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

[Mort]

But I'm giving you the opportunity to demonstrate how powerful casters are and giving you "cheat codes" to help. The challenge is to show that casters have absolutely 0 problems engaging in combat.

I don't contest that Wizards have great utility, but that utility is only out-of-combat. Wizards have a breadth of options in-combat as well, but how powerful are those options actually when you just don't know if the game works.

But it seems like you really want me to provide you a sample list. Here's one you can use, but you're not bound to it:

Cantrips: Firebolt, Minor Illusion, Light, Prestidigitation, Mage Hand.
1st: Shield (Spell Mastery), Mage Armor
2nd: Invisibility (Spell Mastery), Mirror Image, Misty Step
3rd: Counterspell (Signature Spell), Fly, Haste, Dispel Magic (Signature Spell
4th: Polymorph, Greater Invisibility, Dimension Door, Banishment
5th: Animate Objects, Wall of Force
6th: Arcane Gate, Globe of Invulnerability, Disintegrate
7th: Delayed Blast Fireball, Finger of Death, Teleport
8th: Demiplane, Maze,
9th: Wish, True Polymorph, Meteor Swarm, Time Stop

Is this a fair spell list? You can use these spells and list the spells you wish to cast in-combat against these enemies.

The problem with your scenario is:

1. People are assuming it's a gotcha scenario and that it's not in good faith - I'm not saying it is; but most of the time - that's how these play out;
2. The point of the wizard - they don't have to play by the rules you presented (unlike martials). You said the wizard knows they are on the run and likely being pursued. So in that time - they've cast a multitude of divination spells to discern what's following them, why are they following them, what are their weaknesses etc. The wizard then does his best to dictate the terms of when he's "caught" and he (and his party) optimally resolve the scenario.

 

[Don Durito]

One thing I've noticed is that in games I've played in or ran, almost everyone is some kind of caster. Noone plays a Fighter. (I realise that the Fighter seems to be popular according to various metrics but I'm not seeing that translate to my games with experience gamers).

I think part of this is not just the Martial vs Caster thing, but the fact that there are so many caster classes that this creates the false impression that they are alll filling different niches. So you end up with a Sorcerer, Warlock and Two clerics (I find that players seem more likely to double up on classes when their subclasses are distinguished as part of a 1st level choice). I think if you had a greater variety of classes without magic, you'd probably see more variety there. I think part of the issue is the versatility of magic, but part of it is always the way the game presents its choices.

Is this a problem? I don't know. It feels like it twists D&D from what I'm used to which which was far less magic centred. From my perspective I sort of feel like the whole thing feels more like a superheroes game - and that's not I guess a bad thing, but I tend to think the whole thing would be a lot cleaner, and the setting more coherent if I just leant in to that. (ie. rewrite the character facing system so that rather than all the characters getting their superpowers from amorphously defined gods or other vague sources, actually come up with a system of magical superheroic mutations and a setting constructed around the existence of such and go from there.)

 

[ph0rk]

But I'm giving you the opportunity to demonstrate how powerful casters are and giving you "cheat codes" to help

That isn't fun, and not why I'd play a wizard. Rolling up a high level wizard and picking spells all at once is probably the least fun way to do it.

Look, this concept has persisted for so long it is a trope.

1. People are assuming it's a gotcha scenario and that it's not in good faith - I'm not saying it is; but most of the time - that's how these play out;

More or less.

Is this a problem? I don't know. It feels like it twists D&D from what I'm used to which which was far less magic centred. From my perspective I sort of feel like the whole thing feels more like a superheroes game

I miss some of the constraints on casters in earlier editions; 2nd ed in particular. Specific prepped slots for wizards in true Jack Vance fashion, fickle deities for clerics, 1d4 hit points a level for wizards, all of it.

In those days levels 1-5 were sheer terror for a wizard, and they were more rare at the table because of it. And the party really needed a fighter to take a lightning bolt or breath weapon to the face.

 

[D1Tremere]

In 3.5 D&D I had a half-ogre barbarian with a vow of poverty. That character is still talked about today for the insane things he could do without magic. He once carried an entire ship down a mountain. Melee can still do amazing things, it just takes planning.

 

[Asisreo]

1. People are assuming it's a gotcha scenario and that it's not in good faith - I'm not saying it is; but most of the time - that's how these play out;
2. The point of the wizard - they don't have to play by the rules you presented (unlike martials). You said the wizard knows they are on the run and likely being pursued. So in that time - they've cast a multitude of divination spells to discern what's following them, why are they following them, what are their weaknesses etc. The wizard then does his best to dictate the terms of when he's "caught" and he (and his party) optimally resolve the scenario

For 1, you can hold me to my words. I'll present the monster after...well I wanted multiple people to respond but I guess I'll do it after the first response.

