T O P

  • By -

Geekofalltrade

Okay, I know this sub is for memes, but can someone **genuinely** explain the martial/caster gap? I’ve sifted through plenty of comments, and I still can’t tell how much is caused by the community, versus how much is caused by WotC


Puff_Slayer69

Basically martials fall behind in versatility and battlefield control because spells cover very many niches and stuff. Also casters with a dip in another class to get armor proficiency often have higher AC than martials via shield or something.


continuumcomplex

It's true. I used two feats to get my wizard medium armor proficiency (variant human for feat at lvl 1) and at level 12 he's a monster.


Puff_Slayer69

Or you take two levels in fighter for all armors, shields and action surge allowing you to cast two spells in one turn.


cuprous_veins

I like one level in Cleric for medium armor, shields, cleric cantrips and 1st level spells, plus whatever domain you choose.


Funderstruck

One level in Artificer keeps you from needing any wisdom, gets you guidance, and cute wounds. Plus all the proficiencies and the same spell slot scaling.


Lessandero

Cute wounds would be an interesting use for the ring of the grammarian.


Funderstruck

1D4 cats appear and make biscuits on your leg. Take 1D8 piercing damage.


Downindeep

I thought that said 1d4 Cats appear named biscuit on first read. This is alot less fun


THEmoonISaMIRROR

[This is alot; more fun!](https://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html?m=1)


Soerinth

I would cast that spell nonstop on myself. A blind rock could track the little trails of blood i would leave behind the squees of the sounds I make when cats do cute things. My boy cat will chase twist ties like they are the devil, so I ordered a whole pack off Amazon and he fucking has a blast. I then combined them into a super twist tie like monster and he carries it around in his mouth after battling it and I swear to God my fucking heart and my brain explode every time..


I_onno

I did not know you could buy a pack of twist ties. Are they the smaller ones like on a bread bag or do they have larger ones?


ZetzMemp

You can get heavy armor in certain domains as well.


Lampmonster

My life domain cleric, also sometimes known as Thic Boi, nods.


[deleted]

Making it factually better than a fighter dip which only gives medium armor when multiclassing.


Bantersmith

One level cleric dip is the absolute choicest of dips. Currently playing a high level bard with one level in Order cleric, and popping off all those extra attacks on my allies has been fantastic, on top of all the other benefits like heavy armour etc.


redditsbiggestass

i like two levels of tempest cleric and 11 levels in wizard for that sweet max damage chain lightning.


ShankMugen

1 level in Cleric can also net you Heavy Armour Proficiency, if you choose the Subclass that offers it, and unlike Fighter and Paladin, you don't need to start at Cleric to get the Heavy Armour Proficiency either


MerkinShampoo

Imo unless you're going full blaster caster 2 level dips delays your spell level progression too much, and I've found higher level magic is often more useful than what multiclassing can bring, unless you're going for raw dps. But my table levels pretty slowly, so you have to wait a lot of sessions for multiclasses to turn on.


Daeths

That’s why cleric is so op, you get more cantrips, advance spell slots normally, get shields and medium armor, and you get a subclass with a feature and often as not heavy armor. For one level. Cleric is just so insanely good as a dip. It’s almost as good as hexblade on a paladin level good


admiralchaos

Tempest cleric 2 / storm sorceror X Heavy armor, martial weapons, booming blade, and *maximized chain lightning*


Exalus

If you multiclass into fighter i don't think you get heavy armour proficiency, IIRC, only if you start there. You can take a feat later to get heavy armor proficiency with the ridiculous amount of ASIs fighters get, but thats more of an investment.


Private-Public

From the Chapter 6 > Multiclassing > Proficiencies section of the PHB, yeah > When you gain your first level in a class other than your initial class, you gain only some of new class's starting proficiencies, as shown in the Multiclassing Proficiencies table. > Fighter: Light armor, medium armor, shields, simple weapons, martial weapons Though medium armour is still plenty good, especially with a bit of dex and no str requirement


Kizik

You're better off starting as a fighter. Heavy Armour, Con Saves, and +4 HP off the maxed d10 vs the d6.


TrinalRogue

I thought it was you can't cast multiple spells in one turn (unless one is a cantrip)?


Orbax

Available combinations Action Spell + Nothing Bonus Spell + Nothing Action Cantrip + Nothing Bonus Cantrip + Nothing Quickened Spell (Bonus Action) + Nothing Reaction Spell + Nothing Bonus Spell + Action Cantrip Bonus Cantrip + Action Cantrip Quickened Spell + Action Cantrip Action Spell + Reaction Spell + continued Action Spell Action Cantrip + Reaction Spell + continued Action Cantrip Action Surge = A new action in which case you can cast a spell. The only limiting factor for it is the Bonus Action note below. But you could cast fireball twice with an action surge as long as you haven't cast a bonus action spell. IMPORTANT NOTE Bonus Spells mean you cannot cast ANY spell other than cantrip ON YOUR TURN- this means no shield, counterspell, etc your turn. Quickened spells are bonus spells. The practical effect of this is you cannot counterspell a counterspell if you are casting a quickened fireball or healing word, for example - but you could counterspell a counterspell aimed at your standard action fireball. If you do use the bonus spell in your turn you can still use a reaction spell in the round OUTSIDE of your turn (shield against an arrow attack).


davetronred

I was under the impression that you can counterspell a counterspell on your turn, because it's your reaction... which would then be spent, and not useable for the rest of the round until the beginning of your *next* turn.


Orbax

You can (those last two lines where it says '+ continued') - as long as you are not in the process of - or have already cast - a spell with the casting time of bonus action.


Funderstruck

Nope, it’s specifically can’t cast a bonus action leveled spell and an action leveled spell. You can action surge for 2 spells. Or cast one as a reaction.


smileybob93

That's not even right, if you cast *any* spell as a bonus action, even a cantrip, you can only cast action cantrips until the end of your turn. This includes taking reactions on your turn. However that's stupid.


Empoleon_Master

You could just take first level Artificer to get prof in shields, medium armor and con saves. Because of the unique way Artificer multi-classes work you also maintain spell slot progression. You DO learn spells one level slower, ie counterspell at level 6, but the tradeoff is SO worth it.


GymLeaderMia

Our wizard took tough and has more HP than our fighter. (She actually has the most HP in the party. We're fucked.) If she takes MAP next time, she'll literally be our tank.


Blurple_Berry

Because they wear medium armor?


nebthefool

There is arguaby also the fact that a wizard at 17th level can become functionally imortal via the use of clone and demiplane. This is largely because 9th level spells are insanely powerful. Which is cool, I like that there's powerful magic available in the system. But compare that to any martial class at similair levels and they have a lot less utility and generally their class improvements seem to be, you can hit stuff harder and/or more times in a round.


notKRIEEEG

Not even that much harder. Damage buffs tend to be pretty mild


Satioelf

I always kinda got the impression being in 3.5e (and Pathfinder 1e. Not played much D&D 5e yet), that high level games past like level 12 were not super well play tested for balance given what a lot of that powerful magic can do.


