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

[Cap'n Kobold]

"Martials are not so much better at combat than the other classes to justify having little to no class-based capability outside of it."

Counter. -Buff/debuff and control spells are undoubtably effective, but victory requires your enemy to be dead. Killing one opponent at a time is better than merely damaging many, because it removes a source of damage to the party. A well-built fighter can deal massive amounts of single-target damage, and at the end of the day, that is what ultimately wins fights.

Counter-counter. - Basing an evaluation of a class on just a few of the potential builds or subclasses is a bad representation of the class as a whole. If a fighter must be a BM, RK, or EK, or they must rely on a CE/SS or GWM build, that doesn't mean that class is good, just that a few options are overly better than others.

"Martial classes like Fighters have almost no class-cased out-of-combat utility."

Counter. - Having a physically-powerful team member is vital for carrying or moving things, climbing, swimming and other feats that require great strength. A Str-based fighter gets to do that sort of thing all the time, whereas in the same situation a caster may have to use spells, or just fail.

Counter-counter. - Strength and athletics are just ability checks, and the Fighter gets no more than any other class. They are worse than casters on the basis of total bonuses, and physical challenges like climbing/Swimming/moving great weight are often the most easily bypassed by spells or imaginative work-arounds.

"Spells give casters much better capability than a martial in any situation that isn't single-target damage."

Counter. - This claim relies on a caster having the perfect loadout for every challenge. Even casters as versatile as wizards won't always have exactly the right spell for the right situation. "Quantum casters" only exist in white rooms and where the player has read the adventure - They're unrealistic in actual play.

Counter-counter. - Spells can be very versatile for solving problems, but even if the caster has no spells left or none applicable for the situation, they have just as many options through ability checks and imaginative play as a martial.

 

[payn]

Don’t know if this is the time to bring this up, but I have a hard time understanding the so-called issue. As in, I haven’t experienced it as a player or have it be a problem in any of the games I run. I typically play a martial class, Barbarian being my favourite (Me big, me stronk). And I’ve never felt outclassed or out-powered by a wizard (not that any of my Barbarian characters would ever admit that!).
I will say this however: The rules changes I’ve made as a DM in my current campaign have perhaps “toned down” casters. The biggest changes are:
1. No more spell slots. Once a spell is cast, it’s gone for the day. Cantrips do not apply.
2. Magic users have to roll a 10 or higher to cast spells. Cantrips and spells that require a spell attack roll, need not be rolled for. This is rarely an issue as ability modifiers are also added to the roll, but when it does come up, it brings some tension to being a caster. I’ll also add that if the roll fails you don’t lose the spell for the day, you just burn an action.
So in a way I guess I agree that there is some disparity, but maybe not enough to launch forum jihads against my fellow gamers. Wow, I learned something about myself just now.

To sort of reframe this in thread terms;

I have never experienced the issue personally, and don't think it is a problem.
Counter: You perhaps don't play with folks who push the system to the extreme. A more casual approach and/or lower level game does not often experience the problem at its worst.

Counter-coutner: I have a few houserules to keep the game on track, so perhaps there is an issue, but its a small one.

Counter-counter-counter: That may work for you, but I prefer a system that works out of the box and not rely on Oberoni based solutions at the table.

 

[HammerMan]

Martials good at fighting, bad at skills and social. Rogues good at skills and social bad at combat. Casters tho, good at everything due to nature of spell casting. S

back when I started thieves (now called rogues) could at best get 1 good shot in during combat (backstab) but where for the most part limited to weaker weapons and AC, and in a prolonged fight could not keep up. the wizard was lucky if he didn't get 1 shoted even at 5th or 6th level (it was not uncommon for a 6th level wizard to have 20 or less hp)

wizards could cast an encounter ender...but they were super limited. A thief could one shot for a ton of damage, but he better hope he kills it. the fighter in THAT world was the king of combat (paladin and ranger second and even then i think it was only later optional rule that let them specialize)

in 2000 thieves became rogues and went from backstab 1 time per fight at best, to sneak attack alot of times. Wizards got more spells and everyone got more hp... the riseing tide never quite helped the fighter as much and he went from the stand out best in combat to 'slightly better then others' and didn't get much in it;s place.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The biggest issue is that there is little consensus as to the problem and even where there is agreement as to the problem there is often a lot of disagreement as to the solution.
So some issues are kind of structural and some may need new mechanics and some better DM guidance.

