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

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

You didn’t include anything other than the base ability score, 3 base attacks and the magic weapon. Like anything else? Have you ever played a fighter of any level?

I'm sorry but no I don't get to play fighters I want to play a concept from martial characters but sure I'll bite, what else can we add? I gave them a +3 weapon and we rarely if ever see better then +2 in my games, so go on.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You’re missing an important point that means it’s a fine match up. The Manticore is AC 14, +5 to hit and up in the air.

The fighter is likely AC 18 - 22 and can take cover if they want to. As well as being probably having better to hit rolls.

Wow, a 5th level fighter with 22 AC? How did you pull that off? I mean, with a longbow you can't use a shield, so that's, +4 Plate Armor? You must be REAL generous with magical items. Especially since that doesn't even exist in the game.

But sure, maybe they have an 18 AC, plate armor is possible by 5th level. Of course, kind of weird you don't think the manticore can take cover. They live in mountainous areas, and, you know, rocks and trees and clouds are all very likely up there. Manticore could easily attack a fighter who is in a ravine, and fly up and over the sides of the ravine, getting cover, and maybe even total cover from the fighter, every other turn at least.

Oh, and to have better than a +5 to hit by 5th level, you need a 16 Dex. Now, for a dedicated dexterity figther (who likely won't have the strength to wear that armor that's giving them that 18 AC) that's likely. For a strength based fighter? Likely not. They likely only have a 12 or 14 Dex. Meaning they are the same or worse. I mean, they could end up wearing the armor and reducing their speed... but that is going to make running from cover to cover difficult for them.

Also, you are missing that the Manticore has about 20 more hp (at a minimum) than the fighter, even if the manticore is hit more often, it takes more time for them to be killed.

In fact, let's run some of those numbers, hmmm?

We'll assume both parties use tactical play for cover in equal amounts, and just call that a null. So, Manticore vs two different fighters. One is a longbow archer, with platemail, the other is a melee fighter with platemail. Let's see how this averages out.

Fighter Hp with 16 Con: 13+9x4 = 49
Manticore average Hp: 68

Manticore attacks: 7x3 = 21 x 0.4 = 8.4
7x3 = 21 x 0.05 = 1.05
Averages 9.45 per turn and that equals 5.18 turns til Fighter is dead on average.

Longbow Fighter with 18 Dex and fighting style
8.5 x 2 = 17 x 0.75 = 12.75
8.5 x 2 = 17 x 0.05 = 0.85
Averages out to 13.6 per turn, and that is 5 turns EXACTLY until the manticore is dead.

Probably not worth it, but let's try that strength fighter who has a 14 Dex (btw, this is 18 str, 16 con, 14 dex)
6.5 x 2 = 13 x 0.6 = 7.8
6.5 x 2 = 13 x 0.05 = 0.65
Average of 8.45 per turn, which is 8.05 turns to kill the manticore.

So, man, I really hope that cover works for the fighter, because their BEST CASE at 5th level in a 1 v 1 with a manticore ends up with them barely killing it the turn it would kill them. Even assuming the fighter kills it turn 5 and the manticore only gets 4 turns, on average, the manticore will rip through 37.8 of the fighters 49 hp, leaving them with, approximately 11 hp left. From a single fight, against a CR 3 creature, at level 5. And if they are not a dexterity based fighter, with a longbow, and the archery fighting style? Then they lose.

So, again, "the attack is ONLY as strong as a longbow attack" REALLY misses the mark on how these fights can actually go for the fighter.

 

[SteveC]

How do you get past the fact that there’s a 33% chance you won’t be able to cast it again?

I get to fundamentally alter reality, but I might be able to only do it once. Oh the humanity! In comparison to "I can hit things close by a bunch" ... uh, is that really an argument?

I suggest listening to a few of TreantMonk's "god wizard" videos on this subject since they talk about the things wizards can do in detail. A high level wizard is really playing a different game than any martial character and I honestly can't imagine even having a reasonable discussion about this.

I'm definitely not saying there isn't a place for martials in 5E. I'm playing in a game where we have a fighter right now and they have fun in the game, no doubt. They also have many times where they just have to wait for the other characters to do things. Maybe that's not a problem for people (and from reading surveys, there are a ton of people who love fighters and enjoy them) but to say that there isn't an issue where there are entire parts of the game where they have no ability is not a serious discussion.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I get to fundamentally alter reality, but I might be able to only do it once. Oh the humanity! In comparison to "I can hit things close by a bunch" ... uh, is that really an argument?

Plus the "basic" use of the spell doesn't have this downside and is extremly valuable by itself.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think we fundamentally disagree about what benefit means. A +3 weapon makes a fighters primary action more reliable and do more damage, every time. What magic Item can do the same for wizards?

Arcane Grimoire +1/+2/+3 increases spell save DCs, if that's what you are asking about.

The wizard doesn’t need AC 22 unless they’re covering the front line and wizards have to highly specialise to do this. Do you often see blaster wizards holding the front line? Or are they hiding behind the martial?

