I feel like part of the issue is DMs not giving adventurers an "aventuring day". I'm guilty of it - it doesn't always fit to have that many encounters in so short a space of time.
One thing I see is people saying that casters can use powerful spells to do huge damage and so are better than fighters, but people often forget that fighters have better AC, more HP, and multiple attacks which have multiple chances to hit. I have a level 8 bugbear echo knight artificer who can pull off 7 attacks in one turn, dealing 2d6+1d8+int damage with each one. He can teleport with the echo, attack from two places at once, and generally cause things to die. Without expending resources, he can attack 3 times in a round, with +8 to hit, 1d8+4 thunder damage on a hit. He's powerful.
Compare to a level 8 wizard who can use cantrips without expending resources, doing 2d10 fire damage with fireball, but only one roll to hit, so it could go wrong, and only one chance to crit.
Now factor in that my fighter has an AC of 18, vs the wizards likely max of 16 with mage armour. And that he has over 80hp, and the wizard dies to a stomach cramp.
It's also worth noting a lot of monsters are melee based, so back-of-the-group casters can catch a break. The issue may be more in the game not encouraging combats which challenge everyone equally, rather than everyone not being equal.
I think in general if I understand the holistic argument for improved fighters it has less to do with damage/power and more to do with "fun things to do with the class in a typical session". Like people are claiming to unbalance, but when they are coming up with solutions via house rules and alternative fighter designs, they aren't really making them more powerful via more damage output, but instead giving them more utility.
Like I did a search on fighters and found quite a few forum discussions going back quite a ways and the sequence of the discussion is always the same.
It begins with a debate about the fighter being underpowered but ends up with homebrew rules that really don't do much to increase their power but giving them a bunch of utility.
In fact I would argue almost every "fix" for the fighter I've seen looks like it could have been a class in 4th edition D&D. Perhaps when they dumped 4e, they threw out the baby with the bathwater. It seems like in general, people want a fighter that looks more like the 4e fighter with lots of utility attacks, special moves and stuff like that.
I kind of always thought that was the point of the battlemaster.
In fact I would argue almost every "fix" for the fighter I've seen looks like it could have been a class in 4th edition D&D. Perhaps when they dumped 4e, they threw out the baby with the bathwater. It seems like in general, people want a fighter that looks more like the 4e fighter with lots of utility attacks, special moves and stuff like that.
Pretty sure most of the hate for 4e was from spellcasters. 4e gave fighters a bunch of new toys to play with, and simultaneously whacked spellcasters over the head with a nerf bat, and my experience is that people complain a lot more about nerfs that buffs, unless it's a buff given to someone else.
I am still not clear on what the point of contention is. Is it:
1) Fighters (martial classes) do not have enough unique and interesting features; and as a result playing them becomes stale and boring over time.
or
2) Fighters (martial classes) are too weak when compared to a spellcaster, and the game needs to be redesign to increase their powers and abilities so they are on par with spellcasters in nearly ever aspect.
These are two distinct and very different propositions. It is important to clearly identify which point should be discussed and associated resolutions. Otherwise we may just keep talking in circles naming deficiencies with the class.
Take the first statement I made. This can be resolved with giving the fighter access to a series of features that allow them to deal 80+ points of damage on their turn to a Young Green Dragon while executing a series of attack maneuvers that cuts the creatures movement in half, removes their reaction for one round, and knocks the creature prone so the next attacker has advantage. But if the next player is spellcaster and successfully casts Polymorph turning the Young Dragon into a turtle, and this is followed by an Artificer how puts the turtle in a spare bag of holding with the party then buries; well the initial performance of the fighter might seem less impressive in comparison.
Now if statement #2 is what is being discussed; I will vote with the opinion that this shouldn't be a solution for the game. Magic should be far more power and impressive than regular actions and interactions. That is not to say that magic should not have limits or restrictions (it absolutely should), but the power associated with magic should be presented as transcending the standard practices and abilities of the majority of creatures in the world.
The analogy of spellcasters being the artillery and the martial classes are the infantry is reasonable. The tactics of the players and DM should reflect how these classes can influence an encounter. Other posters have already presented great examples in this thread, and there are more that can be discussed in the future. But the important thing is it should be anticipated the power of the caster scales in a way that will surpass the maximum abilities of a martial class. However, where the martial class still out performs the casters is a vital element to the health and success of the party. And the limitations of a caster, when exploited, can turn the tide of an encounter on its head or put the entire campaign in jeopardy.
