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

[Don Durito]

So one of the first things you learn in playtesting is how the user actually uses the tool you design. Not how you envisioned, the actual.

It has always seemed to me that 6-8 encounters as the normal in a given day is just incredibly high, and its not a model I have ever seen used in any game I have played in or run. I have asked my friends if they have ever played in a game where that was normal...and people in general have said that is very very high.

Now if we really are the minority, so be it, it is what it is. But if its true that most players simply don't play the way that the designers intended....the fault is with the design. You don't get mad at the user for using your product in a way you didn't intend....you change the design to better guide them....or accept that the way they use it is fine and design around that.

So if the average group runs less than 6-8 encounters as standard....than balancing the game around such numbers is a design mistake.

I think there's a coupe of things behind it. One they've doubled the hitpoints effectively from 3rd edition by introducing hit dice recovery, so that effectively doubles the number of encounters to really put pressure on the hit points (and healing magic). If you remove both cantrips and hit dice recovery you have something that looks a lot closer to the 3 to 4 encounters assumed by 3rd edition (although I don't think I'd recommend it necessarily, the game was finished off with the assumption cantrips and hit dice so you'd probably get a few weird things.)

The other thing is that 6-8 encounters is not really all that exceptional in older editions (pre 3rd edition) with dungeon crawling. You could easily get through that number of encouters in a single session of a B/X game. But there's some key differences which cause problems when translating that to 5th edition. The first is just the amount of time that combat takes (A random encounter with 3 skeletons is over to quickly to really be annoying). The other is that 6-8 encounters is with everything going well. In B/X a few bad die rolls in any of those encounters may mean a dead PC or at least the need to retreat for the day (Meaning it's really more like 1-8+ encounters). Easy encounters don't feel worthwhile in 5e because it doesn't feel like anything's immediately at stake. The critical hit from the skeleton in the first fight of the day can in practice make the difference between success and failure in the final combat of the day when all resources are drained, but that doesn't work psychologically. (And it especially doesn't work if it takes you three sessions to get through all those 6-8 encounters - not just through length of combat but all the additonal things like talking in character and interacting with NPCs which mean that modern games move more slowly then old school ones).

 

[Stalker0]

I think there's a coupe of things behind it. One they've doubled the hitpoints effectively from 3rd edition by introducing hit dice recovery, so that effectively doubles the number of encounters to really put pressure on the hit points (and healing magic).

This one aspect of your post I'll disagree with, again from how I have seen the game played vs the design. In theory you are correct. In practice, the groups I saw and played with (and going to events like at dragoncon and the like)....CLW wands quickly became an assumed staple of the game in 3.5. Consequently, hit point attrition was not really a factor going from one 3e encounter to the next....unless you had an exceptionally fast paced combat schedule (aka as the first combat finishes the party is ambushed immediately by the next kind of thing). 3e simply assumes all players start an encounter at full hitpoints 99% of the time.

 

[Flamestrike]

3e simply assumes all players start an encounter at full hitpoints 99% of the time.

5E (with its easy HD healing) does as well.

Its around 2 encounters between long rests, so you can use up resources like slots, channel divinity, LOH and potions to get through to your Short rest, and then use HD to get back the rest.

 

[Don Durito]

This one aspect of your post I'll disagree with, again from how I have seen the game played vs the design. In theory you are correct. In practice, the groups I saw and played with (and going to events like at dragoncon and the like)....CLW wands quickly became an assumed staple of the game in 3.5. Consequently, hit point attrition was not really a factor going from one 3e encounter to the next....unless you had an exceptionally fast paced combat schedule (aka as the first combat finishes the party is ambushed immediately by the next kind of thing). 3e simply assumes all players start an encounter at full hitpoints 99% of the time.

Yeah. I guess. I mostly stopped playing with 3rd edition when 3.5 so most of my experience was with playing it the way it was designed originally to be played with players who hadn't yet learned all the tricks.

From what I remember there was quite a shift with how adventures and enconters were designed as the culture of play changed.

I think the early adventures such as the Sunless Citadel were designed with an attrition model of dungeon crawling in mind. It was part of the whole 'back to the dungeon' original push of 3rd edition.

