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

[tetrasodium]

An often overlooked issue with Martials vs Casters is that the game expects you to win the majority of combats. Martial Characters help you "Combat Better", but do you really need to Combat Better when Combat Fairly Average is usually enough to succeed at the combat pillar? Certainly you lose sometimes, characters can die, and campaign goals can be failed because you have to back off and rest too often. But the default is winning. Over and over. And Martial characters primarily help you win more at the thing you are already winning.

This is also true for Exploration to a lesser extent, but there are far fewer Exploration specialist classes.

That's a good point, but it raises an important question. Specifically, that question is why do these discussions pretend that the same does not hold equally true for social & exploration challenges,

If challenge A could be trivialized by spell A if that spell is an option and that spell is prepared or someone else could just spend a bit longer physically solving it without expending any resources. An example of that alternative method might be using something like the 50foot rope in burglar dungeoneer & explorer packs alongside athletics or acrobatics what gain does doing it a couple minutes faster when there was little if any time constraint to begin with. What is gained by expending a spellslot to save a couple minutes that weren't being counted?

 

[Undrave]

Why not?

Isn't it being taken for granted that we even have the "Martial" category. This is a holdover by the community at large from previous editions and other TTRPGs, but 5e doesn't have Martials. They just have classes with the complex Spellcasting trait and classes without the Spellcasting trait.

I still don't see how that desire to be complex but an almost allergy to spells isn't at least a bit peculiar. It just seems like...a design choice. Like someone said "Complex = caster" that way everyone knows their class is complex at a glance.

What is hard to understand?! The FICTION I want to represented does not equate the GAMEPLAY I want to engage with! It's that's friggin' simple! How much simplier can we explain it?!

 

[Iry]

That's a good point, but it raises an important question. specifically, why do these discussions pretend that the same does not hold equally true for social & exploration challenges,

If challenge A could be trivialized by spell A if that spell is an option and that spell is prepared or someone else could just spend a bit longer physically solving it without expending any resources. An example of that alternative method might be using something like the 50foot rope in burglar dungeoneer & explorer packs alongside athletics or acrobatics what gain does doing it a couple minutes faster when there was little if any time constraint to begin with.

I find it doesn't hold equally true. Exploration comes close, since you are usually going to succeed one way or another. But Exploration also tends to have a higher frequency of meaningful choice/consequence, like cave-ins blocking off treasure or cutting off retreat paths. The Social pillar is where I see the greatest variable between success and failure, from failing to convince someone to tell you about that secret door in the wine cellar, to not convincing the queen to march a 10,000 strong army to reinforce your besieged castle.

As for the alternative method, that is a wash since casters have full access to those things as well. Heck, a caster can drop their casting stat to 8, have the exact same stats and proficiencies as a martial, solve them the same way, and STILL have the additional options of spellcasting to solve later challenges or just do cool things with.

 

[Undrave]

What I understand:

• Some people would like a complex class that doesn't have spells.

WHat I don't understand

• Why these specific people must be catered to or its a problem.

Well then that's a completely different point then. And I return the question for you: WHY NOT?!

There is no justification in game design to have the complexity level of a character be wedded to its fictional archetype the way DnD does it. It doesn't punish anyone if there is a Champion equivalent that slings spells, or a Battlemaster with actualy scaling abilities like a Wizard.

Th designers CHOSE to do it that way because it's a sacred cow and nothing else. And it's a sacred cow that REEKS of outdated 80s 'Jocks VS Nerds' rivalry if you ask me.

 

[Asisreo]

Well then that's a completely different point then. And I return the question for you: WHY NOT?!

Well, I propose that there isn't a reason at all. It was an arbitrary decision they just made. Like the decision to not have an abberation-based race or to re-add the sorcerer.

Perhaps it was for thematic choices, which is arbitrary in my eyes. Game designers make these arbitrary decisions all the time in video games, TTRPGs, board games, etc. Some people like the change, some do not. But that is the joy of a diverse set of different genres/types of games, especially within a franchise. If I don't like FF16 as much as I like FF7, that doesn't mean FF16 is a bad game but it does mean my preference for Turn-based games were not taken by the designers, but that's fine.

Th designers CHOSE to do it that way because it's a sacred cow and nothing else. And it's a sacred cow that REEKS of outdated 80s 'Jocks VS Nerds' rivalry if you ask me.

Is it a sacred cow? I'm unfamiliar with the earliest minutia of the overall opinions of D&D earlier on but if it was a sacred cow, it seems like 5e does have a tendency to honor those sacred cows, so it would make sense.

Again, I sympathize with those that want a particular experience within the game, but I still can't see how this problem has extended so far that its considered a global issue of the game.

