D&D 5E Casters vs Martials: Part 2 - The Mundane Limit

[EzekielRaiden]

I assume that was 4E (which I didn't play)? Because, otherwise, I haven't seen it.

Correct. In 4e, at least to start off,* all characters got powers at the same rate, and most powers were either specific to combat, or relatively-narrowly-defined utility powers (many utility powers were also combat-focused, but many others were for non-combat things too.) You know 5e's "ritual casting" stuff? That is a rather weaker version of what 4e did to ALL the old utility spells. Anyone who took the Ritual Caster feat could perform rituals, and TONS of pre-4e utility spells (e.g. phantom steed, comprehend languages, a ton of stuff) were turned into rituals. Many needed components, which could either be bought or acquired as loot; some just worked when you performed them, others required a check (usually Arcana, Nature, Religion, or Heal, depending on the nature of the ritual.) It was actually a very robust system that preserved an enormous variety of the old obscure utility spells. Sadly, the vocal pro-caster-power critics painted it as robbing Wizards and other casters of their identity and making magic weak and pointless.

Again, I never experienced any of that, but I'll take your word in good faith.

Oh yeah, it definitely happened. I'll have to see if I can dig up the Next podcast where Mearls used that phrase. As I said, he did say "I'm being ridiculous" immediately thereafter, but that was quite literally a phrase he used as part of justifying why the 4e Warlord, aka one of 4e fans' most beloved classes, wouldn't get included in 5e. Paraphrasing heavily, he more or less said "a Warlord is basically just a Bard mixed with a Fighter," which....well, it rather reflected how Mearls didn't know the first thing about what 4e fans loved about 4e.

*The vast majority of classes in 4e had a common, fixed schedule of gaining new powers. You start with 2 At-wills, 1 Encounter, and 1 Daily; 2nd level gives you a Utility power (hence people call this stuff "AEDU"); 3rd level gives you a new Encounter power; etc. Two major variants appeared later in 4e's life. First, Psionic classes (other than Monk, which used standard AEDU) used the "Power Point" system, where ALL of their powers were At-will, but they could choose to "augment" those powers with Power Points--very roughly, augment 1 = Encounter power, augment 3 = Daily power. This didn't work very well because it meant most people just spammed the strongest effects all day long until they ran out of PP. The second variant, with the 4e Essentials line (an alternate on-ramp with overall simpler but 100% compatible classes), was classes that did not get any Daily powers at all, instead getting multiple-use Encounter powers (the Slayer Fighter, for example, got Power Strike, a multiple-use Encounter power that juices up successful hits with melee basic attacks.) The Essentials variant was fine, albeit usually slightly under-powered compared to standard AEDU.

Edit:

I have found a transcript (which jogs my memory, so I generally trust it) and it seems I was very slightly exaggerating, but not a lot, at least in my opinion. You may decide for yourself.

Thompson: [Inspiring others is] a big part of the bard, I would say. I think there's some desire for a, when you're playing that leader character, to be able to say, "Alright, men! Fight on!" and be the guy leading the charge. To be William Wallace from Braveheart. You want to be that guy. I would not describe a William Wallace-type character as a bard.
Mearls: But you also wouldn't say he's a healer. I wouldn't. I wouldn't think, if there's a guy whose been gutted, William Wallace gets the guys to freak out and charge and moon the British--
Thompson: Well...
Mearls: Healing? If the guy has a broken arm, does William Wallace--
Thompson: William Wallace clearly went and inspired the guy who got his hand cut off to keep fighting. There's that--
Mearls: But his hand didn't grow back. (laughter) Now I'm being a little ridiculous.

So while he did not actually use the phrase "shouting hands back on," he did explicitly crack a joke about how a Warlord could not make a man's hand "grow back." Again, he specified he was being ridiculous in his next sentence, but like...the damage was done, my dude.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Let's look at the attitudes holding martials back and creating that limit:

• "The world is Earthlike and martials should be limited to what Earth people can't do. Also, I'm not fully aware of what Earth people can do".
• "Any level of complexity means an ability is a spell and therefore belongs to spellcasters.
• We have 'enough' crunch and so shouldn't add things for martials. But thank you for all the new spells, Wizards.

Or.

Ooooor.

You could work towards making what you want instead of complaining, misunderstanding, and taking stabs at people who are legitimately trying to have the discussion, offering options, giving suggestions for improvements, and so on, by engaging with those people?