I agree that the game should introduce more features and feats that help martial class develop unique and fun tactics in the game. There are some (sub)classes that should go through some major body work (this is for another thread) so they can be more impactful on a consistent basis. The game should make players happy with the character they have chosen to play. However, the goal should not be that all classes have the same abilities and potential to deal the similar amount of damage in combat. That would turn the game in to a race to see who can take out what baddies first or resolve the most challenges, and I personally don't feel the game is at its best when it comes down to players comparing notches on their belts. It is a collaborative exercise and the victories are celebrated by the party. The game works best when the emphasis is how the team achieved the goal, how they come together to defeat the foe, and how they implemented the plan to save the day. This means there will be roles on the team that tend to standout more and have more of the spotlight at time. But that doesn't mean their importance greatly overshadows the necessity of the others in the party. And as sessions are played there will be more than enough moments for each party member to shine.
Going back to the initial set of statements, so what is the goal for improvements with the Fighter (martial classes) then? Is it to have more fun options to bring to the table; or is it modify the build completely so they match the spellcasters all around?
They are trying to compare the martial and the caster over a period of rounds, one combat. The caster will win all the time.
But if they have another combat before a rest of any kind? How about the third combat before a rest?
The fighter is just as strong in the last fight as he was in the first. The caster not so much. All of his spells are used up while the fighter just keeps swinging.
The fighters attacks start lower than the casters but they never go down where as the casters attacks always go down.
Going back to the initial set of statements, so what is the goal for improvements with the Fighter (martial classes) then? Is it to have more fun options to bring to the table; or is it modify the build completely so they match the spellcasters all around?
Martials should have comparable plot power to spellcasters. It doesn't have to work the same way, but in the end, spellcasters can reshape the world, and martials really can't without a lot of DM assistance.
Going back to the initial set of statements, so what is the goal for improvements with the Fighter (martial classes) then? Is it to have more fun options to bring to the table; or is it modify the build completely so they match the spellcasters all around?
Martials should have comparable plot power to spellcasters. It doesn't have to work the same way, but in the end, spellcasters can reshape the world, and martials really can't without a lot of DM assistance.
Yeah, but isn't that the gimmick? Spellcasters study how to reshape the world; Martials study weaponry and battle techniques.
So other than providing the martial classes with more powerful weapons and armor, how does this gap get bridged? And that mainly addresses disparity in combat. There would still be questions about social interactions, enhancement of abilities, creation of necessities, and all the other cool things that magic can do in the game. Apart from giving all characters access to spell slots there will always be this separation between the types of classes.
And I do believe that the martial classes should have more features that can result in stunning and incapacitating targets, bolstering defenses of the party, gaining advantages on ability checks, or limiting a creature's set of actions. I am all for giving them more powerful game play. But it is never going to come close to powers of magic as defined by the game. As other posters have pointed out this comes down to balancing the management of more powerful resources vs accessibility of resources.
Yeah, but isn't that the gimmick? Spellcasters study how to reshape the world; Martials study weaponry and battle techniques.
So other than providing the martial classes with more powerful weapons and armor, how does this gap get bridged?
Reshaping the world is not a gimmick, it's an effect. The gap gets bridged by providing world-shaping abilities for martials. This pretty much means legendary feats of strength, speed, charisma, etc. The UA rogue's Stroke of Luck feature, if the rules gave more examples of what DC 30 really means (and heck, DC 35 and 40, it's not like those aren't achievable numbers), would be an example of this type of ability.
Or you could add rules (back) to the largely undefined areas of the game. Right now, if you want to acquire drinking water, you can probably roll a check or two, and if you succeed, you can get the water. Any character can do it, but the rules are fuzzy. There's also a non-fuzzy way: be a caster and use Create Water. Isn't that... Strange? That the "normal" way of doing things has no hard rules, but a caster can do it guaranteed?
This is the line of thinking that originally got us the Thief class, which would eventually become the Rogue.
I will remind you all that in the Dying Earth novels upon which the so-called Vancian magic system that D&D uses was based, anyone can cast spells. Yes, that's right. Anyone. And yet, the designers made it so that only Magic-Users (who would eventually become Wizards) could do it. And only Thieves (who would become Rogues) could pick pockets. The game has evolved to a point where anyone can pick pockets, but it's still only Magic-Users who can cast spells.
Think about all the things you can do if the DM lets you, but if you're a caster you can do them guaranteed. Find water. Acquire trained horses. Get a weapon enchanted. Heal someone. Set a trap. Find a lost object. Scare someone into surrendering. The list goes on. How many of these would fit into a class fantasy? But instead, they're spells. There's more, too. Some that aren't spells either. Raise a fighting force. Train a wild animal. Reverse engineer a device. Find a legal loophole. Create art.
If you locked these away behind classes, the way the designers did with magic spells -- and I remind you, they did that in defiance of the source material, so don't get on my case about how it doesn't work that way in real life or in fiction -- I think you'd find a more satisfying class fantasy for each class, as well as a more interesting game in the areas that don't involve sticking swords in the bad guys. But hey, what do I know.
