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

[W'rkncacnter]

If I were to guess, the overall intent of the post is. The martials gets the finger all the time, couldn't casters get the finger with at least some regularity?

The answer, of course, is yes.

But because the content of the game has been designed such that martials get the finger all the time, and casters do not. As a result it feels much more like DM targeting when it happens to the caster.

Bit of a catch-22 though.

...wouldn't the better answer be to just...redesign the game so that you don't have to give anyone the finger for them to be on par?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No disagreement.

It’s an example though. Just one of many many examples where if you’re a fighter, either you are taking aback seat while the casters sort things out or you are not needed at all.

And can you PLEASE stop with Percy? Good grief your own statistics don’t back you up. He was the least damaging of ALL the fighter types. In a group with no wizards or sorcerers.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that

You brought it up, dude.

You wanna act like it’s a useful data point when the character was deeply underpowered. It’s not an example that tells us anything about the fighter, which is the claim that you made.

But when everything went right for him, and he had Hex up, even with a bad subclass and a gun that stole some of his attacks for reloading IIRC, he did the most single turn damage in the whole campaign. IIRC Fjord the damage focused spellcaster didn’t even top him in that regard, in the next campaign.

But the subclass and the guns are bad, so most fights didn’t go nearly that well for him.

Maybe look for examples that aren’t using underpowered subclasses and equipment.

 

[Minigiant]

But D&D doesn't give anyone the finger.

D&D pay enough attention to the problem. Because the problem is play from level 10-20 and D&D never paid attention to those levels of play except in 4e.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

But D&D doesn't give anyone the finger.

D&D pay enough attention to the problem. Because the problem is play from level 10-20 and D&D never paid attention to those levels of play except in 4e.

...i..have no idea who you're directing this to.

 

[Minigiant]

...i..have no idea who you're directing this to.

People have said that D&D gives the finger to martials and should do a little to casters.

I am stating that D&D. You have to pay attention to give a finger.

The problems with martials, halfcasters, and fullcasters are purely a mid level and high level problem. D&D has rarely paid attention to that part of the game. D&D only "designed" its mid levels and high levels in one edition.

 

[Incenjucar]

Unless they plan on deleting the second half of the game, it still applies.

 

[FireLance]

Double post but a thought occurs about framing.

I have to wonder if some of these problems is actually originating in the fact that, with utility magic being designed the way it is, that this is framing the kinds of challenges that DMs end up presenting.

So not only are, as a result, Casters overrepresented in the problem solving department, but often it may be that DMs are inadvertently setting up adventures that are biased towards casters.

Quoting as this post is quite relevant to something I've been thinking about after reading this thread.

Say you're DMing a solo campaign from 1st level to 20th level for a basic (non-variant) human Champion fighter PC, with the following constraints:

• No feats
• No magic items

1. What would be your overall campaign arc? What would be your mini-arc for each tier of play?
2. Which monsters and non-combat challenges would you use? Which would you use sparingly or avoid?

Wondering if it's worthwhile starting a new thread on this.

Edit: Added race restriction. Let's avoid any fantastic origins or influences.

 

[TheSword]

I'm just going by what's written in the book.

There are literally a dozen or more flying opponents at every single Challenge Rating in the Monster Manual. So, yes, flying opponents are pretty common. If you were to remove every flying creature from the Monster Manual, the Monster Manual would be pretty darn slim.

Again, not doing things "directly against" the mundane character. Is using a stirge giving the finger to a mundane character? Giant Eagle? Any of a thousand other flying critters in the game? There's exactly ONE monster that can cast Anti-magic Field in the Monster Manual and that's an Archmage. Which doesn't even have Anti-magic listed as a spell. The DM literally has to change the monster to do it.

As to the rest of your post, I'm sorry, but, I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Could you state your point directly, without resorting to examples? I'm having a reading fail.

Okay. But now count up what proportion of those flying creatures have a ranged attack better than a typical bow shot. We have dragon of course. Not many others. A manticores tail spikes do a mighty green 1d8+3 damage.

You’re also forgetting the structure of most adventures. The PCs set the agenda. The PCs can leave an area, come back, sneak, retreat to a room only 10’ high. Or any number of things that the flying creatures can’t really do anything about. Flying creatures are a good and interesting tactical question but they’re not some giant win button against fighters.

 

[TheSword]

So a caster gets less benefit from a cloak of protection +2 that increases their AC and all saves... because they will be casting spells and therefore no one will attack them or force them to make a saving throw? This doesn't make any sense. A cleric with magical armor who isn't attacked isn't suddenly not benefiting from the armor. And what about archer fighters? Do they not benefit from armor as much, because they are in the back lines?

