D&D (2024) Martial vs Caster: Removing the "Magical Dependencies" of high level.

[W'rkncacnter]

I've seen many battles where a spellcaster contributed basically nothing - their spells were resisted or they had a lousy damage roll and then the target made a saving throw... I think just as we've seen that fireball that rolled great and fried seven orcs at once, we've also seen that fireball that wound up doing 10 damage.

this has literally nothing to do with casters vs martials and everything to do with dice rolls. i've just as equally seen martials do effectively nothing in a fight from not being able to hit anything due to their attack rolls. i have been that martial. in those situations casters at least get damage on a successful save (barring evasion). martials don't get that - or, well, now they can with the graze property, and a bunch of people hate it.

 

[Remathilis]

I mean, I think "because they're 9th level and 9th level characters can fly" is sufficient reason. 9th level characters can fly for the same reason they have 9 Hit Dice and a saving throw proficiency bonus of +X (whatever). You reach a certain point where "resistance to falling" becomes "immunity to falling" and that's that.

In real life normal people terms? That's "magic". In D&D terms, it's just being 9th level.

I'd be fine with that if that is true of ALL 9th level characters. Fighters, rogues, barbarians, wizards, clerics, etc. 9th level = fly. But that's not giving the fighter much new as much as just guaranteeing all combat in D&D after 9th level in 3D.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Sure, but what if we were in an encounter where the wizard didn't have effective spells prepared? My monk's punches and maneuverability are almost always handy. I've seen many battles where a spellcaster contributed basically nothing - their spells were resisted or they had a lousy damage roll and then the target made a saving throw... I think just as we've seen that fireball that rolled great and fried seven orcs at once, we've also seen that fireball that wound up doing 10 damage. Spellcasters tend to be more flexible, but also more high risk.

With your example, it sounds like playing a barbarian is not for you. Barbarians, even more than fighters, basically do two things really well: take and deliver damage (at least when sub-classes are taken into account, since fighter sub-classes offer a lot more ply style options than barbarian sub-classes do, IMO). And there are some folks who love playing barbarians. In our current campaign the player with the barbarian is loving it; his previous two characters were a mage and a wizard and he is enjoying just getting to smash face for a change.

He is very effective, and vital to our success. I agree that he doesn't have nearly the options that my spouse does with their artificer, but he delivers way more damage, more consistently.

Every class can't do everything. A wall of force is going to be a problem for most characters; it is designed that way (what if you have a wizard, but they didn't happen to have disintegrate prepared?). Spellcasters do have more options, by and large. Mundane classes have fewer options but tend to be very good at them. I guess we just disagree on the basic viability of non-magic classes. I think barbarians and fighters are very viable; I am never disappointed to have one in the party.

The irony is that we spend so much time arguing about the viability of fighters, in particular, but they are by far the most popular 5e class according to the data we have, and are generally considered a good class that can fill a vital role, tanking, in any party, and are also an excellent DPR class. If we are talking mundane/martial classes that are don't have a super vital role, shouldn't monks and rogues be at the heart of the conversation?

The issue is that from a progression perspective, the capabilities of melee martials often do not see significant change beyond a larger HP pool.

Without magic items, they can be challenged with the exact same types of obstacles at nearly any level.

A thick wall, a wide pit, or a heavy locked door.. effective at every level 1-20.

Even from a damage perspective, where there's growth, it's pretty marginal. There's never an "I can cut down armies" development. At any moment from level 1-20 if a school bus full of dudes rolls up on fighter, that fighter is in deep trouble.

Edit: and the math pops up in every thread. Someone kits out a fighter in the most banana-pants magic items they can get to work, and rolls it against the lowest level schmoes we can set up, and the level 20 god of war fighter dies in less than a minute to anything more than say a high school marching band-sized number of these mooks. The only way they survive is if the mooks apply criminal levels of incompetence in their tactics.

It's pretty pathetic (and that's with magic items)

Edit 2: these problems are markedly less severe for ranged martials

 

[DammitVictor]

I'd be fine with that if that is true of ALL 9th level characters. Fighters, rogues, barbarians, wizards, clerics, etc. 9th level = fly. But that's not giving the fighter much new as much as just guaranteeing all combat in D&D after 9th level in 3D.

There's no reason to assume that bigger hit dice don't grant better flying powers. Or that spellcasting diminishes them.

Maybe Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters just don't fly quite as fast as Champions and Assassins, and Clerics and Wizards can't fly until much later unless they burn spell slots. Certainly, it doesn't apply to monsters who use entirely different rules than PCs.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure, but what if we were in an encounter where the wizard didn't have effective spells prepared?

That literally has never happened once in any game I've been in in the past 10 years. Even when dealing with people who want to play pyromancers who only have fire damage... they STILL have SOMETHING useful to do. Heck, the only time I have ever seen a wizard out of options is after they have expended all of their spells and are reduced to only doing cantrips (which are still highly effective.)

My monk's punches and maneuverability are almost always handy. I've seen many battles where a spellcaster contributed basically nothing - their spells were resisted or they had a lousy damage roll and then the target made a saving throw... I think just as we've seen that fireball that rolled great and fried seven orcs at once, we've also seen that fireball that wound up doing 10 damage. Spellcasters tend to be more flexible, but also more high risk.

"I used something that could reshape the battle, but it failed" is fundamentally different than lacking the ability to reshape the battle. I mean, sure, I've seen times when the caster tried to do something, and it failed. But the key difference with someone like a barbarian or a monk is that they don't have those options. Maybe a monk with stunning strike? But a barbarian? You can't even ATTEMPT something that might fail like that. You just have attack and survive being attacked.

