they are barely heroic, and when it comes to magic, that is because it IS magic.

And the other martials classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue) all have capabilities by tier 4 which I certainly do qualify as "superheroic capabilities". Primal Champion, Survivor, Timeless Body, and Stroke of Luck could all be "super hero" powers in a super hero RPG. But D&D is not a super hero RPG, despite even those martial classes having features which are "superheroic" IMO. Since it seems you feel differently, why do we keep hashing over the same material again and again?

I was using your definitions. By which a character who can do things we don't believe happens IRL is a superhero.
You don't believe in magic!?! :eek: SHAME on you! ;) (j/k)

In a world of magic, where magic is real, casting a spell is not a superpower. Literally, in 5E, anyone can choose to play a Wizard, even with a INT 3. What that represents is the chance to learn how to utilize it magic to cast spells. Look at all the creatures that are casters and can use spells because they know how to utilize magic--either by arcane or divine or primal means? So how is a 1st level spell superheroic? It isn't.

Do many high level spells rival the superhero powers in other media/genres? Certainly, but they aren't superpowers. They are spells and magic.

Which is why I have said if your tier 4 PC wants to be able to jump 500 feet, and the class/subclass feature allows it because you have learned how to tap into the weave (or whatever) to manipulate your weight, allowing you to propel yourself extraordinary distances, it is magic. Nothing prohibits martials from gaining magical features which are superheroic, but then IMO it is the magic.

Consider Superman, how our Sun powers him (or whatever, I am not a comic expert...), is that magic? No. It is part of his superpowers. If you want to play in a D&D world were the environment, etc. can have such affects on a PC because it is part of their class/subclass features, knock yourself out. But no, I don't, and I wouldn't use such a class in my game world. That is my prerogative, just as using it is yours.

But have I once said "No, don't make it, that is stupid"? No, I haven't. Yes I've been vocal on how I think it would be a good way to go about designing/ implementing it to help encourage greater adaptation, but that's it.

If your idea of a superhero includes those then any first level wizard is far more egregious.
That is your opinion, obviously, not mine. IMO casting a 1st level spell, however awesome, does not rival capabilities which are always present once gained like those examples.

Since this is entirely a matter of opinion, there is no point debating it further. You can ignore the questions in my post, consider them rhetorical.

Have a good game. :)
 

Stalker0

Legend
True, but I try to avoid it when I can. ;)


Got it. This was my approach:

1) Built a 20th level Champion Fighter, Hill Dwarf, STR 20, CON 20 after ASIs (3 for STR/CON) and Feats (Dwarven Fortitude, Durable, Tough, HAM; with added another +1 STR and +1 CON to his starting 16's). Dueling and Defensive styles.
2) HP: 284 given average (6) per level after 1st, Hill Dwarf bonus +20, Toughness +40.
3) Plate, Shield +1, Defense style, Cloak of Protection +1 to give AC 23.
4) Scimitar of Speed (+2 attack/damage) to allow bonus action attack, for a total of 5 attacks most rounds.
5) Attack +13, Damage 1d6+9
6) Mooks were modified guards with AC 14 (no shield), HP 11, and short bows (+3 attack, damage 1d6+1 (4), 2d6+1 (8) on crits, which all the attacks were that hit...) so more than 8 could attack (which is why I avoided melee).
7) Due to HAM and DR 3, damage is reduced to 5 average.
8) Assumed fighter could use movement to get close enough to engage 5 targets each round.
9) With cleaving through rule in DMG, resulted in 19 kills due to excess damage finishing off the hits that did minimum and failed to kill.
10) Used Actions Surges and Second Wind in early rounds. Second wind restored avg 25 hp.
11) Thereafter, with 50 mook attacks per round, waited until Survivor feature kicked in once below half maximum.
12) When HP dropped below 100, spend 1 round Dodging to use Dwarven Fortitude and regain automatic 15 HP those rounds due to Durable feat (minimum double CON +5 on d10 is 10, plus CON +5 is 15).
13) Had to use Dwarven Fortitude and spend HD to recover every 11th round at that point.
14) Finally, 220 rounds after started using Dwarven Fortitude, HD ran out, so then it was just until remaining HP was depleted.

