D&D (2024) High tier Fighter − the mythic warrior

kilpatds

Explorer
It is useful to establish a should-be ratio between twice per day spell damage versus always-on dpr.
As someone who's spent a LOT of time in higher-level play and (mostly 4e) theoretical DPR analysis...

DPR can be overrated, and I think treantmonk has a video touching that. Always-on DPR isn't a thing that willingly happens/should willingly happen... combats are less than 10 rounds, and a 10-round combat is a LOT. If the combat does go 10 rounds, spike damage is even MORE important than DPR, because you are going to have threats from the monster side that will end it well before 10 rounds unless you deal with them.

This is where wizards shine: the CR15 scary-brute that's banished because portent said it rolled a 5 on the save.... that changes the combat in a way similar to 300points of spike damage this round. That's WAY more effective than 90 damage from a direct damage spell. And doesn't even pretend to compare with 40 points of DPR. So if you want martials that can be mythic, I think you want martials that can do hundreds of points of spike damage (DMG: creating monsters, monster statistics by challenge rating. Except that's not the table they ended up on, AFAICT). Or alternately, martials need to be able to soak 100 points of damage a round and still make it to the end of a 5 round fight (same source, same caveat)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yaarel

He Mage
Shouldn't there be ranged dpr and melee dpr? Eldritch blast is ranged.
Tentatively, I view ranged and melee as equivalent amounts of damage.


As someone who's spent a LOT of time in higher-level play and (mostly 4e) theoretical DPR analysis...

DPR can be overrated, and I think treantmonk has a video touching that. Always-on DPR isn't a thing that willingly happens/should willingly happen... combats are less than 10 rounds, and a 10-round combat is a LOT. If the combat does go 10 rounds, spike damage is even MORE important than DPR, because you are going to have threats from the monster side that will end it well before 10 rounds unless you deal with them.

This is where wizards shine: the CR15 scary-brute that's banished because portent said it rolled a 5 on the save.... that changes the combat in a way similar to 300points of spike damage this round. That's WAY more effective than 90 damage from a direct damage spell. And doesn't even pretend to compare with 40 points of DPR. So if you want martials that can be mythic, I think you want martials that can do hundreds of points of spike damage (DMG: creating monsters, monster statistics by challenge rating. Except that's not the table they ended up on, AFAICT). Or alternately, martials need to be able to soak 100 points of damage a round and still make it to the end of a 5 round fight (same source, same caveat)
Is what you are saying equivalent to a mythic warrior spiking spell damage amounts, once or twice per day?

If so, the mythic warrior can refer to the spell colums as well to measure expected amounts of damage from a spike.

For example, spiking once per short rest is roughly comparable to a spell slot.
 

kilpatds

Explorer
Well, casters cap out, as you show, at ... well less than the numbers I'd target. But, directionally yes. Limited use damage spikes are equivalent no matter the source.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
Regarding nondamage spell effects, mostly they delay a monster. The caster still needs a way to deal with the monster when the spell duration ends.

Thus the mobility spells (including barrier spells) help to divide up targets to focus fire, but there must be a way to deal with each threat eventually.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I’d suggest that there is nothing any fictional martial can do out of combat without the equivalent of spells or magic that is remotely close to what a level 20 d&d wizard can do out of combat.

In combat there’s at least a discussion to be had. Feats, magic items, a good subclass and multiclassing can really increase martial damage output.

Which leads me to this observation - martials will never be able to match current d&d style high level wizards in out of combat capabilities. The fiction just doesn’t support this.

*There is a question about whether that matters. For example if you need fly to get to the bbeg boss and you don’t have it then you either find an NPC or quest to help, go on a different quest, or the dm brings the bbeg boss to you. In any event the campaign goes on just fine.

All that said I’m all for shrinking the martial /caster out of combat divide by giving martials nicer out of combat abilities! But the truth is that without a nerf to wizards, that divide is always going to exist and so any attempted solution involving just giving martials out of combat abilities is really a non-solution.

What is needed is for martials to have a clear combat niche that wizards cannot override.

Ideally martials should be much tougher to hit, much more durable, much more mobile and have much more single target damaging than every wizard of the same level.

Wizards still have aoe, control, counterspell, buffs, etc. they’ll be fine in combat and maybe overall still better than martials, but at least martials get a clearly defined niche.
 

kilpatds

Explorer
I’d suggest that there is nothing any fictional martial can do out of combat without the equivalent of spells or magic that is remotely close to what a level 20 d&d wizard can do out of combat.
I'm less convinced than you, but I agree on the problem. My go-to example here is the 4e Epic Destiny "Dark Wanderer", which says "you can walk from anywhere to anywhere in 1 day. Different planes? Yes? Did I stutter?" How? Because you know/can find all the cross-planer shortcuts. You walk to a crossroad, then take a shortcut through hell to a different crossroads that's next to a manifest zone to the feywild that's leads. you to a gate to ... eh, don't worry about it DM, I just walked there. next question. Sure, yes I died? It's ok, I know the path back.