Or you could add rules (back) to the largely undefined areas of the game. Right now, if you want to acquire drinking water, you can probably roll a check or two, and if you succeed, you can get the water. Any character can do it, but the rules are fuzzy. There's also a non-fuzzy way: be a caster and use Create Water. Isn't that... Strange? That the "normal" way of doing things has no hard rules, but a caster can do it guaranteed?
This is the line of thinking that originally got us the Thief class, which would eventually become the Rogue.
I will remind you all that in the Dying Earth novels upon which the so-called Vancian magic system that D&D uses was based, anyone can cast spells. Yes, that's right. Anyone. And yet, the designers made it so that only Magic-Users (who would eventually become Wizards) could do it. And only Thieves (who would become Rogues) could pick pockets. The game has evolved to a point where anyone can pick pockets, but it's still only Magic-Users who can cast spells.
Think about all the things you can do if the DM lets you, but if you're a caster you can do them guaranteed. Find water. Acquire trained horses. Get a weapon enchanted. Heal someone. Set a trap. Find a lost object. Scare someone into surrendering. The list goes on. How many of these would fit into a class fantasy? But instead, they're spells. There's more, too. Some that aren't spells either. Raise a fighting force. Train a wild animal. Reverse engineer a device. Find a legal loophole. Create art.
If you locked these away behind classes, the way the designers did with magic spells -- and I remind you, they did that in defiance of the source material, so don't get on my case about how it doesn't work that way in real life or in fiction -- I think you'd find a more satisfying class fantasy for each class, as well as a more interesting game in the areas that don't involve sticking swords in the bad guys. But hey, what do I know.
Honestly, I would not call the game evolving to everyone being a spell caster a good evolution, though I agree it's definitely heading in that direction. Spell casters more often than not, break adventures with their "magic solves all problems" approach, it's only popular with players BECAUSE they can break the game with all of their gadgetry, which makes them feel powerful. It is in a sense a form of infinite power creep and it's actually making playing D&D incredibly boring, one core issue on a laundry list of core issues with 5e. It doesn't matter what problem you throw at the players by a certain level ALL problems can be solved with magic. It's actually fundamentally the core reason modern D&D campaigns are short and virtually never go beyond 10th level and most published adventure campaigns run by DM's never finish. In a sense, published adventures assume that powerful caster won't cause a problem but most of them are easily circumvented with magic and not as intended leaving DM's scrambling to figure out how to fix them with no advice offered (see this forum as evidence). The primary reason is that by 10th level, casters are basically immortal gods who have Genie-like powers of everything. You name it, they can fix it and they can do it better than those without magic.
The course correction here shouldn't be to turn martial classes into casters, it should be a dramatic reduction of the utility powers of casters included with the re-balancing of the adventure day, course correction on monster design, a significant reduction on power creep and a who bunch of crap I don't even have the energy to repeat.
The evolution of D&D right now is based on what is popular with players, as is the future of this game (See UA process) and players aren't thinking about what makes a story good, a balanced game or an interesting campaign, they are thinking about their builds, character level progression, class comparison balance (which is what players think balance is) and effective utility of the "I can do everything" levers.
This evolution of D&D and what it's based on is why 5th edition is so immensely popular and is still (mechanically) a pretty shitty version of D&D and unquestionably the hardest one to DM. It's a game design based on what players want, not what makes a good game. WotC doesn't see the distinction and neither does the vast majority of the player base, which is a great way to sell books and to create a very marketable game, it's not a great way to make a good, balanced game. Everyone thinks they are a game designer but all anyone designs is more power creep as if 5e characters who are basically immortal gods by 10th level are still somehow not powerful enough, fast enough.
Honestly, I would not call the game evolving to everyone being a spell caster a good evolution, though I agree it's definitely heading in that direction. Spell casters more often than not, break adventures with their "magic solves all problems" approach, it's only popular with players BECAUSE they can break the game with all of their gadgetry, which makes them feel powerful. It is in a sense a form of infinite power creep and it's actually making playing D&D incredibly boring, one core issue on a laundry list of core issues with 5e. It doesn't matter what problem you throw at the players by a certain level ALL problems can be solved with magic. It's actually fundamentally the core reason modern D&D campaigns are short and virtually never go beyond 10th level and most published adventure campaigns run by DM's never finish. In a sense, published adventures assume that powerful caster won't cause a problem but most of them are easily circumvented with magic and not as intended leaving DM's scrambling to figure out how to fix them with no advice offered (see this forum as evidence). The primary reason is that by 10th level, casters are basically immortal gods who have Genie-like powers of everything. You name it, they can fix it and they can do it better than those without magic.