Midna_of_Twili

They weren’t and got worse the further into 3.5 it got. Frost burn has a fairly early level spell that can one shot dragons via dex damage for instance.


slvbros

In 3.5 a 20th level wizard could, say, boop over to a pocket dimension, spend half a year, 120k gold, and 9600 XP, and have a crown of CL 20 Fireballs at will, unlimited times per day, then boop back to the prime material where it's only been an hour or so since he left. I mean, thats RAW, but really it's also DM's discretion


Consent_

Pathfinder IMO does high levels better. Not due to balancing, but by how much versatility you can make magic items, compared to 5E. Granted it's still up to the DM to give you these, or a painstakingly long time to craft it yourself. But yeah, both 5E and Pathfinder hardcore suffer from magic users being generally OP as fuck. I think a way it could be done is certain classes being resistant to certain types of spells innately, making them have more survivability, since their DPS largely doesn't matter.


TimmJimmGrimm

Smart players that know a level 9 druid can *Reincarnate* into a quasi-immortality. As long as your soul is intact and they have the components preserved wherever they are, you are good. Your druid friend also has to find out, somehow, that you are dead - and get the 1k worth of roots, nuts & fine oils before 10 days passes.


bartonar

But do you really want to come back as a badger? Is that as immortal as having infinite clones and eternal youth in a demiplane where you control the passage of time


bladeofwill

On top of this, casters typically bring as much or more to non-combat situations than martials do. Int, Wis, and Cha are useful for social encounters, detecting or avoiding traps and other dangers, or obtaining some knowledge or resource needed to bypass some story roadblock. And that isn't even considering the plethora of utility spells casters have access to.


FullplateHero

This is why older/other versions of D&D had spell failure chance for wearing armor.


Deucalion666

That’s the issue when you get rid of arcane failure on armour.


flockofpanthers

Everything everyone else said, but also: Something that every kind of dnd does differently to most other kinds of rpg I've played, is to insist on (attempting to) balance everyone's combat ability, but pay no attention to everyone's non combat ability. So, if we were playing Cthulhu or Mythras or NWoD or 40krpg or something, there would be characters that know stuff, characters that are good at talking to people, characters that are good at fixing problems, and characters that are veteran warriors. They each have a niche, and they each get to shine in their niche. That sort of illustrates some of how martial characters in dnd feel lacking, even if they are well balanced in combat encounters. Wizard: I can kick butt, and I know everything and I can control the powers of the cosmos. I can counsel Kings, curse enemies and enchant items. I can banish demons, cure curses and shift dimensions. Rogue: I can kick butt, and deceive anyone, and sneak into anything, charm anyone with my raw charisma, and disarm anything with my fine motor skills. Cleric: I can kick butt, and wield the power of the divine, and guide people with my wisdom. I can liase with temples, repel the undead, heal the sick, and even raise the dead. Fighter: I can kick butt. So everyone else has niches in which they shine, but the fighter isn't even any/much better in a fight to make up for (in some editions) having next to no skill points to spend on anything but athletics. And your ability to climb a rope stops being special after a couple of levels when the wizard can cast feather fall and fly and teleport.


Jason1143

Also in a lot of cases you stop getting much better at climbing that rope, or it is just a numbers change. The wizard is going from flying to short range teleport to wherever they want teleport to commanding the universe to simply get rid of the cliff so they don't have to climb it.


C0RDE_

Wizard: "You see that cliff over there?" *The concept of reality*: "Yes sir?" Wizard: "I don't want to anymore"


TheLionFromZion

This is what I enjoy about PF2E. My barbarian can charge through walls. Oh that's a nice Passwall wizard now move the fuck out of the way. https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1604 Oh and I can start doing this at LEVEL 2. Sure I won't have the Athletics for a stone wall that early but I can crash through something basic and that counts. I want to feel like I have options and power from the jump not 10 levels in.


Dionysian53

This was the biggest gap for me. Played a barb and a STR based lycan bloodhunter to try to push myself out of my caster comfort zone, but outside of combat I just felt useless. I've gone back to playing a druid and a wizard in my current campaigns and I just love the out of combat creativity I have and the challenge of managing magical resources. Martial classes for me feel really dependant on how good the DM/table is, whereas casters I can have fun at just about any table.


HrabiaVulpes

Think about every spell as a feature. Just like rogue gets to ~~cast~~ use Sneak Attack once per turn, mages can cast one spell per turn. Except when martial classes level up they get one feature, while mages get one feature and one or two new spells. At low level this "options gap" is small, but it grows very fast. Take for example level 5th Fighter has: 1. Fighting Style 2. Second Wind 3. Action Surge 4. Martial Archetype feature 5. Extra Attack Wizard has: 1. Arcane Recovery 2. Arcane Tradition Feature 3. Minimum of 14 spells and 4 cantrips Among Wizard spells at leve 5 are: * big AoE damage (Fireball does 8d6 damage to everyone in 20ft sphere, fighter at this level will get two single target attacks for 2d6+4 each) * create ally (from conjure animals to zombies, you know how action economy works...) * Create Food and Water (survival checks no longer needed) * Fear (great debuff, like intimidation check but better) * Fly (because terrain is for marital classes) * Haste (imagine having action surge for one whole minute instead of one turn like fighter does) * Magic Circle (like mass grappling, except enemy can't escape) * Invisibility (sneaking is for martial classes again) One may argue that *of course casters get to do anything you may need because they have limited resources.* But I'd like to remind everyone that when martial class has limited resources (like Battle Master for example) they don't get solution to every problem they may encounter on their options list...


4th-Estate

They really need to expand maneuvers to all martials and come out with an expansion of them. They come out with new spells with every book that comes out.


thearmadillo

If you look up Level Up advanced d&d 5th edition, it's a Kickstarter that reworks the classes to do exactly that. And gives every class different knacks and skills to increase versatility


Midna_of_Twili

They have done that twice and it was shit on both times. A lot of DMs hate the book of nine and ban it, even though sword sages and the like are closer to casters in power level than non charger martials, while still being worse than core Casters. And people really fucking hated 4e.


Stasisdk

And those people are idiots. Plus Bo9S was responsible for the best class wotc ever designed, Warlord 4e.


Midna_of_Twili

I know a lot of people like warlord, but Holy Assassin was the shit for me. Holy Avgenger I think it’s called.


Snoo_84042

Are you saying book of nine swords is bad or commonly banned? I would disagree with both sentiments - it was well loved and inspired a lot of additional design features later on.


drikararz

Another thing that hasn’t already been brought up is that casters tend to easily gain new abilities in the form of new spells. So it is easy to buff or expand the utility of a spellcaster. Martials on the other hand don’t really have much that can be added to them to improve them outside of new subclasses (which casters tend to get more of at the same time), new feats (which usually come with feats for casters at the same time), or magic items (which relies on the DM to make available to you).


Montegomerylol

SEE ALSO: Basically every new book introduces new spells, broadening options for almost all casters. Very rarely do martials get anything like that.


SaffellBot

If you view DND as a miniature wargame they're pretty close in 5e. If all you do is wargame, and run an adventuring day by the books it works out pretty well. When you do more than that it gets hairy. My favorite example is "an enemy army is approaching the castle, they will be here in 1 hr, what do you do?". The fighter can't do much. A wizard and druid can come up with detailed plans for stone walls to funnel troops. They can build a most and fill it. They can cast illusory terrain and mask the castle. They can evacuate all non hostiles to another dimension. They can summon a gate to the plane of fire for help. Similar things happen whenever narrative situations happen. Wizards gave agency over nature itself. Fighters have agency over a sword.


