D&D 5E Truly Understanding the Martials & Casters discussion (+)

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I think you're underestimating the impact of the energy substitution feat on the wizard's ability to do damage.
Speaking of the energy substitution feat - I have no idea what feat you are referring to. Maybe I missed the memo or hit my head or something, but I don't recall any feat doing this. There was a UA wizard that could.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Well, there is nothing wrong with you using it, just that without the non-options baseline, I would be more concerned that an option could be skewing the results instead of the classes.
Only thing my i can think of I am using from it for my fighters would be brace and custom lineage. Brace is just to help ensure I can use as many superiority dice as possible on reaction attacks. There might be one of the feats I add in to some builds. I'd considered seeing how a feat like crusher fared. I don't really think it will add much though.

Not sure about Ezekiel's Wizards.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Speaking of the energy substitution feat - I have no idea what feat you are referring to. Maybe I missed the memo or hit my head or something, but I don't recall any feat doing this. There was a UA wizard that could.
Bah. I crossed some wires. Ignoring resistance is the elemental adept :p

I still think you're underestimating it's ability to do damage.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
Only thing my i can think of I am using from it for my fighters would be brace and custom lineage. Brace is just to help ensure I can use as many superiority dice as possible on reaction attacks. There might be one of the feats I add in to some builds. I'd considered seeing how a feat like crusher fared. I don't really think it will add much though.
I would think maneuvers like Parry or Riposte would work well...

Not sure about Ezekiel's Wizards.
Which is another thing. I think prior to bother running any scenarios, full disclosure on the final builds would help.

But, I really haven't been following the discussion between you both. I only responded about the value of using non-options builds as well as with-options builds because I see the value in it.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Bah. I crossed some wires. Ignoring resistance is the elemental adept :p

I still think you're underestimating it's ability to do damage.
Good to know I've not lost it. Though I did just realize the scribe wizard was added in Tasha's and can achieve an energy substitution effect. Still requires you take spells with other damage types though.

So long as the spell list skews toward spells of different damage types I don't think having or not having elemental adept makes a huge difference in practice. If nearly everything you fought was fire resistant it might, but that seems like an exceptionally specific scenario.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Good to know I've not lost it. Though I did just realize the scribe wizard was added in Tasha's and can achieve an energy substitution effect. Still requires you take spells with other damage types though.

So long as the spell list skews toward spells of different damage types I don't think having or not having elemental adept makes a huge difference in practice. If nearly everything you fought was fire resistant it might, but that seems like an exceptionally specific scenario.
That list I posted earlier had a good chunk of the CR 17+ creatures fire resistant or fire immune.
 


FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I would think maneuvers like Parry or Riposte would work well...
Riposte is one I fully intend to use (but it's PHB). I would normally take Brace to help spend the dice faster/completely on those style of manuevers.

Which is another thing. I think prior to bother running any scenarios, full disclosure on the final builds would help.
I think we are doing that to a reasonable degree. But some choices may only become apparent after we start, especially with Wizards and all their spells.

But, I really haven't been following the discussion between you both. I only responded about the value of using non-options builds as well as with-options builds because I see the value in it.
(y)
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
That list I posted earlier had a good chunk of the CR 17+ creatures fire resistant or fire immune.
So when you encounter one of those use a different damage spell (Synaptic Static comes to mind)? The only concern is if you fight such enemies way to often, which seems really unlikely in an 8 encounter day.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
For fun and per request I went ahead and calculated a level 11 Battlemaster Fighter with no magic weapon or feats. 20 str, GWF style, 2 short rests, 24 rounds of combat, Greatsword, assumes gets to use all superiority dice on brace/riposte. *60% chance to hit, Includes Crits.

Ability BreakdownSingle UseDay
Attack Action
25.2​
605.8​
Action Surge
25.2​
75.7​
Riposte/Brace
12.0​
179.8​
Total Damage
861.4​
 
Last edited:

TheSword

Legend
Feats must be high on the list of ‘most used’ optional rules. Important enough that they take up several pages in the books. If the exercise doesn’t include feats then it just leaves open the argument that ‘well none of this would apply if you included feats’ better to include them and run it without if you think it would provide a better result.
 

TheSword

Legend
My biggest concern with this modelling exercise (and I’ll say it now before I’m accused of being sore), is that it becomes about min-maxing. It tells you how one optimized character plays against another optimized character. While we all know there are far more terrifying optimized builds out there (I’m looking at you sorcadin) than either fighter or wizard.

What we really want to know is how does a typical fighter compare to a typical wizard. But I think we would only get this by looking at mass data in play like from D&D beyond or some such. I.e. ever going to happen.

To be clear in my questions/suggestions I don’t doubt @EzekielRaiden or @FrogReaver are acting in good faith. Just that this kind of modeling will have some flaws.

It will still be interesting though.
 

Feats must be high on the list of ‘most used’ optional rules. Important enough that they take up several pages in the books. If the exercise doesn’t include feats then it just leaves open the argument that ‘well none of this would apply if you included feats’ better to include them and run it without if you think it would provide a better result.
Yep. And I would also assume that overwhelming majority of people who actually play high level games and care about this sort of balance in the first place use feats.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
My biggest concern with this modelling exercise (and I’ll say it now before I’m accused of being sore), is that it becomes about min-maxing. It tells you how one optimized character plays against another optimized character. While we all know there are far more terrifying optimized builds out there (I’m looking at you sorcadin) than either fighter or wizard.

What we really want to know is how does a typical fighter compare to a typical wizard. But I think we would only get this by looking at mass data in play like from D&D beyond or some such. I.e. ever going to happen.

To be clear in my questions/suggestions I don’t doubt @EzekielRaiden or @FrogReaver are acting in good faith. Just that this kind of modeling will have some flaws.

It will still be interesting though.
At level 11, that is just one feat to the fighter as they max out.

Adding feats makes calculation of wizards easier as Elemental Adapt cuts out the need to adjust for resistance. Though they will only have 18 INT.
 


DND_Reborn

Legend
Feats are used in about 85-90% of games IIRC, but they are still optional. I don't know if 5E was designed for balance with them in use, but I would think maybe not.
 

Feats are used in about 85-90% of games IIRC, but they are still optional. I don't know if 5E was designed for balance with them in use, but I would think maybe not.
I think feats are an example of what was discussed above, that the devs play the game differently than many/most players. They may not use feats personally, but they are included because they are generally popular.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Feats are used in about 85-90% of games IIRC, but they are still optional. I don't know if 5E was designed for balance with them in use, but I would think maybe not.
Let's just face it: 5e wasn't designed for balance. It was designed for nostalgia and flat math.

That's why they made big, important parts of the game optional with little thought and then provided little to no support for them after the fact.
 


Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top