With over 280 rounds at 4.75 kills per round, it was over 1300 guard archers before death.

Now, if you really played this out, I know it would be much less due to the fact that the guards would constantly be moving while shooting instead of just "standing there", but even so I imagine the numbers would be pretty big, certainly what I would qualify as "superheroic." 🤷‍♂️
Based on this outline, our differences make plenty of sense. The keys are:

1) Champion Fighter: The survivor feature massively increases the fighter's survivability.
2) Scimitar of Speed: +1 attack is the biggest offensive magnifier you can do against a mob
3) Heavy Armor Mastery: -3 damage per mook attack results in a massive drop in mook damage (probably the greatest factor).
4) Considering the bonus ASIs that fighters get, I do think I assumed too low a con score, though this is probably the weakest of the disparities.

In my approach I ignored feats as optional rules, and used legendary but "more straightforward" equipment.

I would say that my example is a more "standard" example of what a 20th level fighter could do (though putting the word typical and 20th level in the same sentence already feels a bit wrong). Yours is a good test of what a fighter "optimized" for mobs and durability could do.
 
Last edited:

DND_Reborn

Legend
One check, based on your damage, there is a 1 in 8 chance per non-crit swing that your fighter will NOT kill a guard, resulting in 2 hits required, was that factored into the analysis?
Yep, using the cleave through rule in the DMG.

For example, assuming 6 hits in a rows (over 2 rounds of course) for the d6 scimitar, damage would be (against guard #).
  1. 10
  2. 11
  3. 12
  4. 13
  5. 14
  6. 15

10 won't kill guard #1, as you noticed. That guard has 1 hp remaining.
The next hit reduces guard #1 to 0 hp, with 10 damage remaining hitting guard #2.
The next hit reduces guard #2 to 0 hp, with 11 damage remaining hitting guard #3, reducing it to 0 hp as well.

So, with the cleave through rule, the "excess" damage on most of the hits will finish off the minimal damage hits.
 

Well, instead of assuming what my scenario was, you could have just asked. ;)

Seriously, though, yes "guards" with AC 14 and 11 HP, +3 to attack. Standard guard stat block except I gave them all short bows, but you can really replace it with any d6 weapon. Making it d8 would certain make things worse, but it still roughly 750 (a smaller "army"). Even allowing them to hit on a 19 as well would still keep the number at well over 300 (maybe not an "army" anymore, but still incredible!). BTW, those reductions are still assuming 50 guards are attacking each round...


Really? You consider the guard stat block, your basic soldier really, "poorly trained, poorly equipped Keystone cops?" Interesting.

Ignore the below for now.
Edit: updated based on clarified assumptions

There have been several scenarios already posted. Rather than assume yours, I leveraged what was posted. And I wasn't far off. (Edit: I see a more detailed set of assumptions was posted. Have deleted some misunderstandings where relevant)

The guard stat block is AC 16, not 14. Bow and no shield.. makes sense.

50 attacks in a round is a pittance. A trifle compared to the potential. Hell, a trifle even without a ton of optimization.

It might even be a pittance with melee combatants as you can have your baddies attack and then get out of the way, so their buddies behind them can attack. How many "guards" can cycle through the 8 adjacent squares of our fighter in round? 48 I think is pretty straightforward and achievable just assuming each square has a 6-deep single-file queue of attackers. I suspect you could do a great deal more with some reasonably simple puzzling.

