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

[Mort]

There is disparity, but it's not as great as many are trying to make it out to be.

I'd argue that it's decent sized, BUT a lot of DMs minimize it through fiat(read between many of the posts in this thread even, and it's pretty evident).

Whether by giving the fighter nice items to help with the 2 pillars, or by stretching background benefits to the absolute max, or by ignoring the fact that the fighter has an 8 Charisma when talking to a crowd and inspiring them to do something fun, or by bringing back past edition benefits with a keep and followers.

This is actually all great stuff, but it needs to be explicit and not just learned from past experience or otherwise absorbing the information.

 

[Mind of tempest]

People get mad because the caster-martial divide is a stand-in for a deeper division between visions of what D&D should be like. The game simply can't be packaged as a big enough tent to include everyone's vision because so many concepts are mutually exclusive. People are attached to D&D, so naturally they're going to feel strongly about concepts that are totemic as to what the game is all about.

that is a fair point you got any idea what the competing visions are as right now they are kinda murky?

 

[HammerMan]

the funny part is more and more this thread and others shows the problem at my table better then I ever could...

every edition but 1 we have people who want to play casters and people that want to play non casters... as the edition ages more and more the ones that want to play non casters find that it is a detriment (to the party, to there fun, ect) to play a non caster. So everyone either 1) plays casters or 2) enters into an out of game agreement to nerf casters so non casters can have fun... the problem is that 2 often leads to hard feelings bringing us back to 1... everyone just plays Mage the Ascension D&D edition.

all I want is to bring a class (I don't care if we call it fighter, ranger, warlord, warblade, sword sage, marshal or something else) that can be as full of flavorful options as spell casters and NOT BE a spell caster. I don't need it to be fighter+ it can litterlay just be as awesome at combat as a cleric, as long as it has the bells and whistles equal to the spells of the cleric.

 

[HammerMan]

People get mad because the caster-martial divide is a stand-in for a deeper division between visions of what D&D should be like. The game simply can't be packaged as a big enough tent to include everyone's vision because so many concepts are mutually exclusive. People are attached to D&D, so naturally they're going to feel strongly about concepts that are totemic as to what the game is all about.

we left D&D and went to savage worlds, CoC, White Wolf (old WW not new WW) and Torg. we came back for 4e but if things continue as is we will most likely leave again.

I want D&D to have fun for all... but if I take other systems and find I don't have to limit how casters and non casters interact in order to fix balance issues... I may have to go there.

 

[Mind of tempest]

the funny part is more and more this thread and others shows the problem at my table better then I ever could...

every edition but 1 we have people who want to play casters and people that want to play non casters... as the edition ages more and more the ones that want to play non casters find that it is a detriment (to the party, to there fun, ect) to play a non caster. So everyone either 1) plays casters or 2) enters into an out of game agreement to nerf casters so non casters can have fun... the problem is that 2 often leads to hard feelings bringing us back to 1... everyone just plays Mage the Ascension D&D edition.

all I want is to bring a class (I don't care if we call it fighter, ranger, warlord, warblade, sword sage, marshal or something else) that can be as full of flavorful options as spell casters and NOT BE a spell caster. I don't need it to be fighter+ it can litterlay just be as awesome at combat as a cleric, as long as it has the bells and whistles equal to the spells of the cleric.

I wonder if this is a sign of needing to leave dnd and make something different but I would never be able to have my beloved monk?

 

[Umbran]

Then frankly you’re an idiot ...

Mod Note:

The name-calling isn't called for. If you can't be more respectful than this, I reccommend you excuse yourself from the discussion, before it becomes something you will regret.

 

[Mort]

we left D&D and went to savage worlds, CoC, White Wolf (old WW not new WW) and Torg. we came back for 4e but if things continue as is we will most likely leave again.

I want D&D to have fun for all... but if I take other systems and find I don't have to limit how casters and non casters interact in order to fix balance issues... I may have to go there.

I find 5e works well enough for me (and my group) as long I recognize the issues and plan/correct for them.

For ex the battlemaster fighter in the group essentially has power armor (From lost laboratory of Kwalish). It allows him to fly (at a resource cost), see in the dark (Dragonborn don't have darkvision), and all sorts of other nifty little things that really add to the fun in and out of combat (he pulled out a read magic that saved the parties bacon for ex). Plus, he's a blacksmith and I've really worked that in and let him run with it.

But that's all DM fiat, if it was addressed as necessary, fewer people would have the problem.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I suppose the alternative is to be permissive and validate something when I simply disagree?

Is it frustrating to be questioned all the time? Sure. But I want this to be a stage where you can get past the emotional side and discuss the deeper side of things.

Without further questioning the statements in this thread, the thread has already moved into the stage where people start brainstorming ideas to "fix" this and then others say "it's not enough" and go back and forth.

But we still aren't at the heart of the problem. I don't think I'm just correct on principle but I'm also not going to be bullied into agreeing with others without actually understanding them. If you didn't want to participate, you didn't have to.

I specifically mentioned I would be questioning others, and I was up for questioning. That seems fair, right? Even if we don't like the answers, we can delve deeper and further the discussion.

