REALLY nice work on that. Obviously put a lot of thought into things. You mentioned the simplest thing that might be the most important thing ...as the DM it is YOUR table. From what I can tell, Gygax himself was fairly clear from the beginning that rules were guidelines.
I'm still a very new player, but what I gather from your post is your doing an excellent job staying true to the spirit of D&D, and also finding the balance of keeping things a challenge but not to the point of where there is risk of a TPK in the first couple sessions.
I really like the DM I'm playing with in my current campaign. He recognized a couple of things early on that could be a struggle for newbies like myself and one of the other players. He modified an existing weapon to give my Ranger a chance at slightly more damage, and homebrewed something that helped someone else with a low AC. Never overpowered the characters but certainly helped early on.
Note the word "typically", and note the word "most". Not every caster has a low armor class and a smaller amount of hit points. However, most casters do - because of the reasons Linklite mentioned and a few others - and stating that is not incorrect.
The article you linked is extremely flawed. For one, it is arguing that all casters are not "squishy" because a select few, extremely min-maxed casters can be relatively strong in that regard. By comparing the top demographic of one group and comparing it to the middle or low demographic of another group, they are already proving that there own claim has a weak footing to stand on.
Secondly, the primary example it uses is also massively flawed. It is pitting one CR 7 monster against each one of the two level 6 adventurers in their example. Not only that, but the spellcaster is extremely optimized, and the martial is not. Also by pitting the adventurers against an encounter that has an amount of adjusted XP in it that is greater than their daily budget, it ensures that they will both survive at a similar rate, which is not very long. This ignores the fact that though they may die in the same round, one may be at -40 hit points when they die, and the other could be at exactly 0. The way they presented it, there wouldn't be difference in terms of how "sturdy" these two adventurers were, even if that were the case.
Thirdly, the article criticizes Barbarian's Rage because it is too resource-limited. Due to this it by and large disqualifies it from their metrics of "sturdiness," despite the fact that it would massively change how they rate that class. Earlier, however, they talk about spells like Shield and Silvery Barbs and how they play a massive role in how strong casters are defensively, despite the fact that those spells, too, are a very limited resource. So this article seems to picking and choosing what metrics they value in order to push their argument.
Fourthly, this article classifies this as a "fallacy", while ignoring the actual definition of the word. An actual fallacy is a mistaken belief based off a weak and unsound argument, but the "Squishy Caster Fallacy" is by no means a fallacy, since the fact that casters typically are less "sturdy" than martials and that they have more limits on raising there armor class and hit points is fully true. Coming from someone who loves researching logical fallacies for fun, you can't say, "Here is my opinion and my somewhat weak support for it, everyone else who disagrees is being illogical and wrong."
TL;DR: One random and somewhat lame article is not enough to convince me that casters are typically just as strong in terms of hit points and armor class when that just really isn't true.
Multiclassing into one of nearly half of the classes available in the game is not being "extremely min-maxed."
The Samurai Fighter in the article presumably has Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert. The Artificer/Wizard in comparison is considerably less "extremely optimized," having multiclassed once.
At 6th level, a Barbarian has 4 Rages per long rest. The article is working with the assumption that there are 6-8 encounters in a day (this is described in p. 84 of the DMG). Barbarians are a melee class, and require their Rage in order to be durable, as entering melee means you're in range of melee monsters, which most monsters are. Casters have 4 1st-level spell slots by 6th level. Wizard (and by extension, casters) are ranged classes, and will not tend to be the focus of enemy attacks, but even assuming they are, they would first have to beat the caster's AC of 19 (compared to the optimized Barbarian's 17) just for the caster to have to decide whether or not they Shield. Even when a caster is out of 1st-level spell slots, upcasting Shield is a perfectly valid decision.
Heaviest armored, which the optimized wizard will tend to be. Most, if not all optimized martial builds require giving up a shield in order to maximize damage output with CBE + SS or GWM + PAM.
At best, an optimized martial will have a base AC of 17, compared to the optimized caster's AC of 19, before Shield.
Personally, I believe that martials and casters are relatively balanced in combat. Why do I think this? Because martials typically have a higher armor class and more hit points. ...