Or unless there is an enemy with a ranged attack. Or unless an enemy charges them from a different direction. Or unless the fighter is out of position.

If You spend your resources to emulate another class then thats fine by me. Blade singers are good. They’re fun to play. But they’re not the wonder fighter you think they are. They suffer the same fate that everyone who tries to do two things at the same time suffers from. Same as bards and clerics. They end up ok melee and ok casters.

Trust me, I know EXACTLY what they are capable of. Had a DM weep for joy the single time he hit the bladesinger in our group. Over the course of the entire campaign, the guy was hit a single time.

And the problem is, an okay caster is still incredibly powerful, and you only NEED to be "okay" at martial things to be just about as good as a martial.

At higher levels, damage is per round. Combats become extremely concentrated and explosive.

And if you want to compare nova between a caster and a martial, you are going to be very very sad for martials.

There are lots of combat feats that synergise, polearm master and Great weapon mastery for instance or polearm master and sentinel. Plus lots that are good for any attacker whatever weapon they use. Mage slayer, parry, eleven accuracy Etc etc. not to mention the way these feats synergies with fighting styles.

Parry isn't a feat, do you mean Defensive Duelist?

Also, Elven Accuracy is fun, it allows for increases on rolls that use dexterity.... and intelligence, wisdom or charisma. Who do you think makes more attacks using intelligence and charisma? Martials or spellcasters?

Following up, note how you used Polearm master twice? It is one of the ONLY feats in the game that has combos, and it ONLY works with polearms, and what is the thing I was literally told this month about magical polearms? "Well, if you want magic weapons, you shouldn't have specialized. Everyone knows that magical swords are far more common than magical polearms, that's the point." Kind of weird that the single most powerful melee choice is to have one of three identical weapons, and then you end up risking not getting magical items from specializing too much.

Can you source the WotC data about Feats. Because they’re taking up lots of space in the core PHB. I’m not calling you a liar. Genuinely interested.

One of the more recent One DnD interviews. Probably this one?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm sure it's full plate + large shield + 4 dex. 18 + 2 + 4 Having played a 5th level paladin with a 22 ac I was virtually untouchable . It's not hard to get to 20 in 5e. without magic.

Cool. Tell me how you shoot a manticore with a bow while using a large shield that takes a full action to put on and a full action to take off. Also, no dex bonus, so houserule there.

 

[TheSword]

I get to fundamentally alter reality, but I might be able to only do it once. Oh the humanity! In comparison to "I can hit things close by a bunch" ... uh, is that really an argument?

I suggest listening to a few of TreantMonk's "god wizard" videos on this subject since they talk about the things wizards can do in detail. A high level wizard is really playing a different game than any martial character and I honestly can't imagine even having a reasonable discussion about this.

I'm definitely not saying there isn't a place for martials in 5E. I'm playing in a game where we have a fighter right now and they have fun in the game, no doubt. They also have many times where they just have to wait for the other characters to do things. Maybe that's not a problem for people (and from reading surveys, there are a ton of people who love fighters and enjoy them) but to say that there isn't an issue where there are entire parts of the game where they have no ability is not a serious discussion.

I’ve been reading treant since 3e. I know where he stands. Part of it being that a wizards strength is enhanced by working with the martials not in competition with them.

Your wizard gets to reshape reality. Then they lose the power. next. Your white room theory wins
Now show me how it works out over several dozen sessions at high level at a real table.

I love spellcasters I think they’re a lot of fun to play. I also think martials are a lot of fun to play too and very effective. Even at 11th level I’ve seen martials mash up legendary creatures far faster than the casters could.

 

[HammerMan]

You could pretend you're a warlock and cast shield with your highest level spell slot...

I was going to say magic missil

 

[HammerMan]

Plus the "basic" use of the spell doesn't have this downside and is extremly valuable by itself.

Back in 2e we called it 9th level shadow magic.

Look at that I can cast any wizard soell at 8th level or any other spell in the game at 7th level with 1 preped spell

Remember when the argument went “you might not have the right spell preped or even known” now it’s turned into “only counting as every spell preped is weak”

 

[Chaosmancer]

The tarrasque puts on her wizard hat and...

You know, the Tarrasque is an interesting thing to bring up in these discussions. The Tarrasque is practically immune to magic, and a devastating melee combatant. Everything a high level fighter should aspire to right?

And what is the constant refrain we hear about the Tarrasque?

"Too weak, too easy to kill"

I mean, think about this. This thing has triple the hp any fighter could hope to have, makes 5 attacks a turn for more almost double anything a fighter can, can make an additional three attacks off turn (so in reality, 8 attacks a round, double what a fighter does), is immune to a large amount of magic , it even has a control ability in fear... and it is mocked for its weakness.

Everything we are told fighter's should aspire to, massive AC (25), massive hp, great saves, massive number of attacks, massive damage... and it is a joke.