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

[prabe]

So turn the game into a boring slugfest of endless combat? No thanks.

Not necessarily all the time. Just run them through the occasional gantlet.

 

[Undrave]

You should try bladesinger.

Bladesingers are Wizard with a complex 'Blade Song' thing you need to maintain to get the best out of its ability... why would I want to play that when I can just play a Blade Lock with permanent Mage Armor?

 

[Mistwell]

Why are Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters unconsidered in the debates?

The most common complaints is that Martials don't have versatility or utility out of combat, but they do in the form of these subclasses.

I don't recall anyone ever complaining Rogues do not have enough versatility or utility out of combat.

 

[Asisreo]

Given the length of time the argument has been a part of the D&D community (i.e. almost since the beginning, so 40+ years) it must have some traction. Though of course I cannot produce hard numbers to back this up. How you "feel" about the numbers is not something I can judge, but I'd like to see what data leads you to such 'feelings.' Dismissing it as something that is grognard thing may be accurate for all I know, but I'd hesitate to proclaim it as small a group as claimed above.

I've gotten this feeling because of the 7 years I've played 5e, I've never had a player tell me or the DM that they felt underpowered due to the chassis of martial classes.

They've felt underpowered because they don't exactly know how to play a class effectively or magic items had unbalanced the party, but the frequency of underpowered comments come just as much from caster classes as martials.

So I only see these things online on forums than anywhere else.

 

[overgeeked]

Bladesingers are Wizard with a complex 'Blade Song' thing you need to maintain to get the best out of its ability... why would I want to play that when I can just play a Blade Lock with permanent Mage Armor?

Drastically more spell slots, bigger spell list, selective upcasting, ritual casting of any spell you know, utility...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I've gotten this feeling because of the 7 years I've played 5e, I've never had a player tell me or the DM that they felt underpowered due to the chassis of martial classes.

They've felt underpowered because they don't exactly know how to play a class effectively or magic items had unbalanced the party, but the frequency of underpowered comments come just as much from caster classes as martials.

So I only see these things online on forums than anywhere else.

Selection bias?

The people that discuss issues on forums are not usually representative of the TTRPG community as a whole.

 

[Undrave]

Drastically more spell slots, bigger spell list, selective upcasting, ritual casting of any spell you know, utility...

I specifically mentioned that I'm tired of full casters and that the next 'magical' character I'm playing will be a Warlock so that it's SIMPLER... so yeah I'm not playing a Bladesinger.

 

[the Jester]

So turn the game into a boring slugfest of endless combat? No thanks.

Not all encounters need to be combats. It's possible to design challenges that all characters, martial and otherwise, can contribute to and that expend some of those pesky spell slots and other consumable abilities. 4e was pretty good at this- between traps, hazards, and skill challenges, there are a lot of examples of the type of things I am talking about.

 

[Asisreo]

Allow me to reframe the entire discussion.

I'm hearing that there's a subsection of players who would enjoy a class that doesn't rely on magic but still has comparable utility.

So, let's imagine for a moment that this class came to be. Does this fix the Martial v Caster problem?

 

[overgeeked]

I specifically mentioned that I'm tired of full casters and that the next 'magical' character I'm playing will be a Warlock so that it's SIMPLER... so yeah I'm not playing a Bladesinger.

Gotcha. You asked why you'd play one instead of the other. I was providing potential answers to that question.

Not all encounters need to be combats. It's possible to design challenges that all characters, martial and otherwise, can contribute to and that expend some of those pesky spell slots and other consumable abilities. 4e was pretty good at this- between traps, hazards, and skill challenges, there are a lot of examples of the type of things I am talking about.

Right. And almost none of that exists in 5E. Exploration and social encounters are all that's left besides combat. You'd have to grind through a lot of particularly difficult encounters to get casters to drop spells at a high enough rate for it to be a meaningful ding to their power. It's not impossible, sure. But it's dramatically easier with combat. The game assumes something like 5-8 combat encounters in a day (I forget what the suggested number is). To approach the same amount of assumed spell use as that you'd need...what...4-5x as many non-combat encounters? One social encounter can typically be resolved with one skill check or one spell. One exploration encounter can be resolved with one skill check or one spell. Pushing the players to use their spells instead of their skills would be hard in the first place. In my experience the players would rather spin their wheels for an hour or more in game trying every single skill and pixelbitching to the ends of the earth rather than spent one spell slot they don't have to outside of combat that's not a preparation for later combat (mage armor) or to avoid combat during a rest (tiny hut).