The course correction here shouldn't be to turn martial classes into casters, it should be a dramatic reduction of the utility powers of casters included with the re-balancing of the adventure day, course correction on monster design, a significant reduction on power creep and a who bunch of crap I don't even have the energy to repeat.
All the problems with casters you describe have existed since at least AD&D (I don't have enough experience with B/X to say if it was a problem there); 5e,between concentration, no free scaling of low level spells, and low numbers of spell slots, has actually made high level spellcasters relatively less powerful than they were in any edition other than 4e.
4e is actually a useful illustration, because it really did bring spellcasters in line with other classes, and a large part of the way it did it was by obliterating that utility power of casters. And players rebelled. The only conclusion I can draw is that players like worldbreaking stuff, which means the only solution has to be giving martials their own worldbreaking stuff.
All the problems with casters you describe have existed since at least AD&D (I don't have enough experience with B/X to say if it was a problem there); 5e,between concentration, no free scaling of low level spells, and low numbers of spell slots, has actually made high level spellcasters relatively less powerful than they were in any edition other than 4e.
4e is actually a useful illustration, because it really did bring spellcasters in line with other classes, and a large part of the way it did it was by obliterating that utility power of casters. And players rebelled. The only conclusion I can draw is that players like worldbreaking stuff, which means the only solution has to be giving martials their own worldbreaking stuff.
Players complained about it but it was simply not true which is why it was never "fixed", back then designers and DM's knew the difference between complaining players and design balance. It was not a game that catered to complaints as it is today, it was a game where people actually did math and tested to see what worked. In 1st edition B/X and AD&D and 2nd edition AD&D you started the game at 1st level with 1-4 hit points and 1 spell you could cast once per day given to you at random and when you leveled up you got a random spell. You could potentially find scrolls to write into your spell book but It was an extremely limited resource at any level.
It is true that Magic-User spells were quite potent, but it was offset by the fact that you always struggled to have enough spells available at key moments. You also had to prepare your spells in advance guessing at what you would need. There were so many balancing factors in the early D&D days.
So yeah, I don't disagree that people complained (and still do) but I disagree that there was an actual problem to fix. Being a Magic-User in 1e is really super tough. You're a glass cannon, always one clean hit from death. The trade-off is you can eventually become super powerful, for me personally, that is the definition of balance by extremes. You show me a powerful Magic-User in 1e and I will show you a nervous player that knows that all that power comes at a price, one most players are unwilling to sign up for.
Even today when we play B/X I hear endless complaints about how unfair it is by players who play martial classes, to which I always say, if you think its so good, run a Magic-User... at which point they complain about how unfair it is to be a Magic-User. When both sides are complaining about the other, you have balance. Complaining in of itself does not indicate a problem.
Even today when we play B/X I hear endless complaints about how unfair it is by players who play martial classes, to which I always say, if you think its so good, run a Magic-User... at which point they complain about how unfair it is to be a Magic-User. When both sides are complaining about the other, you have balance. Complaining in of itself does not indicate a problem.
The thing about magic users is that they were incredibly bad at low levels and progressed to godly at high levels, so over the course of a campaign, depending what level it started and ended at, magic-users might be overall balanced. An AD&D magic-user has fewer spells per day (than 5e) for level 1-9, more spells per day for level 10+, and because of level scaling of spells, their low level spells were also weaker than equivalent 5e spells before about level 6.
However, people don't really complain about spellcaster power in 5e at level 1-9, they complain about high levels, and those are exactly the levels where wizards in AD&D became more powerful than they are in 5e. It has always been the case in D&D that the sweet spot was mid-levels (5-8 or so), below that level martial characters are dominant, above that level spellcasters were dominant.
Or you could add rules (back) to the largely undefined areas of the game.
Think about all the things you can do if the DM lets you, but if you're a caster you can do them guaranteed.
If you locked these away behind classes, the way the designers did with magic spells -- and I remind you, they did that in defiance of the source material, so don't get on my case about how it doesn't work that way in real life or in fiction -- I think you'd find a more satisfying class fantasy for each class, as well as a more interesting game in the areas that don't involve sticking swords in the bad guys.
Honestly, I would not call the game evolving to everyone being a spell caster a good evolution, though I agree it's definitely heading in that direction.
Very much not what I said or meant.
it's only popular with players BECAUSE they can break the game with all of their gadgetry, which makes them feel powerful.