With your example, it sounds like playing a barbarian is not for you. Barbarians, even more than fighters, basically do two things really well: take and deliver damage (at least when sub-classes are taken into account, since fighter sub-classes offer a lot more ply style options than barbarian sub-classes do, IMO). And there are some folks who love playing barbarians. In our current campaign the player with the barbarian is loving it; his previous two characters were a mage and a wizard and he is enjoying just getting to smash face for a change.

He is very effective, and vital to our success. I agree that he doesn't have nearly the options that my spouse does with their artificer, but he delivers way more damage, more consistently.

Why is it that the barbarian is designed to only do two things? Why is that an acceptable design? There are three pillars of play, and you are essentially saying Barbarians are only good in 30% of the game at best. Except, in combat, there are more things than taking and dealing damage. So... why do you not see this as a design problem?

Also, I played a barbarian before and had a lot of fun. Great Character. Ancestral Spirit Barbarian, so in addition to hitting things and getting hit... I could shield my allies. It still got a little frustrated at being so limited, but I had tactical options. Even if it was just one tactical option.

Every class can't do everything.

No, only some of them can. That's the problem.

A wall of force is going to be a problem for most characters; it is designed that way (what if you have a wizard, but they didn't happen to have disintegrate prepared?). Spellcasters do have more options, by and large. Mundane classes have fewer options but tend to be very good at them. I guess we just disagree on the basic viability of non-magic classes. I think barbarians and fighters are very viable; I am never disappointed to have one in the party.

But what do we mean by "viable"? Is it like saying they have role-play potential? Sure, everyone has role-play potential. Are they capable of not being useless in a fight? Sure, technically speaking, but they are never the class that pulls out the hail mary. The best Barbarian stories usually involve getting buffed by a caster to be more effective before killing something. That's all they have.

And you can accomplish the same thing with paladins, who also have a lot of utility abilities and also do reliable good damage and are reliable tough front-liners.

The irony is that we spend so much time arguing about the viability of fighters, in particular, but they are by far the most popular 5e class according to the data we have, and are generally considered a good class that can fill a vital role, tanking, in any party, and are also an excellent DPR class. If we are talking mundane/martial classes that are don't have a super vital role, shouldn't monks and rogues be at the heart of the conversation?

Maybe, but monks are a mess for a lot of reasons, and I've already discussed my thoughts on why rogues don't seem as blatant. Partially, it is because when Fighters and Barbarians get looked at across all three pillars... they utterly fail at two of them. They are ONLY good in combat... and a well-build caster or one of the half-casters can be better tanks and better DPR. While also not being abysmal jokes at literally anything that doesn't involve initiative.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

You are missing the point.

The mundane guy is a fantasy Archetype. A character with only human capacity, with no magical, psionic, mutation, or surnatural power.
In front of some challenge he can simply do nothing without external help.
In front of a wall of force like in the OP the mundane guy can do nothing.
He need help, and that need for help is a key motor for many fantasy. It create motivation, interaction, satisfaction when the needed help is acquire or give. Making the mundane guy crush th he wall of force with his bare hands like a bag of hit points, make disappear this key motor of fantasy.

the 'mundane fighter' in fantasy imo is "i don't have magic, i don't have supernatural blood, i don't have a divine blade granted by the gods or a medalion of power, i'm just very, very good at beating people up and i've beaten all of the other guys who did have that stuff, because that's how good i am, and i ain't ever needed nothing but grit and elbow grease to do that"

Yeah, the mundane guy in a fantasy world is an archtype, but he gets a lot of narrative help and spotlight. If you are going truly down this route you have to have Fate points or something to reflect this or have the DM cater to this mundane guy. That's kinda the point. Give something mechanical to reflect the heart, luck, grit, etc. that somehow lets this mundane guy contribute to a team of superheros and you might get closer.

Of course, also have the mythical martial as an option as well since you are already going crazy with spellcasters.

The consequences of DND becoming self-referential have been disastrous for RPG players.

Yep. D&D is it's very own thing and genre that developed through historical circumstances. And perhaps not a good one. Even D&D novels and the movie that just came out don't think it's a great model for good stories. Spellcasters are always nerfed in some ways.

 

[Hussar]

Fighters can benefit the most from magic items. That isn’t a weakness it’s a strength.

fighters benefit from weapons, armour and utility powers in ways that other classes don’t. AND it gets all its fighter abilities.

Wizard Magic items (with a few rare exeptions like robes of the magi, staff of power) generally provide alternatives but dont make what they essentially do any better.

[Wand of the war mage is another but as has been discussed earlier few important wizard spells have attack rolls]

This is the heart of the issue though. One class only gains any new options through magic items. All other classes, including rogues, gain new options through their class.

A fighter without magic items is the same at every level. A rogue, otoh can vanish in plain sight. Can be so good at skills that he can never fail (automatically 10 or better) and become so good at new skills that it’s superhuman.

That’s really the crux of the issue.

 

[Hussar]

Percy is a single-classed fighter, ultimately level 20, gunslinger sub-class (home-brewed by Matt Mercer; inspired by the Pathfinder sub-class because CR started out as a Pathfinder campaign). Hex comes via the sub-class.

And isn’t even in the top three of damage compared to a barbarian and two rangers, one of which is a beastmaster. As in arguably the weakest phb character in the game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I mean I assume you will have something. Even superman and invincible have like a paper thin vainer of an explanation...

"I extend my aura and it lifts me"
"I think my happy thought and can fly"
"I am so strong I leap into the air and stay there, and have control of my muscles to manuver"
"I grow wings"
"I throw myself"

No fly: jump good.

 

[Hussar]

.

I wonder how insane he’d have been with a few levels of Hexblade Warlock, though. And, ya know, a subclasss that added to his damage output rather than just giving him trick shots that were basically BM manuevers without the die.

I know right. He might have actually equaled the other three combat characters in the game. Your definition of insane is a bit different from mine.