Most casters really aren't built to deal with an angry Ogre in their face. They can easily be one-shotted or killed, which is why I think DMs hesitate to go after them. So if you play monsters optimally, then yes, I think martials and casters are balanced in combat. Personally, I think outside of combat is where the biggest disparity lies. But I'm just one random person on the internet voicing their opinion on a matter that is incredibly hard to quantify or accurately measure, so don't listen to me lol. :)
There’s a common belief among players that spellcasters are squishy, and martials are not. This is the “Squishy Caster” Fallacy:
It's not truly a fallacy if it aligns with the way most tables play. When you're talking about people who go to Tabletop Builds before they make a character, you're already down to a niche of a niche.
Magic damage is one buff, at high levels enemies with immunity to physical damage could be too powerful for a group of non-casters, but balance is key so not too many casters and not too many martials.
The wizard in the article has intelligently and deliberately invested in their “sturdiness” whereas the fighter is using a hand crossbow. How often do we actually see that? Outside of CBE, it’s a terrible choice. Fighters have MUCH better options available to them. Did the author sandbag the fighter to make their point, hoping we wouldn’t notice the wizard is being compared to something very subpar? It sure seems like it because, if you give them a sensible weapon, one that doesn’t tie up both their hands for a measly d6 damage, fighters can and probably will use a shield too.
Please tell me this is a joke comment right? It's well known that the best straight fighter build will use Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter with archery fighting style to outdamage any other fighter. If you actually think a fighter with a shield could out damage that, I'd love to see your calculation.
"mEaSlY d6" doesn't matter at all when you get an extra attack every turn and +10 to damage.
Let's do a quick calculation with maxed stats, 20 in str or dex:
Assuming a 65% chance to hit, the sword and shield fighter at level 11 would do 3 attacks, assuming they have 20 strength and duelling fighting style their damage is this:
3(0.65)(11.5) = 22.425 damage per round.
Let's say the hand crossbow fighter uses CBE & SS, their accuracy drops to 40%, archery bringing them up to 50% accuracy, crossbow expert means an extra attack, so their damage is:
4(0.5)(18.5) = 37 damage per round.
So in conclusion, yes it is better to use the fighter with hand crossbow, the article is not sandbagging and fighters don't have "MUCH better" options. Maybe think before you type this out.
The wizard in the article has intelligently and deliberately invested in their “sturdiness” whereas the fighter is using a hand crossbow. How often do we actually see that? Outside of CBE, it’s a terrible choice. Fighters have MUCH better options available to them. Did the author sandbag the fighter to make their point, hoping we wouldn’t notice the wizard is being compared to something very subpar? It sure seems like it because, if you give them a sensible weapon, one that doesn’t tie up both their hands for a measly d6 damage, fighters can and probably will use a shield too.
Please tell me this is a joke comment right? It's well known that the best straight fighter build will use Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter with archery fighting style to outdamage any other fighter. If you actually think a fighter with a shield could out damage that, I'd love to see your calculation.
"mEaSlY d6" doesn't matter at all when you get an extra attack every turn and +10 to damage.
Let's do a quick calculation with maxed stats, 20 in str or dex:
Assuming a 65% chance to hit, the sword and shield fighter at level 11 would do 3 attacks, assuming they have 20 strength and duelling fighting style their damage is this:
3(0.65)(11.5) = 22.425 damage per round.
Let's say the hand crossbow fighter uses CBE & SS, their accuracy drops to 40%, archery bringing them up to 50% accuracy, crossbow expert means an extra attack, so their damage is:
4(0.5)(18.5) = 37 damage per round.
So in conclusion, yes it is better to use the fighter with hand crossbow, the article is not sandbagging and fighters don't have "MUCH better" options. Maybe think before you type this out.
"Outside of CBE"
CBE is Crossbow Expert
Did you even read the article that is the subject of discussion?
The wizard in the article has intelligently and deliberately invested in their “sturdiness” whereas the fighter is using a hand crossbow. How often do we actually see that? Outside of CBE, it’s a terrible choice. Fighters have MUCH better options available to them. Did the author sandbag the fighter to make their point, hoping we wouldn’t notice the wizard is being compared to something very subpar? It sure seems like it because, if you give them a sensible weapon, one that doesn’t tie up both their hands for a measly d6 damage, fighters can and probably will use a shield too.