Discussion can be constructive, after all. So, how about ideas that focus on the bolded part:

The question of what to do when martial PCs escape the bounds of reality at level 11 isn't dicussed by the community.

1. The world is Earth-like.
This is entirely in the hands of the DM and their table, although WotC makes some assumptions given in the DMG (p. 38). So, how closely it resembles what Earth people can do is subjective. IMO you can have an Earth-like base standard, but allow tier 3/4 martials to have features to levels of skill or ability that far exceed mundane levels.

Ex. Hector commenting on Achilles's javelin throw in the movie, Troy: "an impossible throw". Hector (a hero, certainly) was amazed at the throw Achilles made because it was impossible, well beyond anything Hector ever thought could happen. Perhaps this would be more suited to tier 3 than 4, but the idea is there.

2. Any level of complexity beyond #1 isn't necessarily a "spell", but it helps if there is some narrative for it, be it magic, origin story, or whatever. Personally, I would steer away from the magic narrative, to avoid any "spell" confusion. shrug

The larger issue I see with origin story is tying it into a class/subclass and not, literally, your origin (race/lineage/etc.). But people with more experience in game design and/or superhero/anime/manga culture I am sure would have more to suggest.

Ex. If it was tied into the subclass, perhaps at tier 3 the subclass feature could include some "awakened" narrative, even akin to "you discover one of your parents was really a god" or something.

Again, I'm not sure how to handle it, but that is what discussion is for.

3. Some people like 5E as it is. Many use just the core books and none of the extra materials, heck some just use the Starter Set! You are always going to have players who don't feel the need for "more" (crunch-material or otherwise). But adding it for the people who want it (look at the excitement over Level Up!) isn't a bad thing. And FWIW, IME people who don't want more, often don't care about more spells, either. YMMV, of course.

Finally, you might retort "why is an explanation even needed, its fantasy after all?" To which my reply is because the fantasy in 5E is already explained. Clerics get spells from divine sources, Warlocks from patrons, Wizards from studying/the weave/etc. So, it you want features to rival the powers that be, offering that narrative would be helpful. If you want to say my martial PC can leap 500 feet just because he can, I don't think you'll get many people to buy into it, personally. If you have a group who all wants to play without caring as to the "how", then it doesn't matter really I guess.

 

[Scars Unseen]

You are confused on what the tiers are. Read PHB pg 15 and DMG 36-37.

Level 1-4: Apprentice Adventurers and Local Heroes
Level 5-10: Skilled Adventurers and Heroes of the Realm
Level 11-16: True Paragons and Masters of the Realm
Level 17-20: Epic Superheroes and Masters of the World

A level 3 sorcerer plays like an apprentice. A level 17 sorcerer is an archmage that kings discuss with the council about.

It's like you didn't even read my posts. Level based tiers is exactly what I'm arguing against. At least as the default. If you were playing a sci-fi RPG, you wouldn't say "levels 1-7, we'll play as Type I on the Kardeshev scale, then levels 8-14 will be Type II, and levels 15-20 will be Type III." Those levels of civilization lead to wildly different types of stories, and by the same token, the myth of Heracles and The Three Musketeers wouldn't work in the same book either.

There's nothing wrong with wanting every character type to have the same "zero to demigod" progression that casters get, but there's nothing wrong with not wanting that for any characters either. If someone wants "Masters of the World" to not be a thing at all and "Masters of the Realm" to be "really skilled adventurers," that's just as valid a want as wanting to be able to shout mountains apart, and it's just as valid to want to be able to do that for the entire level scale. Because there's a reason that the Epic of Beowulf doesn't talk about his days scaring wildlife away from farm. There's a reason that the myth of Heracles has him strangling a snake in his crib. And there's a reason that Aragorn doesn't shatter the gates of Mordor with his mighty fist.

Having tiers divorced from levels, but instead being more of a lever to apply to any level of play would allow a game that goes from tier I to tier II, from tier II to tier IV, or any other combination that a group feels suits their needs.

That's not what they are arguing because said people are not arguing to strip half the spells out of D&D.
If you want 20 level of heroic play, casters need a major nerf. Like nerfed harder than 4th edition nerfed magic.

Yes. Absolutely nerf casters for the purposes of lower tier play. And yes. Absolutely boost martial classes for epic tier play. But make it an option on both ends at all levels, so that those that want one style can play what they want, and those that want another can play what they want. Otherwise, we'll continue the current trend of traditional design continually leading us back to neither side really getting what they want.

