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

[Incenjucar]

Require spellcasters to use magic implements to bypass mundane immunity the same way martials do. It would lend a lot more logic to wizards dragging sticks around everywhere.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What, precisely, leads you to believe I suggested otherwise?

Could it be possible that just because this conversation has been primarily about martials and what they can do that me focusing on that aspect DOES NOT mean I am saying IA doesnt also apply to a bunch of other things?

Like, I can't even find the words to concisely describe how incredibly unfair that kind of argumentation is. I didn't bother to go into a tangent about something other whan what the conversation was about ergo you're free to just make naughty word up and assert its what I think?

What precisely? You saying it was a rule for martial actions. That precisely. Because it isn't. It is a "rule" for improvising any and all possible actions not covered by the list of actions in the PHB. And calling it a rule is a stretch, because it is about as non-rule as a DnD rule can get. It is basically just a permission slip to do something not in the rules.

Lets take a look at the reciepts. This is what I specifically responded to:



To which I replied that there is, in fact, such an improvised action. A practically infinite amount in fact, given the IA is only limited on the player side by their imagination. I thought up the rope or the stick in seconds.

If you put any thought into it, Im sure you could think up something that'd be cool as heck to do, and itd be relatively trivial to make a ruling to make it happen, as binding a handful of mooks is not the same thing as asking for godhood, so theres zero reason to deny it to the player.

So you just fundamentally misunderstood his position. Because his POINT was that most DMs would never allow that improvised action. Just like you would never allow the improvised action to ascend to godhood. Claiming the rule exists for one but not the other is missing the entire point. That "rule" covers both equally.

And it is especially bizarre that you have acted like you never said that you would allow a 3rd level fighter to restrain five enemies who are standing 40 ft away (which you have said repeatedly you never claimed) when I demonstrated that was exactly what you claimed this rule would let people do. In fact, you did it again. You've claimed the rope and stick works... but would it really? Can I actually use a 50 ft rope to restrain 5 people who are 40 ft away with a single action? Or would that be EASILY dismissed as "impossible" and not allowed?

Yes in a conversation about DND math is some obscure thing barely related to the discussion at all...

How many times have you read about angles and degrees of change in the PHB? Because I haven't seen any. And I've made it very clear what was confusing, despite you continuing to berate me for my confusion.

Heres a more pertinent question. You have on multiple occasions in this topic expressed how much you dislike being told no and how much it drags the game down for you.

Why, given that, are you constantly finding any reason to say no?

Because I'm demonstrating to you the problem. Because I am showing you what happens. The DM considers game balance only, if they are a good DM. But many of them consider "reality" and "what is reasonable" and I've run into things like this where we were going to do something, and were told we could. Then the next time we tried it, we were told we couldn't. And sometimes it is simply because the enemy is too short this time.

And therefore, with infinite possibilities from improvising.. come infinite reasons, infinite hoops, infinite issues. You are so angry I keep digging, you don't seem to realize this is EXACTLY what some of us put up with when we try and improvise actions.

So again unfair argumentation rears its head. I didn't cover every single possible linguistic avenue for you to undermine me saying you can do the cool thing, naughty word me right?

You seriously think this is about you in particular? No. This is the kind of things that happen. The DM says "okay, this enemy is big enough you can do that" and then as a player, I'm left guessing what "big enough" means. Height, weight, creature size? Who knows. So the next time I want to do the same thing... I have no clue what the criteria are. I'm just left guessing. And so I can't rely on the technique. Because the next time there might be a reason it doesn't work. A reason I had no idea about.

This is a serious problem with improvised actions, that you just keep dismissing as only because crappy DMs do it, so I should just get better DMs, but it is a real issue.

If you're attacking a target, you are attacking in the direction of that target...

...

The map you showed had the target directly in front of the player. The blood spray went to the left. Forward (Front) and Left are two different directions. What if the blood spray had gone right? Still a different direction.