 

[Iry]

Game designers make these arbitrary decisions all the time in video games, TTRPGs, board games, etc. Some people like the change, some do not. But that is the joy of a diverse set of different genres/types of games, especially within a franchise. If I don't like FF16 as much as I like FF7, that doesn't mean FF16 is a bad game but it does mean my preference for Turn-based games were not taken by the designers, but that's fine.

Side note. This is absolutely true. So many times in game design you end up having to just make a choice, and live with the pros and cons.

 

[Flamestrike]

A wizard's spell list depends entirely on what happened to them for the previous 16 levels. No, I'm not interested in being baited into an exhibition match.

That's because you're wrong, and such an exhibition match would prove it.

In a 6ish encounter/ 2ish short rest adventuring day, the problems you claim exist, don't.

 

[Flamestrike]

Fire bolt cantrip. 120ft range. 1d10 fire damage. +1d10 at 5th, 11th, 17th. So at 20th level you're doing 4d10 fire at 120ft range.

Infinitely-ammo longbow. 150ft range. 1d8 piercing damage. Fighters get extra attacks at 5th, 11th, 20th. So at 20th level you're doing 4d8 piercing at 150ft range.

Both have access to feats that can increase their damage output either via direct damage bonuses or to-hit bonuses or situational bonuses. Both have access to magic items that can provide various boosts and bonuses and special abilities. Both have subclasses that boost their abilities, damage output, etc.

The fighter gets 2 whole action surges by 20th level, so they can make eight attacks (total of 8d8 either to a single target or spread out to up to eight targets) in a round two whole times every short rest. Assuming max stat mod, they all hit, and all do max damage, that's a 104 damage nova twice per rest.

Is there any reason why this mythical 20th level fighter isnt using his (d12) superiority dice, 18-20 crit range, arcane arrows or whatever else his archetype is granting him, or his +2 to hit for Archery style which the Wizard doesnt have access to for his Firebolts (which pushes his DPR much higher) Or the fact that + bows and arrows stack, no equivalent exists for firebolt, so its much easier for a fighter to push these number even higher? Or that fire is a much more resisted damage type to magical weapon damage (which nothing is resistant to?)

You're discounting feats (which the fighter gets more of) as a 'wash' so that's obviously not accurate, you're discounting hit points (and hit die) which the fighter has 50 percent more of than the wizard, you've ignored magic items which - if they exist - (and they do in most campaigns) also favors the fighter (+ weapons, armor ammo and shields dont require attunement, unlike + wands of the war mage, bracers, and rings for the wizard, belts of giant strength exist bumping the fighters main stat to 29 something a wizard can only dream of etc), and you've discounted fighting styles and archetype features here.

You're not really making a fair comparison here are you?

 

[Campbell]

At the very least we should be giving the Fighter the benefit of a high Dexterity. That should be at least 4d8 + 20. More if magical arrows are involved. That's not even considering feats. It's a very poorly built fighter who is not putting a spellcaster (other than Warlocks) to shame in single target damage.

 

[tetrasodium]

I find it doesn't hold equally true. Exploration comes close, since you are usually going to succeed one way or another. But Exploration also tends to have a higher frequency of meaningful choice/consequence, like cave-ins blocking off treasure or cutting off retreat paths. The Social pillar is where I see the greatest variable between success and failure, from failing to convince someone to tell you about that secret door in the wine cellar, to not convincing the queen to march a 10,000 strong army to reinforce your besieged castle.

As for the alternative method, that is a wash since casters have full access to those things as well. Heck, a caster can drop their casting stat to 8, have the exact same stats and proficiencies as a martial, solve them the same way, and STILL have the additional options of spellcasting to solve later challenges or just do cool things with.

That treasure is not generally going to matter. If the GM puts in treasure or retreat path is blocked & they take a different one or engage in a battle they are generally "expected" to win. Players miss treasure all the time just by not coincidentally stumbling across it or searching for it somewhere.

The social examples you note are too specific without enough context to know the point. If they were important the GM will need to find some other way of getting that information or resource to the players. Even if they are important & for purposes of argument we say there is a spell that would help, you still run into the same problem faced with players not stumbling across treasure. Casting that spell on every single npc interaction would be silly & in the case of spells like charm leads to serious problems.

I think that dump stat primary attribute build red herring is more than a little off the mark from the statement it's trying to challenge. The point of those non-resource consuming abilities generally being able to accomplish a solution in hypothetical social/exploration problem that a hypothetical solution spell could solve at cost marginally faster is relevant because people are making seriously flawed* comparisons & holding up edge case situations the game expects you to be able to solve without those nice edge case spells. The point is that the shining gold star of awesome people are claiming exists is generally redundant & comes with objective pains elsewhere such as performance in the combat pillar likely to arise in the vast majority of sessions

* Some of those flawed examples persisting unchanged even after multiple posters point out how the relevant dice mods & abilities don't work even close to the ones being claimed as representative.