The number of encounters and rest mechanics:
I am not a fan of the 6 - 8 encounters per long rest myself and I think some explicit guidance to DMs as the effects of different encounter levels would be appreciated.
I think the game would benefit from additional rules to make the game more gritty (may be long term injuries), actual use made of the exhaustion mechanics in regular play. (ways of restricting casters and how to balance that, with the encounter system)
On the other side some rules on plot coupons (fate points or some such) would be good also.

The Gonzo martials.
Some optional rules to dial high level non casters to gonzo heroic, perhaps high level prestige classes.

The Exploration Pillar Issues
This area is practically a vestige from the early game. It is still ok, for old school exploration, where the wandering monster, random location and the careful tracking of supplies is the point of play but even there there are issues with "I win" buttons, like Goodberry, Rangers, and the Wanderer feature from the Outlander background. All of which negate that type of play.
The Wilderness navigation table are a complete joke and could do with a complete rework by someone that actually understands wilderness navigation and the logistics of supply in different terrain types and climates, and weather effects.

However, there is another problem, such rules are primarily of interest to people, that are interested in exploration as a primary focus. Many of us are interested in wilderness survival as a complication to a larger story. I am not sure what subsystems would apply in that case.

Social/Investigation and so forth.
The game could do with better DM advice on how to do social and the characters could do with some more resources to put into social other than spells. I personally think that all classes/races could do with some ribbon abilities, many of which, I would replicate some of the weaker feats to gain expertise in a skill related to their class or advantage.

 

[Stoutstien]

It's bound to be brought up so it might as well be me. The idea that six to eight medium encounters acting as a baseline is a misconception and it leads to all kinds of misunderstandings. At most it's a suggestion of how much a party can handle in a adventuring Day based on play test feedback assuming absolutely nothing about the party past not including optional rules. It's a suggestion on how not to murder your party with a built-in buffer.
So in the context of discussion when you are comparing one type of resources like spells against another resource like skills and or class features there isn't a pacing guideline in place.

 

[payn]

It's bound to be brought up so it might as well be me. The idea that six to eight medium encounters acting as a baseline is a misconception and it leads to all kinds of misunderstandings. At most it's a suggestion of how much a party can handle in a adventuring Day based on play test feedback assuming absolutely nothing about the party past not including optional rules. It's a suggestion on how not to murder your party with a built-in buffer.
So in the context of discussion when you are comparing one type of resources like spells against another resource like skills and or class features there isn't a pacing guideline in place.

So, its just a suggestion and none of the mechanics are tied to it? At wills, compared to encounters, compared to dailies were not tested against it? Just trying to understand the 6-8 encounters because I always thought 5E was built around it.

 

[TheSword]

Here’s where I see a divide and it comes from different expectations of campaigns. There are three main reasons why many people don’t see a martial caster divide in terms of influence or power.

If you play Pathfinder style adventure path/D&D campaigns at high levels they tend to have relatively tight timescales, dungeons and threats. They are significantly weighted towards combat and have little opportunity to prepare for those combats. Combats are often against powerful single foes in bounded spaces. In these circumstances being able to contribute heavily in this kind of combat is the single most important contributor to success of the party.

Secondly outside of the combat pillar exploration challenges and roleplay changes just aren’t as difficult as combat challenges. Perhaps you might ask someone to make a skill check or come up with a solution but ‘failing’ explorations or roleplay usually mean the story still fails forward. Whereas in combat failure = death and the end of the game usually. Thus a wizards ability to cast charm person or suggestion is less impactful on the group, even though it creates an effect that the fighter might not be able to do.

