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

[Micah Sweet]

Out of curiosity, are there any existing well-regarded 5E mythic fighters in the community, via Drive Thru etc? I'm wondering if there's a well-used example of this sort of thing.

Good question! Does anyone have any good homebrew or 3pp to address this issue? Because otherwise, what are you all trying to accomplish?

 

[Clint_L]

over a day yea they can... lets go back to my last example.
9th level wizard with 3/3/3/3/1
gonna give them 1 damage spell of each level, burning hands, scorching ray, fireball, wall of fire and cone of cold (one of these doesn't look the same)

I will NOT take a d12 or d10 cantrip for damage I think chill touch is d8s

9th level fighter with 18 str and a big axe 1d12+4 2x plus action surge we will say twice in a day.

6 encounters, average of 3 rounds per encounter for 18 rounds... remember thanks to action surge teh fighter is getting 20 not 18
1x wizard gets 2 targets with cone of cold (8d8)
3x wizard gets 3 targets with wall of fire first round and 1 the second (5d8)
3x wizard gets 3 targets once with fireball 2 targets once with fire ball and 1 target once with fireball (what a waste that last one) (8d6)
that is 12 targets getting 'hit 'by the wizard lets say the cone of cold all the walls of fire make the saves and and of the 6 hit with fireball 3 make it 3 fail it for saves
so Cone of cold did 35 damage across 2 saves
1st round wall of fire dealt 32 damage across 3 saves and round 2 did 11 per casting
fireball is 84 for people who missed save and 42 for made
8 rounds of combat but 1 of them was just conenctrating so "useing" 7 rounds that is 290pts of damage
11 rounds at 2d8 average of 9 is 99 more for 389pts of damage

fighter makes 40 swings each for on average 10 for 400 damage

but WAIT that assumes all 40 swings hit, remember we had a;; 3 cone of cold ect ect make there saves, so if 2 out of 40 swings miss what happens... 380!?!?! that can't be less then the wizard that used 0 1st and 2nd level spells and had a sub damage cantrip now can it!?!?!

Sigh...it's like you are willfully ignoring my words "except when it comes to AoE encounters."

Yes, you can create a situation where a caster (specifically a wizard once again, I see) can do more damage. I can create a situation where a fighter, barbarian, monk, etc. do more. The specific claim was, once again:

Track it. Actually do the math. Track your next 20 rounds of combat. Area attacks deal total damage, not single, so, it's not fair to compare a single target - you have to talk about total damage. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that your casters are number 1. Every time.

In other words, not that you can artificially create a situation where a caster does the most damage, but that they are always the top damage dealers. I showed with extensive evidence from actual games that this is not only untrue, it is actually the exception that a caster is the top damage dealer during an adventuring day. Go look for yourself. There is nothing to debate.

This is such a silly hill to die on. Just admit that martial classes are not hurting as damage dealers. Fighters and barbarians are simultaneously great tanks, too. That doesn't mean there isn't an argument to be made that they should be more versatile. But make that argument, not these absurd hyperbolic ones that present martial classes as all but useless in every facet of the game. They aren't.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

For great caster damage, I usually see people mentioning the mass minion spells like Conjure Animals and Animate Objects (they can tank a ridiculous amount of damage, and deal a lot in return as well), and the spells that can deal damage in an area continuously, so you can force enemies through it, like Spike Growth, or ping ponging a dude in and out of Spirit Guardians.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Good question! Does anyone have any good homebrew or 3pp to address this issue? Because otherwise, what are you all trying to accomplish?

I've seen a few attempts. Nothing I am 100% happy with so far. I'm working on a system right now, but I haven't finished it yet. And likely, it will only be a stepping stone. Planning on posting it here (Enworld), along with other changes that I've used as at least a baseline to work from

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sigh...it's like you are willfully ignoring my words "except when it comes to AoE encounters."

Yes, you can create a situation where a caster (specifically a wizard once again, I see) can do more damage. I can create a situation where a fighter, barbarian, monk, etc. do more. The specific claim was, once again:



In other words, not that you can artificially create a situation where a caster does the most damage, but that they are always the top damage dealers. I showed with extensive evidence from actual games that this is not only untrue, it is actually the exception that a caster is the top damage dealer during an adventuring day. Go look for yourself. There is nothing to debate.

This is such a silly hill to die on. Just admit that martial classes are not hurting as damage dealers. Fighters and barbarians are simultaneously great tanks, too. That doesn't mean there isn't an argument to be made that they should be more versatile. But make that argument, not these absurd hyperbolic ones that present martial classes as all but useless in every facet of the game. They aren't.

How is "there are three monsters on the field, close to each other" an artificial sutuation? Do you typically not use more than one or two creautures in your combats?

I know for me, I tend to default to at least five enemy combatants if I'm not doing a big BBEG, and sometimes more. So, AOEs are not exactly an artificial and unnatural situation to have be useful.

 

[HammerMan]

people who chose to play martials aren’t dumb/naive/ or short sighted not to see the amazing wonder that are casters. P

as long as you are making this stuff up I am not responding. I am not name calling so don’t put that on me.

 

[Yaarel]

It occurs to me.

Fighters are solid at combat. Less so at noncombat.

But because so many D&D groups are combat-centric, the Fighter typically does well or even flourishes.

 

[HammerMan]

How is "there are three monsters on the field, close to each other" an artificial sutuation? Do you typically not use more than one or two creautures in your combats?

I know for me, I tend to default to at least five enemy combatants if I'm not doing a big BBEG, and sometimes more. So, AOEs are not exactly an artificial and unnatural situation to have be useful.

She didn’t use all her slots she let everyone make there saves for half and the argument now is “I mean how can you hit 2 targets with cone of cold and 3 with wall of fire

This almost seems like a joke

 

[Remathilis]

Good question! Does anyone have any good homebrew or 3pp to address this issue? Because otherwise, what are you all trying to accomplish?

That would require someone putting their money where their mouth is and designing a solution.

 

[Tonguez]

I dont follow the rationale.

Shouldnt the fact that the Wizard can sometimes do fast (teleport), sneaky (invisible), and disarm trap (fly) better than a Rogue, inspire more protests on behalf of the nonmagical Rogue?

Maybe the Rogue is simply competent at noncombat challenges, while the Fighter isnt? So the real problem isnt casters − it is that Fighters have been made defective at noncombat?

It really comes down to the skill system and how it is implemented. Especially in 5e where Combat is just another proficiency test v target defense DC (AC)

Rogues get skills which mean they have both combat proficiency and non-combat proficiency

for Spell casters most spells get autosuccess (no proficiency roll/role needed) in both combat and non-combat utility.

and because Rogues get sneak attack and cunning and Spellcasters get cantrip spam, Fighters dont get to dominate in combat and get screwed on non-combat skills too