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

[Hussar]

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.

Dude... it wasn't my example. Sorry, but, scroll back up. It was other people bringing up Critical Role as a great example of how fighters are the damage kings. I was pointing out that it actually wasn't true and that the fighters are actually sucking hind tit, BEHIND a beastmaster ranger. I mean, okay, he's not exactly optimized, but, then again, the competition is a Beastmaster ranger...

You keep harping on dealing the most damage in a single round. So, he gets to be the damage king once out of, what, a couple of thousand rounds of combat? Yay? I guess?

 

[Minigiant]

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

I don't either.

I think D&D needs new classes.
If D&D had a supernatural Warrior class and a Mental focused warrior class, the fighter could be designed and supported better.

D&D has 6 fullcasters and 2 nonspellcasting martial weapons users.
More is being squeezed into less.

If there were no sorcerer or warlock, the warlock an sorcerer players would be wizards and wizards would be the most popular class. And the wizard makes a terrible warlock or sorcerer.

The Fighter is really 3-4 classes jammed together. So we are getting a one version of one of those class and bad version of the rest.

 

[Hussar]

I certainly thing they can hold their own.

Again. Track it. They really aren't. It's not about being the best, but, when your schtick is you're supposed to be the guy who's great in combat and you're not that, then something isn't right.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Y'know what? This is me out. There's just no point in this anymore.

 

[Krachek]

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.

I would run it as a Conan like story.
Throw enemy evil Wizards and kings on his path, meanwhile let chance to make trustworthy friends and allies. I don’t see reason to limits any the usual stuff we can see in DnD .
in Fact a solo champion fighter have no limitation in DnD. The main concern for Fighter is alway in comparaison to the other characters in the party. Alone he is even more the king of the story. In a solo adventure needing a npc to perform a ritual to shift plane you is good. In usual adventure requiring another party member to make you plane shift is a source of disappointment.

 

[Emberashh]

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.

Over in Reddit land theres a whole thing about how many of the DND subs are inundated with people that genuinely have never played the game, and can only interact with the game by way of whats written in the books.

And given the limited perspective of white room theorycrafting when you haven't actually played the game, what I said earlier about framing actually becomes really important. If your only point of reference for how the game plays is the books, then what the books say characters can do, explicitly, is going to frame what you think is possible. Ergo, any conclusion other than that Casters can do anything and Martials nothing will sound like gibberish.

Im inclined to believe anyone whose found and posts regularly on Enworld has in fact actually played the game, but it is interesting to see the near identical argumentation.

I believe ages ago in this topic (or may be a different one, they blend together at this point) I pointed out how much something like the terrain of a battlemap can make a big difference on how much more useful a martial or a caster can be in a given encounter, and if you've never played the game and can fundamentally only interact with it via blank, white rooms, then that reality will never occur to you.

If I point out something like Improvise action exists, you'll be inclined to deny its importantance, because you don't have a DM that can weigh in one way or another.

In fact, if youre that kind of DND "player" thats never actually played, the fact that you have no DM means any table variance issues are actually even more extreme than they are for people who play, just because all the parts of the game that are dependent on a DM making choices (like the very circumstances of your adventure and what your characters are encountering) are basically vaporware insofar as their ability to function in your white room goes.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

Sure, but what if we were in an encounter where the wizard didn't have effective spells prepared? My monk's punches and maneuverability are almost always handy. I've seen many battles where a spellcaster contributed basically nothing - their spells were resisted or they had a lousy damage roll and then the target made a saving throw... I think just as we've seen that fireball that rolled great and fried seven orcs at once, we've also seen that fireball that wound up doing 10 damage. Spellcasters tend to be more flexible, but also more high risk.

Nobody that I have seen has suggested every monk and every fighter and ever fill in the blank new class should have instant win buttons all the time in every situation.
Like a wizard (most likely more like a warlock) you would at level up make choices and take A or B not get everyting A-z

there are some folks who love playing barbarians.

okay so why don't we let people play what they love... including people who love complex resource management powerful martial characters? Why does it have to be either or?

Every class can't do everything.

a melee focused full caster like a war cleric or blade singer comes the closest though

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I'd be fine with that if that is true of ALL 9th level characters. Fighters, rogues, barbarians, wizards, clerics, etc. 9th level = fly. But that's not giving the fighter much new as much as just guaranteeing all combat in D&D after 9th level in 3D.

how about giving options where the fighter can choose at level up to have something akin to a 5th level spell 1/day instead of indomitable 1/day?

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

Lots of responses to my last point. Not going to reply individually.

The fact that some casters benefit in some ways doesn’t change the fact that casters cast spells by definition. When they’re doing that they aren’t benefiting from the magic items (and if they aren’t doing that then what’s the point of being a caster)

except several of those items give them more spells when the excuse is they have limited use.
If the excuse to allow a 5th level wizard to throw a fireball twice is "He can only do it twice" and at 9th level she can "only do it 3 or 4 times" getting a staff or wand that lets them do that 5 times more per day or the more likely do it 5 times and use the 3rd level spells for something else... that is still casting spells and is a HUGE power increase.

Sure a cleric can benefit from better armour. But not to as great an extant as the fighter because the fighter will always be in the front ranks fighting whereas the cleric sometimes won’t they’ll Be healing or buffing.

unless you are a melee build full caster, then the magic armor is equal to all of you. Cleric is your worst example, they have heavy armor and martial weapons.

Sure the bladesinger can benefit from a magic sword, but everytime they cast a spell they aren’t.

but the abality to use green flame blade or booming blade and make a 2nd attack puts them at will on par with an 11th level+ fighter AND they can choose to spend those spells slots to shoot past them, or do lots of things fighters can not dream of.

Fighters benefit more. Because they get more use from these things.

nope

Magic items aren’t optional in most games, neither are feats. Claiming its so is fighting against reality. If you’re playing D&D without these things well don’t complain martials are useless when the solution is right in front of you and already in play with most groups.

and again the problem is that non casters are just worse then casters

Fighters get plenty of fun stuff at levels. Feats are awesome. Also extremely flexible and allow you to customize your character to an extent other classes can’t. Also a feature.

by level 11, that most people never see, you have 1 extra ASI/feat, by level 20 it's 2. in exchange for giving up a feat or 2 you can get 5th level or 9th level spells

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

The turns have tabled.

But the DM doing lots and lots of things directly against the mundane character is not "giving a finger", right?

If when I DM I need to look and build in 5-10 anti magic things that is not the same as half or more the monsters in the book being immune or resistant to non magical damage