Lastly many abilities that spellcaster have that martials don’t - teleport for instance - are still accomplishable by a fighter. Either because the story requires access be granted, or because the effect can be achieved through mundane means and the application of time/effort/resources. This is the single most important reason I don’t see the divide as meaningful. You can’t write an adventure (or shouldn’t) that requires a particular character ability or spell to be a success because that is dictating party make up. So by extension not having one of these powers is no barrier to play either.

- For instance, let’s say the enemy (an evil wizard) has a lair in the middle of a deadly wasteland. If the party has a wizard of their own they can teleport there which saves time. However travel time is easily handwaved. If the party doesn’t have access to teleport (because the wizard hasn’t taken it for instance) the party just walks. Other than perhaps the chance to surprise the evil wizard, Teleport access hasn’t granted the party any more narrative control (other than perhaps chance to surprise the enemy).

- If we take this a step further and the wizard is on a different plane of existence. The DM must write into the adventure a way to get there… portal… NpC wizard etc. Writing an adventure that forces a party to have a particular power is just poor writing… it’s a spell tax if you like… on a particular character. Forced to make an ability choice to keep the adventure moving. That’s actually a penalty not a benefit. Remember the DM has chosen to set the adventure up this way. The same applies to artificial time limits and the like, which force a party to use teleport to travel quickly or fail. It’s just bad writing… and almost never seen in published adventures.

- The same principles can apply to other ‘narrative control’ spells. They’re just indulging arbitrary restrictions that the DM has put in place - restrictions that in the absence of a wizard would have another solution. Fly, dispel magic, divination, scrying etc etc, they’re all the same.

Now if you run adventures where the DM writes challenges after knowing the capabilities of the party, or intimates to the party that they need these powers, then I can see why the above doesn’t apply. However remember - the DM has chosen and directed that style of play. Similarly, I can see this won’t apply if the DM has open ended campaigns where players have unlimited prep time, and the kind of resources that allow for unlimited simulacrum etc then I can also see how this won’t apply… that just isn’t how I play though, and not how most published campaigns are written.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Minigiant]

My proposed goal is to keep the simple fighter (the same way warlock is a simpler caster) and make 1 or 2 new classes more in line with the power scope and complexity of wizards and clerics

MORE MARTIAL CLASSES!

Counter: We have enough classes already. It's hard enough tracking it all now.

Counter Counter: Use Setting appropriateness and DM rights to ban whatever classes you don't want at the table.

 

[FrozenNorth]

You’ve opened the floodgates, so this is on you!

The more I think about it, the more I have come to the conclusion that the problem is looking at the games through the lens of RAW. Looking at the game through the paradigm of “the game is what’s written in the books, no more no less” may have served a purpose in 3e or 3.5e, but no longer serves a useful purpose in 5e. Instead, I think it was the designer’s hope (not intention), that the focus should be on a DM’s individual table.

To illustrate what I mean, there are ways to reduce high-level martial caster disparity, such as:

• longer adventure days;
• more restrictive rest rules;
• use of more enemies that are magic resistent;
• custom monsters with a greater variety of immunities;
• environmental effects that interact with spellcasting rules (Such as environmental effects that favour melee over ranged, wild magic zones with more negative possible outcomes, etc);
• anti-magic zones;
• enemies with counterspell and dispel magic;
• structuring encounters so that magic is less effective (waves of enemies, enemies that attack from multiple directions);
• etc.

Instead of exploring those options, we get stuck debating whether in the Platonic ideal of a game, there exists a problem or not.

The focus should be on:

• which solutions work for an individual table;
• if a solution doesn’t work for your table, can it be tweaked so that it does;
• understanding why certain solutions don’t work for certain tables and what alternatives exist (in my games, the party is often fighting fairly unsophisticated monsters, so monsters using dispels and counterspells are unlikely);
• identifying potential problems ahead of time and communicating them to your players.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Nerf magic down to Martial level to even out the divide.
Counter: I dont want magic nerfed, I want martials buffed. I expect gonzo fantasy at some point in the system.

Counter-counter: I expect a lower power level from the system and casters are the problem from where I'm standing.

Or both! Boost martials a bit, and nerf casters a bit to compensate.