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

[CreamCloud0]

The problem with this is it implies too much backstory and has weird implications. At least, with how I'm understanding it. After all, your elven fighter could hold the rank of Lt. Col. but that doesn't mean they can meet with Captain of the Watch in a Dwarven city, because the Dwarves don't care about your rank. And then it opens up politics.

I think I'd rather have military ranks in backgrounds, to allow players more flexibility about what it all means. Besides, high level adventurers tend to make their own reputations and that is a bit more flexible.

you might have focused too hard on the specific phrasing of 'military rank' i just couldn't think of a more apropriate term, what i meant was that your name carries weight, people have heard of your deeds and know what you do, you yourself have some level of inherent authority just because of who you are rather than any official designations, think of how the rank and file soldiers followed gandalf's orders in the battle of whitecastle, he wasn't their official leader but he could take command of them because he obviously knew what he was doing in battle, leaders took time out of business to meet him because when gandalf advises you listen to him.

 

[Hussar]

Worlds which have bullets eventually involve tanks which are not harmed by bullets.

Worlds which involve high level magic eventually involve elements which reduce the effectiveness of high level magic.

This isn't artificial, it's a pretty natural progression. If you build a big highly dangerous high level dungeon, you will include things to mess with highly dangerous magic which can mess with your dungeon. That's not a problem with high level spells, it's a natural reaction to them.

The problem is, this is something we only have to worry about with spells. It's not like we have to do anything particularly special to make a high level dungeon challenging to a non-caster. Stuff with more HP and a higher attack bonus basically does the trick. The same non-combat challenges that challenged a 1st level fighter are pretty much just as challenging to a 20th level fighter. Seriously. The only difference between 1st and 20th is what, +6 or +7 to a skill? A 30 foot deep open pit that's 50 feet wide is just as challenging, regardless of what level that fighter is.

That is very much not true for casters. Suddenly we have to get into this arms race with the casters. Only thing is, as DM, I don't actually want to win. Winning is easy. I can kill a party without any problem. So, I have to include stuff that messes with highly dangerous magic, but only so much. And, of course, every 2 levels the casters get an entirely new suite of options that counter the things that you did to counter the lower level spells. So, you have to counter just a little bit more. So on and so forth.

It's just so exhausting and annoying. And, it's zero fun AFAIC, because, again, the only reason that I have to do it in the first place is because casters automatically gain these new options. It's not like they have to do anything. Oh goody, your cleric just got 6th level spells. He can create (as a ritual mind you) a 200x200 foot area which automatically kills all undead, no saving throw. Takes 10 minutes. Not only that, but it blocks any summoning too. Yay. Gee, guess I'm not using crypts anymore. Hey, fantastic, the warlock has Banishment. Automatic save or die vs any planar creature. Yay, guess I'm not using demons or elementals anymore.

On and on. Oh, but wait, I can use that against the party? Except, if I do that, I automatically kill the party. My last party, half the PC's were extra-planar in nature. A banishment spell means that half the party is gone. No chance of return, because, unless they've got Plane Shift, they're just gone. I then mop up the rest of the PC's because, well, half the party getting banished in the first round means that the other half the party is going to die PDQ. Yay, that was fun...

The solution here must never be one upsmanship. It just doesn't work.

 

[Scott Christian]

I still think to get these abilities to the point where they close the gap they will look "supernatural" to some extent {again assuming spellcasters remain the same}

Well, that is part of my nearsightedness, I don't see a disparity gap. So my solution would be to increase the power base of the martial by giving them a much greater chance to do what they do - martial.

 

[Remathilis]

The problem is, this is something we only have to worry about with spells. It's not like we have to do anything particularly special to make a high level dungeon challenging to a non-caster. Stuff with more HP and a higher attack bonus basically does the trick. The same non-combat challenges that challenged a 1st level fighter are pretty much just as challenging to a 20th level fighter. Seriously. The only difference between 1st and 20th is what, +6 or +7 to a skill? A 30 foot deep open pit that's 50 feet wide is just as challenging, regardless of what level that fighter is..

Not a fighter issue per se, but Experts (the rogue in particular) makes a mockery of the skill system by mid level. Planning a heist mission for a tier 2 or 3 rogue that won't be streamrolled requires either special circumstances (complex adamantine locks, guards with blindsense) or magic to challenge. The same holds true of diplomancer bards or overland rangers. When one guy is rolling +11 and the others +5, they typically get locked out of that action by the expert.

To be fair, that's what an expert should be doing; easily do what others find hard. And it's less of an issue if everyone gets a scene (the rogue sneaks, the bard talks, the ranger ranges) but nobody tells the fighter "you got this fight, we'll hang back, your the expert". Everyone fights, and everyone has something to make them competent at fighting. The fighter's core competency is shared with all other classes.