This is what I'm talking about. Do you have some sort of standardized "you attack leftward" rule that makes this sort of thing standard?

The fun part about this is that you're basically saying you don't play DND.

Cone of Cold, for instance, is a particularly classic spell in DND and its 5e iteration uses the following text:

*Each Creature in a 60 foot Cone..."

So when I, in turn, say that a 30 foot cone represents the area of effect of a jugular vein veinf sliced open, I find it very hard to believe you don't know what I mean.

And the 90* offset (yes I misspoke and should have said 90, naughty word me right? Whole argument is invalid now, right) how the Cone would be oriented relative to the Orc; it's left, your right.

You constant condescension is getting annoying. Especially since you are clearly not even reading my posts.

First of all... turns out you were off by a MASSIVE amount on your explanation of the degrees (and still no explanation of the 30 degrees at all) and then you act all offended that I was confused what you meant? Oh, and maybe re-reading this, you didn't mean a 10 ft cone, because you just said it was a 30 foot cone. So was the 30 degrees a mistake as well? I wonder why I was confused.

And, actually, if you had said it was a 30ft cone coming from the orc... I still would have gotten it wrong, not because I'm too stupid to understand DnD... but because your example inverted the cone. So you would have said it was a 30ft cone, and I would have assumed the exact inversion of the shape you gave, because cones start small and get big, not start big and get small.

And all of this, to circle back to the point, causes problems for improvising actions. Because what you are saying might not be being interpreted per the rules text, and it could end up with a result the player didn't expect. Which makes the improvise actions "rules" VERY unreliable.

Considering I am playing as the would be DM in this case, you could have just asked for clarity, like you're supposed to. Nevermind that you wouldn't be in the dark on these things if you were actually in one of my games, but seriously, you could have just asked.

But no, can't do that. No sir, no talking to each other allowed in this game thats literally all talking to each other.

Huh, I wonder why me asking is getting me berated for clearly having never played the game before and being a terrible person. It was like... I sought clarity... by asking.... and you decided that was offensive.

Do I need to point out the multiple times I agreed that IA needs to be better integrated to avoid this exact problem?

Shall I point out that you haven't once acknowledged that I've done so?

But you can't make it better. You keep saying "it should be made better" but it wasn't DESIGNED to be made better. It is literally a catch-all "if uncertain, you can roll a d20+mod and decide". Anything you start adding to it is a different rule set.

You seem to have put so much time and energy into determining that this "rule" is a solution, you seem to have lost sight of what it was even designed to do.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sacrifice is probably the wrong word. Spend is a better one. Wizards have a larger resource management element to their characters, fighters do their thing at will for the most part.

How can you allow a fighter to spur of the moment blind 3 people at a distance at no cost… and still do all the things fighters do that wizards can’t. Higher AC, higher physical damage, higher Hp, fighting abilities etc.

So because you have never given fighters a resource to spend, because that would be spellcasting, they can't do the things that we are asking. That doesn't seem like a problem with the fiction, it seems like a problem with the mechanics. Especially since the wizard's resource management eventually stops being management and eventually just starts being "how many encounters can I win in a row before we reach the end"

I don’t think a 4th level slot is a huge sacrifice for a 7th level wizard, but it is their most powerful spell slot for the next 24 hours. Spending it, takes all their other big guns off the table. Incidentally after your Uber wizard has cast mage armour and a few shield spells to stay alive because they don’t have a fighter to protect them, those slots aren’t looking so plentiful.

Incidentally that reminds me… what happens to those blinded creatures in the intervening rounds? The fighter mashes them… that’s what. Synergy again. A fighter benefits far more from a blinded opponent than a wizard does.

No they don't. Fighters and wizards benefit exactly the same amount from blinded opponents. They both have better survivability because the opponent attacks at disadvantage, and they both get advantage on attack rolls.