Did I need a flyspell if I can jump 100 feet? Do I need etherealness if I'm so much with the shadows I can walk through walls? Hercules picking up and moving rivers. This is all mythic, (and magical) but not spells and not the same as a wizard.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I'm less convinced than you, but I agree on the problem. My go-to example here is the 4e Epic Destiny "Dark Wanderer", which says "you can walk from anywhere to anywhere in 1 day. Different planes? Yes? Did I stutter?" How? Because you know/can find all the cross-planer shortcuts. You walk to a crossroad, then take a shortcut through hell to a different crossroads that's next to a manifest zone to the feywild that's leads. you to a gate to ... eh, don't worry about it DM, I just walked there. next question. Sure, yes I died? It's ok, I know the path back.

Did I need a flyspell if I can jump 100 feet? Do I need etherealness if I'm so much with the shadows I can walk through walls? Hercules picking up and moving rivers. This is all mythic, (and magical) but not spells and not the same as a wizard.
To me it’s the same. The jumping 100ft may be an exception. But the rest, no different than spells to me.

Which seems to be the broad categorical difference. Those players that are okay with overtly magical effects given to fighters and those that aren’t.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
Well, casters cap out, as you show, at ... well less than the numbers I'd target. But, directionally yes. Limited use damage spikes are equivalent no matter the source.

I’d suggest that there is nothing any fictional martial can do out of combat without the equivalent of spells or magic that is remotely close to what a level 20 d&d wizard can do out of combat.

In combat there’s at least a discussion to be had. Feats, magic items, a good subclass and multiclassing can really increase martial damage output.

Which leads me to this observation - martials will never be able to match current d&d style high level wizards in out of combat capabilities. The fiction just doesn’t support this.

*There is a question about whether that matters. For example if you need fly to get to the bbeg boss and you don’t have it then you either find an NPC or quest to help, go on a different quest, or the dm brings the bbeg boss to you. In any event the campaign goes on just fine.

All that said I’m all for shrinking the martial /caster out of combat divide by giving martials nicer out of combat abilities! But the truth is that without a nerf to wizards, that divide is always going to exist and so any attempted solution involving just giving martials out of combat abilities is really a non-solution.

What is needed is for martials to have a clear combat niche that wizards cannot override.

Ideally martials should be much tougher to hit, much more durable, much more mobile and have much more single target damaging than every wizard of the same level.

Wizards still have aoe, control, counterspell, buffs, etc. they’ll be fine in combat and maybe overall still better than martials, but at least martials get a clearly defined niche.
The general standard makes all classes contribute equally in combat.

Therefore.

It is possible in principle, to compare spells and dpr directly. In other words, how much damage-pr is someone willing to sacrifice in order to produce a nondamage spell effect. In the aggregate the answers establish a value that is pragmatically true in most situations. It can mean some spell effects might be too powerful for their currently assigned slot, or that the dpr is lower than it should be.

Also, every class needs to contribute equally to social and exploration encounters.

Therefore, as long as a social or exploration feature doesnt boost combat, the warrior classes can have pure upgrades in power in order to contribute equally to noncomat.


The 4e Dark Wanderer is a great example of an exploration feature that is appropriate for a mythic warrior theme. There are precedents too, such as various accounts of warriors figuring out how to enter (and exit) the underworld.
 
Last edited:

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
The general standard makes all classes contribute equally in combat.

Therefore.

It is possible in principle, to compare spells and dpr directly. In other words, how much damage-pr is someone willing to sacrifice in order to produce a nondamage spell effect. In the aggregate the answers establish a value that is pragmatically true in most situations. It can mean some spell effects might be too powerful for their currently assigned slot, or that the dpr is lower than it should be.

Also, every class needs to contribute equally to social and exploration encounters.

Therefore, as long as a social or exploration feature doesnt boost combat, the warrior classes can have pure upgrades in power in order to contribute equally to noncomat.
Starting here. I submit that with high level wizards in their current state that it’s impossible for a fictional fighter to match them in the exploration pillar without equivalent magic.

Because of this inability to match the exploration pillar then fighter do need to be completely superior at least at certain aspects of combat when compared with wizards.

The general standards are thus bunk! A fairy tale we tell to make the kids happy.
 

kilpatds

Explorer
To me it’s the same. The jumping 100ft may be an exception. But the rest, no different than spells to me.

Which seems to be the broad categorical difference. Those players that are okay with overtly magical effects given to fighters and those that aren’t.
The difference is that the mythic is defined by his abilities, and can use them (and slant-use-them) more freely, but can't change them. The wizard can change their spells each day, and so gains way more flexibility.. but that flexibility should come at the cost of raw power. Let wizards/full casters be the heisenwizards, let the mythics be the superheros.

Edit: see also the Hero system.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top