D&D 5E Party optimisation vs Character optimisation

[FormerlyHemlock]

I believe it was mentioned in the same story. Most only 1, great wizards of the age like Mazirian, 4 or 6, greatest ever, as many as 10. And, yes, the greatest ever were known for creating many spells - most magicians of Mazirian's time couldn't create any, IIRC. Got any references to mages who could memorize more?

Are you thinking if the part where it says that two spells would daunt the brain of an ordinary man, and two drive him mad, but through stringent exercise Mazirian could handle up to four of the greatest, or six of the lesser?

There is no information at all in that story on the limits of the "greatest wizards" like Phandaal. You must be misremembering.

 

[Malovaan]

A distinction without a difference. In genre, magic-using characters tend to display only a few supernatural abilities, in D&D, casters display a bewildering variety.

Is it possible the 'genre' has also moved on from where it was when D&D was first created?

The player handbook lists some sources of inspiration at the end, including some more modern works of fantasy fiction, to take just a couple of them - The Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan and the Kingkiller series by Patrick Rothfuss for instance - in which magic users do find themselves in a position to display massive variety in what they are capable of doing.

As the fantasy genre moves forward, is D&D wrong to go forward with it?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Are you thinking if the part where it says that two spells would daunt the brain of an ordinary man, and two drive him mad, but through stringent exercise Mazirian could handle up to four of the greatest, or six of the lesser?

That rings a bell, yes.

There is no information at all in that story on the limits of the "greatest wizards" like Phandaal. You must be misremembering.

So, we can presume the maximum is closer to 6 or so, rather than 10. Unless you have a quote about some magician who was able to memorize more?

Is it possible the 'genre' has also moved on from where it was when D&D was first created?

There's no question that we've had more examples of mage protagonists in the genre in the decades following D&D, culminating in stuff like Harry Potter. Maybe it was already heading that way, with influences like Moorcock's Elric, or maybe D&D's profound failure to model the genre even came back and cross-contaminated it. Maybe it's a broad, lasting change, or maybe it's just a new sub-genre.

Even in those cases, though, you don't see anything like D&D's hyper-versatile, fire-and-forget magic-users tromping around a mostly low-magic world as part of a party of other equally plot-destroying casters and supposedly co-equal, yet decidedly marginalized non-casters. Instead, you either see a protagonist who is one among many mages including a bit of an ensemble cast of heroic mages with non-casters relegated to NPC-like support roles or victims (as in Harry Potter), or who has very limited abilities (like Skeeve) who are closer to equal with any non-casting companions, and have to use the same cleverness, luck, and perseverance (and writer fiat) to win through.

Games like Ars Magica and Mage captured the former feel, with non-mages either explicitly-inferior PC options, or not PC options, at all. Games like Fantasy Hero could be used for the latter sort - hmm, and some versions of RQ, I'd think - where there are caster and non-caster PCs, both as viable options.

But, even 4e, which did set up casters & non-casters in a sort of roughly-balanced parity, didn't quite capture anything quite like a definable, extant, fantasy sub-genre. It has elements from many, but it still comes together into an improbable ensemble cast with far too many, and too-disruptive, abilities among them to be suitable 'heroes' in any genre.

Of course, part of it is the problem with an RPG needing to model not only what a genre says it contains, but the plot-power the author exercises. So you have large hp totals and saving throws and the like so the RPG character can survive the 'dangers' faced by a literary hero - yet, the reality of those mechanics in essence all but erase the perceived danger for the player, if they can't suspend disbelief well enough to accept the corresponding genre conventions....

 

[Tony Vargas]

You don't know what a strawman argument is. That term is thrown around far too often by people that are complaining about something that they don't agree with

A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. It's a well-known fallacy, but I was only alluding to it.

If you want to go back up the thread, you'll see that I was dealing with someone arguing against an inaccurate re-phrasing of something I said.

That's it.

Couching your opinion in logical terms does not make it anything other than it is: an opinion. One that is incapable of being logically argued because the game it is based on is not based on logic or anything close to what might be construed as logic. It is an imaginary fantasy game based on illogical source material dreamed up by authors and ancient folk writing myth.

On the contrary, there's some quite useful logic and theory around games - and not GNS, either - and things like myth and literary genres are entirely susceptible to reasoned analysis.

If you prefer 4E, then play it. No one is stopping you. There are still people that play 1st edition and other derivatives. You have that option. No one is forcing you to play 5E. No one has forced you to play any edition of D&D. It is a completely optional game.

Nothing much to do with how poorly D&D has emulated the broader fantasy genre, nor how poorly it has balanced casters vs non-casters through most of its history.

In fantasy literature, there have been everything from wizards with the power to destroy the world to wizards with the power to do a few tricks. D&D tries to mirror that vast scope of magic in one game by using a midrange standard for magic that you have the ability to modify according to your desires. There is nothing stopping you from doing this.

There's nothing 'midrange' about D&D magic. It tends to encompass the full scope of magical abilities and magic items from myth and literature - and make a bizarre swath of it easily accessible to PC casters. It's understandable putting so much in the game, especially if the DM were meant to pick and choose only some of it (like magic items in 5e, for instance). It's problematic to put so much of the vast range of magical abilities every displayed by anyone in myth or literature under the heading of one character class, or at the fingertips of one member of that class.