As for 2, I've given you as much context as the DM themselves would have had in the play of the adventure outside of the specific name of the monster itself. They're law enforcers that are after you because the party had essentially taken a McGuffin that is important to the plot. You can make up whatever the McGuffin looks, it can be weightless, whatever. There isn't really anymore information to dole out that I don't believe is obvious, but if you have any more specific questions you think would help, I can answer them if they're relevant.

Again, if you feel it unjust, you can hold me to my word.

 

[Asisreo]

That isn't fun, and not why I'd play a wizard. Rolling up a high level wizard and picking spells all at once is probably the least fun way to do it.

With all due respect, this exercise wasn't really in the interest of fun. Maybe someone can derive fun, but I'd also rather spend my monday nights doing something more than evaluate a spell's percent chance of success.

But I'm doing it in good-faith to decipher the other side of the argument. Because it feels like being excluded from the side of the table that "knows stuff" but doesn't want to share.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The issue with casters is really isn't easily solving some individual encounter (though they can often do that,) it is bypassing and trivialising huge chunks of potential adventuring content. Leomund's invincible bunker, various communication, scrying and teleportation or other travel spells simply make a huge amount of stuff that would be challenging to mundanes utterly trivial, sometimes literally skipping it. Hell, casters can trivialise death! You literally have to designs whole adventures completely differently if high(ish) level casters are present.

 

[tetrasodium]

Out of curiousity, how often do people actually see grumbling from the other players when someone brings a utility-focused caster to the table? In my experience, the other players are usually thrilled, because the utility caster's spells give the entire party many more strategic and tactial options.

extremely often at my AL tables where everyone gets

Spoiler: this

with no GM intervention, they just pick them & show up. Then top it off with the following magic item choices:

Spoiler: also free choice no GM intervention

just for showing up with a character of appropriate level.

They all get to choose a faction (about as meaningful as pokemon go team choice) , that choice also lets them select from these magic items

Spoiler: some very nice rings

All of those choices need to fit within their "magic item limit"

Spoiler: explained

I regularly get told my table is one of the more caster friendly ones (by both martials & especially casters) because I stretch the limits of what AL allows so much & don't see casters notably more or less effective at my non-AL table or when I get the be one of the players. I never really looked too hard at it & just assumed wotc had the math ok until I ra DiA & started noticing how completely bonkers it is at both average & extreme.

 

[Xetheral]

extremely often at my AL tables where everyone gets

Spoiler: this

View attachment 137056

with no GM intervention, they just pick them & show up. Then top it off with the following magic item choices:

Spoiler: also free choice no GM intervention

View attachment 137057

just for showing up with a character of appropriate level.

They all get to choose a faction (about as meaningful as pokemon go team choice) , that choice also lets them select from these magic items

Spoiler: some very nice rings

View attachment 137058

All of those choices need to fit within their "magic item limit"

Spoiler: explained

View attachment 137059
View attachment 137060

I regularly get told my table is one of the more caster friendly ones (by both martials & especially casters) because I stretch the limits of what AL allows so much & don't see casters notably more or less effective at my non-AL table or when I get the be one of the players. I never really looked too hard at it & just assumed wotc had the math ok until I ra DiA & started noticing how completely bonkers it is at both average & extreme.

I'm confused. My question was whether people see players complain when another player brings a utility-focused caster to the table. What does the availability of AL magic items have to do with whether or not players complain about utility-focused casters? The only items on that list with active utility applications are the Ring of Animal Friendship and the Ring of the Ram.

 

[Asisreo]

The issue with casters is really isn't easily solving some individual encounter (though they can often do that,) it is bypassing and trivialising huge chunks of potential adventuring content. Leomund's invincible bunker, various communication, scrying and teleportation or other travel spells simply make a huge amount of stuff that would be challenging to mundanes utterly trivial, sometimes literally skipping it. Hell, casters can trivialise death! You literally have to designs whole adventures completely differently if high(ish) level casters are present.

I took this as a given irregardless of casters.

Because if I was a DM doing stuff for an adventure, I'd need to present close to airtight challenges absent of the entire party's class.

Because if I put a challenge that must have a specific spell casted to prevail, then the wizard that happened to not prepare it against my thoughts would have been hurt.

And if I wanted to publish, who knows what magic items the DM prior could have given previous to the adventure, so there's much to be considered.

I don't feel like a challenge that can be prevailed by anything short of clever thinking deserves to be called a challenge in terms of exploration.

And my point is really this:

Wizards are good at utility, Fighters are good at fighting. If Wizards are not as good as combat as Fighters are not as good as utility, would this not be a type of balance?