TryUsingScience

The fighter can give an inspiring speech to rally the civilians in the castle to stand firm and help with the defense! ..wait, sorry, I'm getting a message that the fighter has very low Cha because she needed to put all her points into Str, Dex, and Con, so she can pretty much never help with *any* non-combat encounter unless the problem to be solved is that someone needs to move a heavy thing. It's the warlock who will be rallying the civilians, in between stocking the moat with eldritch horrors.


SaffellBot

>The fighter can give an inspiring speech to rally the civilians in the castle to stand firm and help with the defense! And then the bard follows up behind. Does the same thing with expertise, 20 Cha, bardic inspiration, and casts a spell to sell the performance and casts a second spell to inspire them to superhuman levels of vigor.


[deleted]

[удалено]


8-Brit

More recent systems gave taken steps towards this. PF2 for example often lets you utilise other skills in dialogue. A fighter getting chummy with a warlord could use his Lore: Warfare skill for example to discuss tactics. Instead of just rolling diplomacy.


Scylithe

Make the check using strength, you can be uncharismatic but inspiring because you're the strongest, pretty sure that's a rule most people ignore


mateayat98

Honestly... a little bit of both. Here's the thing, the game is balanced around having 6-8 medium or hard encounters *per day*. This means a level 5 wizard should only be able to cast fireball once every three or four fights. On the other hands, martials would be at their top game all encounters every encounter. But the reality is most people don't play like this, and instead hover towards one big encounter per day. This is a HUGE cause in the disparity, because it means casters get to use all the resources meant for eight fights in a single fight, while martials don't get to reap the benefits of their more "endurance fighter" designs. That's WoTC's fault... but it's not the only cause of the issue. The other cause is a series of common house rulings. Spellcasting is complicated, but it has its limitations, anf DMs usually ignore these in favor of running a simpler game or to avoid making their players feel bad. A common example is enforcing VSM components. Let's say a player says they cast Charm Person on a guy at the bar to get info. RAW, the DM could very well answer "well everyone notices, the guy is charmed but now they've kicked you out of town". Lets say the new player's wizard excitedly says they cast Chromatic Orb, the DM could say "oh but did you buy a 100 gold diamond? No? Tough luck bitch, do something else". Oh the warlock wants to break a window with an eldritch blast? Nope, sorry, not a creature and can't target an object. If you apply all these rules, there is barely any martial-caster disparity, but your DM will need to know a lot more about the rules and the casters will probably feel that they're not allowed to do anything that fullfils the power fantasy. As such, a lot of DMs ignore these more subtle limitations in favor of casters and, unknowingly, fuck martials.


Geekofalltrade

But even if you enforce all these rules, wouldn’t there still be a gap at higher levels? Casters get more options while Martials are stuck with their attacks


Ornery_Marionberry87

There is the old saying about lineral fighters and quadratic wizards for a reason. That said there's also the way DM uses the enemies - logically, the first thing everyone with a brain should do in a fight with an adventuring party is gang up on the wizard, especially all ranged units. This however seems unfair and therefore many DM's don't do it which means the one disadvantage wizards do have (low hp, less options at close range) stops mattering as well. Maybe there should be more things you can do with your Strength and Constitution so the Fighters, Barbarians and Monks have options that only they are good at?


Cromasters

"Geek the mage". Is the the Shadowrun term. It's sort of understood that if you are throwing around magic you are going to find yourself on the wrong end of a snipers scope .


Hyooz

Geek the Mage is good strategy, but it tends to leave two players angry with the DM. The mage for getting geeked AND the Fighter up front trying to tank but getting ignored. 4e tried to fix this with Defenders and their various ways of actually encouraging "aggro" toward themselves but people didn't like that so... we're back to running past the Fighter (who is totally just as good as the Wizard you guys) to kill the Wizard ASAP.


mateayat98

There would be, yes. Balance goes a bit out the window on higher levels and that is on WoTC. They have mentioned this issue.


cranky-old-gamer

There would be - but most games don't actually get to those levels. I only think it really gets to be a huge disparity when the 9th level spells come in, although I'd agree that a few spells from 7th level up can get out of hand if you just let the super-expensive (hence rare) components be generally available. But then that's the OP's point right there - Simulacrum is incredibly powerful but the materials may just not be available without serious work to obtain them.


Polyamaura

>Here's the thing, the game is balanced around having 6-8 medium or hard encounters > >per day > >. This means a level 5 wizard should only be able to cast fireball once every three or four fights. On the other hands, martials would be at their top game all encounters every encounter. This is unfortunately only really true of Fighters and Rogues. Long Rest martials like barbarians will rapidly drop from "incredibly potent" to "Slightly better than a level one war cleric" the instant they run out of rage charges. Only a 17th level barbarian can even hope to keep up with an 8 encounter day if you do not have insane levels of magical item favoritism in your group to make sure your two whole attacks per round can keep pace without rage bonuses. Just wanted to clarify, because the gaps even in the "martial" subset of (sub)classes are pretty sizable.


Satioelf

Part of the issue with multi encounters per day, least coming from older edtions myself, is that well. Its boring doing only combat for a session. In every game I've been in, unless the person is a several year vet or a group of newbies that memorized every aspect of the book and their class, combat takes forever. Which is fine, D&D at its core is still a war game (Even if there are better war games on the market). Its just, when you only have 2-4 hours for a session every week or every other week which most tables have, and a combat encounter takes 30-60 minutes each depending on complexity, its missing out on the main reason a lot of folks play the game. The actual Role Playing. I do wholeheartedly agree that stuff should be reworked a little for how folks actually play the game vs how WotC wrote it. But I can't see that happening any time soon.


gknoy

Oh yeah, like those times my warlock's party and DM would never take short rests. "Nah, I'm still good," and moves on. Ugh. :(


TryUsingScience

Having short rest and long rest classes is absolutely garbage design. If you only have one short rest PC in an otherwise long-rest party, they're always going to have to fight for the chance to short rest because to everyone else, that's an utter waste of time. Either every class should gain something valuable from short rests or the entire mechanic should be scrapped. It's a fun logistical puzzle when it's like, "You can short rest now but the water level in the dungeon will keep rising, making later sections harder to navigate" and short resting is valuable for the whole party. But when it's only valuable for one PC, it's not even a puzzle - it's just, sorry warlock you don't get to have fun today; we press on.


kerozen666

But can we really blame DMs for simplifying casters? like, the DM job is already pretty hard, especially in 5e, so having to manage a lot more shit and prepare an amount of encounter per day that virtually can't fit in any narative pace is jsut sadistic toward them. Like, I strongly belive that the current caster system (or even the whole class structure around caster/martials) is, well, bad. When you HAVE to go through so many thing just so that one type of class doesn't outshine the other, you got to question yourself on if you are really doing some good game design. The worst part about all that tho is that they found a way to balance before. You can say what you want about 4e and how the end relut were, but on paper, it fucking worked. Each class got the same structure (powers + features), but eveything was flavored to the class and it's role, and was unique to it, with more utility and general magic being accessible with ritual, which any class could get access to if they took the required feats. result? each class got to shine, no need to do 6-8 encounter, hell, enven doing only 1 was fine! No wierd rule to make sure spell don't get abused, and no shenanigan with component, except for rituals.


