D&D 5E Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll

Should spellcasters be as effective as martial characters in combat?

  • 1. Yes, all classes should be evenly balanced for combat at each level.

    Votes: 11 5.3%
  • 2. Yes, spellcasters should be as effective as martial characters in combat, but in a different way

    Votes: 111 53.9%
  • 3. No, martial characters should be superior in combat.

    Votes: 49 23.8%
  • 4. No, spellcasters should be superior in combat.

    Votes: 8 3.9%
  • 5. If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?

    Votes: 27 13.1%

  • Poll closed .

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
Interesting, but in theory, equal point buy mean equal power levels across ranges. The only way for one character to be better than another at EVERYTHING would be for one character to have more points - and that's not really a fair comparison. It would be like comparing a 100 point GURPS character to a 500 point GURPS character. If course the latter will be "better. "
It's a very unusual pointbuy/class levels hybrid that I'm pretty sure I'e never seen before. Here's the easy part
  • you start with 80 points to buy your stats (the usual six) plus your race plus anything above & beyond you want to buy (ie build a weapon some ability whatever).
    • Races range from 7 to 15 points but are made through pointbuy. ie one 13 point race starts with 4 points sunk into what boils down to "Weapon: Fire Breath (2d6 damage; Continuing -1; Range: 30’ -2; Spreading: 3 targets -2; Save +4)" while another race could technically spend 4 of their starting 80 points for a wand or something with the exact same effect given gm approval
  • Levels are still obtained by experience gain or milestone but instead of x points you take your first/next level in a class which gives you certain stuff ranging from abilities to discretionary points along with things like hit points saves roficiencies etc.
  • If you get discretionary points or had some saved & can afford some ability it's pretty much just a matter of fitting it to your character & getting an ok from your gm
  • Different classes get different point values of stuff each level & some even differ in how many they get total but it is explained well with point costs next to stuff gained & summaries like
    1623631637139.png
I ran a game a couple weeks ago & didn't have the same sort of intro to pointbuy problems I would normally see with introducing folks to classless pointbuy like shadowrun & such so everything went pretty smoothly
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Quartz

Hero
martial get to add more dice to damage rolls with weapons faster and they stack up more?

I’m commenting on the basic hitting ability. What happens after the hit is a different matter. Martials generally have no better chance to hit than pure spellcasters, given the same stats. A Dex 14 wizard can hit with a rapier just as well as a Dex 14 fighter.
 

Mind of tempest

(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
I’m commenting on the basic hitting ability. What happens after the hit is a different matter. Martials generally have no better chance to hit than pure spellcasters, given the same stats. A Dex 14 wizard can hit with a rapier just as well as a Dex 14 fighter.
as am I.
 

Aldarc

Legend
[Unpopular opinion]
Classes shouldn't be balanced with each other (in combat). It's better for some classes to be better in combat than others across the board, and for some to be absolute rubbish in combat. Right now it feels like every class tries to be "another sword wizard, but with This One Weird Trick," and it feels dull and same-y to me.
[/Unpopular opinion]
[Even more unpopular opinion]
I liked how 4e gave classes various in-combat niches (i.e., roles) - controller, defender, leader, striker - because it helped give classes distinct identities and archetypes,* helped establish player expectations about playing classes and their respective play styles, made sure everyone had cool naughty word they could do in combat, and it also clearly made the metric for combat prowess more than DPR.

Furthermore, skill challenges and magic rituals also offloaded a lot of the out-of-combat utility from classes, enabling more across-the-board out-of-combat utility for PCs regardless of class.

* Wanna play a sword wizard? Then play the Swordmage.
[/Even more unpopular opinion]
 

It depends where you consider Paladins martials. A Paladin's peak is very high if optimized for it. In 6 years of playing 5E the most damage I have seen done in one turn was done by a Paladin-Assassin.

Now casters do get non-damaging options that completely disable an enemy and you can't put a DPR on that, but martials, especially Monks, get some of those too.


This is a myth. RAW, casters were not the equal of fighters and rangers in 1E at any level. This is purposeful. Gygax intended the fighter to be the leader of the party, the knight in shining armor and the hero of the story. The other PCs were essentially meant to be support, you might even say sidekicks. The game designers have even said such on record.

To start with the only time casters could generally use a spell was on the first round before melee was joined. In 1E melee any wizard wanting to cast would have to declare before the round started and would automatically get attacked by any intelligent combatants in range and had to not get hit at all by any of them to successfully complete the spell (DMG page 65).

In terms of DPR, 1E Magic-Users would generally be killed the very first round by an equivalent-level fighter. The only time they could expect to survive a round against a combat-optimized fighter (or ranger) was like levels 5-6 when the fighter did not yet have 2 attacks and MUs had 12-15hp which would usually survive one hit or over level 11 where they could survive 2 hits. In that case they might last two rounds, but they would still generally be on deaths door after 1. That assumes the fighter did not have an 18 strength or double specialization in bows either, if he did even these magic-users would usually be dead in one round.

If the Mage won initiative and used their top level spell, and if the fighter failed his save then they might win a 1-on-1, but that was using a top-tier spell they got very few of where the fighter was reliably killing an equal-level wizard-equivalent bag of hps every single turn, all day long.

Against enemies with less than 1 hit dice fighters got a number of attacks equal to their level, so while a 5th level magic-user could crow about doing 15 damage with a fireball and killing a large group of goblins once a day, the 5th -level fighter could walk into every room full of goblins and attack 5 of them a round all day long.

