D&D 5E Martials v Casters...I still don't *get* it.

[Minigiant]

Isn't the Battlemaster the "complex" fighter?

If you're talking complex like the 4e fighter - well I suspect WoTC is way too gun-shy to go with that for a good long time!

The Battle master is closer to the middle ground between Simple and Complex.

Especially seeing that it is less complex than the simple caster.

 

[FrozenNorth]

But I feel the general opinion is that martial characters cannot be given any benefit of the doubt without it being a feature in their statblock. So any sort of rewards are brushed aside as something the DM gave away out of pity or obligation.

But when it comes to casters, they're owed their components, regardless of how a DM might feel about an encounter.

You've seen some of the post replies. Giving these components away really would have trivialized the encounter end-point. And its somehow acceptable to allow that and if a DM is unsatisfied, its the system. But a Fighter with a Vorpal Sword that instantly kills them on Round 1 is brushed off as the DM's fault that they would lend a powerful ability-enabler into the hands of a fighter.

I think fair enough for components that are worth 25,000 gp, but this objection rings hollow when you argue that @Flamestrike couldn’t have 100 gp of iron filings for a Magic Circle spell at level 17.

I can easily imagine a situation where a high level Fighter doesn’t have a Vorpal sword. I find it difficult to imagine a nob-exceptional situation where a Wizard who knows the Magic Circle spell (and therefore knows that the components he needs for it) doesn’t have a couple of castings of them on hand.

 

[FrozenNorth]

6th level spells I think are the absolute highest we should be considering in reasonable discussion. That's 11th level, which is according to the research is the apex of the vast majority of campaigns.

That level does include both Polymorph (ie trivialize large swaths of the Exploration pillar) and Animate Objects (Instant multi-minions, away!)

 

[Minigiant]

It's not so simple though. Sure they could load up on knock or whatever, but a prep slot is a prepslot, it's not prep by spell slot anymore & at higher levels casters have a whole lot fewer prep slots(1 -11 fewer). The caster still needs to function in a fight & one 5th/6th level slot for the entire day won't cut it there. Even if the wizard has those spells in their spellbook to prepare they aren't usually needed very often & even when they might be useful it's usually not a big hurle for someone else in the group to handle it

The whole thing ties back to your earlier point about trying to avoid having as many scrolls as 3.x by not providing any guidance beyond xge135 where a 1-4 fighter with a +1 greataxe & +1 platemail is totally the same as a wizard with a single use scroll of fireball & scroll of dispel magic.

addressing the problems of past editions is great & all, but there comes a point where it's gone past addressing them & moves deep into creating new ones. There are so many places they have done something to address a 3.x problem that it's leagues beyond solving it

I'm not saying that 5e is a bad as past editions. However there is a thought process of "This is how I want high level casters to look" and "don't actually play high level casters because I don't really know know they are supposed to work without constantly threatening them".

So it becomes the constant struggle of having a defined complex caster and not knowing how to handle it at high levels AND having a simplex fight and fearing making a complex one because of the caster problem and possible community backlash.

D&D sells the Gate spell but fears anyone actually playing long enough to cast it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But they gave you options if you dont play like that. Gritty realism (that turns days into weeks or even months). It's right there in the rules.

You can also use milestone resting, or one of a dozen other techniques.

Sure. I just feel 'gritty realism' should have been the default. I fits better how most people actually play, and people tend to be hesitant to use DMG optional rules.

 

[tetrasodium]

Happy that you make more use of the system than most, but if we are going to debate those levels, we need to reframe the discussion.

If people think casters or martials are dominating "only" at 13-20th level.... ok that's fine to debate....but we need to respect the fact that for the vast majority of people, if things are balanced at 1-12th.....then they are balanced. At that point, a debate on the high levels is not debating the airplane, your debating the paint color choice on the end of its wing.

And if we think casters or martials dominate at lower levels than that....then debating the high levels just dilutes the argument. Better to argue the levels that impacts most people and make the case there one way or the other.