The only reason it seems like fighter's benefit more, is wizards often have better things to do than make attack rolls that might miss.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Fireball is an exceptionally good spell against multiple opponents, probably too much so. Even so, it's terrible against a single opponent. So let's say the opponent is the BBEG - kind of an important fight! Suddenly your fighter and other martial types are going to be doing most of the damage. Where is the caster that can maintain damage output like a fighter can, round after round, all day long if needed?


Really? Your wizard, bard, sorcerer, cleric, warlock, or druid is averaging 40 damage per round at levels 1-10? Round after round? Against any number of enemies? Because the fighter types are maintaining their damage all day long against any number of foes.

DPR is not a good metric to base this argument around, because martial classes win that comparison hands down, fighters in particular. They are the DPR S-tier class. Martial classes lose out on flexibility, not damage dealing.

... You know that's almost funny? Because, you know the #1 most common complaint about solo boss monsters? "See, I made this powerful BBEG to fight my party, and on Round One the Wizard [insert spell here] and shut down the entire fight! I just don't know what to do!?"

And what are the solutions given?

Legendary Resistance -> AKA turn off round 1 spell victories
Add Mooks -> AKA make it a fight against multiple targets which you just said wizards and other casters excel at.

Wizards are weak against single targets? Hardly, they are so powerful that you often CAN'T have a single target boss monster.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think the question is backwards.

Should Roland be able to pick up a dropped sword of a random footman and kill the Avatar of Bane with it? No.

Should Roland naturally attract a legendary sword like Durendal and always find one at level 12? Yes.

Should Roland be able to pick up a dropped sword of a random footman, train with it, and the sword absorb some of Roland's power over time to become a basic magic sword that can kill the Avatar of Bane? Yes.

Should Roland be able to take a feat to speed up the self awakening of a common sword? Yes.

Should Roland be able to take a feat to reforge a common sword into a magic sword? Yes.

You know, I am reading a series called "The Primal Hunter" and it is a really good series. The main character is training in all sorts of things and has a class (LitRPG series) that allows him to go into the past and witness the events in the life of a Primordial he is friends with.

In the last book, he was fighting a massive hydra he couldn't damage, and activated the skill. He saw the Primordial (which is a dragon) fighting a human. Both were at the top of the power charts, essentially level 20+. The Dragon goes on and on about how humans are weak. They don't have the fangs of beasts, the scales of beasts, he acknowledges they are powerful Makers, but they can't rival a beast in Destruction. The warrior tells him he is wrong. He points to his armor and his axe and says he has all he needs.

They fight, more philosophical barbs are thrown, and the warrior is losing. Badly. The dragon starts going on about how the warrior has lost his friends, lost his armor, lost his arm, and then he loses his axe, which seemed like the only thing that was letting him survive. The warrior (revealed to be another primordial we'd known about) says he doesn't need it. Grabs a fang that was knocked out of the dragon's mouth and uses THAT in an epic slash that nearly kills the dragon.

Which, is a technique the MC learns, and he ends up refining it by damaging the hydra he could barely hurt with his magical gear, with sticks.

Sure. Better gear ends up with better results, the MC even ends up saying the same thing, but the point is if Roland is capable of killing an avatar of Bane... then yeah, he should be able to do so with a random sword picked off the ground. The TOOL doesn't matter nearly as much as who is wielding it. Because the idea of "anything I grab is a deadly weapon, because I'M a badass" is so much more fulfilling than "Glad I had my trusty magical blade imbued with magic to survive that fight."

 

[Incenjucar]

The main issue wizards run into with damage is that their giant AOEs don't usually come with a single target hyperfocus mode like Eldritch Blast or Magic Missile.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The wonder is partly based on the obstacles and how they are overcome.

Trivalizing the Devil King by killing him with a pencil makes the Devil Look weaker and weakened your legend.
Now if its the final blow after all else is spent and broken, it can be epic.
But I don't like the idea of the hero picking a stick off the floor and decimating Hell with it. It make Hell look weak.

You act as if this is one hit, one kill.