5e is in many ways written like an attempt to go back to original design intentions behind 3rd edition and get it right. (And then Critical Role happened and gave everyone a model of play that was a long way from that).

 

[Gammadoodler]

Any reason Fighters keep getting called 'single damage' classes?

Rogues for sure, but nothing stopping a fighter from directing his multiple attacks vs multiple targets in a single round, moving if he wants between attacks as well.

Melee martials do better. Far more magical melee weapons then there are ranged weapons.

Toss a Fighter something as iconic as a flametounge sword and see his damage go dambusters. Throw on a belt of giant strength as well and it gets crazy.

There simply are not magical items that even come close for the Wizard, available at the same frequency, and those that do exist require attunement (unlike + arms and armor and shield).

If we're talking resource use your 11th level GWM BM Fighter, Str 20, +3 Great Sword, using action surge and his 6 Sup dice, who manages to drop a creature to 0 HP on his turn (triggering cleave) deals: 6d10+14d6+126 (210) points of damage.

210 average damage, with no Crits.

While a Wizard can drop a save or suck, he doesn't have anything in his repertoire that can deal that kind of damage, barring having over half a dozen creatures all bunched together in a fireball, and all failing their saves.

Fighters are being called a single target damage class because, with limited exceptions, when they attack, it is directed against a single target. They can spread around their attacks however they like, but they're almost never attacking more than one target at a time.

You want to use the fighter who has used all of their short rest resources (and then some? Only 5 superiority dice at lvl 11, no?), hit on all their attacks (but no crits) with a reduced to hit where there were adequate enemy targets with enough hp to take that damage, where all targets are within their walking distance as the basis for comparison? Sure, that seems fair I guess.. They can do that on round 1. So down to 6d6+54 (75) on any successive round until a short rest assuming targets in range?

Subclassless, itemless, wizard casts otilukes freezing sphere for 10d6 over a 60ft radius, breakeven at 7 failed saves, any more than that it's victory caster, and they still have 8 spell slots left to cast fireball (8-10 d6, breakeven on successive rounds at 2.5 targets per casting) or other AoE spell with. And..btw..with a shortest range of 150 ft for these spells, they've been able to cast these AoEs 2 turns before the fighter got there (assuming LoS). It also means they have a targeting area that's something like 24-25 times the area the fighter can target in a turn(but that's more a general range issue than a caster issue specifically)

Mathing it out here though, I'm willing to concede that it was significantly more competitive than I was expecting..for an optimized fighter with optimal gear.

 

[Flamestrike]

Fighters are being called a single target damage class because, with limited exceptions, when they attack, it is directed against a single target.

Thats not my experience at all, and there is no rule that makes it so.

You want to use the fighter who has used all of their short rest resources (and then some? Only 5 superiority dice at lvl 11, no?),

Combat superiority F/S so 6.

Subclassless, itemless, wizard casts otilukes freezing sphere for 10d6 over a 60ft radius, breakeven at 7 failed saves, any more than that it's victory caster, and they still have 8 spell slots left to cast fireball (8-10 d6, breakeven on successive rounds at 2.5 targets per casting) or other AoE spell with.

So now we need (to break even) massed up enemies over multiple combats, and you use multiple high level slots to do it?

What if we instead get a solo legendary, or the enemy dont conveniently bunch up for you?

 

[Gammadoodler]

Thats not my experience at all, and there is no rule that makes it so.

Combat superiority F/S so 6.

So now we need (to break even) massed up enemies over multiple combats, and you use multiple high level slots to do it?

What if we instead get a solo legendary, or the enemy dont conveniently bunch up for you?

Have the D&D rules changed recently such that you can damage more than one enemy with a single attack? Otherwise by virtue of being tied to the Attack action to do damage, Fighters are single target damage dealers. You can spend your attacks targeting whomever you like, but it will always be a 'single target' that you hit or miss with those individual attacks.

Gotcha, math tracks, 2 feats and 2 ASIs.

