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

Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad


People often have their choices dictated to them. You can try to be sly about what it is you're doing but people will gravitate towards whats more powerful, regardless of what they may "want".

Thats why whenever a game adds a broken, busted thing people start to overuse it, and that in turn starts impacting the intended game experience.

I see, so if this idea is successful and people like it... it isn't because it is GOOD, it is because people can't help but gravitate towards power and therefore everyone plays the most powerful option all the time...

How does that square with the data we have on player choices in DnD again? It seems to me, that declaring everyone will OBVIOUSLY play a more powerful warrior that is equal to the spellcaster, because they won't be able to help themselves in seeking more power... kind of requires that spellcasters be more powerful, and yet not everyone plays spellcasters... which means not everyone will gravitate towards the most powerful option...


I have pages and pages of you arguing that your problems shouldn't be discounted or dismissed just because someone else doesn't think they exist.

Oh how the turns have tabled.

And I am not dismissing your concerns. I do know that a full-caster party can be difficult for some DMs. However, your phrasing was that ALL DMs OBVIOSLY struggle with all-caster parties and ALL DMs will therefore not want this new class.

Well, ALL DM's is wrong. Now, maybe SOME DM's will not want it, but again, not all DMs want clerics and paladins in their games either. That doesn't mean we cut them and never develop divine options. It just means those options are not for those DMs.

Sure you do; you just recognize them as countless topics covering some specific spell or caster ability thats busted.

Which rarely happens. There are VERY few topics like that. Most of them stemming not from an ability being busted, but from an ability preventing a specific flavor of challenge that the DM wants to emphasize.


Back to the point at hand, while I fully agree that flavor for a class is what you make of it, the questions remain:

What will excite people to play this class? Cool abilities?

Is this just the Warblade/Swordsage all over again? An awesome idea that was largely rejected by the community?

And again, thinking of the Warblade, can a mythic martial really coexist with the Fighter, without people thinking that it's a "Fighter replacement"?
There's no escape from this circle if you keep printing a Fighter class. The Warblade should have replaced the fighter outright. I was so excited when 4e was announced because I assumed that was what was going to happen, we'd collate all that kind of weird late 3e stuff and rebuild the core to avoid these problems.
And are we just doing an end run around AD&D style magic items, which were supposed to patch character classes in the first place by making new abilities something you went out and acquired, not merely handed to you (thus making the idea of going out and adventuring exciting?).
I don't know if that's fundamentally a problem if you pushed harder to give magic items a separate identity from class abilities, but also the underlying causes and benefits for adventuring has kind of moved on from "get cool stuff" for a while now.

The point is, it won't be balanced.
I guess that is the entire point. You guys want something that is balanced with the caster. Some believe it already is balanced.

So some want the caster nerfed. Others want a mythic fighter, which means they increase in power. But that statement alone disrupts those that believe it already is balanced. By making a fighter stronger, they have disrupted the balance; therefore, creating the same problem you were trying to fix. Now it is just a problem for the opposite side.

In truth, balance is an illusion. The DM does more to balance the game than any ruleset. Once people accept that, then perhaps they might understand their character's roles better.
If the DM is the ultimate arbiter of balance, then there is nothing to fear as a result of our efforts.

Whatever we do will be balanced just as well as what was there before, since the DM is doing it all anyway.

In which case, I have no idea why you are still here.

Of course not.
Which level does Megor have to be in order to do this at will?

That depends on the game, but by the scale in 5e, probably higher than you'd like it to be.

and yet not everyone plays spellcasters...

Fun matters too; not everyone finds the convoluted design of casters in 5e to be all that fun.

However, your phrasing was that ALL DMs OBVIOSLY struggle with all-caster parties and ALL DMs will therefore not want this new class.

It actually wasnt, but kudos for just ignoring the whole part about not putting words in my mouth.

Which rarely happens.

"I don't have a problem, ergo your problem doesn't exist".


A big difference.

The game has flying demons.