Of course there's a fight. There's obstacles along the way to get to the king.

But if the show is all about the magic sword any chump can use and not an ultimate badass that can stomp monsters with an unbent paper clip, I'm not there for it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No at least in D&D.

It's a long standing trope of D&D that gods and things of divinity can't be killed by mortal nonmagical weapons. This usually is extended to harming them. And it often extends to greater nondivine patron level threats like greater fiends, fey, and other outer entities.

Thisis due to the myths where foes need certain levels of magic to be killed.

This created the game loop of needing to quest for magic items/spells before adventuring in the monster's home. Extending the campaign.

Removing it is cool but it wont be accepted by the majority of fans. Even newer ones. Nor is it easier to run.

Nope, that is a DnDism.

Greek Gods? Could be hurt by mundane weapons.
Norse Gods? Could be hurt by mundane weapons.
Chinese immortals and Japanese Kami? Could be hurt by mundane weapons.
Celtic Gods? Could be hurt by mundane weapons.

We don't NEED to have them being immune to mundane weapons. We do because we feel like that makes them scarier and harder to kill.

 

[Minigiant]

You know, I am reading a series called "The Primal Hunter" and it is a really good series. The main character is training in all sorts of things and has a class (LitRPG series) that allows him to go into the past and witness the events in the life of a Primordial he is friends with.

In the last book, he was fighting a massive hydra he couldn't damage, and activated the skill. He saw the Primordial (which is a dragon) fighting a human. Both were at the top of the power charts, essentially level 20+. The Dragon goes on and on about how humans are weak. They don't have the fangs of beasts, the scales of beasts, he acknowledges they are powerful Makers, but they can't rival a beast in Destruction. The warrior tells him he is wrong. He points to his armor and his axe and says he has all he needs.

They fight, more philosophical barbs are thrown, and the warrior is losing. Badly. The dragon starts going on about how the warrior has lost his friends, lost his armor, lost his arm, and then he loses his axe, which seemed like the only thing that was letting him survive. The warrior (revealed to be another primordial we'd known about) says he doesn't need it. Grabs a fang that was knocked out of the dragon's mouth and uses THAT in an epic slash that nearly kills the dragon.

Which, is a technique the MC learns, and he ends up refining it by damaging the hydra he could barely hurt with his magical gear, with sticks.

Sure. Better gear ends up with better results, the MC even ends up saying the same thing, but the point is if Roland is capable of killing an avatar of Bane... then yeah, he should be able to do so with a random sword picked off the ground. The TOOL doesn't matter nearly as much as who is wielding it. Because the idea of "anything I grab is a deadly weapon, because I'M a badass" is so much more fulfilling than "Glad I had my trusty magical blade imbued with magic to survive that fight."

But the man beat the magic dragon with the dragon's magical tooth.

I'm not saying a level 15th fighter shouldn't be deadly even with a common sword.
I'm saying a level 15th fighter fighting a CR 16 18HD 200HP+ blue dragon should die fighting it with only a 1d8 damage nonmagical longsword in a straight brawl.

 

[TheSword]

So because you have never given fighters a resource to spend, because that would be spellcasting, they can't do the things that we are asking. That doesn't seem like a problem with the fiction, it seems like a problem with the mechanics. Especially since the wizard's resource management eventually stops being management and eventually just starts being "how many encounters can I win in a row before we reach the end"



No they don't. Fighters and wizards benefit exactly the same amount from blinded opponents. They both have better survivability because the opponent attacks at disadvantage, and they both get advantage on attack rolls.

The only reason it seems like fighter's benefit more, is wizards often have better things to do than make attack rolls that might miss.

As Hussar pointed out very few wizard spells use attack rolls. Almost everything a fighter does uses attack rolls - including the thing they do most often. Attack.

Wizards are usually in the back ranks, therefore less likely to be attacked anyway.

Ergo. On both counts Fighters benefit most from their pet mage casting blindness on the foe. For the wizard it just delays the inevitable.