I think it's partly that, but I think in larger part it's two things: 1) Spells are the only rules that solidly give you permission to do certain things. As I illustrated before, if you want to get free horses, you have two paths: Rely on the DM to make something up for you, or cast Phantom Steed. The spell is the only solid rule. If you want your character to reliably be able to acquire horses, she needs to be a caster. 2) Spells are the only type of rule that's both modular enough and flashy enough to warrant putting in expansion books. People want to buy rules to fill in the gaps in their games. We all know we can homebrew, but most of us aren't confident in our skills, and regardless, house rules don't persist between tables. So people want to buy solutions. But they won't, usually. They just won't! What they will do is buy rules that are cool and exciting. Spells are cool and exciting, and they fill in gaps.
So the result is that all the gaps are filled by spells, and anyone who wants utility on tap needs to play a caster.
The course correction here shouldn't be to turn martial classes into casters,
Indeed. Turning casters into casters would be a good start. I see no reason the Wizard should be the one who can 100%-guarantee open a lock rather than the Rogue. If the identity of casters is "can do everything better than everyone else, but only a couple of times a day," then obviously this is going to fall apart dramatically on short adventuring days. And they already have niches anyway! Wizards are the guys who can tamper with magic and create big explosions! Clerics can heal and beat up undead! Do they ALSO need to have the "do your job but better" buttons?
included with the re-balancing of the adventure day, course correction on monster design, a significant reduction on power creep and a who bunch of crap I don't even have the energy to repeat.
That would work wonders for the players who want to play D&D&D, but it wouldn't do much for the ones who prefer DnD.
The evolution of D&D right now is based on what is popular with players, as is the future of this game (See UA process) and players aren't thinking about what makes a story good, a balanced game or an interesting campaign, they are thinking about their builds, character level progression, class comparison balance (which is what players think balance is) and effective utility of the "I can do everything" levers.
Agreed. I wish I could say I had faith in the designers to use a steady hand and to treat the feedback with the care it deserves, but I don't. I think they're just doing whatever scores highly in the polls.
Anyway. DnD players can have their overpowered, functionally limitless casters. All they really have to do is, in the narrative, treat those characters like sidekicks. Pretend like the martials are the heroes that everyone wants to talk to, and the casters are like, here too. Making sure to stick to the rules of magic will also help. Line of effect and components really do make a difference. Finally, use a lot of different stuff. If you never use locked doors, your players will never learn or prepare Knock, and that just means they'll have one more open spell for combat. Or you could follow my earlier advice and just break martials wide open.
At the end of the day it boils down one very really basic but fundamental principle of game design.
Class balance is relative to core mechanical balance. If we are not all using the same core, trying to balance the classes against the core becomes an impossible chore. The reason classes "feel" and are unbalanced is that the core of the balance of the game is based on 6-8 encounters per day structure which no one uses, as such, fiddling with martial or caster classes to try to tune them is objectively impossible to balance given that each of us are using a different version of core. Balance the core and create a centralized structure on which all of our games are balanced and then we can have a conversation about how to tune classes, but its kind of pointless right now because you're balancing classes based on "your" version of core balance, not "a" or "my" core balance. Your game and my game are different because neither of us are playing the same game.
Even today when we play B/X I hear endless complaints about how unfair it is by players who play martial classes, to which I always say, if you think its so good, run a Magic-User... at which point they complain about how unfair it is to be a Magic-User. When both sides are complaining about the other, you have balance. Complaining in of itself does not indicate a problem.
The thing about magic users is that they were incredibly bad at low levels and progressed to godly at high levels, so over the course of a campaign, depending what level it started and ended at, magic-users might be overall balanced. An AD&D magic-user has fewer spells per day (than 5e) for level 1-9, more spells per day for level 10+, and because of level scaling of spells, their low level spells were also weaker than equivalent 5e spells before about level 6.
However, people don't really complain about spellcaster power in 5e at level 1-9, they complain about high levels, and those are exactly the levels where wizards in AD&D became more powerful than they are in 5e. It has always been the case in D&D that the sweet spot was mid-levels (5-8 or so), below that level martial characters are dominant, above that level spellcasters were dominant.
Part of it may be that the power felt more earned back then when magic users had no access to armor or weapons, no multiclass dips, they had D4 HP, and they took more experience to level up so there was a much smaller chance of a magic user making it to 10 than a fighter.
Even today when we play B/X I hear endless complaints about how unfair it is by players who play martial classes, to which I always say, if you think its so good, run a Magic-User... at which point they complain about how unfair it is to be a Magic-User. When both sides are complaining about the other, you have balance. Complaining in of itself does not indicate a problem.
The thing about magic users is that they were incredibly bad at low levels and progressed to godly at high levels, so over the course of a campaign, depending what level it started and ended at, magic-users might be overall balanced. An AD&D magic-user has fewer spells per day (than 5e) for level 1-9, more spells per day for level 10+, and because of level scaling of spells, their low level spells were also weaker than equivalent 5e spells before about level 6.
