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

[Gammadoodler]

That's a different problem. The martial or caster who is not getting an appropriate amount of gold can just point at the wealth by level charts that show how far off the mark they are in other editions when making their case. Wotc failing to provide that or a solid economic foundation within the system is not a good reason to justify nerfing casters & massively buffing martials while ignoring the fact that d&d is a game overflowing with magic items. What you are calling for is a massive rewrite that cuts to the core of what d&d is as a game

This seems almost willfully obtuse. Because at the end of the day, what you are saying is that martials should get enough stuff to bring their abilities somewhere close to what casters are doing, and you are saying that there is no mechanism in 5e to support that.

But heaven forbid we just bake it into the abilities granted by the class instead.

Because all that stuff exists, the martials must be bound to it.

It seems silly. Especially since there is nothing preventing overpowered caster support magic items. Hell, they already have a ton more magic item support than the average monk.

 

[Asisreo]

I mean, saying that they are like cantrips doesn't make then good features. They wouldn't even be particularly good as cantrips.

Ask yourself...of these, which of them would an actual caster want to select?

• A 30 ft range single-target, single round frighten using the caster's strength score to set th DC
• A one+ minute cast time play the high-low game with an enemy's attributes
• A 7-day +25gp cost cast to forge some effective documents.
• You don't age anymore

Maybe the fighter thing gets chosen by a couple more social casters..the others get used as a liner for the dumpster.

And these are often the only things the martials get at these levels. They aren't garbage because they are non-combat abilities. They are trash because they are trashy.

Nah, they're "trash" because they're noncombat.

The only other cantrips that could possibly compare to these are "Guidance" or "Minor Illusion." The rest are things like "make a torch," "make a less bright torch," "make something taste good/change color," etc.

I don't know how to convey how powerful these features are without showing them off in-game. Because a fighter talking to the court wizard and realizing they can't cast 3rd-level spells is very important information. Or talking to a Mage and realizing they have 18 class levels and can cast 9th-level spells. If you've already have metaknowledge of your enemy, of course you'll find it not as useful. But when you realize that this even works against homebrew monsters/non-generic monsters, you'll find that the knowledge is very useful.

And it's funny. Focusing on the Assassin's Infiltration Expertise is part of the problem. Because Assassin rogues can do so much more than that, but we're isolating the ability as if it's the entire subclass/class. The Assassin also gets extra proficiencies, Reliable Talent, and expertise. So they have plenty to do on an average adventuring day, but now they have something pretty plot-bending for downtime, when usually casters have the upper hand.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Well.... The game allows them to max their Cha & Int, and they can roleplay how they wish, so Genius, Philanthropist & Playboy are all well within their grasp. And Billionaire sounds like a background choice, so you might need your DM on board for that one, but I would want to be consulting my DM for any background of influence like Noble and so on to make sure it fits into their campaign setting.
Soooo.... Yes?

The players don't exist in a vacuum, stories are created by a group of players and a DM. So, again, what's the story that player wants to tell?

If the player wants to play a character who is all about the pursuit of power, then I would be advising them to build their character and their part of the game world in accordance to that. If the type of power they're seeking is temporal power, which is part of the larger campaign setting, then yes, they would naturally tell that story working in concert with their DM.

If the power they're chasing is magical power, and they choose a non magical martial as their character concept, perhaps they want to tell that story by amassing a hoard of magic items, in which case, yes, they will need their DM on board. Or perhaps they want to tell a story of longing for something they can never attain, in which case, no, they don't. Or perhaps in this case, if chasing magical power is the story they want to tell, maybe a magical class would be a better choice? There's plenty of room for lots of choices here.

I once played a fighter with 6 Con and low Str. I wanted to tell a story about an underdog triumphing against all the odds, a weakling succeeding where everyone told them it was impossible. It was epic!

If that's the story they want to tell, what's the problem?

No I said if two players WANTED to tell a story like that, they could. It would be awesome!

There might be only one King of England at any moment, but there could two twin brothers, identical in every way who are both princes, and heirs to the throne. Maybe there's a reason noone is sure which one was born first. They both vie for the crown. Different players might play them slightly differently which may decide which one succeeds. Maybe one is king for a while and then dies/is assassinated/abdicates for love /goes missing /is uncovered as a traitor and the other one gets a turn? So many epic stories possible!

Oh, was there a magic sword involved? Maybe. Maybe not. Hardly seems the point does it?