Posts like yours in #702 where you link discussions around martial features with gatekeeping the LGBTQIA+ community make your expressed intent to have a sincere discussion rather suspect.

"Why are we even talking about this when we could be saving the whales or ending world hunger?" is hardly a fruitful basis on which to have a sincere discussion.

 

[tetrasodium]

Can someone sum up with the last 10 pages were about. I really have lost track of this conversation

Pretty much an insistence that fighters apparently spend the majority of encounters engaging monsters hovering 20 feet up as summarized here and that strength based fighters are incapable of using a bow or thrown weapon because they would need to be suboptimal with a nonmaxed dex for the bow or limited number of attacks that could be made with strength based weapons because unlike the quantum spellbook where the perfect spell is always available the quantum fighter is always designed to bne worst at any given situation. That and average 5.5 damage per die is greater than average 6.5 per attack with the same scaling on dice/attack numbers

I did the math (please check it, fully admit it was fast) the fighter is ahead at 1 (but not by much), only even at 5 (ahead if his secondary weapon is +1 but not by much) and even at level 11 (assuming a +1 secondary weapon for the fighter). Considering the many options available to the wizard on top of just using a cantrip(sure the fighter might have superiority dice or some such, but that's a very limited resource too).

I assume you are talking about this post. Yes you did math, but that math is not done in a way that models what you are trying to model for several reasons.

• The math you did is the kind of breakdown you would want to do if you were looking at a situation like one of those world of warcraft raid trackers that looks at everyone's damage per second across hundreds of attacks. Even then it's an oversimplification that distorts things in that situation
• It's not a race where turtle & the hare style slow & steady vrs fast & intermittent averages out in meaningful ways . Hitrates in o5e are usually around 60% or better so there is no reason to fractionalize the attacks that do hit
  • Even if the hitrate drops significantly due to an unusual high ac monster it still favors the numbers still favor the higher damage attack because the smaller but reliable attacker is also affected by that AC & in this case the attacker with the higher damage attacks also has more chances (one Xd10 firebolt vrs X[1d8+statmod+weaponmod+featmods+fighting style mods] attacks) in a true inversion of the tortoise & the hare type of averaging you are doing.
• Both firebolt and the bow need to hit the same AC so it's not like 3.x where the spell was targeting touch AC. The only reason the fighter with a bow & 14 dex is lacking in tohit is because this situation of a monster hovering 20 feet up is one that fits squarely into the strength fighter's weak area in a way that makes them find using a less than optimal damage per round weapon to be the most optimal choice for them to make that round. Even with that situation being their "weak" area they still pull slightly ahead of the wizard with firebolt getting to make use of a strength it has.
• This is why the spreadsheet here draws out the whole process in a step by step thing you can analyze attack by attack & round by round for the various hit percentages it offers. To quote the FAQ on it "Q: weren't there easier ways you could have modeled results of hit & resist chances? Why show every step? A: oh heck yes. I deliberately did the hit/miss/resist pages trying to show as much math as I could to give a peek behind the curtain & hopefully improve the level of discourse around a few areas with conventional wisdom in conflict with the reality to a shocking degree"

In a way that math you did is almost as bad as the earlier 5.5*X cantrip damage is greater than 6.5*X bow damage where X is number of dice/attacks. math.

 

[Oofta]

I know I'm breaking my own rule here but I wanted to attempt at clarification.

When we're playing D&D and resolving issues, our groups often discuss and brainstorm together. I'll make suggestions to the players of PCs that can do things my PC simply cannot. I don't care who does the bada-bing-bada-boom thing, all I care is that it happens, that different people worked together as a team. At work we have a network administrator. Without them, things crash. Their job is very important, but I don't want to be a network admin, even if they do have power I don't have. There are any number of other positions and roles I could mention. It's the same with an adventuring team.

People don't have to have exactly the same level of power or options in order to contribute and be part of a functioning team. I accept that when I play a fighter, if I want to fly I either need to get a magic item or ask the wizard to cast a spell. On the other hand, the wizard frequently has to make choices. Cast prismatic spray or save a slot for teleport if they need it? I don't always want to have to make those kind of choices.

As far as changes? Actual concrete, actionable suggestions:

• I could see tweaking how casters get back spells. Not as a nerf so much as giving groups more flexibility. Make it similar to arcane recovery which gives you back 1/2 your level in spell slots. Instead make it X times your level in spell slots with 4 times your level during a long rest being enough to almost always get back all your spells (I'd have to double check math). It gives people an option outside of the gritty rest rules I use to balance things out a bit, just lower X to the point that makes sense for your group.
• I think fighters could use a bit of a boost. Give them a second fighting style after 1st and after first level they can choose either another fighting style or get expertise in a skill. Include the fighting styles from Tasha's in the core.
• Make longbows versatile.
• Grant more action surges and let them use action surges out of combat to get advantage on an ability skill check. Maybe. I don't want to step on the rogue niche too much.

So change how casters recover makes what spells they use when more costly if you care, give fighters an option to beef up combat or out of combat a little. It doesn't change the nature of the game, but I don't think it needs that.

P.S. If we can have a conversation about real, concrete changes that could happen, great. If we just go back to bickering I won't bother responding.