  1. Your DM never running flying demons and never giving your party winged boots for your warriors.
  2. Your DM running flying demons and giving your party winged boots for your warriors.
  3. Your DM running flying demons, never giving your part winged boots for your warriors, but giving your party a scroll of fly so your party mages will have it to cast on your warriors
  4. Your DM never running flying demons and allowing a warblade and swordsage who can jump 30 extra feet and add their STR to Intimidation checks
Are different experiences.


5e is designed around flying warriors PCS fighting flying enemies.
None of the warrior classes get flight
5e assumes that the DM will either give the party a flight/jump/teleport magic item or will not use flying enemies after a certain level.
It's an unspoken assumption til this day that is never said out loud.

You are completely wrong.

Firstly, you skipped an option. "Your DM running flying demons and never giving your party winged boots for your warriors, instead relying on ranged casters to deal with them" That is a completely legitimate answer, and one that is assumed. How do I know?

1) The vast majority of cantrips are ranged, and ranged weapons exist.
2) Low level flying enemies exist. (Harpies, Griffons, Hippogriffs, ect)
2a) None (or very few) of these low level flying enemies have ranged attacks greater than the range of the most common cantrips and ranged weapons, about 60 ft.
3) The DMG specifically calls this out, stating "Flying Monster: Increase the monster's effective Armor Class by 2 (not its actual AC) if it can fly and deal damage at range and if its expected challenge rating is 10 or lower (higher-level characters have a greater ability to deal with flying creatures)."

Flight ONLY increases the threat of a monster if it can fly, if it can attack at range AND if it is below CR 10

Now, you could take all of this and say that clearly the DM should stop using flying monsters AFTER a certain level, but that's actually false. BEFORE a certain level, the flight tools you are talking about are not presumed.

We can even take this a step further. We know that the Boots of Flying are a Major Uncommon Magic item, and that they are on Table F. We know that Xanathar's states you should only expect to get 2 major uncommon items for a party of levels 1 to 4. We also know that Table F is only rolled on for Treasure Hoards, and has a range of 86 to 97 on the chart for 0 - 4. Meaning? It isn't likely. Especially compared to the 123 monsters of CR 4 or lower that have a flight speed.

So, no. The assumption isn't that the Warriors will get flight items before dealing with any flying enemies. The assumption is that the warriors will used ranged weapons, and the spellcasters who have ranged options will help deal with flying enemies.

Now, maybe you could make the argument that past level 10 they expect warriors to gain access to flight items.... except what happens at level 5? At level 5, the majority of full-casters who have ranged options and don't NEED it... gain access to a spell that grants flight to someone else. Any by level 10, they can cast that spell on up to three people. When the expected party size is 4.

So, AGAIN, there was no assumption or design intent that stated the party will have access to magical items. They were given to be boons and bonuses that you MIGHT have, not something that is guaranteed.


I'd say 4e was it's own thing. It is high level magic but put that stuff into rituals as a party resource.

Fighters in 4e are surprisingly mundane (minus Paragon Path and Epic Destiny) with a few exceptions that aren't really that crazy. They mostly attack with weapons, mark, and inflict conditions.

The difference of course is that Wizards were nerfed. They no longer have in-encounter mechanic avoiders and have to play within the same system of HP attrition. They do have more permissions than the Fighter -- elemental damage, summons, walls, teleport, etc. But the gap is narrowed in effect so it doesn't feel so bad.

You hit the nail on the head. Paragon paths and Epic Destinies. Also, it was laid out directly in the book that you were expected to fight god-slaying constructs from the Dawn War or other very high level things. The idea that the game went up to 11 was on full display. High level 4e's stories were incredibly high powered.


Wow. I posted my last post without realizing how far back I was. Then I read the intervening posts and I realized that the conversation has made zero progress because the usual suspects are so intent on making sure the conversation never actually happens.

I gotta ask. After three THOUSAND posts, if you honestly don’t believe there is any need for a mythic warrior, what in the name of little fishies are you doing in this thread?

We had FINALY made some progress. And it all flushed down the tubes.

I blame Treantmonk for posting his video

Not open for further replies.
Remove ads