 

[Scott Christian]

On and on. Oh, but wait, I can use that against the party? Except, if I do that, I automatically kill the party. My last party, half the PC's were extra-planar in nature. A banishment spell means that half the party is gone. No chance of return, because, unless they've got Plane Shift, they're just gone. I then mop up the rest of the PC's because, well, half the party getting banished in the first round means that the other half the party is going to die PDQ. Yay, that was fun...

The solution here must never be one upsmanship. It just doesn't work.

I am a little confused by this. I am not a fan of one upmanship either, but the game is based around this premise. It is up to the DM to do it in a logical and fair way. This is what presents challenges. Heck, it's rare, but I have even used it as a player. I have refrained from wrecking the DM's dungeon because they did not think about my 16th level warlock. Again, it's very rare, but it is part of the social contract. It would have added nothing to the dungeon had I ruined it, and my character had an excuse to not do - I was using it as an escape, just in case.

I would take your comments to mean that the wizard should be lowered in power as opposed to the martial being increased. Because if you increase the power of the martial, then you have even more one upmanship. Is that correct?

 

[Scott Christian]

Because it doesn't happen in other systems.

So, if I have a problem that only appears in one system, and not in another system... why would I assume it is a player specific problem and not a system inspired problem?

Please hear me out. There is another reason it happens in D&D - because that is what they have been trained to think when playing this game. We are all influenced by past experiences, and if their experiences are they can't do anything, then that is how they will approach the problem.

I've never denied that other people enjoy the game. But this appeal to popularity falls flat, because while large portions of the player base don't have this issue... a significant fraction of them DOES. The martial-caster divide is well known, well documented and discussed repeatedly, has been for the entire life of 5th edition and for pathfinder and beyond. Does it work for most people? Sure. But it doesn't work for everyone and I'd like it to work for more people .

I get that is what you want. But, as I stated earlier, some people think that might create other problems and then ruin it for those people it was working for.

I was just the player, so I don't have all the information. But there was an undead. I had to outdrink it with alcohol or be shot and presumably killed. It was a curse, so it likely would have at least severely hampered me even if I likely didn't die.

I told the people to get the priest, who never showed up, and my only recourse was to take the challenge. Best of seven con saves, with my monk not having good con and the undead having good con. I only won because I rolled consistently high for those five rolls.

If I had been some other class, maybe like a cleric myself, I would have had more options. As it was... I had one choice. Rely on blind luck while at a disadvantage. Both of us were stunned I made it through as easily as I did, because it was all blind luck.

So, in story terms, the protagonist in this story had to drink versus an undead. They were the underdog, and failure meant possible death. And through an act of lady luck, our hero survived.

This is a problem? The DM has a hundred paths they can walk down that doesn't kill your character. Ones that continue the story. I will grant you, as a DM, I do not set up skill challenges that have absolutes that can end the campaign. Maybe yours does. But again, that is a DM problem.

(Side Note: For some reason your story reminds me of Sting's song from Soul Cages, about the protagonist having to drink a magical wine against the king of the ninth world, and if he remained standing, his soul could go free. )

And there it is. If you can't trust the DM, get a different DM. IF you trust DM, there should be no problem.

Okay Scott. I'm the DM. I don't always trust myself. Which DM should I go to to take my place as the DM? How do I resolve the problem of being the DM and not feeling like I have the best tools available, by leaving and looking for a new DM? Should I just quit DMing forever?

This is the FLIPPIN' problem with this argument. I'm not only making my case as a player, but as a DM, so can we stop pretending like the solution in ANYWAY looks like getting a new DM?

You're right, I did use the DM argument. But to be fair, I also asked you for an exact situation that the game put you in as DM that needed to be fixed. You came back with a character example, and even then, I can't see what needs to be fixed from a ruleset standpoint. All I see is you want your monk to be better. Not because you can't play them, but because, through poor encounter design, you had a chance to lose. So I will ask again: What specific situation have you been placed into as a DM that needed to be fixed?

Everyone was hyperbolic because of the sheer number of people in this thread who keep insisting there is no problem. I'm sure about half the people in this thread say there IS a problem. And that should say a lot too. Except you'll dismiss them, because they aren't talking about the "real" problem, which is the player, or the DM, or anything that isn't the system.

Again, I have not dismissed anyone. I have asked for examples. I have received very few. Most just say this martial/wizard thing is a problem, so let's make the martial stronger. That, in my opinion, just sounds like half the arguments on these forums: I want my character to be able to do this, and they can't. Therefore, we should change the rules/add powers/etc.

Um... am I missing something about the Androsphinx here? It has nothing that prevents a caster from wrecking it.

Also, a 20th level wizard can absolutely wreck a CR 15 plus minions? Again, what the heck are you talking about here? That is almost trivially easy for them.

