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

[FrozenNorth]

I completely agree with this. I frequently run high-level campaigns when I design them, there's definitely more to keep track of and the details begin to matter so much more.

I’ll go even further, it’s not just extra work, but it’s extra work limiting a player’s character. Yes, it needs to be done, and yes, I think reasonable players understand that you are trying to balance the game for everybody’s fun, but it is both draining and less fun to be the guy who says

“Wait, when did you buy the incense to cast Find Familiar? You’ve been in the wilderness for two weeks!”

 

[Oofta]

Go on a road trip with minimal time to browse and think ... gee I have some thoughts on this, I'll have to post when I get a chance ... 24 pages later.

Just some general thoughts, although I freely admit I skipped probably 2/3s of this because it seems to be stuck in the same arguments that have plagued most editions.

Martial vs caster is less of an issue than it used to be. But, if you have a 5 minute work day, of course casters are going to be more powerful.

People seem to really overestimate versatility + combat prowess for casters. Yes, if you have the right spell prepped and an infinite number of spell slots, casters can be incredibly flexible and be a powerhouse in combat. However, that assumes that the player is tactically smart if not brilliant. It rarely happens that way, in fact many times the person who is least capable of optimizing casters gravitate to caster classes. As long as they're having fun, it's fine. But I don't know how many times I've hit people who should focus on simple builds instead to wizards and then be pretty ineffective at the table.

Will casters shine now and then? Of course. A meteor storm can lay waste to a large force. On the other hand, many DMs will just compensate.

If you stack the deck in favor of full casters, they are more powerful and versatile. In real world games that I've experienced? Sometimes they shine while the energizer bunny fighters do the unglamorous support work. Besides, sometimes I just want to play a BDF and not think for a little bit (or focus on things outside of class capabilities). That alone justifies "simple" fighters for me.

Last, but not least, D&D is a team game. A party of full casters might sound awesome but give them more that a couple of encounters and things can rapidly go sideways when they don't have Batman's pre-planning capability. Is a champion fighter flashy? No. In most cases over the long haul they hold their own, but it's not just damage or utility. It's helping the other team members stay alive, contributing a solid amount of damage over the long haul and so on.

 

[ph0rk]

The power of spells mentioned are greatly reduced by both concentration and the massive limitations on high level spell slots, and the difficulty of procuring scrolls easily. 5e is not 3e. I really wish people would stop equating them.

foresight, force cage, dimension door/teleport, simulacrum, greater invisibility, banishment etcetera?

Of that short list, 4 choices don't require concentration. This entire discussion assumes all parties understand how 5e works, and that concentration is a limitation.

I regularly have characters that know more than one concentration spell, and I don't see why you'd try to constrain a caster to only one when discussing their flexibility. Red herring.

On the other hand, many DMs will just compensate.

If DM compensation is part of the balance, you might just as easily consider that a DM will add hit points to enemies to counter high single target damage from certain martials.

s a champion fighter flashy? No. In most cases over the long haul they hold their own, but it's not just damage or utility. It's helping the other team members stay alive, contributing a solid amount of damage over the long haul and so on.

In what ways is a Champion Fighter better at "helping team members stay alive" and contributing a solid amount of damage than a paladin or hexblade?

Best case they are interchangeable, worst case they lack the ability to burst/nova when needed and have no reality warping abilities. Dead enemies do little damage. Champions effectively have one speed.

 

[Oofta]

foresight, force cage, dimension door/teleport, simulacrum, greater invisibility, banishment etcetera?

Of that short list, 4 choices don't require concentration. This entire discussion assumes all parties understand how 5e works, and that concentration is a limitation.

I regularly have characters that know more than one concentration spell, and I don't see why you'd try to constrain a caster to only one when discussing their flexibility. Red herring.


If DM compensation is part of the balance, you might just as easily consider that a DM will add hit points to enemies to counter high single target damage from certain martials.


In what ways is a Champion Fighter better at "helping team members stay alive" and contributing a solid amount of damage than a paladin or hexblade?

Best case they are interchangeable, worst case they lack the ability to burst/nova when needed and have no reality warping abilities. Dead enemies do little damage.

Classes don't need to have identical options in order to be helpful. They don't need to be "balanced" to be fun, balance IMHO is an illusionary goal that can't be achieved in a system like 5E. They tried it in 4E and to many people it felt like they just made every class casters with a different label*.