With shortbows there are 288 1,080 (1+16×2 on a side, so squared minus the target minus the 8 squares the target threatens) squares you can be attacked without disadvantage from short range alone, (280 without disadvantage). Which means attacks from all the baddies who can get into one of those 288 1,080 squares. 6 person relay (6x17 33) on one edge of the attack range would be 102 198 incremental attacks from folks who did not start the turn within short range and that's only one edge. In your clarified assumptions you got to how your fighter eventually killed over 1300 guard archers. The thing is, all you needed to do to accomplish this was to have like 95% of the archers who could attack without disadvantage choose to do..nothing..every turn.

50 attacks is something you should assume if the word "army" is being used metaphorically. You should likely double multipy it times 10 and maybe double it again from there and you still might not "really" get there.

So divide your survivability by 2 10 at least and then consider dividing it again; if you're also getting hit on a 19, divide by 2 again (this is more complicated with HAM, not dividing by 2, but some level of reduction). If you're taking crit damage, divide by 2 again. (I see this was already covered) And it gets worse since you now have incoming damage exceeding the HP you're getting from "Survivor" every turn by a greater amount, so you're getting spiked down with fewer turns to benefit from it.

And that's without even considering long range attacks where there's another 3800 15,000(!!!) (1+64×2 on a side, so squared minus the original 1,080) or so additional squares to attack from.

This is exactly what I meant by dubious and extremely brittle assumptions.
 
Last edited:

If you want the real numbers for true "mooks", I already did the math for you in an earlier post:



The truth is, no 5e fighter is going to be slaughtering 1000s unless you use naked mooks with 0 intelligence or tactics.
I believe this was the post where I was pulling the assumptions from, yes. And I think it's fair to say there is significant reliance on some "Keystone cops" level of competence for the enemies. I think that was consistent with your take on it.
 


And what do you suppose the bulk of an army is made of? 1st level fighters???
No, but typically armies are expected to actually win their battles. To increase the chances of success, "mooks" are organized and trained in effective tactics. They also tend to be led and commanded by non-Keystone-cops.

It's one thing to assume lesser levels of tactical optimization. Quite another to assume wholesale pervasive incompetence.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
No, but typically armies are expected to actually win their battles.
Against a 20th level epic level character? Not according to most of the posts on this thread...

To increase the chances of success, "mooks" are organized and trained in effective tactics.
They are trained, otherwise they wouldn't get to add their proficiency bonus.

They also tend to be led and commanded by non-Keystone-cops.
Ok, this is a valid point and something that should be factored in. I'll give some thought on how this might be done.

Anyway, happy holidays! :)
 

Against a 20th level epic level character? Not according to most of the posts on this thread...


They are trained, otherwise they wouldn't get to add their proficiency bonus.


Ok, this is a valid point and something that should be factored in. I'll give some thought on how this might be done.

Anyway, happy holidays! :)
You too!

..and in fairness, it is a build taking tons of attacks in a way that is pretty impressive..add in something like adamantine plate as @Stalker0 had done and it does get pretty silly for this particular scenario.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
add in something like adamantine plate as @Stalker0 had done and it does get pretty silly for this particular scenario.
I was going to originally since it is only an uncommon item, but combined with HAM and DR 3, the average dmg for the guard would only be 1. At least allowing crits, it is 5 still after the DR 3. It almost seemed to cheesy. 🤷‍♂️
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
So, while yes, I agree casters also got magic items, their items (compared to the relative power o
I dispute that my 9th level fighter with his boring bonus items got anything as relatively powerful... too dm and campaign dependent, saw too many "low magic" campaigns that effectively nerfed martial selectively
Really? You consider the guard stat block, your basic soldier really, "poorly trained, poorly equipped Keystone cops?" Interesting.
well they are within range of the same ability as a level 1 or 2 apprentice level character then maybe
LOL, didn't I sing that upthread? :)
I think part of the issue is that 5e changes the dialogue between a high level character and a swarm of mooks. In older systems, you could expect the high level fights to mow through mooks like grass, but scaling wise that is not how it works in 5e. Now that's true for casters as well, for example its harder for a high level wizard to be "invincible" versus a mook mob like they were before, but considering their arsenal of area effects they certain have more tools at their disposal.