Please tell me this is a joke comment right? It's well known that the best straight fighter build will use Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter with archery fighting style to outdamage any other fighter. If you actually think a fighter with a shield could out damage that, I'd love to see your calculation.
"mEaSlY d6" doesn't matter at all when you get an extra attack every turn and +10 to damage.
Let's do a quick calculation with maxed stats, 20 in str or dex:
Assuming a 65% chance to hit, the sword and shield fighter at level 11 would do 3 attacks, assuming they have 20 strength and duelling fighting style their damage is this:
3(0.65)(11.5) = 22.425 damage per round.
Let's say the hand crossbow fighter uses CBE & SS, their accuracy drops to 40%, archery bringing them up to 50% accuracy, crossbow expert means an extra attack, so their damage is:
4(0.5)(18.5) = 37 damage per round.
So in conclusion, yes it is better to use the fighter with hand crossbow, the article is not sandbagging and fighters don't have "MUCH better" options. Maybe think before you type this out.
"Outside of CBE"
CBE is Crossbow Expert
Did you even read the article that is the subject of discussion?
So you're incredulously saying 'Why did you use a hand crossbow?' and then intentionally asking people not to bring up the feat that makes hand crossbow better than other weapons?
That's like saying "give me one reason why I'm guilty of robbery other than me stealing all that person's money".
Obviously I've read the article, clearly you think there's nefarious intentions behind it, but you can't demonstrate why. I did the math for you on why hand crossbow is the best weapon. If you don't have a response to the fact that one number is bigger than the other, that's not my problem.
Or maybe justify why you'd think they're being sneaky and give a good reason to discount CBE, considering it's one of the best feats in the game?
To answer Born_of_fire74's question, "How often do we actually see that?", I have never once seen someone play a fighter with a hand crossbow as their main weapon. I'd probably make fun of them if they did
I am in one high-level campaign where the Gloomstalker ranger multiclass sometimes uses a specific magical hand crossbow from the Griffon's Saddlebag that does 3d4 base damage
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The wizard in the article has intelligently and deliberately invested in their “sturdiness” whereas the fighter is using a hand crossbow. How often do we actually see that? Outside of CBE, it’s a terrible choice. Fighters have MUCH better options available to them. Did the author sandbag the fighter to make their point, hoping we wouldn’t notice the wizard is being compared to something very subpar? It sure seems like it because, if you give them a sensible weapon, one that doesn’t tie up both their hands for a measly d6 damage, fighters can and probably will use a shield too.
Please tell me this is a joke comment right? It's well known that the best straight fighter build will use Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter with archery fighting style to outdamage any other fighter. If you actually think a fighter with a shield could out damage that, I'd love to see your calculation.
"mEaSlY d6" doesn't matter at all when you get an extra attack every turn and +10 to damage.
Let's do a quick calculation with maxed stats, 20 in str or dex:
Assuming a 65% chance to hit, the sword and shield fighter at level 11 would do 3 attacks, assuming they have 20 strength and duelling fighting style their damage is this:
3(0.65)(11.5) = 22.425 damage per round.
Let's say the hand crossbow fighter uses CBE & SS, their accuracy drops to 40%, archery bringing them up to 50% accuracy, crossbow expert means an extra attack, so their damage is:
4(0.5)(18.5) = 37 damage per round.
So in conclusion, yes it is better to use the fighter with hand crossbow, the article is not sandbagging and fighters don't have "MUCH better" options. Maybe think before you type this out.
"Outside of CBE"
CBE is Crossbow Expert
Did you even read the article that is the subject of discussion?
So you're incredulously saying 'Why did you use a hand crossbow?' and then intentionally asking people not to bring up the feat that makes hand crossbow better than other weapons?
That's like saying "give me one reason why I'm guilty of robbery other than me stealing all that person's money".
Obviously I've read the article, clearly you think there's nefarious intentions behind it, but you can't demonstrate why. I did the math for you on why hand crossbow is the best weapon. If you don't have a response to the fact that one number is bigger than the other, that's not my problem.
Or maybe justify why you'd think they're being sneaky and give a good reason to discount CBE, considering it's one of the best feats in the game?
