Looking at the results from this thread’s survey, it is clear that the vast majority of people think that martials are underpowered. But there is a huge disagreement on how bad this is and what (if anything) should be done about it. I diligently filled out all the UA surveys and I encourage everybody else to do so. I’m pretty sure that Jeremy Crawford is not reading this thread, so if you want WoTC to hear you, fill out the survey!
So while we wait for “the next edition or whatever” the question becomes, what (if anything) should we do in the meantime? That is up to each individual DM. Because as a DM, you can do what you want at your table…because it is YOUR table. I will share with you what I have done at my table as possibly helpful suggestions, but remember, this is just my table and you are free to change any of my suggestions or completely ignore them. My homebrew is just food for thought, so please treat it as such. I am NOT suggesting that WoTC use any of my homebrew as official content. I just copied the below material from my session zero notes. I am currently DM for a party with two fighters, a monk, and a bladesinger. So my homebrew is weighted toward those classes (monk really needed help and UA has not yet touched monk). I figure I have the luxury of waiting for the next edition for changes to the other classes, so I did little for them. Also, let me be clear that I am not a genius creator. I take zero credit for the vast majority of these changes. Instead, I cobbled them together from many other creators much more qualified than I am.
Lastly, we should note that Jeremy Crawford and others at WoTC have openly admitted that they look at what people are homebrewing at their table. If enough people are homebrewing a rule, that rule has a good chance of being incorporated into the official rules. So without further ado, this is what I am doing at my table, YMMV.
*************************
Maximum range for ranged attack cantrips is now 60 feet. To my knowledge, this only affects Chill Touch, Eldritch Blast, and Fire Bolt. Their previous range was 120 feet, but this makes long range archery obsolete. The 60 foot limit gives longer range archery a place to shine. If casters want to hit something beyond 60 feet, make them use a spell slot instead of a zero cost cantrip. Hey, they could pick up a bow! Any ability or rule that extends a ranged cantrip attack beyond 60 feet is banned.
Weapon Masteries: YES! We are playing with Weapon Masteries from UA. I think it is a simple add-on that will not cause any trouble.
Monks: Changes and additions
Martial Arts die is upgraded. Level 1 = 1d6, Level 5 = 1d8, Level 11 = 1d10, Level 17 = 1d12. At Level 9 and above, add your wisdom bonus to the die roll.
Unarmored Movement does the following starting at 2nd level:
Your speed increases by 10 feet while you are not wearing armor or wielding a shield. This bonus increases when you reach certain monk levels, as shown in the Monk table.
When you are prone, standing up uses only 5 feet of your movement.
Climbing doesn't cost you extra movement.
You can make a running long jump or a running high jump after moving only 5 feet on foot, rather than 10 feet. You use dexterity (instead of strength) to determine the maximum distance of your Long Jumps or Hi Jumps.
When you use the Dash action, difficult terrain doesn't cost you extra movement on that turn.
When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don't provoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest of the turn, whether you hit or not.
Starting at 2nd level, you get ki points equal to your monk level plus your proficiency bonus:
Ki points = Monk Level + Proficiency Bonus
Breath of the Wind: At the start of your turn in combat when you have zero ki points, you focus on your breathing and revitalize your ki. During this time you can take no Actions, Bonus Actions, or Reactions and your speed is reduced to 0. At the end of your turn you regain ki points equal to your Wisdom Bonus (minimum 1). You can also use this feature out of combat if you have zero ki points. You can use Breath of the Wind once per day and It recharges after a long rest.
Step of the Wind has zero ki cost: You can take the Disengage or Dash action as a bonus action on your turn, and your jump distance is doubled for the turn.
Monk’s Riposte: When a creature misses you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction and expend one ki point to make a melee weapon attack against the creature.
Quickened Healing costs only 1 ki point.
Flashback Lesson: Beginning at 3rd level, you can tap into your ki to focus on a task. During 1 minute of meditation, you spend one ki point as you think back on a previous lesson that you had concerning a skill or tool.
Select one skill or tool of your choice in which you do not already have expertise. You gain proficiency in this skill or tool. If you are already proficient, you gain expertise.
This Flashback Lesson improvement lasts for 1 hour. You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Proficiency Bonus and it recharges on a long rest.
Monks get Weapon Mastery for their monk weapons. They can also assign an eligible Weapon Mastery to their hands (only) and change it to another eligible mastery after a Long Rest. A monk’s hands are considered to be light, bludgeoning, and finesse for the purpose of filling the prerequisites for assigning Weapon Properties.