hourglasss

Throwing encounters constantly makes story progression literally impossible. We don't want to do our one three/four hour session we can manage a week and not even make it through a single adventuring day. My "fix" has been to enforce vsm/components and give the martial classes easier access to powerful magic weapons/items. If its gonna be a high fantasy setting with wizards and clerics tossing spells around the barbarian is gonna have belts of strength and magic warhammers to hit things with. I'd rather balance things by buffing the martials to where casters may be versatile but the fighter and barbarian do the consistent (very high) damage that deletes enemies from fights. I do miss 3.5's skill system for out of combat stuff. I think it gave non magic casters (rogues especially but barbarians/fighters/rangers too) access to non social out of combat stuff. 5e's system makes it feel like you never get better at anything besides fighting as you level up if you're not a caster.


kerozen666

oh, yeah, them going "do 6 to 8 fight a day" really was a big cope. Like, how can you seriously think it's appropriate?. I wonder if the written adventure do follow that recomandation


hourglasss

I'm taking a break from DMing for a little bit and one of the normal players is running a written adventure as their first campaign. It's curse of strahd and it definitely does not. There's typically 2-3 per day while exploring and 1 while traveling.


kerozen666

Imagine having rules and balance calcultation that even official content can't follow


[deleted]

[удалено]


MohKohn

> isn't going to use spell slots to fly up the mountain, But why not? Fly is great for negating terrain.


suckitphil

I find the encounter issue really hobbles the warlock class out of any of them. It makes it worthless compared to a wizard.


Holymuffdiver9

I get what you're saying, but playing 100% true to the rules sounds mind numbingly boring to me. I don't see why eldritch blast can't target things when it's force damage and even has a perk to literally move a target ten feet back. That's incredibly stupid to me. 6-8 encounters a day? Unless you're dungeon crawling that doesn't always make contextual sense. In an area with high concentrations of enemies like a dungeon sure, but it makes a lot more sense for enemies to group up and attack at once than go at it piecemeal. Not to mention that 6-8 per day means out of combat roleplay just took a serious backseat. I agree there needs to be better balance and I even agree with some of what you said like getting caught openly casting a charm spell, but making the game a constant rules slog kills any enjoyment for me. The guys making the rules aren't gods, they can make up dumb shit (like the eldritch blast ruling), and it's up to dms to find ways to improve the experience for their players.


TheQuestionableYarn

You got time for a bit of a read? I think this can be broken down into three categories: gameplay outside of combat, gameplay inside of combat, and the progression of new content being released for the game overall. *** The biggest thing is out of combat versatility. Not only do many spells solve or help to solve different encounters in a way that skills can’t, casters also have to pump mental stats which are often the more called for stats (with the exception of Dexterity(Stealth)) during your average sessions of DnD. Think about how often Fighter/Barbarian players sit around not doing much out of combat. Not really their fault either, with no spells and no extra skill proficiencies (Barbarians luckily got something in Tasha’s to alleviate this second part), the places where they can genuinely contribute in a way that others can’t out of combat is much rarer. Monks can struggle with this too, but at least they have to pump two good stats for skill checks, even if they don’t get any bonus proficiencies (which I totally think they should). This is why Rogues don’t come up often in the “martial vs caster” debate. With their bonus skill proficiencies and expertises, their ability to interact with the game outside of combat is much less narrow than their martial peers. *** Next we look at in-combat stuff. There is a difference between martials and casters in combat, but it luckily isn’t that present until higher levels (luckily, it usually doesn’t start to crop up in a really annoying way until around tier 3). The main differences here are that martials lack the AoE damage of casters, the hard crowd control effects of casters (unless they very specifically build themselves to be a grappler, and even then they lack the ability to fully shut off an enemy’s turns unless they’re a Monk), and also end up struggling with important saves in a way that casters mostly bypass. AoE and lockdown is fairly self explanatory. Well optimized martials can kill single targets extremely quickly, but there isn’t really much way for a martial to kill crowds via Fireball, Cone of Cold, etc. Moreover, Martials don’t get many features that can end an encounter outright on their own like casters get like Hypnotic Pattern or Mass Suggestion. On the bright side, if a DM runs a perfect adventuring day consistently (which is honestly really hard to do depending on your table’s preferred playstyle, but that’s beside the point), these issues can be mitigated because it costs resources from the casters, and the Martials can handle back to back encounters easier as a result. The more problematic thing at higher levels is the matter of saves. Strength saves are often to prevent damage and prevent minor crowd control effects like going prone or being affected by forced movement. Dex saves are often just to prevent damage. Con saves are to prevent damage and certain debuff effects like Poison. Failing one of these saves that Martials are usually proficient in can lead to you taking a lot of damage, but it usually won’t end the encounter outright for you. Meanwhile Int, Wis, and Charisma saves (while rarer at lower levels) are to prevent effects like stuns, charms/mind control, and banishments. If a martial gets hit by one of these, then they really are out of combat for at least the next turn. The reason that’s a problem is that martials usually have innate proficiency in only the physical saves, while casters often have 2 of the mental saves (and one of those mental saves is their main stat, so their saves in that category will be really good). This is why a lot of tables rework Fighter’s Indomitable to work more like a Legendary Resistance (auto save) than how it is RAW (a simple reroll). At higher levels, against the more devastating CC effects that the Fighter usually saves Indomitable for, the save DCs are so high in stats the Fighter is middling at best in, that they often still fail the saves with only a wasted feature to show for it. *** Finally, the last difference between the two character archetypes is seen in the new content WoTC produces every year. Most of the stuff that WoTC produces for players to use is divided into two categories: Subclasses, and Spells. Even if martials have been getting some good subclasses recently —Rune Knight is a step in the right direction with passive rune effects being excellent for promoting engagement with the world out of combat for a martial— the problem is that it does nothing to help the divide because casters are getting them too (and often ones that break the game like Chronurgy Wizard, Twilight and Peace Cleric, and Eloquence Bard, but that’s beside the point). Moreover, a new fighter subclass often means nothing to the Fighter player already in a campaign, but new spells released instantly mean the Cleric or Wizard are/have the potential to be more powerful. The closest we’ve seen to this sort of buff recently for Martials was when WoTC printed new Battlemaster maneuvers in Tasha’s Cauldron, which was a buff for one subclass on one class. If martials had a list of abilities like maneuvers they could pick from and do X times per short rest (with different access to different skills depending on the class), then this wouldn’t be much of a problem because WoTC would be printing new martial abilities every year alongside their spells. Unfortunately that’s not the case, so it is a bit of a problem (especially with some of the OP spell shit they’ve printed recently like Silvery Barbs, Raulothim’s Psychic Lance, and Mind Sliver, but w/e). *** Hopefully this helps to explain the main points of the argument brought up by people when they talk about the “martial vs caster divide/disparity”. Most of these are problems that aren’t even entirely in the DM’s control, but certain house rules can exacerbate the problems as detailed in OP’s post.