However, people don't really complain about spellcaster power in 5e at level 1-9, they complain about high levels, and those are exactly the levels where wizards in AD&D became more powerful than they are in 5e. It has always been the case in D&D that the sweet spot was mid-levels (5-8 or so), below that level martial characters are dominant, above that level spellcasters were dominant.
Part of it may be that the power felt more earned back then when magic users had no access to armor or weapons, no multiclass dips, they had D4 HP, and they took more experience to level up so there was a much smaller chance of a magic user making it to 10 than a fighter.
It was definitely a part of it, but a more significant aspect of it was the core balance of the game. Martial classes relied on casters as much as casters relied on martial classes. There was an equilibrium of necessity and importance. Players complained on both sides, but a party was as unlikely to succeed without a couple of martial classes as it was without a caster. The game forced the archetypes, another important element of the balance of D&D that was abandoned long ago upon "player request" that has been causing catastrophic balance issues in the game ever since.
Part of it may be that the power felt more earned back then when magic users had no access to armor or weapons, no multiclass dips, they had D4 HP, and they took more experience to level up so there was a much smaller chance of a magic user making it to 10 than a fighter.
Most of it is that we forget how much people complained back then, plus we didn't have the world wide web so it's not as well recorded and I'm not about to go dumpster diving in the Usenet archives.
Even today when we play B/X I hear endless complaints about how unfair it is by players who play martial classes, to which I always say, if you think its so good, run a Magic-User... at which point they complain about how unfair it is to be a Magic-User. When both sides are complaining about the other, you have balance. Complaining in of itself does not indicate a problem.
The thing about magic users is that they were incredibly bad at low levels and progressed to godly at high levels, so over the course of a campaign, depending what level it started and ended at, magic-users might be overall balanced. An AD&D magic-user has fewer spells per day (than 5e) for level 1-9, more spells per day for level 10+, and because of level scaling of spells, their low level spells were also weaker than equivalent 5e spells before about level 6.
However, people don't really complain about spellcaster power in 5e at level 1-9, they complain about high levels, and those are exactly the levels where wizards in AD&D became more powerful than they are in 5e. It has always been the case in D&D that the sweet spot was mid-levels (5-8 or so), below that level martial characters are dominant, above that level spellcasters were dominant.
Part of it may be that the power felt more earned back then when magic users had no access to armor or weapons, no multiclass dips, they had D4 HP, and they took more experience to level up so there was a much smaller chance of a magic user making it to 10 than a fighter.
It was definitely a part of it, but a more significant aspect of it was the core balance of the game. Martial classes relied on casters as much as casters relied on martial classes. There was an equilibrium of necessity and importance. Players complained on both sides, but a party was as unlikely to succeed without a couple of martial classes as it was without a caster. The game forced the archetypes, another important element of the balance of D&D that was abandoned long ago upon "player request" that has been causing catastrophic balance issues in the game ever since.
I do agree with this - the issue is much more levels 8+ not low levels. The game is flat out broken between martials and spellcasters after level 8-9 somewhere.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Artificer is a caster class. I'm sorry you had to find out this way.
I think in general if I understand the holistic argument for improved fighters it has less to do with damage/power and more to do with "fun things to do with the class in a typical session". Like people are claiming to unbalance, but when they are coming up with solutions via house rules and alternative fighter designs, they aren't really making them more powerful via more damage output, but instead giving them more utility.
Like I did a search on fighters and found quite a few forum discussions going back quite a ways and the sequence of the discussion is always the same.
It begins with a debate about the fighter being underpowered but ends up with homebrew rules that really don't do much to increase their power but giving them a bunch of utility.
In fact I would argue almost every "fix" for the fighter I've seen looks like it could have been a class in 4th edition D&D. Perhaps when they dumped 4e, they threw out the baby with the bathwater. It seems like in general, people want a fighter that looks more like the 4e fighter with lots of utility attacks, special moves and stuff like that.
I kind of always thought that was the point of the battlemaster.
Pretty sure most of the hate for 4e was from spellcasters. 4e gave fighters a bunch of new toys to play with, and simultaneously whacked spellcasters over the head with a nerf bat, and my experience is that people complain a lot more about nerfs that buffs, unless it's a buff given to someone else.
I am still not clear on what the point of contention is. Is it:
1) Fighters (martial classes) do not have enough unique and interesting features; and as a result playing them becomes stale and boring over time.
or
2) Fighters (martial classes) are too weak when compared to a spellcaster, and the game needs to be redesign to increase their powers and abilities so they are on par with spellcasters in nearly ever aspect.