 

[Minigiant]

It's like you didn't even read my posts. Level based tiers is exactly what I'm arguing against. At least as the default. If you were playing a sci-fi RPG, you wouldn't say "levels 1-7, we'll play as Type I on the Kardeshev scale, then levels 8-14 will be Type II, and levels 15-20 will be Type III." Those levels of civilization lead to wildly different types of stories, and by the same token, the myth of Heracles and The Three Musketeers wouldn't work in the same book either.

There's nothing wrong with wanting every character type to have the same "zero to demigod" progression that casters get, but there's nothing wrong with not wanting that for any characters either. If someone wants "Masters of the World" to not be a thing at all and "Masters of the Realm" to be "really skilled adventurers," that's just as valid a want as wanting to be able to shout mountains apart, and it's just as valid to want to be able to do that for the entire level scale. Because there's a reason that the Epic of Beowulf doesn't talk about his days scaring wildlife away from farm. There's a reason that the myth of Heracles has him strangling a snake in his crib. And there's a reason that Aragorn doesn't shatter the gates of Mordor with his mighty fist.

Having tiers divorced from levels, but instead being more of a lever to apply to any level of play would allow a game that goes from tier I to tier II, from tier II to tier IV, or any other combination that a group feels suits their needs.

I don't think you can make divorce tiers and levels without rewriting the PHB 3 times. You'd have to design and print every class four times.

A Gritty Fighter
A Heroic Fighter
A Paragon Fighter
An Epic Fighter

for every class. Sorta like Tasha's Sidekick classes but keeping them at Tier 1. WOTC is never gonna do that and the community would rage over having 3 times the books being mandatory.

At best, levels 1-10 would be still linking to Tier 1 and Tier 2. Then from there you can determine whether you take T2, T3, or T4 features after. Like by default HD and spell slots stop at level 10. If you choose to go Paragon, warriors get 2-3 more attacks and more HD and casters get spell slots but no new spells. Etc. However 5e showed how scared WOTC is from major variant now.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think another way to look at it (when you consider the type of adventure you want) is to think about what you want your PCs to be able to accomplish by the end of the adventure/career/game. For example, as @Scars Unseen says, "Aragorn doesn't shatter the gates of Mordor with his mighty fist," because that isn't the style of play for that game.

We also have to look at what sort of game you want to play from the beginning. Is a young Hercules already a superhero at level 1?

My groups have actually discussed playing the Sidekick classes from Tasha's (one of the few things I like in it) AS our PCs to have a more mundane and simpler style of game.

But back to what you want to do. How would a mundane/gritty Fighter (or Wizard) deal with fighting an ancient dragon? Vastly different from how a Superheroic/Paragon (or Epic?) Fighter or Wizard would do it! Could the lesser powered gritty variant even handle an ancient dragon if it has the same stat block the higher-powered variant uses? Probably not, IMO, it just wouldn't translate.

I've advocated for a three-branch system (mundane/heroic/superheroic), but like @Minigiant says you would either have separate books, or the classes section becomes three times the size! But I also understand @Scars Unseen's point about not linking it to tiers so you can have the level 1 Hercules already as a (minor?) superhero-type.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think you can make divorce tiers and levels without rewriting the PHB 3 times. You'd have to design and print every class four times.

A Gritty Fighter
A Heroic Fighter
A Paragon Fighter
An Epic Fighter

for every class.

Effectively what 4e did is gave you 3 "tiers" of classes.

Base Class
Paragon Path (your major boost at 11th level)
Epic Destiny (your major boost at 21st level)

This is more the "prestige class" concept, you have new classes that add layers on top of each other (Shrek Onion style).

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Similar in the use of martial powers. 4e gave martials abilities that border on spells...but with no flavor to explain how/why they work. That is partly why this thread exists, to find the line of where we can give martial characters abilities "in flavor", and where we have to draw the line and say "no that's just too crazy for a martial to get".

For a 4e example, take the power "Come and Get It". This was an ability that forced creatures near the fighter to instantly move to the fighter and take attacks. Its a commonly cited "problem ability" from 4e detractors....and honestly their concerns are understandable. Why does a reasonably intelligence creature just suddenly dive at the fighter and ultimately to their doom, just because the fighter wants them to?