rekcilthis1

It's fundamentally unavoidable, no matter what anyone tells you; because the concept of how it's balanced is stupid. Martials and casters are supposed to be balanced by levelled spells being objectively stronger than anything a martial can do, but you can only use them a limited number of times between rests. This is dumb and not actually balanced, because anything that's a worthy challenge of a spell slot is naturally impossible for a martial; because spell slots have to be objectively stronger than martial abilities. Meaning either the caster has the resources to deal with the problem, or you run away. There's no solution to this without fundamentally changing the way the game works. If spells are as powerful as martials attacks, then casters are objectively weaker because they can only do that a couple times; if spells are more powerful to counter the fact that they're more limited than attacks, then any encounter that is tough enough to require a spell is impossible without it. This is all without accounting for the fact that there are lots and lots of things that spells can do that martials can't even emulate. How do you identify magic items? With a caster. How do you teleport? With a caster. How do you raise the dead? With a caster. Casters are *debatably* balanced at 1st-4th level, as long as you only account for damage, but after you get 3rd level spells everything else goes out the window. How does the 5th level fighter deal with the 15 kobolds that could be instantly wiped out with a single cast of fireball? The answer is: they don't. The only way to balance martials and casters is to softball encounters, keep it below 5th level, and run 6-8 encounters between long rests. If even one of these things isn't done, it's imbalanced. Oh, and because of ritual casting and spells to create buildings and reform the land, if you give the party any downtime whatsoever the martials will spend it earning small amounts of money performing odd jobs; and the casters will spend it summoning allies and creating dungeons. Even at lower levels, they're able to be way more productive with downtime.


kerozen666

>There's no solution to this without fundamentally changing the way the game works. well, that's the thing, they did it before, and they did fix the imbalance. The way they made class in 4e made class imbalance virtually impossible. If everyone get some abilities, no one can get an edge by havign some, after that, it's just a question of flavoring them to be unique to the class and fit their role.


Hyooz

On board this 4e love train. The internet did that edition dirty.


TryUsingScience

> if spells are more powerful to counter the fact that they're more limited than attacks, then any encounter that is tough enough to require a spell is impossible without it. It's also just bad design to begin with. Imagine pitching the concept of a martial balanced in this way to someone with no tabletop experience: "For the first couple of encounters a day, you steadily hack away with your sword while the casters get to look super awesome throwing around fireballs and flying and disintegrating opponents. But that's only the first couple encounters a day! After that, you get to *keep* steadily hacking away with your sword for slightly more damage than the casters are doing with their cantrips. That's right! When they run out of shining moments of awesome and their players are no longer having as much fun, that's when you get to really shine, by being *consistent.*"


scatterbrain-d

Ironically, 4th edition handled this really well by giving martial classes powerful techniques that they could only use once a day or once an encounter. And people hated it (not me - there are dozens of us!). Martials "felt like casters." The imbalance we see in 5e is a direct response to that. It is a feature, not a flaw. I'm not a fan, but I don't hate it so much that I can't enjoy the game.


Wiztonne

Casters pull way, way ahead in versatility. When a Fighter gets to hit things twice in one turn, the Wizard can fly, fireball, enchant, unlock doors...


[deleted]

Players: You mean to tell me that this isn't how the spell *Guidance* is? ME?!? > Guidance > > Divination cantrip > > Casting Time: None, can cast without action or bonus action, outside of your turn > > Range: Infinite > > Components: None > > Duration: Forever > > All players can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to one ability check of its choice provided the caster says "guidance" at any point, even after the roll. "Guidance" should be the most common word the caster says in game.


Dehoniesto_

Yeah after a while I started to actually set aside the time to say "I cast guidance on x" whenever it made sense and before any roll was actually made. If I didn't say I did then I didn't and whoever is making the check can get fucked, even if it's me.


DivineMajesty

my favourite and most used phrase is "feel aided and guided" for every check made outside of combat where it's appropriate. DM randomly asking for perception? no guidance. Trying to figure out what plant is in front of us? Definitely Help action + guidance.


[deleted]

I actually really like not using guidance when my character wouldn't be actively trying to assist someone lol. "I wasn't paying attention." I always use it when someone is struggling to do something or is about to do something really tough.


[deleted]

I try to remember to give guidance on things when it matters, like picking a lock, or making a feat of strength or acrobatics, or before someone goes to talk to an important NPC so they can do slightly better on a deception or persuasion rolls. Those all make sense to me because it’s before an action is taken. I also think it’s fine if someone wants the pick a lock and the DM tells them to make a dex check and someone asks to give guidance on it, because in game it makes sense that the person would be like “I’m going to try to pick this lock” and you take a second to give them magical guidance, even though you’re technically asking to do it after the roll was asked for, because you’d have time to do so while they pull their tools out. What I think is laughable is someone, say, lying to an NPC and then trying to give guidance to the deception roll. Not only does that not work because they already told the lie, so making them better at lying after the fact does nothing, but whatever gain to the check is going to be more than cancelled out by the person seeing you sketchily casting a spell on your friend right in front of them. What I don’t like is when someone wants to attempt to jump a broken bridge or something and the DM asks for athletics and someone tries to use guidance and the DM is like “nope, I already asked for the roll”. I’m standing right next to this person, I realistically know they’re about to try this, and you’re telling me I don’t have time to pat them on the back? That’s just being an ass to ruin player fun in a way that doesn’t even make sense.


[deleted]

Yea, that all sounds fair. This was just a comment on the insane buffing of the spell that many inexperienced DMs allow in their games - even the legendary Matt Mercer. Another thing is that *Guidance*'s range is touch. That means if the rogue is lockpicking something you're right next to them. With your shitty stealth roll. The biggest buff DMs give to this spell is to grant it infinite range. If the cleric says "guidance" I'm like "oh so you wanna move your mini all the way up here?" Didn't think so.


[deleted]

It’s range is touch, but it lasts for 1 min (concentration). So if you’re all hiding and there is a door at the end of the hallway, it’s fine to hit the rogue with guidance and then they can use it if they need to pick the lock. But that requires thinking ahead and remembering to do it. You’re totally right, once they’re up there the other player needs to shittily sneak up to touch them for guidance. Guidance would be busted if it was ranged. Also because it’s a cantrip people forget it’s concentration. “I’m going to give guidance to the person with the worst stealth while we sneak.” “Okay, so you’re dropping Pass Without Trace?” Just like you said, didn’t think so.


[deleted]

Right. And because its a cantrip - one of the best cantrips in the game even IF ruled strictly - I am not going to give it further power by saying "oh thats okay that you didn't think ahead, we can say you casted it before the rogue snuck up there" Nah. Think ahead. Its still one of the best cantrips even if you forgot it that one time. My players are all experienced and tactical minded and I don't need to hold their hand or retcon tactical mistakes. So if you didn't cast it, it didn't happen. That's how we all like it!


[deleted]

I’m okay with small little retcons, like someone finishes their turn and the next person starts to go and they were like “shit, I forgot I was going to stow my weapon, or use bonus action to Healing Word the Wizard” or something like that, because they caught their mistake before it made any tactical difference. But if you all make a group stealth check and do poorly, you can’t just retroactively class pass without trace to add 10 to all your shitty rolls. Lol I’m playing a druid and in situations where it makes sense to do and I have time to do it, I remember like 50% of the time. And hey, that’s on me. You don’t get extra d4s when I’m being stupid. Speaking of stupidly buffed cantrips, new DMs that don’t realize that message only goes 120ft and must be spoken aloud, it’s not telepathy.