The fighter in the article is not using CBE or SS. Without CBE, a hand crossbow is a terrible weapon. The author of the article very carefully made their wizard extremely capable and had the fighter wielding a terrible weapon. This is not a reasonable comparison. If you had read the article as you claim, you would know the fighter doesn't have CBE. I'm fully aware that CBE makes a hand crossbow a very viable weapon. I will refer you to my original statement yet again: "Outside of CBE..."
Do you understand I'm not commenting about fighters or wizards or hand crossbows at all? I'm saying this author's specific conjecture is specious due to the construction of their example. Give the fighter CBE and the analysis will be much different. Give the fighter a long sword and the analysis will be much different. Heck, just give the fighter any weapon that a fighter will actually use.
Your problem is with the author of the article, not me. They are the one who did not give the fighter CBE, not me. They are the one asking us to ignore one of the best feats in the game, not me. If you really thought about it, you'd realize we are saying the same thing.
The fighter in the article is not using CBE or SS.
The article does not specify what feats the fighter has, because the article isn't focusing on damage, it's focusing on durability. Later in the article it comments on damage optimization for fighters, noting that most optimized builds can't use shields, and mentions CBE under damage optimization.
The fighter in the article is not using CBE or SS.
The article does not specify what feats the fighter has, because the article isn't focusing on damage, it's focusing on durability. Later in the article it comments on damage optimization for fighters, noting that most optimized builds can't use shields, and mentions CBE under damage optimization.
At a cursory glance, I don't even see where the fighter's weapon is mentioned in the article LOL. I'm not slogging through it again just to satisfy some dude who agrees with me, although they don't seem to realize it.
The fighter in the article is not using CBE or SS.
The article does not specify what feats the fighter has, because the article isn't focusing on damage, it's focusing on durability. Later in the article it comments on damage optimization for fighters, noting that most optimized builds can't use shields, and mentions CBE under damage optimization.
At a cursory glance, I don't even see where the fighter's weapon is mentioned in the article LOL. I'm not slogging through it again just to satisfy some dude who agrees with me, although they don't seem to realize it.
Bro people are agreeing with me that you commented something wrong and then you're doubling down, only to refuse to read the article when we point out the correction. Obviously if you use a hand crossbow, it's because you want to use CBE/SS, stop playing conspiracy theorist, it's not that deep lil bro, you got fact checked 😂.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
REALLY nice work on that. Obviously put a lot of thought into things. You mentioned the simplest thing that might be the most important thing ...as the DM it is YOUR table. From what I can tell, Gygax himself was fairly clear from the beginning that rules were guidelines.
I'm still a very new player, but what I gather from your post is your doing an excellent job staying true to the spirit of D&D, and also finding the balance of keeping things a challenge but not to the point of where there is risk of a TPK in the first couple sessions.
I really like the DM I'm playing with in my current campaign. He recognized a couple of things early on that could be a struggle for newbies like myself and one of the other players. He modified an existing weapon to give my Ranger a chance at slightly more damage, and homebrewed something that helped someone else with a low AC. Never overpowered the characters but certainly helped early on.
Great ideas - just might pass some of them along
Multiclassing into one of nearly half of the classes available in the game is not being "extremely min-maxed."
The Samurai Fighter in the article presumably has Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert. The Artificer/Wizard in comparison is considerably less "extremely optimized," having multiclassed once.
At 6th level, a Barbarian has 4 Rages per long rest. The article is working with the assumption that there are 6-8 encounters in a day (this is described in p. 84 of the DMG). Barbarians are a melee class, and require their Rage in order to be durable, as entering melee means you're in range of melee monsters, which most monsters are. Casters have 4 1st-level spell slots by 6th level. Wizard (and by extension, casters) are ranged classes, and will not tend to be the focus of enemy attacks, but even assuming they are, they would first have to beat the caster's AC of 19 (compared to the optimized Barbarian's 17) just for the caster to have to decide whether or not they Shield. Even when a caster is out of 1st-level spell slots, upcasting Shield is a perfectly valid decision.
Heaviest armored, which the optimized wizard will tend to be. Most, if not all optimized martial builds require giving up a shield in order to maximize damage output with CBE + SS or GWM + PAM.