Monks use all the Optional Class Features.
When using a martial arts die for a weapon with the versatile property and in two hands, add +1 to the damage total.
Martial Arts Dodge: Starting at 5th level, when an attacker that you can see hits you with an attack, you can use your reaction to halve the attack’s damage against you.
7th Level - Stillness of Mind is clarified: If you start your turn under the Charmed or Frightened condition, you can choose to end one of those conditions. If you do so, you may not take your action on your turn. (You could still use your Bonus Action for something else).
Timeless Body is improved: At 15th level, your ki sustains you so that you suffer none of the frailty of old age, and you can’t be aged magically. You can still die of old age, however. In addition, you no longer need food or water. Lastly, whenever you finish a short rest, your exhaustion level, if any, is decreased by 1.
18th Level - Empty Body requires only a bonus action instead of your action.
ImprovedMartial Adept aka “Battle Master Light”: All fighter archetypes except for the Battle Master get this feat for free at 3rd level:
You have martial training that allows you to perform special combat maneuvers. You gain the following benefits:
You learn three maneuvers of your choice from among those available to the Battle Master archetype in the fighter class. If a maneuver you use requires your target to make a saving throw to resist the maneuver's effects, the saving throw DC equals 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Strength or Dexterity modifier (your choice).
You have two superiority dice, which are d6s (this die is added to any superiority dice you have from another source). This die is used to fuel your maneuvers. A superiority die is expended when you use it. You regain your expended superiority dice when you finish a short or long rest.
Other UA material: I might allow it, but I would need to review it first. LMK if you want to play other UA material.
Optional Rules
Flanking: Yes to flanking, but you only get +2 to hit instead of advantage. Double flanking on all 4 sides requires 4 players but grants +5 to hit.
Back to Back: If you defend standing back to back, both of you gain +2 AC.
Disarm: Yes to disarm. A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target’s grasp. The attacker makes an attack roll contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) check or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item. The attacker has disadvantage on its attack roll if the target is holding the item with two or more hands. The target has advantage on its ability check if it is larger than the attacking creature, or disadvantage if it is smaller. Of course, some of you already have the Battle Master Disarm maneuver, so I suppose you can use either method to attempt to disarm.
Other Optional Rules: Officially, there are no other “always active” optional rules. But I may temporarily activate other optional rules if you ask me to do so in any given desperate situation…I like “The Rule of Cool ''. So if you want to attempt something truly epic, just ask. Yes, we use “Mighty Deeds of Arms” so if you want to steal that orc’s shield (the one you just killed) and use it to skateboard down that Imperial Mastodon’s side and plunge your two daggers into the cave troll’s skull…Bob the Builder explains it all here: https://youtu.be/kbcML0hvwG0
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:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) 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.
Looking at the results from this thread’s survey, it is clear that the vast majority of people think that martials are underpowered. But there is a huge disagreement on how bad this is and what (if anything) should be done about it. I diligently filled out all the UA surveys and I encourage everybody else to do so. I’m pretty sure that Jeremy Crawford is not reading this thread, so if you want WoTC to hear you, fill out the survey!
So while we wait for “the next edition or whatever” the question becomes, what (if anything) should we do in the meantime? That is up to each individual DM. Because as a DM, you can do what you want at your table…because it is YOUR table. I will share with you what I have done at my table as possibly helpful suggestions, but remember, this is just my table and you are free to change any of my suggestions or completely ignore them. My homebrew is just food for thought, so please treat it as such. I am NOT suggesting that WoTC use any of my homebrew as official content. I just copied the below material from my session zero notes. I am currently DM for a party with two fighters, a monk, and a bladesinger. So my homebrew is weighted toward those classes (monk really needed help and UA has not yet touched monk). I figure I have the luxury of waiting for the next edition for changes to the other classes, so I did little for them. Also, let me be clear that I am not a genius creator. I take zero credit for the vast majority of these changes. Instead, I cobbled them together from many other creators much more qualified than I am.
Lastly, we should note that Jeremy Crawford and others at WoTC have openly admitted that they look at what people are homebrewing at their table. If enough people are homebrewing a rule, that rule has a good chance of being incorporated into the official rules. So without further ado, this is what I am doing at my table, YMMV.
*************************
Monks: Changes and additions
Optional Rules
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
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:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
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 😂.