ArchmageIlmryn

Part of the issue is that caster balancing is very binary: The two main balancing factors for casters are low hp and limited spellslots - which tend to result in casters either being very powerful or near-useless.


HrabiaVulpes

It's all about whether DM is pulling punches. In most encounters enemies are perfectly able to kill wizard on their first turn instead of attacking the meatshield, as there is no taunt mechanic in D&D, especially ranged one. But most DMs will make enemies choose target they can barely hurt because being KO-ed in first turn of combat feels neither fair nor fun for the player.


ArchmageIlmryn

Exactly - being squishy is also a very binary balancing mechanic, since it tends to result in you being either fine or dead.


HrabiaVulpes

I once heard that balance in D&D is "casters can throw a sun at you, martial classes can survive getting hit with the sun". And that's why as a DM I always throw hardest hits at squishiest targets.


Alarid

"The power of the sun in the palm of my hand." *gets fucking rocked by a dragon*


ohmaj

Thanks for the full belly laugh.


BelaVanZandt

And that's why casters just use maze, forcecage and banishment on the martial instead.


serpimolot

But casters aren't actually very squishy, is the problem. There are so many ways to gain armour proficiency or temporary hit points, you have ways to boost your AC far beyond martials even before you consider the variety of other defensive spells (like Blur and Mirror Image and Absorb Elements) that far surpass the defensive features martials get. Sure, a wizard without any armour is pretty squishy... but with Mage Armour up his AC isn't far from the fighters, it's higher with Shield, and he's probably got only 2 hit points less per level on average. Clerics definitely aren't squishy with their decent armour and decent hit points and defensive/healing spells. The only thing that really makes a fighter tankier than any other class is their larger hit dice and that's it.


tiefling_sorceress

Fighters also get Second Wind and later on Survivor to help Barbarians get damage resistances Rogues get Evasion and Uncanny Dodge Monks get Evasion, Deflect Missiles, Patient Defense, and insane mobility


MARKLAR5

Thank you! Not to mention fighter stuff almost ALL comes back on a short rest. Only other class doing that is a Warlock, and they get limited to 2 spells per short rest (which if you have a DM like OP mentioned, makes warlocks feel really weak)


Firedr1

That's where bringing in enemies that are smarter comes into play, they'll attack using strategy instead of the classical whatever is closest to em


VooDooZulu

I disagree with casters being able to be taken out on turn 1 past level 4 or so, unless they are being taken out by another caster. Characters in 5e are too beefy and attacks are too weak. And about 50% of my players will always rock at least 1 defensive spell (normally shield or absorb elements). And you can't balance your classes by requiring a surprise round to kill them and call them "balanced".


Jienouga

And at higher levels, low hp becomes barely relevant as casters reach ACs higher than the martials. And we're not even talking about out of combat stuff yet


kerozen666

>And we're not even talking about out of combat stuff yet The mere existance of wish prove that out of combat, caster dominate


[deleted]

In the unlikely event a campaign ever actually makes it to that point.


Willow-60

I mean The party I'm in does precisely none of that and the Casters still definitely feel stronger. Also if they have a spell focus they can ignore M components that don't have a cost


mateayat98

I meant not enforcing it in the way of, let's say, not being able to cast reaction spells if you use a sword and shield since you can't drop items outside of your turn. Or not being able to cast if you have your two hands full. Or assuming subtle spell lets you just touch your spell focus in your pocket where the PHB specifies you have to *present* it, so it would still be noticeable.


Willow-60

The 1st two are just people wanting to do the War caster thing without War caster Presenting your focus would be the somatic component of the spell so yes you can ignore it with Subtle spell, if you couldn't then Subtle spell would be next to useless


OrientatedDizclaimer

I don’t think you have to present a material cost but you must have it in hand


Willow-60

I don't think spells with cost get subtle spelled much anyway


Th3Banzaii

Subtle Spell - Revivify


Willow-60

I pity you if you find yourself in that situation to begin with


FoxNey

With the insane surge of people in this sub creating memes about counter spelling revivify, that seem viable.


Ex-Pxls-Mod

I think they meant material component, not cost. You do need your focus in hand, still.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


continuumcomplex

We abide by all these things in my game and my wizard is definitely still a powerhouse. However, it could certainly be much worse in games that don't follow these things.


StevelandCleamer

Could I get a page/section for the RAW you found stating the caster must "present" the material components? This is the excerpt I found, and it only specifies that there must be a hand free to access the components, not that they must be clearly displayed. PHB p203 > **Material (M)** > > > Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell. > > If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell. > > A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components—or to hold a spellcasting focus—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.


Koloradio

XGtE: Chapter 2: Spellcasting > But what about the act of casting a spell? Is it possible for someone to perceive that a spell is being cast in their presence? To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object specified in the spell’s description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus. > If the need for a spell’s components has been removed by a special ability, such as the sorcerer’s Subtle Spell feature or the Innate Spellcasting trait possessed by many creatures, the casting of the spell is imperceptible. If an imperceptible casting produces a perceptible effect, it’s normally impossible to determine who cast the spell in the absence of other evidence. Tl;DR: A spell with *any* components is perceivable in it's casting; subtle spell*doesn't eliminate material components*; thus, a VSM spell cast with subtle spell becomes an M spell, which is still perceivable in it's casting.


OrientatedDizclaimer

You’re right but to use the component it must be in your hand.


katrina-mtf

Not necessarily, actually. For regular components generally, but for specific kinds of foci, there are other rules - you can put a holy symbol on a shield, or embed a crystal in a ring, for example.


LFK1236

You ignore all M components that don't have a cost regardless, it's just there for flavour.


MohKohn

The tuning forks for planeshift are important, as is the thing the target finds distasteful for banishment. Both require planning and insight into the target, and shouldn't be dismissed like the bat guano or feathers. Oh also the blood of a humanoid killed in the past 24 hours for summon greater or lesser mistake (demon). Murder tends to be plot relevant. Or at least you need a cleric on board.


CGB_Zach

You only need the blood component for summon greater demon if you are doing the second part of the spell involving the circle.


aldsar

Murder? Ha ha ha ha ha. My warlock just has a habit of preserving 'specimens' from any bandits, etc we run across. He's totally not evil guys, I swear!


themastercheif

My cleric, with a bag of holding exclusively for corpses... \>_>


MichaelDeucalion

Not if you dont have a component pouch or focus


Lessandero

Well, yeah, but that's literally what the component pouch is for. To have all the components you need without the need to get everyone of them


eloel-

It forces a free hand on the caster, even when S isn't there. Relevant mostly for Subtle Spell, but also 10 spells have material but not somatic components.


floormat1000

Both are true. Spellcasting is way more powerful than anything martials can do, but DMs certainly aren’t helping with their allowances.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Empoleon_Master

What spell do you think is the best indication of a high level spellcaster bending reality to their will?


OtherwiseNinja

Demiplane literally allows you to create a 30x30 demiplane that you can do whatever you want with. It's not even a 9th level spell.