These are two distinct and very different propositions. It is important to clearly identify which point should be discussed and associated resolutions. Otherwise we may just keep talking in circles naming deficiencies with the class.
Take the first statement I made. This can be resolved with giving the fighter access to a series of features that allow them to deal 80+ points of damage on their turn to a Young Green Dragon while executing a series of attack maneuvers that cuts the creatures movement in half, removes their reaction for one round, and knocks the creature prone so the next attacker has advantage. But if the next player is spellcaster and successfully casts Polymorph turning the Young Dragon into a turtle, and this is followed by an Artificer how puts the turtle in a spare bag of holding with the party then buries; well the initial performance of the fighter might seem less impressive in comparison.
Now if statement #2 is what is being discussed; I will vote with the opinion that this shouldn't be a solution for the game. Magic should be far more power and impressive than regular actions and interactions. That is not to say that magic should not have limits or restrictions (it absolutely should), but the power associated with magic should be presented as transcending the standard practices and abilities of the majority of creatures in the world.
The analogy of spellcasters being the artillery and the martial classes are the infantry is reasonable. The tactics of the players and DM should reflect how these classes can influence an encounter. Other posters have already presented great examples in this thread, and there are more that can be discussed in the future. But the important thing is it should be anticipated the power of the caster scales in a way that will surpass the maximum abilities of a martial class. However, where the martial class still out performs the casters is a vital element to the health and success of the party. And the limitations of a caster, when exploited, can turn the tide of an encounter on its head or put the entire campaign in jeopardy.
I agree that the game should introduce more features and feats that help martial class develop unique and fun tactics in the game. There are some (sub)classes that should go through some major body work (this is for another thread) so they can be more impactful on a consistent basis. The game should make players happy with the character they have chosen to play. However, the goal should not be that all classes have the same abilities and potential to deal the similar amount of damage in combat. That would turn the game in to a race to see who can take out what baddies first or resolve the most challenges, and I personally don't feel the game is at its best when it comes down to players comparing notches on their belts. It is a collaborative exercise and the victories are celebrated by the party. The game works best when the emphasis is how the team achieved the goal, how they come together to defeat the foe, and how they implemented the plan to save the day. This means there will be roles on the team that tend to standout more and have more of the spotlight at time. But that doesn't mean their importance greatly overshadows the necessity of the others in the party. And as sessions are played there will be more than enough moments for each party member to shine.
Going back to the initial set of statements, so what is the goal for improvements with the Fighter (martial classes) then? Is it to have more fun options to bring to the table; or is it modify the build completely so they match the spellcasters all around?
They are trying to compare the martial and the caster over a period of rounds, one combat.
The caster will win all the time.
But if they have another combat before a rest of any kind?
How about the third combat before a rest?
The fighter is just as strong in the last fight as he was in the first. The caster not so much. All of his spells are used up while the fighter just keeps swinging.
The fighters attacks start lower than the casters but they never go down where as the casters attacks always go down.
Martials should have comparable plot power to spellcasters. It doesn't have to work the same way, but in the end, spellcasters can reshape the world, and martials really can't without a lot of DM assistance.
Yeah, but isn't that the gimmick? Spellcasters study how to reshape the world; Martials study weaponry and battle techniques.
So other than providing the martial classes with more powerful weapons and armor, how does this gap get bridged? And that mainly addresses disparity in combat. There would still be questions about social interactions, enhancement of abilities, creation of necessities, and all the other cool things that magic can do in the game. Apart from giving all characters access to spell slots there will always be this separation between the types of classes.
And I do believe that the martial classes should have more features that can result in stunning and incapacitating targets, bolstering defenses of the party, gaining advantages on ability checks, or limiting a creature's set of actions. I am all for giving them more powerful game play. But it is never going to come close to powers of magic as defined by the game. As other posters have pointed out this comes down to balancing the management of more powerful resources vs accessibility of resources.
Reshaping the world is not a gimmick, it's an effect. The gap gets bridged by providing world-shaping abilities for martials. This pretty much means legendary feats of strength, speed, charisma, etc. The UA rogue's Stroke of Luck feature, if the rules gave more examples of what DC 30 really means (and heck, DC 35 and 40, it's not like those aren't achievable numbers), would be an example of this type of ability.
Or you could add rules (back) to the largely undefined areas of the game. Right now, if you want to acquire drinking water, you can probably roll a check or two, and if you succeed, you can get the water. Any character can do it, but the rules are fuzzy. There's also a non-fuzzy way: be a caster and use Create Water. Isn't that... Strange? That the "normal" way of doing things has no hard rules, but a caster can do it guaranteed?
This is the line of thinking that originally got us the Thief class, which would eventually become the Rogue.