Dead enemies may do little damage, but when the wizard is down to cantrips or the spells they have are of minimal use for the current situation, the fighter is going to be better at making enemies dead.

Put it another way: I don't care about white room analysis of "optimal". I care about having options that people enjoy playing. Champion fighters can be quite fun to play for a lot of people and are correspondingly popular. That alone justifies them.

*Feel free to disagree; it's not a slam against 4E, just acknowledging a common opinion.

 

[Asisreo]

If DM compensation is part of the balance, you might just as easily consider that a DM will add hit points to enemies to counter high single target damage from certain martial

Is this truly equivalent?

I mean, if a DM was changing the nature of an area by going "oh, an antimagic field appears!" I'd agree that would be dubious. But I feel like a DM that constructs an area with an anti-teleportation ward in a future adventure is just learning from his mistakes.

Like having a monster with very dangerous abilities but low HP being OHKO by a fighter. It would be unfair for them to add 100-200HP to the monster in-combat, but I think its fine if he starts introducing beefier monsters into the adventure.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As for building a better fighter, I think that Battlemaster is a good chassis if we don't want to build things from scratch. Having tricks you can do and expending resources to use them is a decent mechanic. The issue just is that the stuff doesn't scale. You pick the best ones first, and then you at later levels just get the stuff you already passed. You should get better stuff at higher levels. They could easily fix this in some supplement by adding more manoeuvres and give those level requirements. And the highest level ones could be some totally crazy superhero stuff.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Do you mean the Planetar challenge or the newer, more comprehensive one I'm working on?

The one in the OP with the green flying creatures.

I wish we could get people who ran high level 3.5 RPGA games or high level Pathfinder Soceity games during PF 1st. Those people would would have first hand experience in this stuff...

I think that everyone here agrees that 3.x casters were way more powerful and versatile than martials.
The main point under discussion seems to be whether the changes in 5e have nerfed the wizard into below the fighter in overall capability.

I think I would prefer to be a 20th level Wizard who True Polymorphs into the Incredible Hulk.
That way, I'm still a 20th level Wizard when I'm not angry.

But what if you're always angry?

 

[jgsugden]

Threshold requirements: Each class, and subclass, should be fun. They should not feel like they're useless. They should not feel like they're boring.

To reach the threshold criteria, we need to consider what is inherent to the text in the book, and what the DM and players bring to the table. If a build can be fun given the right players and DM, we can't say the book materials are defective or deficient.

From experience, I can say that all of the classes can be fun. Further, there is not a subclass/class/race combination I have encountered that can't play a part in exploration, combat and social interaction. They're not all great at it, but they can all play a part that is meaningful and fun. (As a note on this: My best 5E experience in social interactions, from an enjoyment perspective, was my mountain dwarf barbarian who had an 8 charisma and a -10 penalty beyond that to deception as his flaw was that he was the world's worst liar - and refused to believe he was bad at it. Being good at something is not a prerequisite to it being fun.)

To that end - we're all good. Could they do some things better? Yeah, a bit - but all the classes are really good. Arcane and Martial classes work really well, and we should be grateful. Not perfect, but really good. If I was asked to make tweaks for a 5.5 edition, they'd all be minor tweaks (except to rogue - I'd upgrade sneak attack dice to d8 at 5th, d10 at 11th, and d12 at 17th .... that would be a big change).

 

[jmartkdr2]

I say sorcerer should be the simple one but only because I wish to fuse warlock to the cleric.

If I were making a fantasy heartbreaker right now, I'd mash paladin, sorcerer and warlock together into one class, and all the full casters into another.

But that's off-topic, really.

 

[Oofta]

As for building a better fighter, I think that Battlemaster is a good chassis if we don't want to build things from scratch. Having tricks you can do and expending resources to use them is a decent mechanic. The issue just is that the stuff doesn't scale. You pick the best ones first, and then you at later levels just get the stuff you already passed. You should get better stuff at higher levels. They could easily fix this in some supplement by adding more manoeuvres and give those level requirements. And the highest level ones could be some totally crazy superhero stuff.

All I can say is that I will never play a Battlemaster. I kind of despise the "this isn't a spell or supernatural in any way but it's a limited resource you can only use X number of times" structure. Besides, I don't need to be Superman to have fun playing the game.

Have maneuvers you can only use in special circumstances? Sure. Have maneuvers cost HP because you're pushing yourself beyond what it normally can take? Okay. Revert to 4E mechanics? Not for me, thanks.