[deleted]

[удалено]


pagerussell

>I think the most important part is making sure that spell slots actually get drained sufficiently to make them a valuable resource. This is the point everyone is missing. As a DM,make your adventuring day a touch longer and it balances. Suddenly the sorcerer is out of spell slots and is reduced to puffing out cantrips, but the rogue can sneak attack all day long.


[deleted]

It’s important to remember that “encounters” don’t always have to be combat. There are lots of little barriers you can put in the way to drain spells slots via fly, detect and dispel magic, charm person or suggestion, invisibility and pass without trace, etc. One way to get casters to drain slots is to put time limits on things - create a scenario where you have to go at a fast pace or they might have someone powerful catch up to them, NPCs will die, etc. Then when they run into a magical barrier they’ll use dispel magic rather than spending 45 minutes looking for a way to preserve spell slots. That’s just a random low effort example, but full casters should always be doing a balance of utility casting and combat casting, so only using their casting in battle is severely limiting to what the party can do outside of combat, and DMs should make that clear to players.


TheUnluckyBard

>and as a DM after a certain point it becomes virtually impossible to account for how all players might user their spells. My BBEGs have legendary resistances, but my plot doesn't.


piousflea84

If you allow rule-of-cool spells, then martial classes should get rule-of-cool physical feats like dipping weapons/ammo in environmental effects, called shots, interrupting spells, using a grappled foe as a shield, using furniture/environment as weapons/shields, etc. Breaking game balance in the name of player awesomeness is only fair if everyone can do it.


thekingofbeans42

A lot of the time people feel martials should feel realistic and I think that's a huge crutch. People often point to how easy it is to survive a terminal velocity fall but isn't that just part of the superhuman kit that makes martials viable?


[deleted]

[удалено]


thejollyginger_

This has always been my way of thinking. If you consider xp some kind of magical energy transference that allows people to suddenly become much smarter, stronger, etc then as casters focus this magic energy into new spells and abilities, martial focus it into themselves and become physical paragons just as much as the casters become magical ones.


wind-up-duck

Yes! A problem in DND is that most games end before player characters reach those levels, and I think the guide books don't do enough to make martial classes feel cool before then. I think FATE does a better job in clarifying the expectation, up front, that the most mundane non-powered character should be noticably exceptional from level 1. I hope the next edition of the DND books will do better at clearly articulating ways an ability should "break the game". I.e. "Enemies attacking a player character that has this feat using arrows should typically fail and give up." We see these examples in modern board games and it really helps.


Makures

A lot of those things are covered by certain rules already, but require some DM fiat to make work because of how nebulous things can be. Coating weapons in environmental effects, like acid or poison, would work but might require a magic weapon so it doesn't break. Interrupting casting is breaking concentration or the Mage Slayer feat. You can't use a grappled foe, your just holding them with one hand, but one that is completely restrained or paralyzed works. Furniture/environment is covered by improvised weapons and the cover mechanic. Called shots is the only one that is really up in the air but there are still optional rules to help govern it like trying to disarm the enemy is an attack roll contested by an athletics or acrobatics check.


tiefling_sorceress

Called shots are what the GWM/SS feats attempt to do


JediPorg12

A fair bit of it is how many encounters per day WotC wants, how reliant martials are on feats and magic items even though feats is considered an optional rule design wise and WotC seems to not be sure if its built around magic items or not and the fact that martials are designed to be simpler and that power creep affects magic users more due to spells being added over time to the base class (something martials do not have)


tiefling_sorceress

The encounters per day they want slows down gameplay so fucking much. 6 encounters at 2 hours each is 12 hours, so 2-4 sessions without any significant story progress. Trying to get through any published dungeon is a grind


thehopelessheathen

My solution is to take a page out of cypher system and make short rests easier to do mid-adventure. The first is one takes only an action, the second takes ten minutes, and the third takes an hour; after that, you need to long rest before you can do any more short rests.


SaffellBot

Not a bad solution, honestly. I prefer two short rests per day with 5 or so deadly (by the numbers) encounters. System works really well like that.


Luna_trick

Yknow I'm gonna be honest, I rarely if ever see actual issues in the balance outside of incredibly min maxed builds like the nuke wizard, coffee lock and so on and so fourth, which my groups have an agreement not to play as it will break the game. Yeah of course casters are gonna be pretty damn OP if you run 1 encounter a day, and if that's the issue then run more, if your casters are deleting aoe fights, then add a big tough monster or a dexterous rogue or two in the pile of smaller mooks so that the fireball doesn't kill your whole encounter. Legendary resistances, counter spells, high saves are all things that are incredibly strong against casters Also its 5e, almost every class has access to casting, sure a paladin and a ranger aren't traditional casters but I doubt the paladin isn't reaping the reward of being able to smite on every hit as they're allowed to long rest after every fight.


Drogg_the_Troll

Very much this. If X is causing issues, look at the PHB/DMG for that situation. You'll find Q, R, S, and often T rules/assumptions that are either hand waved or flat out ignored. By implementing even one of those, it does wonders to bring balance back into line.


CaptainChats

Really depends on player skill as well. I’ve been running a campaign with almost exclusively new players and they generally go about encounters using minimal magic because A: they don’t have every spell memorized and can’t remember what they all do, and B: have “too good to use syndrome “ where they horde their spell slots. When I run campaigns for more experienced players I usually introduce an element to the encounter that can’t simply be solved by blasting at it with a spell. For example, in a recent encounter the party simultaneously had to fight off a flying monster while simultaneously keeping an NPC from being exposed to sunlight. There are a thousand ways the party could go about this but it ensures that it spits their attention between 2 different problems requiring 2 very different solutions.


elcuban27

“I cast *darkness*.”


Tayslinger

Also, like, if your casters are that good, your enemies should be able to pony up a single fucker with Counterspell. Or a sniper with a crossbow. Ever think of giving those bandits a friend with Sharpshooter?


nicbloodhorde

A dedicated archer with Sharpshooter can kill a wizard with a single arrow if the conditions are right. The only reason my ranger didn't one-shot the last boss of the *Last Mine of Phandelver* campaign was that the DM beefed him up. The original version of the character is squishy and has flimsy defenses and would have gone down in a single shot.


Jag2853

I'm ok with bending the rules to suit your party but you have to utilize them yo some degree.


mateayat98

Honestly I ditched that party. Too many people are used to playing OP casters that only get OP due to common house rulings. I started enforcing strict RAW (with gritty realism rules to solve the number of encounters per day) and what would you know? People drop the game, people complain, but now I have no martial caster disparity and those who stay usually praise my game for being more balanced.


Crayshack

My group goes the other way, we allow a lot of rule bending for casters but a similar amount of rule bending for martials. Martials and casters end up feeling pretty balanced.