I don't think there is anything that needs reframing. GWM+greataxe/greatsword isn't exactly a "those levels" thing, it's literally a hurdle that can be met with the first feat Even the "b.b.but AOE" using the garbage dmg249 overly optimistic positioning assumptions barely bridges the gap between at will damage accrued over a few rounds & every time a fighter gets an extra attack they multiply that +10 along with any weapon mods along with their strength mod for each attack but from 1-20 casters have spells pegged to the assumption of no feats & no magic items resulting in resistant to nonmagial b/p/s actually mattering.

The inversion from3.x starts early & just accelerates. Most of my campaigns running into low-mid teens doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of those campaign sessions were in the 1-12 range where it was still an issue. I don't want to fix 5e's bonkers math while using my groups to playtest a solution to wotc's overcorrections & gigo assumptions jut to fight a problem wotc is still actively working to maintain as recently as tcoe(haven't read vgtr yet).

 

[Mort]

Sure. I just feel 'gritty realism' should have been the default. I fits better how most people actually play, and people tend to be hesitant to use DMG optional rules.

Does it? I can't think of any D&D games where "gritty realism" was espoused or requested. Most DMs/players who want that tend to go to other systems.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sure. I just feel 'gritty realism' should have been the default. I fits better how most people actually play, and people tend to be hesitant to use DMG optional rules.

Alternately pegging durations to rests would have solved a lot of problems with using one or the other. I've tried gritty realism & it might as well be callled "supercharge the short rest classes while screwing long rest classes"

 

[Mind of tempest]

look I have played fighter and can tell you the simple problem I always end up feeling like a lackey to the party, not a full real member sort of like hawkeye is technically an avenger but is less important than your appendix.

 

[Asisreo]

You're drawing absurd equivalences between legendary magic items and mundane gemstones. If the fighter can find an armorsmith and buy 1,500 gp worth of plate armor, the wizard can find a jeweler and buy 1,500 gp worth of rubies.

And by the way, if no one has any magic items at all, how is the fighter coping with the near-universal resistance to nonmagical weapon damage at this level?

The answer is simple: they're just dealing with it. Just as I expected the casters to just deal with not having their spell components.

But, fine. I see this is just too unrealistic for some groups. I want to put forth a different example to highlight my issue with the debate.

A level 20 party consisting of a Cleric, Wizard, Fighter, Rogue. The 4 common archetypes. We can choose either a fighter or a wizard and see what and how they contribute.

I'm going to propose something of a mini-adventure with a minute set of challenges, puzzles, social interactions, and a single combat encounter at the end of the day that is just under The Adventuring Day EXP.

In this adventure, I will roll on the Treasure Hoard section of the DMG up to the recommended amount per tier (7 at tier 1, 8 at tier 2, 12 at tier 3, and 8 at tier 4) and randomly assign items that the party had taken at one point. You can do whatever with the magic items, like sell or use them, and the money is yours to buy whatever you desire so long as it doesn't have to be specifically crafted (Statues, Crowns, Armor, etc.) The exception is that you must spend downtime specifically crafting this material out of its raw materials. No feats, no multiclassing, and no matter what, you're character can only take 1/4th of the loot for themselves.

Between this adventure, you had 10 years of downtime. This allows you to go wherever you're wanted during this downtime without much time-trouble. Any character has access to interplanar portals to anywhere but Mt. Celestia, The Abyss, or the Nine Hells.

Would this be a more realistic take, with even a leaning towards casters in this adventure? I also won't do any Antimagic Field shenanigans. I'll work with other forum posters to ensure the that any wards, traps, obstacles, or hazards are not meant to trap or kill any specific type of character/class.

I am serious that I want to have a natural conclusion to this discussion and see where it leads. I want to follow through and show both Martials and Casters are both not only useful but doesn't completely overshadow one or the other even at high levels in these caster-leaning situations.

Again, I ask, is this fair?