D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Sure i can agree with that, but what about when the main quest your group wants to follow goes nowhere near any specific place you’d want to go for your specific weapon type? Do you just have to suck it up?
That's a party issue. It's on the rest of the party if you are suboptimal by avoiding areas were you're gear up.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ECMO3

Hero
A fullcaster probably has about a good 8-15 spells at 5th that all can do different things, even if only half of those are damage oriented that’s still more effective than being able to hit people with differently shaped pieces of metal, without specialising the most difference is going to be a couple of points of damage vs ac with a shield, if you’re using str or dex to inflict it or if you’re doing it close up or at range, but fundamentally they’re still doing the same very basic action of hitting someone repeatedly, let martials have their options to do different things in battle

This is not really true. Fighters can do quite a bit of damage, a lot more than a caster is typically going to deal out with damaging spells.

At 5th level my Fireball can do about 20 damage on average per enemy hit with it, which is probably about 50 total per casting on average, and they can do it twice a day. A fighter is usually going to outdo that by a lot in a 6-fight day.

I am not saying casters are weak, they aren't. But they are substantially weaker than Fighters when it comes to damage output. In combat a full caster's power is in control or in tanking/defense with a few specialized builds.

I wasn’t talking about counterspell i was talking about stuff like spell sniper and war caster and elemental adept, and all a casters spells will key off the same modifier(barring multiclassing) so any improvement to their casting bonus affects all their spells equally

Yes but their spells also often trigger off of saves which are made a lot more often than hit rolls miss.
 

ECMO3

Hero
The PAM/GWM can never un-get those feats.

Yes, it is a poor choice. Just like the example above when my Artificer could not undo walking into the room without checking for traps and subsequently dying from being paralyzed and alone at the start of combat. The DM should not fix poor choices made by the players.

It is different if you are talking about newbies who don't know any better.
 

Trasvi

Explorer
Yes, it is a poor choice. Just like the example above when my Artificer could not undo walking into the room without checking for traps and subsequently dying from being paralyzed and alone at the start of combat. The DM should not fix poor choices made by the players.

It is different if you are talking about newbies who don't know any better.
I disagree that the choices are comparable.
Taking PAM/GWM is, if not truly optimal, a first order optimal build. 9 times out of 10 it (or its brother SS/XBE) is probably the correct decision if you're building a straight fighter for damage. It's clearly presented as something the game thinks is a good choice.

It would be like putting that same trap in the middle of a crowded tavern and then blaming the player for not checking traps.

Even then, I said the issue is with the core rules itself - they IMO should allow players to change feats*, in the same way that Tashas now allows you to change out of fighting styles.Though presumably before Tashas you thought that people who didn't choose the "correct" fighting style at lv1 should be doomed to use it for the rest of the campaign.



* Actually I think that the weapon specialization feats should be moved out of feats, combined with Fighti g Styles and Maneuvers and Cunning Strikes and Wespon Mastery, in to a new expanded martial subsystem. That would be cleaner and better for the game.
 
Last edited:

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
somewhere between 'you will get a magical club and be happy about it' and 'sure you can have a +5 polearm for your PAM build, do you want a belt of giant's strength too?' is a medium of just getting a basic magic weapon that fits your build choices when everythnig starts to resist nonmagic damage.
Personally, I’m perfectly fine with either method. What I’m not fine with is saying the dm is doing something wrong by not catering to a players preference.
edit, also, alot of caster build choices will affect a majority if not all their spells, whereas martial options are typically limited to some specific type of weapon type or property, is there any REAL REASON why GWM couldn't be used on any melee weapon rather than just heavy ones? or sentinel? you're just hitting an enemy with the butt of your weapon for additional bludgeoning damage and stopping movement with OAs, if you dont use a polearm you just don't get the range bonus.
I think there are reasons to not design those feats so broadly.
 

Hell0W0rld

Explorer
At 5th level my Fireball can do about 20 damage on average per enemy hit with it, which is probably about 50 total per casting on average, and they can do it twice a day. A fighter is usually going to outdo that by a lot in a 6-fight day.

Fireball does an average of 28 damage per target. ~50 damage per Fireball is the floor of the spell and not the ceiling, because you wouldn't cast Fireball if you can't catch multiple targets. From my experience, you'll have plenty of opportunities to hit at least three.

Even then, you're comparing the fighter and caster at one single level where both of them gain a power spike with Extra Attack and 3rd level spells respectively.

What about the stretch of levels after that, where the caster continues to ramp up with additional spell slots? The fighter only gains a third attack at level 11.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Rune Knight in CoS attuned the sunblade.

Started granting him extra attacks occasionally vs the Rogue.

Twinned haste and Voice of Authority
(Order cleric) was also used. More damage than what we can do.

Eg cast bless grant attack, cast a cantrip.
 

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
This is not really true. Fighters can do quite a bit of damage, a lot more than a caster is typically going to deal out with damaging spells.

At 5th level my Fireball can do about 20 damage on average per enemy hit with it, which is probably about 50 total per casting on average, and they can do it twice a day. A fighter is usually going to outdo that by a lot in a 6-fight day.

I am not saying casters are weak, they aren't. But they are substantially weaker than Fighters when it comes to damage output. In combat a full caster's power is in control or in tanking/defense with a few specialized builds.
you misunderstood the point i was making, i meant that typically there's only a few points of damage between different martial weapons when unspecialised into using a certain type, oh sure if you're comparing the extreme ends of the damage ranges a greataxe's d12 does triple a dagger's d4 damage, but those ranges typically pale to the bonuses achieved from specialising with feats and fighting style as well as just the fact they provide additional tactical choices to make on a turn to turn basis
 

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
I think there are reasons to not design those feats so broadly.
really? can you tell me what you think those reasons are because personally i don't see them, if a rogue wants to add another +10 damage to their one rapier attack they get a turn at a greater risk of missing and loosing it all why shouldn't they? same goes for the wizard if they actually want to try contribute using weapons, or if a monk or ranger wants to make movement stopping opportunity attacks with other weapons,

the martial options are in my opinion needlessly over exclusive to how you're allowed to use them.
 

ECMO3

Hero
Fireball does an average of 28 damage per target.

It does an average of 28 damage per target that fails their save and 14 per target that make their save, and keep in mind that this is a dexterity saving throw, so if you are hitting more than one enemy some will almost always get a +2 cover bonus on their save and a +5 cover bonus is not uncommon RAW.

20 per target is an estimate when considering those factors and I think it is fairly accurate estimate. I prefaced it with "about" and it may 1 or 2 off, but the number certainly isn't 28 per target or anything close to that.


~50 damage per Fireball is the floor of the spell and not the ceiling, because you wouldn't cast Fireball if you can't catch multiple targets.

Then you would not heavily damage them either and the fighter would outrun you by even more

From my experience, you'll have plenty of opportunities to hit at least three.

It will happen, but not twice on most adventuring days.

Even then, you're comparing the fighter and caster at one single level where both of them gain a power spike with Extra Attack and 3rd level spells respectively.

What about the stretch of levels after that, where the caster continues to ramp up with additional spell slots? The fighter only gains a third attack at level 11.

And a 4th attack and 20th level, and subclass abilities, and extra action surge, and legendary saves are starting to be more prevalent.

In terms of damage a fighter is typically going to outrun a Wizard over the course of a day at any level as long as he or she has a magic weapon. So will a Monk, Paladin, Ranger, most melee Clerics and Barbarians.

That does not mean the fighter is more powerful, far from it, but she does do more damage.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top