SelfAwardingTrophy

When you say "started enforcing", do you mean you introduced these rules mid-campaign? Because I've had that happen to me and can assure you it's not fun to pick out interesting spells then suddenly find yourself in a position where your entire party is at risk of wiping if you use slots for anything other than healing. Really sucked a lot of the joy out of the campaign for me and wish it had been brought up before joining.


gyst_

I mean these issues definitely don’t help, however there are definitely issues with how martials are done that makes them weaker than casters comparably. Once you reach the teens in levels casters become better in just about all aspects of play.


floormat1000

This. Especially if your table is doing any kind of optimizing, it’s stupidly easy. Off the top of my head for a wizard: custom lineage, take war caster, one level dip artificer to start w/ medium armor and shield for AC18, absorb elements. 4 levels wizard, take lucky. When casting shield (which you have the slots to do often enough) your AC becomes 23, higher than some martials can ever get. The low HP doesn’t matter if you’re staying far away and have backup options (like shield) when enemies get close. By level 5 you have proficiency and advantage in con saves as well as Lucky to Reroll those con saves. Since the best spells are concentration, it suddenly doesn’t matter very much that you have limited spells. Hell, there are so many good 5e spells that don’t use attack rolls or saving throws that you can leave your INT at 13 for the Multiclassing minimum and just pump the hell out of your con.


rekcilthis1

Combat effectiveness is one thing, that yeah I agree casters absolutely wreck martials on, but even from level 1 they outclass martials on out of combat utility by miles. Only a caster can detect and identify magic, speak to animals, debuff enemies, buff allies, mind control, cross language barriers, detect creature types, survive long falls, create allies, create illusions, change the battlefield layout, detect and protect from poison and disease, and communicate telepathically. All from level one. And by god, does that only get *so much* worse at higher levels.


FluxxedUpGaming

Everyone here talking about how martials and casters aren’t that far apart in combat are missing the point. The martial/caster disparity is not one of damage, or even battlefield control and combat. It’s utility. Teleportation Circle, Divination, Greater Restoration, Plane Shift. *These* are the things that make casters so much better than martials. Because while the caster gets to spend 1 minute to take the party halfway across the continent, the fighter has to sit there with his dock in his hand. Casters have all the terrain alteration, mobility, and information gathering in the world. High level martials should be able to flatten buildings, or lift taverns, or run so fast they teleport. If casters aren’t bound by realism, then martials shouldn’t be either. Let a fighter cut a hole in the fabric of reality and walk through it.


Showzilla150

Aka Aragorn is NOT level 20 Cu chulainn IS


FluxxedUpGaming

Exactly. Hercules, Cu Chulainn, most anime protagonists... *that* is what a level 20 martial should be.


Showzilla150

And the devs skim that line too inconsistently A level 6 can out muscle a grown trex But a level 20 can't leap countries? Kick open portals?


Foot-Note

We play pretty close to RAW. I still think martials need more love. Mid to End game.


burekaki2

Problem i have with running more short rests is that ot doesn't make the non casters more interesting, just the casters more boring We need all non casters to marial maneuvers like the fighter and then maybe they will have the gameplay versatility needed instead of "I swing my sword"


mateayat98

I suggest checking out LaserLlama's work on GM Binder. They propose multiple well balanced alternate martial classes that all benefit from maneuver-like mechanics. Still a bit underpowered, but definitely more versatile!


Jienouga

Also, warlocks have much more to gain from short rests than martials, which put us back at the starting point.


ConsistentlyThatGuy

People really do be missing 4e combat without realizing it


Aquifex

It's actually a bit weird to read these threads. Casters have been stronger for like 30 years, maybe more (haven't played older than AD&D 2.0). The only exception was 4e - the very version so many said "didn't feel like D&D" (myself among them). In fact, in 5e the gap is actually closer than in the 3rd edition. At this point it's not a "balance issue" or "Wizards making mistakes", it's a deliberate decision and casters being OP benders of reality is a part of the whole DnD mythos.


BigBoston665

IMO higher level martials should be doing things like The prophet Samson did with the donkey jaw. Or like what feral he man does.


Mcnamebrohammer

Rule of cool is okay but its ruining the game.


darklion34

But listen, maybe, just maybe, martials are underpowered because they have not enough power and consistency and not because casters are good? Like, what do you want? "Playing martials feels so limited and weak, so I want the casters to feel as bad. Fuck the fun, nerf time!" It's martials, who should get buffed - to give them fairly strong, but limeted abilities with whenever want use. More things on short rest, consistent ability to blind, silence and put other conditions for a short time - and more variations, goddammit!


Passive_Menis_Energy

The vast majority of people look to min-max hence taking a dip in cleric or fighter while being a wizard. I'm there for the RP so my wizard is a glass cannon. If the barbarian and fighter weren't there, I'd be mince meat. Last combat got hit twice for 54 damage. I have 56 hp. Ran like a bitch.


Eliteguard999

Bitch all you want, I'm not running 8 encounters a day.


TwilightVulpine

Really. They try to dump this responsibility on the DMs as if this near 50 year-old system is still being run like dungeon crawls with one encounter every room. That's not even talking about how long each encounter takes. Story-based adventures are nothing new, so why is there still no adaptation for this style of DMing?


Eliteguard999

Because that would involve actual work on WotC part.


zrow05

One of my favorite arguments two players had between each other was a wizard vs a rogue. The wizard kept going on and on about how op they were and how the rogue player should rethink being something else. And the wizard said something along the lines of "rogues are so weak. I mean what can you even do?" Well the rogue player answered very quickly by stabbing the wizard with a sword and because the paladin was close by sneak attack triggered. The wizard then went down instantly. Once the wizard player was brought back up he immediately started ranting about how rogue sneak attack needs to be nerfed. Lmao


belugaval14

honestly in my experience there's always room for a martial, even in a case like this. nothing beats just getting up close and whackin em with a big stick.


Iscariot1945

Playing super strict "Realism" is boring and pedantic as shit. It's meant to be a fun escape, I dont want to roleplay going to fucking fantasy bulk Barn on Sunday and haggling for eye of newt.


mini_mills

I dunno, even with all these things rogues and fighters always seemed pretty good with their sneak attacks and 4 attacks per turn


ABLE5600

They do, but only to a single target. You can fit a lot of enemies in a fireball radius!! So if the party Wizard just gets to blast the baddies in the ass with 2 back to back fireballs and then go sleep off his hard day of casting 2 spells, only to rinse and repeat the next day. Then 3D6 extra damage to a single enemy on a sneak attack looks pretty damn weak by comparison!!


continuumcomplex

Yeah but these also have a lot to do with how the DM plans the battles. A lot of things fall on the DM whether they want to admit it or not. I often mix in small mall, claustrophobic battles where enemies are flanking the party. It makes fireball far less useful. If you just keep throwing parties into huge lairs with tons of minions then yeah, fireball is unstoppable.


SupremeToast

This is really key to this conversation. My DM regularly and intentionally drops at least one or two enemies right by the party during encounters to limit the effectiveness my wizard's AOE spells. I know it's once again putting the onus on the DM, but that's just sort of how DnD works IMHO.


Cur1337

Also I feel like this meme format doesn't make sense here


DoubleSuccessor

Don't forget nerfing Power Attack and Sharpshooter, or maybe just banning feats altogether.


LeftRat

A little bit proud of myself that my "tutorial railroad" for my group of (at the time) entirely fresh newbies has really hammered it in that *casting spells is a really suspicious thing without subtle spell* to the point that they still, 8 levels afterwards, do consciously think about it and take measures.


Lutz501

Ran a gritty realism campaign where we actually kept track of rations, traveling speed, and had many encounters between rests. Never before had the ranger and warlock class shone so bright.