This is an example of "Will Manipulation" done badly. The idea of a martial driving creatures away through fear is reasonable in flavor. The idea of a martial knocking people around and giving them a mental effect has decent flavor. The idea that a martial can command enemies and control their movements.... that crosses the line of reasonability.

It's funny. I went back and looked at the high level Fighter powers in the Player's Handbook and Martial Power 1 and 2 and they are a lot more mundane than I remember actually.

"Come and Get It" and 1 higher level version of it are the only powers I could find that stretched beyond even the heroic idea.

High level Fighter powers just either do a lot of damage, hit mulitple enemies, allow for the full spectrum of mundane conditions (stun, daze, blind, disarm, ongoing damage, etc.), add extra movement and repositioning, add a way to mark a lot of people, add some kind of defensive thing into an attack, etc. They give a lot more agency to the player on when these things happen but the level of effects themselves are not very far off from 3e and 5e. There were still some things the Fighter couldn't do that the Wizard could (make walls, elemental damage, etc.) but the reverse was also actually true I think (marking)!

"Come and Get It" is a weird one. I think it's actually trying to emulate a really mundane concept. The trope where a martial type either fakes their guard is down or goads a mass of people to charge them. Or maybe also the passive thing where people with numbers just gang up on the tough looking dude.

It's implementation was initially automatic (pull anyone within 15 feet) and then errated to a will save. So you could get cases that were harder to justify -- why would the 3 bow wielding goblins or robe wearing mages charge the Fighter? Even this could be justified with a little squinting -- perhaps you describe it as the Fighter sweeping around them, grabbing and pushing so it ends up with the Fighter in the same spot and the 3 bow goblins sourrounding him. 4e was already getting more into mechanics first then fit the fiction with things like prone working on Oozes (just decribe it as the Ooze getting disrupted or split and having to take an action to reform before it can move normally) so they could have opened things up to more of this with things like Come and Get It.

OR they could have designed it better as a "traditional" ability where you have to account for "realism"

Maybe it would not have been as rejected if it was:

You goad those inferior to you into attacking you or make it seem like you are hurt, causing them to charge into a trap.

You pull any minion within 6 squares (30 ft) whos primary attack is melee 5 squares to you and make an attack against each one of them. Even on a miss the minion is stuned. Melee attack Standard and Elite monsters get a Will Save and do not get stuned on a miss. Solo monsters are immune.

This requires more DM adudication than 4e likes (you'd have to add a tag to monsters on whether not they are "melee primary" to really 4e it).

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Effectively what 4e did is gave you 3 "tiers" of classes.

Base Class
Paragon Path (your major boost at 11th level)
Epic Destiny (your major boost at 21st level)

This is more the "prestige class" concept, you have new classes that add layers on top of each other (Shrek Onion style).

4e was interesting in that I think almost all the "mythic level" abilities were either in Rituals (planar travel, long range teleport, raise dead, etc.) which anyone could do if they put the resources in or in Epic Desinities (when you die you..., stealing concepts, walk to any destination anywhere in the multiverse, etc.) which every class has access to.

Or potentially in the Skill Challenge use of the skill systems which you could decide to ramp up to mythic level fiction at higher tiers if you wanted to.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You could work towards making what you want

Doing that. Making my own game instead of one shackled by tradition-bound bad design.

complaining, misunderstanding, and taking stabs at people who are legitimately trying to have the discussion, offering options, giving suggestions for improvements, and so on, by engaging with those people?

It's not taking stabs. It's accurately describing the crowd that kool-aid man's their way through the wall whenever someone tries to make a strong fantasy martial.

 

[Stalker0]

It's funny. I went back and looked at the high level Fighter powers in the Player's Handbook and Martial Power 1 and 2 and they are a lot more mundane than I remember actually.

Yeah how 4e attempted to solve the "caster vs martial" gap was really in the "if you can't beat them...join them", through the use of rituals.

Most of the spells we traditionally associate with "casters can do things martials can't do", ala divinations or scrying or teleports....were rituals in 4e, and rituals could be done by anyone with a feat.

So in 4e, if you were a high level fighter and didn't want to get whacky....you didn't take ritual caster. If you were a martial that wanted to do stuff like caster did, you took the feat and then could choose various magical effects.


This was an effective system, I just think a lot of people didn't like how rituals were implemented in 4e. Honestly a more polished ritual system could have been a great way to do it in 5e, and would have given a lot more balance between casters and martials.