At best, an optimized martial will have a base AC of 17, compared to the optimized caster's AC of 19, before Shield.
It's not truly a fallacy if it aligns with the way most tables play. When you're talking about people who go to Tabletop Builds before they make a character, you're already down to a niche of a niche.
Spellcasting is far more powerful.
Magic damage is one buff, at high levels enemies with immunity to physical damage could be too powerful for a group of non-casters, but balance is key so not too many casters and not too many martials.
"Big sword, bigger brain"
-BigBrainGoblin
Pl
Please tell me this is a joke comment right? It's well known that the best straight fighter build will use Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter with archery fighting style to outdamage any other fighter. If you actually think a fighter with a shield could out damage that, I'd love to see your calculation.
"mEaSlY d6" doesn't matter at all when you get an extra attack every turn and +10 to damage.
Let's do a quick calculation with maxed stats, 20 in str or dex:
Assuming a 65% chance to hit, the sword and shield fighter at level 11 would do 3 attacks, assuming they have 20 strength and duelling fighting style their damage is this:
3(0.65)(11.5) = 22.425 damage per round.
Let's say the hand crossbow fighter uses CBE & SS, their accuracy drops to 40%, archery bringing them up to 50% accuracy, crossbow expert means an extra attack, so their damage is:
4(0.5)(18.5) = 37 damage per round.
So in conclusion, yes it is better to use the fighter with hand crossbow, the article is not sandbagging and fighters don't have "MUCH better" options. Maybe think before you type this out.
"Outside of CBE"
CBE is Crossbow Expert
Did you even read the article that is the subject of discussion?
So you're incredulously saying 'Why did you use a hand crossbow?' and then intentionally asking people not to bring up the feat that makes hand crossbow better than other weapons?
That's like saying "give me one reason why I'm guilty of robbery other than me stealing all that person's money".
Obviously I've read the article, clearly you think there's nefarious intentions behind it, but you can't demonstrate why. I did the math for you on why hand crossbow is the best weapon. If you don't have a response to the fact that one number is bigger than the other, that's not my problem.
Or maybe justify why you'd think they're being sneaky and give a good reason to discount CBE, considering it's one of the best feats in the game?
To answer Born_of_fire74's question, "How often do we actually see that?", I have never once seen someone play a fighter with a hand crossbow as their main weapon. I'd probably make fun of them if they did
I am in one high-level campaign where the Gloomstalker ranger multiclass sometimes uses a specific magical hand crossbow from the Griffon's Saddlebag that does 3d4 base damage
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The fighter in the article is not using CBE or SS. Without CBE, a hand crossbow is a terrible weapon. The author of the article very carefully made their wizard extremely capable and had the fighter wielding a terrible weapon. This is not a reasonable comparison. If you had read the article as you claim, you would know the fighter doesn't have CBE. I'm fully aware that CBE makes a hand crossbow a very viable weapon. I will refer you to my original statement yet again: "Outside of CBE..."
Do you understand I'm not commenting about fighters or wizards or hand crossbows at all? I'm saying this author's specific conjecture is specious due to the construction of their example. Give the fighter CBE and the analysis will be much different. Give the fighter a long sword and the analysis will be much different. Heck, just give the fighter any weapon that a fighter will actually use.
Your problem is with the author of the article, not me. They are the one who did not give the fighter CBE, not me. They are the one asking us to ignore one of the best feats in the game, not me. If you really thought about it, you'd realize we are saying the same thing.
The article does not specify what feats the fighter has, because the article isn't focusing on damage, it's focusing on durability. Later in the article it comments on damage optimization for fighters, noting that most optimized builds can't use shields, and mentions CBE under damage optimization.
At a cursory glance, I don't even see where the fighter's weapon is mentioned in the article LOL. I'm not slogging through it again just to satisfy some dude who agrees with me, although they don't seem to realize it.
Bro people are agreeing with me that you commented something wrong and then you're doubling down, only to refuse to read the article when we point out the correction. Obviously if you use a hand crossbow, it's because you want to use CBE/SS, stop playing conspiracy theorist, it's not that deep lil bro, you got fact checked 😂.