The short answer is 'kinda', but I don't think it's as hard as you are indicating... A 20 foot radius is very large, a fighter cannot cross it in their turn with actions left to attack. A 60 ft radius is enormous. The melee fighter as a practical matter cannot guarantee that they can even get to all the targets in a potential fireball radius, and the freezing sphere is, what, a 9 times larger area than that (without even accounting for the z-axis)? 3 targets isn't that insane of a baseline for a fireball considering that enemies may want to do things like try and consolidate melee damage, provide healing support, etc. Slightly over double that in an area 9 times larger doesn't exactly constitute "conveniently bunching up".

Hell, even if you said only 2 targets in a fireball area and scale that times the area increase vs the sphere and you're at 18 "likely" targets for an aoe spell like the freezing sphere. Even if all of them make their save, you're still at effectively 9 targets worth of damage and beating the fighter's peak single turn output. Of course this is a gross oversimplification, friendly fire, cover and all that, but it's not like we're in crazy town. That spell covers an area it would take the fighter 2 full turns to even move across, never mind fighting in...and it can be cast from 300 feet away, 5 turns worth of full fighter movement away.

Really, the only "convenient bunching" that has been proposed, has been the 2+ targets within a one-turn walking distance of your fighter for it to achieve the damage values you've calculated for your NOVA turn.

If you get a solo legendary, the fighter looks much better as it is a 'single target'. That said, for Solos, the AC and saves ramp up as well so saves and to hit get to be more important assumptions than we've treated them as. Without going into particulars within the monster manual, I expect the fighter comes out on top if it can get in range to make its attacks, but I would not take that as a surety.

 

[Minigiant]

He's clearly a Storm Herald Barbarian, armed with a Hammer of Thunderbolts (with an additional ability that grants him a fly speed), and wearing a Belt and the Gloves (its literally his exact fluff, he is a berserker and the belt, hammer and gauntlets are literally based on his mythology).

Toss him a Ring of Air Elemental command for some chain lightning action and you're pretty much done.


Hulk is a Berserker barbarian, with Fighting initiate (unarmed), Tavern Brawler, and boots of springing and striding who has had access to one too many Tomes of Gamma-ainful Exercise.

Cap is an Open Hand Monk with a Magic shield that doesnt interfere with his abilities.

Hawkeye is a Battlemaster Fighter/ Assassin Rogue with Archery and Sharpshooter.

Iron Man is an Armorer Artificer. Dont get me started on what HE's attuned to!

The really issue is that D&D martials are limited to Ability Scores in the 20s and only 1 of which.

Comics and Movies Thor and Hulk have Strength easily above 50 and CON at least 20. Hawkeye and Black Widow are both rocking DEX well over 20 at level 10.

Then you have Captain All 20s.

 

[Flamestrike]

The really issue is that D&D martials are limited to Ability Scores in the 20s and only 1 of which.

No they're not. In fact Barbarians are the only class that can go beyond that limit in core.

In addition, Tomes and Magic items exist.

Comics and Movies Thor and Hulk have Strength easily above 50 and CON at least 20. Hawkeye and Black Widow are both rocking DEX well over 20 at level 10.

Not a chance in hell. You're overrating those characters based on your own biases.

MCU Thor is as strong as the Tarresque, so around 30. And Thor can have a 28 naturally with his Hammer and class features.

Hawkeye is literally a Sharpshooter BM Fighter/ Assassin, and Black Widow is an OHM/ Assassin. That explains the freakish accuracy and martial arts you see. Not some kind of superhuman dex scores.

Then you have Captain All 20s.

Not a chance in hell. His Strength and Con are likely 22's, and he has the Alert feat (taking into account his superhuman reflexes). He also has a very high Dex but unlikely to be over 20.

A party of 20th level heroes are on par with the power of MCU Avengers. At 5th level onwards, they're on par with MCU Defenders.

 

[Flamestrike]

Have the D&D rules changed recently such that you can damage more than one enemy with a single attack? Otherwise by virtue of being tied to the Attack action to do damage, Fighters are single target damage dealers.

They get multiple attacks (up to 9 at 20th) and can freely move between them, and don't have to attack the same target.