Just to throw in a little more fun math, I will try a more "mook" scenario, and give the fighter some actual magic items, just to see how things would go.

20th level Battlemaster Fighter
20 strength
16 con
HP: 210 (I just rolled second wind in for convenience)
AC: 22 (does not take critical hits)
Attack: +13 x4 (x8 in first two rounds)
Damage: 1d8 + 10

+3 longsword
Adamantine Armor
+3 shield
Dueling Combat Style (so +2 damage)
AC style (+1 AC)

"Mook Archer"
HP: 8
AC: 10
Attack: +2 (proficiency only)
Damage: 1d8

So these are guys with 10s in all stats, basic proficiency, but otherwise nothing special at all.

Scenario 1: Straight up
These stats actually make running the scenario pretty easy, fighter is going to kill a mook every time he hits, no crits to worry about and don't really need to think about maneuvers. We assume the archers are close enough in formation that the fighter can get to any mook he needs to, so its really about how fast the fighter can kill the mook before he is taken out himself.

Result: 20th level Fighter can take on 89 archers. 90 will result in their death.

Scenario 2: Swap Adamantine armor for +3 armor
Lets try a different magic item that is still very powerful, but not really that helpful to the fighter in this scenario. So now when the mooks hit, they are actually critting. Let's see how this effects the result.

Result: 20th level Fighter can take on 64 archers. 65 will result in their death.

Scenario 3: The most mook of mooks
So lets get really schlub. These guys have clubs, attack in melee, and don't let their buddies move in and get attacks (aka they are complete idiots). So they get 8 attacks a round, though they are crits.

Result: 20th level Fighter can take on 410 melee mooks.

Scenario 4: So mook you can't believe it
You thought the last scenario these guys were terrible. But ok, no weapons, no armor, just guys using their fist! (aka 1 damage a round, and since its not a die its not crit multiplied). And still 8 guys in melee a round. Lets see what happens!

Result: 20th level Fighter can take on 2005 melee mooks.
detailed analysis including crits and such helps put this in perspective a lot... large numbers of attackers are crit fishing by default, and treating squadrons of characters as a bunch of individuals seems problematic in the first place as in not something fun.

Hmm my 4e tempest fighter in melee can using the right ability like rain of steel probably down 10 enemies a round possibly more by move attack move and using other burst powers. I am picturing 100 rounds maybe a little less.... bah
The only hits on a 20 will kick in around 10 levels after the creature was a moderate adversary ie a level 13 vs individual soldiers (level 3 types). And even if hit a decent number of times (it still wont give crit damage boosts) the fighter in 4e could pull out something like boundless endurance.. even if the fight went 100 rounds I highly doubt the 13th level fighter would have defensive problems at all, and that is not counting the ways to get temp hit points

1640458256152.png



Using tools like swarm mechanics or squadron ones from level up makes the concept of wading into a hoard a lot more interesting
 
Last edited:


I agree with this. One thing I would love to see in D&D is tactical options actually worth doing. For example, consider knocking a target prone. Unless you have 3 or more attacks in a turn or you have allies nearby who can also benefit from the target being down, it is worthless because the target can simply stand up without hinderance on its next turn.

But how do you balance that so people aren't always just knocking opponents prone when that becomes the better tactic?
Asked and answered. This wasn't a problem with 4e where encounter and daily powers weren't repeatable in part because fighters paced themselves. Or you have an anti-spam protection in that if someone has already faced a given trick they get a bonus to defend against it next time because they've seen it before. This is a matter of implementation with multiple possible answers rather than something that should be addressed to the abstract void as if it was something overwhelming.
Interesting. So you want to steal another classes key features? Remember, monks are considered martials, too
If the wizard can steal the illusionist's key features (and range from Necromancer to Evoker to Bladesinger) and we have a game with both wizard and sorcerer I'm pretty sure that that ship has sailed.