It's obvious your particular viewpoint for magic is not the most popular or desirable one for the D&D players polled.

And, if this were a logical debate, that would be an /ad populum/.

Thus you will have to modify the system yourself to fit your tastes. We have all had to do that at one point or another with the D&D system. It is your only option besides choosing a different game.

Both of those options are facilitated by discussing and understanding the issues the game has had, or grappled with - or still has.

Do you truly believe Dying Earth was the only model used for magic

If it were, D&D magic might not be so far out of line. But, no, it's just the one D&D came closest to emulating.

 

[DaveDash]

That's a truism, because of the history of D&D: martial characters have generally been beatsticks, so you can assume that anyone who wants to play a martial character must want to play beatsticks; casters have always been complex and situationally powerful and provided their players with a high degree of agency, so you can assume that anyone who wants those things must only want to play casters.

Using the same logic, you could have taken a visual survey of bus ridership in the segregation-era deep south and concluded that black people /like/ sitting in the back of the bus.

It's just not a valid syllogism.

I like playing some martial archetypes, and I'm pretty thoroughly sick of the quixotic quasi-Vancian mechanics of D&D casters, so, yeah, I'd like a supported martial archetype or six with some real options and some real agency, in all three pillars. In a classless game, or even in a balanced class-based system, that's at least a possibility.

There is nothing stopping you making a Dex based Battlemaster Fighter with a background that gives him skills in stealth, sleight of hand, etc. You will never be ridiculously good like a Rogue or Bard, but you will be pretty good due to bounded accuracy, and hey, there are feats that will help (and you are not short of feats, being a Fighter). There is also always multi-classing, in fact Rogue/Fighter has good synergy.

Then you can be a god in combat, and pretty decent at exploration. If you really care about social as well, you could probably pick up intimidate/persuasion (both Fighter class skills) and sacrifice say wisdom for charisma.

And there you have it, a martial who is still godly in combat, but has options in the other pillars as well.

The good thing about D&D 5e is the set the bar low with the default monsters and such, so you don't need to fully optimize on the party OR character level to survive (or even have fun). Want to play that stealthy halfling Fighter who grew up as a street urchin and picked up some Rogue skills? Go ahead, no one will kick you out of the party.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's a truism, because of the history of D&D: martial characters have generally been beatsticks, so you can assume that anyone who wants to play a martial character must want to play beatsticks; casters have always been complex and situationally powerful and provided their players with a high degree of agency, so you can assume that anyone who wants those things must only want to play casters.

There is nothing stopping you making a Dex based Battlemaster Fighter with a background that gives him skills in stealth, sleight of hand, etc. You will never be ridiculously good like a Rogue or Bard, but you will be pretty good due to bounded accuracy, and hey, there are feats that will help (and you are not short of feats, being a Fighter).

Or one could play a caster with such backgrounds, get the same skills, and have high situational power, complexity and player agency in question - next to which the skills will likely seem pretty superfluous (just something to fall back on when the situation doesn't warrant wasting a spell). D&D fighters have generally been beatsticks and other martial classes have been just as blandly specialized, even if it has been in sneaking about finding traps in the exploration pillar. Combining the two doesn't really change any of that.

If anything, 5e's moving skills to backgrounds - which I actually think is a good idea, in concept - makes specializing in any sort of mundane skill that much /less/ meaningful.

 

[Jaron Mortimer]

Multiclass warlock/clerics that get heavy armor proficiency and take the crossbow expert feat to use eldritch blast in melee. Use eldritch blast as default attack for everyone, tons of spells, everyone gets warlock slots and channel divinities back on short rests. You could mix it up with a few other classes besides cleric but the gist is everyone gets spells back on a short rest.

The feat doesn't help. Xbow expert specifies ranged weapon attacks. EB is not that.

 

[DaveDash]

Or one could play a caster with such backgrounds, get the same skills, and have high situational power, complexity and player agency in question - next to which the skills will likely seem pretty superfluous (just something to fall back on when the situation doesn't warrant wasting a spell). D&D fighters have generally been beatsticks and other martial classes have been just as blandly specialized, even if it has been in sneaking about finding traps in the exploration pillar. Combining the two doesn't really change any of that.

If anything, 5e's moving skills to backgrounds - which I actually think is a good idea, in concept - makes specializing in any sort of mundane skill that much /less/ meaningful.

You seem to be confused with older edition. Spell slots are a rare commodity and skills still come into play a lot at higher levels.

 

[Paraxis]

The feat doesn't help. Xbow expert specifies ranged weapon attacks. EB is not that.

It says no such thing.

What it does say is.
"Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls."

Ranged attack rolls, which EB is just like any other ranged spell that is not resisted with a saving throw.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You seem to be confused with older edition. Spell slots are a rare commodity and skills still come into play a lot at higher levels.

I know this is a 5e forum, but, yes, I was pointing out ways in which 5e is still very much representative of the classic game. And, yes, spell slots are a limited commodity ('rare' is an overstatement, something like 3/4 of sub-classes cast spells). That's part of the point - a character with a powerful, versatile, limited resource gives the player more 'agency' - his choices are more important, more significant in how the game and the campaign play out. Casters in D&D have always had that, martial characters virtually never - and still not in 5e.

Thus, party optimization is mostly about which casters you fill your party with, and how they manage their spell-casting resources.