I don't think anyone has argued that martials are limited in role-play potential. This has been at least primarily a discussion of mechanics.

I can see that you're just there for a good yarn, whatever that is. And that's fine. But a lot of players do care about how well their characters perform at their chosen niche. And of the two Arthurs, the one with the gear will perform better than the one without it. And there isn't a ton either can do about it without fighting over or sharing the gear.

This is not the same case as with the two Morganas. Those two can perform exactly as capably as long as they are built the same.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Nah, they're "trash" because they're noncombat.

The only other cantrips that could possibly compare to these are "Guidance" or "Minor Illusion." The rest are things like "make a torch," "make a less bright torch," "make something taste good/change color," etc.

I don't know how to convey how powerful these features are without showing them off in-game. Because a fighter talking to the court wizard and realizing they can't cast 3rd-level spells is very important information. Or talking to a Mage and realizing they have 18 class levels and can cast 9th-level spells. If you've already have metaknowledge of your enemy, of course you'll find it not as useful. But when you realize that this even works against homebrew monsters/non-generic monsters, you'll find that the knowledge is very useful.

And it's funny. Focusing on the Assassin's Infiltration Expertise is part of the problem. Because Assassin rogues can do so much more than that, but we're isolating the ability as if it's the entire subclass/class. The Assassin also gets extra proficiencies, Reliable Talent, and expertise. So they have plenty to do on an average adventuring day, but now they have something pretty plot-bending for downtime, when usually casters have the upper hand.

Friend, "know your enemy" does not get you even close to the level of specificity you are taking credit for.

The DM tells you if the creature is your equal, superior, or inferior in regard to two of the following characteristics of your choice:

Strength score
Dexterity score
Constitution score
Armor Class
Current hit points
Total class levels (if any)
Fighter class levels (if any)

The only way you can pick up the information you're talking about is in very specific edge cases where your fighter level is the borderline. And...it's the one ability of the four that isn't nigh on useless. I notice you didn't even mention the barbarian on monk stuff.

As far as the Assassin goes, you gotta ask yourself.

A). What are the circumstances where this will be useful? and how likely are they to occur?
B). Would I really try and stop another rogue, say one with the charlatan background and expertise in forgery tools from attempting this? (Literally the only reason to say "no" is because assasins have this as a class feature.. it's that dumb)
C). What are the things casters could be doing during this time to address the same need? (Would you rather have a pretty good set of forged identity papers or a week's worth of scouting by your familiar, scrying, disguising yourself as a servant in the house, etc.)

It's nice that assasins have a downtime activity. It's a shame it isn't very good. And yes rogues do get a lot of other good abilities of varying relation to combat and broadly they haven't been shat on the same way as Infiltration Expertise because they are not bad like Infiltration Expertise.

Now, if you want to defend actually good martial noncombat abilities with a claim that they are undervalued, that's probably a worthwhile conversation. I'm sure there are a few of them. The ones you've chosen to focus on thus far though are valued about right for what they are worth.

 

[tetrasodium]

This seems almost willfully obtuse. Because at the end of the day, what you are saying is that martials should get enough stuff to bring their abilities somewhere close to what casters are doing, and you are saying that there is no mechanism in 5e to support that.

But heaven forbid we just bake it into the abilities granted by the class instead.

Because all that stuff exists, the martials must be bound to it.

It seems silly. Especially since there is nothing preventing overpowered caster support magic items. Hell, they already have a ton more magic item support than the average monk.

You might want to hold off on terms like "willfully obtuse" because I have consistently been pointing out that you are holding up an example thst combines a player choosingto plus some other game with reprehensibly bad gm'ing together as a justification to make massive changes to support thst player's choice at the expense of any and all players who choose otherwise or have a gm who is running a game even slightly closer to d&d.

 

[Gammadoodler]

You might want to hold off on terms like "willfully obtuse" because I have consistently been pointing out that you are holding up an example thst combines a player choosingto plus some other game with reprehensibly bad gm'ing together as a justification to make massive changes to support thst player's choice at the expense of any and all players who choose otherwise or have a gm who is running a game even slightly closer to d&d.

Sorry. Don't actually know what you are saying here.

If I'm parsing it anywhere close (and please correct me if i am not), you think it makes more sense to place the burden of correcting class imbalance on the gm rather than the game designers, with a failure to do so serving as an example of "reprehensible bad" gm-ing.

