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

[HammerMan]

Of course fighters have fighting styles, feats, Battlemaster powers, and the ubiquitous magic weapons etc. so they have plenty of their own resources.

If you go into detail people argue you have picked too good for the caster

It cracks me up that the people still think to argue this based on Fighter damage not being good enough. The maths has been proven time and time again on the threads. Do a search if you don’t believe me.

It cracks me up that people think that doing 70% of damage maybe ever 80% on a good day is such a big hit when you also get all the control and non combat abilities

 

[Hussar]

Ok. I’m not sure what your point is. You’ve just made my excellently… even a basic fighter wielding a long sword does much more damage than cantrips at every level. You’re also not taking into account Magic resistance (common), energy resistance (relatively common) and immunity (common enough at level 11+)

Of course fighters have fighting styles, feats, Battlemaster powers, and the ubiquitous magic weapons etc. so they have plenty of their own resources.

The average die counts you’re referring to are for HP and in stat blocks when you don’t roll creature damage. Do you play that? You don’t roll creature damage? That’s not the way of working out averages certainly not for player attacks. If you’re going to be picky about it the. One 5, one 4, one 5 etc. alternating each die. The average is technically 13.5 but 14 will do.

It cracks me up that the people still think to argue this based on Fighter damage not being good enough. The maths has been proven time and time again on the threads. Do a search if you don’t believe me.

Energy resistance is more common than straight up damage resistance? A fighter without a magic weapon is doing half damage vs pretty much any opponent by 11th level. Or at least an awful lot of them.

So no. It really hasn’t been “proven “

Again. Look at actual play. Note something about this Critical Role stats? Something glaring? No fighters.

 

[Hussar]

I think you're misreading the average damages (to the third decimal point) as total. Nydas did 319 damage over 4 episodes, for an average of 79.75 damage per episode.

Ahh. That makes aLOT more sense. .

But the point stays the same. The sorc out damages everyone else. Even in Vox Machina the Druid deals the same damage on average as Grog.

So the notion that the fighter typesard damage kings isn’t supported by actual evidence. Looking at that chart it is very obvious that area damage is only counted once.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ahh. That makes aLOT more sense. .

But the point stays the same. The sorc out damages everyone else. Even in Vox Machina the Druid deals the same damage on average as Grog.

So the notion that the fighter typesard damage kings isn’t supported by actual evidence. Looking at that chart it is very obvious that area damage is only counted once.

To be fair, Percy would have done a lot more damage over the campaign as a Battlemaster with really long range crossbows.

 

[Hussar]

To be fair, Percy would have done a lot more damage over the campaign as a Battlemaster with really long range crossbows.

Probably.

My basic point always remains the same though- people REALLY need to canvas their own groups. Track the damage output in your games for the next twenty or thirty rounds of combat. The results are very surprising. Heck, I was convinced that the Artificer in my group was dealing far, far more damage than she actually was. Her character was right in line with everyone else - it just seemed to my gut that she was dealing massively more damage than everyone else.

But, I did my due diligence. I tracked the damage output over twenty rounds of combat. And, I always count area damage as totals, not individual, so, hitting three targets with an AOE counts as triple. And, it turned out that nope. Her character was in line with everyone else. Any variation could be pretty easily explained (the bard, for example, focused on charms and battlefield control far more than any actual damage resulting in a much lower damage output, understandably).

I strongly suggest to everyone to track it. Fighters really do come in far lower than people seem to think and are very much not the top damage dealers.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Remember when I said it was complex

No, I remember you saying "use these rules" then I pointed out a problem and you said "but I didn't tell you about these extra rules." and then I pointed out another problem and you... gave me even more rules you didn't include the first or second time.

1. Planar tears and cracks are immune to all damage but bludgeoning, force, slashing, piercing. and thunder.

Why?

1. If attacks or check fail, Reality increases the planar crack or tear's AC by 2 and DC by 1 and repairs by 1d6 on its turn.

So they could have a spot DC of 50 and an AC of 60?

1. How fast a crack or tear opens is based on damage.
2. So the path is to have someone spot the tear then bust it open immediately.
3. You can cast spells to help spot tears and cracks but then you are noticing them
   1. Which heals cracks
4. The DC is lower if an extraplanar being is near, a conjuration spell was recently used in the area, or if a magic weapon has be swung around

This means if a fighter was fighting a demon and the demon teleport away, a fighter on the next turn can Search for an easily spotted tear to the Abyss and Action surge attack it thrice with his axe to open a portal there right behind the fiend.

Here's Johnny!

I get the end result you are going for, but you just keep making it more and more convoluted. Heck, an easily noticed tear? So what, the demon casting a spell lowed the DC by 15 pts? Why even bother with all this then instead of just making it a DC 15 check after someone portals and then an action afterwards to follow? If that's your real goal, why keep layering on rule after rule here?

 

[Emberashh]

If so many feel that fighters are doing so much damage than theres probably a reason for that perception.

And its arguable that the actual numbers may not actually matter insofar as that perception goes.

 

[Incenjucar]

If so many feel that fighters are doing so much damage than theres probably a reason for that perception.

And its arguable that the actual numbers may not actually matter insofar as that perception goes.

I'm willing to believe that people are in fact experiencing fighter dominance in their games! It's just something that I don't find excuses what the rest of us our seeing.

And honestly I don't even mind if fighters are not the best damage dealers - it's the fact that they lack in every other respect as well.

 

[Hussar]

If so many feel that fighters are doing so much damage than theres probably a reason for that perception.

And its arguable that the actual numbers may not actually matter insofar as that perception goes.

Yes, I do believe there's a reason for that perception. People see all those dice hit the table and figure that the fighter must be doing all sorts of damage. After all, a spell is usually just one die roll and then you move on. Sure, you did 20 points of damage to a bunch of targets, but, nothing died. Meanwhile, the fighter dumped in 20 or 30 points of damage to a single target and it DIED. He must have done all the damage.

If fighters aren't the top (or honestly even all that close to the top) damage dealers, they aren't particularly good with skills, and they have no magic, what exactly are they contributing? HP, I suppose. They make good beatsticks.

I'd really love to know who's running all these fighters. I know they are hugely popular, but, I'd honestly LOVE to see them in play. Just once I'd like to see a single classed fighter in play.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Again. Look at actual play. Note something about this Critical Role stats? Something glaring? No fighters.

That'd be because they're purposefully making entertaining and fun to watch characters, not ones that attack every round and just roll damage. And they have no newbies to force into playing the 'simple' class.