Fighters also started with poor saving throws compared to others, but at high levels they had the best saves because they improved quicker than other classes, so when the casters were really starting to get game-changing spells they could not be relied on to land against equal level enemies (most enemies used fighter saves).


2E improved this a little bit by getting rid of double specialization for martials and adding schools of magic for magic-users but they were still behind martials at all levels.

In 3E Gish multiclass/prestige class characters ruled combat in general, although combat was so varied and monster resistances so varied that really depended on what you were fighting. For example a halfling swashbuckler, rogue, wizard, shadowdancer could do good damage and be invincible in combat .... unless facing a regenerating undead or barbarian and then he was useless because he could not do enough damage against them to matter.



I play mostly Rogues.

My GIF above was my legitimate instinctive reaction to this post (I thought you were playfully trolling until I read further).

May I ask the following:

* Did you play much of AD&D or BECMI/RC above level 7? In particular, did you play much above Name Level?

* Did you play 3.x...at all (again, particularly level 7+)?

* 4e is a different beast, so I won't get into it here (spellcasters and martial characters were balanced).

* When you did play with spellcaster players...were they skillful players? Were they picking a lot of damage/blaster spells (ok, yes...uncapped Fireball in 1e/BECMI/RC was indeed a site to behold...that notwithstanding)? Or were they doing the game-obliterating skillfull thing by loading out No Save, Save or Suck, Save or Die spells along with the typical suite of utility (transport/protection and buff/surveillance/enchanter line) spells that amplified Team PC stratospherically and nullified Team GM moves (imposing an arms race upon play that either meant that GM had to deploy degenerate Calvinballism to reign in the spellcaster or basically...shrug and lose)?


I mean, outside of (a) low level 1e play with LOL I rolled 18/00 Strength + UA buffed Fighters and (b) low level 2e play (particularly the monstrosity of Skills and Powers nonsense) w/ Dual Wielded Katanas or Machine-Gun Dart Specialists...

...what you're describing bears ABSOLUTELY_ZERO_RESEMBLANCE to the 1000s of hours I've GMed AD&D or BECMI/RC at level 7+ (particularly level 11+ where Spellcasters dominate play so profoundly that Ars Magica is jealous)!

I have to assume your exposure to level 7+ is not much, your exposure to level 11+ is nil, your Fighters all had 18/00 strength or girdles of giant strength/guantlets of ogre power were dropping like candy, or your spellcasters all eschewed the utterly overpowered suite of No Save/SoS/SoD/Utility Spells and took damage spells in their stead...or perhaps your GMing was engaging in Calvinball blocks left and right (antimagic zones and nonstop spellbook stealing, etc)?

When I wasn't GMing Moldvay Basic dungeon crawls, I lived in a perpetual torture chamber of spellcaster arms race (which I tried to make legitimate rather than Calvinballing them) against multiple extremely skillful spellcaster players. When someone chose Fighter or Thief...I breathed a sigh of relief.
 



loverdrive

Prophet of the profane (She/Her)
As of now, if the DM follows the guidelines on adventuring day, martial characters are certainly not outclassed by spellcasters in combat.

On the other hand, playing a martial character is just... boring. 90% of the time you are just doing one thing. You yell "I HIT HIM WITH MY GLAIVE WITH GWM!" or "I SHOOT HIM IN THE FACE WITH MY HAND CROSSBOW!" because while you have other options, most of the time just dealing your ~30 damage per attack is way more effective.

Recently a dude I'm playing with jokingly refered to Attack action as "the best cantrip in the game" and it got me thinking.

Seriously, why the hell we don't have "martial spells"? I can certainly see something like battle master's Disarm being a lvl 2 spell.
 
Last edited:

Mind of tempest

(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
As of now, if the DM follows the guidelines on adventuring day, martial characters are certainly not outclassed by spellcasters in combat.

On the other hand, playing a martial character is just... boring. 90% of the time you are just doing one thing. You tell "I HIT HIM WITH MY GLAIVE WITH GWM!" or "I SHOOT HIM IN THE FACE WITH MY HAND CROSSBOW!" because while you have other options, most of the time just dealing your ~30 damage per attack is way more effective.

Recently a dude I'm playing with jokingly refered to Attack action as "the best cantrip in the game" and it got me thinking.

Seriously, why the hell we don't have "martial spells"? I can certainly see something like battle master's Disarm being a lvl 2 spell.
techniques or styles would be a closer word but, your right it does just get dull.
 

As of now, if the DM follows the guidelines on adventuring day, martial characters are certainly not outclassed by spellcasters in combat.

On the other hand, playing a martial character is just... boring. 90% of the time you are just doing one thing. You yell "I HIT HIM WITH MY GLAIVE WITH GWM!" or "I SHOOT HIM IN THE FACE WITH MY HAND CROSSBOW!" because while you have other options, most of the time just dealing your ~30 damage per attack is way more effective.

Recently a dude I'm playing with jokingly refered to Attack action as "the best cantrip in the game" and it got me thinking.

Seriously, why the hell we don't have "martial spells"? I can certainly see something like battle master's Disarm being a lvl 2 spell.

techniques or styles would be a closer word but, your right it does just get dull.

I don’t know why…but I’m getting an odd tingling sensation…

Like 2008 deja vu, maybe?

 

Remove ads

Top