We must not play the same game. Because the androsphynx would present such a challenge that the wizard might have a 50/50 chance. Not good odds for someone who has spent years playing a character to get them up to this level. I should add, that is without any DM shenanigans as well. Throw in those, and the odds shift to 90/10 in favor of the androsphynx.

But frankly, I'm convinced it is the system. Sorry about it but after 100 pages of discussion, yet again, I still don't see anything being proposed that somehow changes anything. This isn't something that has only been discussed this once, or just on this site, it is EVERYWHERE, and the consensus seems to be that the gap exists. So let's fix it.

To prove I am not being dismissive, I have laid out options (maybe three) on how to balance the game better for those that see a problem. That's with me not even seeing the problem. I have talked about tiering the system and its flavor text (I think words, even flavor words, matter). I have suggested that martials not be bound by the 20 cap on abilities and allow them to raise to 30, while casters remain at 18 or 20. And another way to solve the issue is to limit spells by adhering to components, finding the spell, or simply removing the one or two that seem "breaking."
I have proposed all these things in this discussion. None of them work for people because they want their martials to have more. It's a never ending cycle.

 

[Hussar]

I am a little confused by this. I am not a fan of one upmanship either, but the game is based around this premise. It is up to the DM to do it in a logical and fair way. This is what presents challenges. Heck, it's rare, but I have even used it as a player. I have refrained from wrecking the DM's dungeon because they did not think about my 16th level warlock. Again, it's very rare, but it is part of the social contract. It would have added nothing to the dungeon had I ruined it, and my character had an excuse to not do - I was using it as an escape, just in case.

I would take your comments to mean that the wizard should be lowered in power as opposed to the martial being increased. Because if you increase the power of the martial, then you have even more one upmanship. Is that correct?

I'd absolutely lower the power of casters. A lot of the spell lists, even though 5e did pare down the spell lists quite well, need further pruning.

And, no, it's not really one upsmanship if the fighter gets a few more buttons to push. Again, there is nothing a fighter will get that comes even remotely close to what you can do with a 6th+ level spell. Not even close. Nothing we could give a fighter would, in a single spell, clear an entire dungeon. But, clerics get Forbiddance. A single spell that does 5d10 radiant (which not very much is resistant to, certainly not undead) damage every single round to all critters of a type. Goodbye Mr. Crypt. And, it closes off all planar access as well, so, it's not like the baddies can all in other baddies, or leave for that matter. And 200x200 feet (or 400x100 or whatever you want to do) is so big that you basically clear an entire dungeon with one spell.

Never minding shenanigans with Simulacrum. What fighter power would give him a full set of additional actions? Yup, before you say Action Surge, that's true. With Simulacrum, I can get it every single round. And then my Simulacrum casts Simulacrum and I get three sets of actions every round. And there's no reason I can't do that five or six times.

There is a pretty lengthy list of spells and effects that really, really should go away.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, that is part of my nearsightedness, I don't see a disparity gap. So my solution would be to increase the power base of the martial by giving them a much greater chance to do what they do - martial.

I think there are two discrete paths to address martial/caster disparities.

One, increase martial power in combat, such that martial dominate the combat phase, while casters dominate the exploration/problem solving phases via utility magic. (Stong spells which dominate combat would have to be nerfed in this scenario, as well.)

Two, increase martial preternatural/mythical ability to an extent that all classes are competitive in both combat and problem solving phases. This could be through innate abilities, targeted magic items, ritual casting open to all characters, etc.

I think more people would generally favor the second option, although I admit to being intrigued by the first to generate a strongely tropey, more obviously gamist type of game.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I think there are two discrete paths to address martial/caster disparities.

One, increase martial power in combat, such that martial dominate the combat phase, while casters dominate the exploration/problem solving phases via utility magic. (Stong spells which dominate combat would have to be nerfed in this scenario, as well.)

Two, increase martial preternatural/mythical ability to an extent that all classes are competitive in both combat and problem solving phases. This could be through innate abilities, targeted magic items, ritual casting open to all characters, etc.

I think more people would generally favor the second option, although I admit to being intrigued by the first to generate a strongely tropey, more obviously gamist type of game.

Fwiw, the first option is the one that PF2e has basically followed (though they've also done a good job at layering in skill related actions with real utility that any class can take).

Playing a martial in PF2e is very fun. I haven't tried a caster yet, so I'd be intrigued to hear anyone else's experience with one.

 

[HammerMan]

Ah yes so much easier that they…rarely do it…and their most creative adventures are practically the opposite.

Sure.

I mean much easier is relative.
It’s easier for me to run my lawn mower and ignore the edging and weeding. It’s harder for me to make the yard look great. If I twice this summer run my lawn mower people will not think I did my yard often enough but that didn’t mean the times I did I didn’t take the east way out