The key feature of the monk is that they don't need armour and that they have their unarmed attacks. I have no problem with fighters moving fast - and monks faster. But the idea that because the monk exists the fighter should be less than a real world fighter is one I consider starkly risible.
When did I ever say I have a problem with characters that are "superheroic" in their capabilities, which the DMG actually states the PCs should be by tier 4. But that is in tier 4. In tier 1 the powers they have are not "superheroic", they are barely heroic, and when it comes to magic, that is because it IS magic.
And here's an example of you moving the goalposts. If you are going to run in front of a brick wall and yell at it of course you are engaging a brick wall.

Spellcasters are superheroic by your definition from Tier 1. You yourself have admitted that fighters are never superheroic. You yourself in trying to list superheroic abilities reached into tiers 3 and 4 for e.g. the rogue (stroke of luck being tier 4).
And the other martials classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue) all have capabilities by tier 4 which I certainly do qualify as "superheroic capabilities". Primal Champion, Survivor, Timeless Body, and Stroke of Luck could all be "super hero" powers in a super hero RPG. But D&D is not a super hero RPG, despite even those martial classes having features which are "superheroic" IMO. Since it seems you feel differently, why do we keep hashing over the same material again and again?
And now you are arguing with yourself. You have just admitted that super hero powers should not be a problem at tier 4. You are literally saying that someone who remains spry into old age while still dying of old age is a superhero.

And as for "D&D is not a superhero RPG", that depends on your definition. As I have pointed out in AD&D 1e a level 8 fighter was literally called a superhero.
In a world of magic, where magic is real, casting a spell is not a superpower. Literally, in 5E, anyone can choose to play a Wizard, even with a INT 3. What that represents is the chance to learn how to utilize it magic to cast spells. Look at all the creatures that are casters and can use spells because they know how to utilize magic--either by arcane or divine or primal means? So how is a 1st level spell superheroic? It isn't.
In a world of fantasy physics being larger than life is not a superpower. Dragons should be too big to fly using their wings. Giants should be impossible by the square/cube ratio. Darkvision should be physically impossible. But they are taken as a given except when they are not.

Breaking the laws of physics as they stand in the real world is a thing in fantasy worlds because that is the only way they work. Yet somehow when people do it in the world that becomes superpowers. Someone can breathe fire because it is a spell? That's normal. Someone can because it's fantasy physics? That's a superpower. This is wholly and completely a double standard that has no purpose other than to dump on martials and by doing so utterly undermine fantasy worldbuilding. Because your world isn't fantastical your giants should just break their legs when they try to walk.

And even if this wasn't the case this would be entirely an aesthetic choice by you. It would boil down to "spellcasting is the sort of superpowers that I like and others aren't". Which is a defensible position for one set world - but should not be made into a general principle.
Consider Superman, how our Sun powers him (or whatever, I am not a comic expert...), is that magic? No. It is part of his superpowers.
All magic is is a subcategory of superpowers with a single common justification. And not even a remotely well defined category of superpowers. Superman has his powers because he's a Kryptonian under a yellow sun.
That is your opinion, obviously, not mine. IMO casting a 1st level spell, however awesome, does not rival capabilities which are always present once gained like those examples.
You mean that a first level spell is limited use? And that limits are useful in balancing things?
Since this is entirely a matter of opinion, there is no point debating it further. You can ignore the questions in my post, consider them rhetorical.
There is, however, a point in demonstrating thoroughly that your view even if it works for your game your attitude is entirely based on special pleading that only a specific subset of superpowers should be allowed so fewer others take it seriously and more recognise it for what it is.
Have a good game. :)
You too :)
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Spellcasters are superheroic by your definition from Tier 1. You yourself have admitted that fighters are never superheroic. You yourself in trying to list superheroic abilities reached into tiers 3 and 4 for e.g. the rogue (stroke of luck being tier 4).
In their defense, they changed their definition to exclusively exclude spellcasters from being superheroic because 'magic'.
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top