And here's the thing, the bladesinger? Whenever they cast a spell? They have determined that spell is BETTER than using their magical sword. A fighter with that same magical sword isn't benefiting more from it, they simply don't have anything BETTER to do instead of attacking.

This argument doesn't hold water.

Yes they get less benefit. If I have a car and drive it every day to work and you drive it once a month to go to the office because you usually work from home I get more benefit from the car than you do.

This is a question of primary abilities and secondary abilities. A fighters primary abilities - attacking with weapons and absorbing damage are both increased substantially by magic weapons. A casters primary abilities aren’t. At best magic items are giving more but similar and mutually exclusive primary abilities to casters (a staff of fire) but not improving the ones they have already. That wizard can’t do more with the actions they take but a fighter can (unless you’re giving out staffs of fire below 6th level in which case I have no sympathy for you).

The wizard is not benefiting from the Armour class +2 because +2 to the AC of a wizard makes very little difference to whether they get hit. Whereas +2 to an already good AC is a much bigger benefit. I’m sure there will be a thread here comparing how the probability changes going from AC 15 to AC 17 and going from AC 20 to AC 22.

You’re argument for saying wizards can benefit seems to be that a tiny subset of wizards can attempt to emulate fighters. But even those wizards will occasionally be using spells in combat… if they aren’t then they aren’t really casters for the purpose of this discussion and they’re the exception that proves the rule.

Don't care about most games. Care about the design of 5e. Designers made 5e to be balanced (in theory) without feats and without magical items. If fighters are only worthwhile if they have feats and magical items... then the design intent was failed.

And most groups who use feats and magical items... still say the martials aren't as powerful as the spellcasters. So, it isn't even a solution to begin with.
Fighters get a total of two more feats compared to every other class. That's it. And while feats in theory represent an extremely flexible way to customize your character... in practice that isn't the truth. Most characters increase their ASI's to 20, taking two feats, then they get one of a few key feats. Most feats go unused. Additionally, most martial style feats are exclusionary, you can't mix sharpshooter and polearm master.

Well I’m not interested in white room theorizing but how the game is actually played in reality. Perhaps a lot of characters do increase ASI but fighters can do that and pick some pretty specific combat enhancing powers. By level 8 they can have 4 feats. Enough to do both at the core levels the game is usually played at, but this continues into higher levels too.

Additionally, feats that grant spellcasting? There are 21 of them. All of which improve a spellcaster by making them more flexible. Feats exclusive to weapons? I counted 15 and remember, most of these don't work together and include things like Revenant blade, Gunner, and Savage Attacker.

If we were talking a LOT more feats, or there were a LOT more synergistic or compelling options? Maybe you'd have a point. But there isn't, and they don't.

A fighter can benefit from spell like abilities as much as anyone else. But let’s say they don’t. Getting an extra 3 spells in your spellbook and being able to cast a spell for free once a day doesn’t make a wizard more powerful in any given round. The question isn’t whether the feat is exclusive to fighters. It’s whether the fighter benefits the most from it: which means you need to take their action choices into account.

Name me a feat that gives a wizard an extra thing they can do in a round that they couldn’t already and I’ll then name you a ton for a fighter.

I’m genuinely surprised. I thought at this point it was generally accepted that fighters benefited more from feats and magic items.

 

[TheSword]

Seeing the D&D beyond data and how much more popular fighters are than every other type of caster made me remember funny point.

So many times I see this debate being turned from ‘are martial characters viable and effective in a party’ to ‘are fighters the best class in the game’. Or ‘the fighter is better than every possible caster.’ That was never my point, just that folks saying that fighters are terrible are ignoring some pretty specific and important elements that happen in real games. Every class has strengths and weaknesses and some classes have some broken and OP builds that distort the discussion even though they probably don’t see much use outside theorizing.

Fighters have lots going for them, are fun to play and since the advent of 5e have a range of tactical options available from feats and subclasses. I certainly wouldn’t have felt the same way in 3e where fighters ended up feeling like one trick ponies because of the need to keep up with the maths of the game. I don’t think they’re the most powerful class, I certainly thing they can hold their own.

There is no compelling case for the kind of radical overhaul of a new supernatural fighter class. Fighters don’t need to be one of the Avengers to contribute in an important, fun and satisfying way. If you want that I’m sure there will be a 3pp splat book that can give you that.