And you think that shifting this burden back to game designers makes it "not D&D" and non-specifically harms players who are "playing D&D" with non-reprehensible gms.

I do not get this line of reasoning..like at all. Non-reprehensible gms have no issues picking up the slack for missing class power but for some reason are ill-equipped to handle balanced capabilities??

And further.. Players engaging in the same adventures, using the same abilities as they were getting from a set of magic weapons/armor, are no longer playing D&D just because their wardrobe is now described a little differently?? What?

 

[tetrasodium]

If I'm parsing it anywhere close (and please correct me if i am not),

You are not and I'm not the only one who has tried to explain why the "thesis" is fatally flawed in ways that corrupt any conclusions it might draw.

 

[Asisreo]

The only way you can pick up the information you're talking about is in very specific edge cases where your fighter level is the borderline. And...it's the one ability of the four that isn't nigh on useless. I notice you didn't even mention the barbarian on monk stuff.

The level thing is the most powerful option because it really does narrow down what spells a creature can cast, even if it's not specific. Let's say you're 7th level, you're going to know that the Mage either can or cannot cast 4th-level spells. If they can, they can cast spells of 4th-level and lower. If they can't, they can't cast spells 4th-level or higher. And usually it's easy to tell what type of class that creature represents, but if it's difficult, your party still has a baseline.

Now, if you want to defend actually good martial noncombat abilities with a claim that they are undervalued, that's probably a worthwhile conversation. I'm sure there are a few of them. The ones you've chosen to focus on thus far though are valued about right for what they are worth.

I'm not going to engage a conversation that's based purely on your unchanging opinion about what's "undervalued" or not, considering my opinion is based on experiences using the features or seeing them used creatively.

To me, it's like saying "Wish" is an okay-ish spell because it uses an 9th-level slot for an 8th-level spell. That is what it does, and if you can't see its value there isn't much to say about it anymore that can change your mind.

But I would like to say that there is an unreasonably high standard set for martials that must be met for any of their abilities to be seen as useful. The game has various mechanics but unless your martial has an insta-win ability for any given noncombat challenge, it's seen as worthless.

Shouting creatures into submission is bad design not because it makes martials seem fantastic, it's bad design because it would turn that class into the "Shouts at everything" class and suddenly you have to engage in a certain type of character that kinda ruins other people's fun.

That's a problem with spells as well. Some spells are poorly designed. Spells like Simulacrum and Forcecage which easily lend themselves to being disruptive or spells like Witchbolt and Find Traps which are almost laughably bad.

The difference is that spells are opt-in and a DM banning them still leaves options for the wizard. If the DM bans Intimidating Presence, they've objectively made the barbarian worse.

 

[Gammadoodler]

You are not and I'm not the only one who has tried to explain why the "thesis" is fatally flawed in ways that corrupt any conclusions it might draw.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

This has been at least primarily a discussion of mechanics.

Perhaps we're now talking at cross-purposes then?
Going back to the OP:

Fundamentally the concern about casters is really more the concern about magic. Magic can "do anything", and so a creature tied to the laws of reality can never hope to compete. That's the fundamental "issue".

I think the issues with magic tend to be of the "what 'rules' is it allowed to break" variety. As it relates to Casters vs. Martials, in my experience, the friction happens because these rules can only be broken by magic (even though it's a fantasy game where the PCs are intended to be extraordinary fantasy heroes).

Both of these snippets seem to me to indicate that this isn't a discussion of mechanics, it seems like a question of character concepts and balance issues of magic characters.
What are the specific mechanics you think are the topic here ?

I can see that you're just there for a good yarn, whatever that is. And that's fine. But a lot of players do care about how well their characters perform at their chosen niche.

Perhaps I've given you an incorrect impression. I care very much how characters perform in their chosen niche, I'm also an optimizer and can even tip into power-gamer sometimes. I'm not just here for a good yarn
I'm super happy to have a mechanics discussion, I just want things to make sense

And of the two Arthurs, the one with the gear will perform better than the one without it. And there isn't a ton either can do about it without fighting over or sharing the gear.

This is not the same case as with the two Morganas. Those two can perform exactly as capably as long as they are built the same.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Of course out of two Arthurs, the one with better gear will perform better. Are you saying that you think that of two Morganas, the one with better gear won't perform better than the other ? Do you think even the most powerful magic items make no difference to the performance level of pure casters ?