I will remind you all that in the Dying Earth novels upon which the so-called Vancian magic system that D&D uses was based, anyone can cast spells. Yes, that's right. Anyone. And yet, the designers made it so that only Magic-Users (who would eventually become Wizards) could do it. And only Thieves (who would become Rogues) could pick pockets. The game has evolved to a point where anyone can pick pockets, but it's still only Magic-Users who can cast spells.
Think about all the things you can do if the DM lets you, but if you're a caster you can do them guaranteed. Find water. Acquire trained horses. Get a weapon enchanted. Heal someone. Set a trap. Find a lost object. Scare someone into surrendering. The list goes on. How many of these would fit into a class fantasy? But instead, they're spells. There's more, too. Some that aren't spells either. Raise a fighting force. Train a wild animal. Reverse engineer a device. Find a legal loophole. Create art.
If you locked these away behind classes, the way the designers did with magic spells -- and I remind you, they did that in defiance of the source material, so don't get on my case about how it doesn't work that way in real life or in fiction -- I think you'd find a more satisfying class fantasy for each class, as well as a more interesting game in the areas that don't involve sticking swords in the bad guys. But hey, what do I know.
Honestly, I would not call the game evolving to everyone being a spell caster a good evolution, though I agree it's definitely heading in that direction. Spell casters more often than not, break adventures with their "magic solves all problems" approach, it's only popular with players BECAUSE they can break the game with all of their gadgetry, which makes them feel powerful. It is in a sense a form of infinite power creep and it's actually making playing D&D incredibly boring, one core issue on a laundry list of core issues with 5e. It doesn't matter what problem you throw at the players by a certain level ALL problems can be solved with magic. It's actually fundamentally the core reason modern D&D campaigns are short and virtually never go beyond 10th level and most published adventure campaigns run by DM's never finish. In a sense, published adventures assume that powerful caster won't cause a problem but most of them are easily circumvented with magic and not as intended leaving DM's scrambling to figure out how to fix them with no advice offered (see this forum as evidence). The primary reason is that by 10th level, casters are basically immortal gods who have Genie-like powers of everything. You name it, they can fix it and they can do it better than those without magic.
The course correction here shouldn't be to turn martial classes into casters, it should be a dramatic reduction of the utility powers of casters included with the re-balancing of the adventure day, course correction on monster design, a significant reduction on power creep and a who bunch of crap I don't even have the energy to repeat.
The evolution of D&D right now is based on what is popular with players, as is the future of this game (See UA process) and players aren't thinking about what makes a story good, a balanced game or an interesting campaign, they are thinking about their builds, character level progression, class comparison balance (which is what players think balance is) and effective utility of the "I can do everything" levers.
This evolution of D&D and what it's based on is why 5th edition is so immensely popular and is still (mechanically) a pretty shitty version of D&D and unquestionably the hardest one to DM. It's a game design based on what players want, not what makes a good game. WotC doesn't see the distinction and neither does the vast majority of the player base, which is a great way to sell books and to create a very marketable game, it's not a great way to make a good, balanced game. Everyone thinks they are a game designer but all anyone designs is more power creep as if 5e characters who are basically immortal gods by 10th level are still somehow not powerful enough, fast enough.
All the problems with casters you describe have existed since at least AD&D (I don't have enough experience with B/X to say if it was a problem there); 5e,between concentration, no free scaling of low level spells, and low numbers of spell slots, has actually made high level spellcasters relatively less powerful than they were in any edition other than 4e.
4e is actually a useful illustration, because it really did bring spellcasters in line with other classes, and a large part of the way it did it was by obliterating that utility power of casters. And players rebelled. The only conclusion I can draw is that players like worldbreaking stuff, which means the only solution has to be giving martials their own worldbreaking stuff.
Players complained about it but it was simply not true which is why it was never "fixed", back then designers and DM's knew the difference between complaining players and design balance. It was not a game that catered to complaints as it is today, it was a game where people actually did math and tested to see what worked. In 1st edition B/X and AD&D and 2nd edition AD&D you started the game at 1st level with 1-4 hit points and 1 spell you could cast once per day given to you at random and when you leveled up you got a random spell. You could potentially find scrolls to write into your spell book but It was an extremely limited resource at any level.
It is true that Magic-User spells were quite potent, but it was offset by the fact that you always struggled to have enough spells available at key moments. You also had to prepare your spells in advance guessing at what you would need. There were so many balancing factors in the early D&D days.
So yeah, I don't disagree that people complained (and still do) but I disagree that there was an actual problem to fix. Being a Magic-User in 1e is really super tough. You're a glass cannon, always one clean hit from death. The trade-off is you can eventually become super powerful, for me personally, that is the definition of balance by extremes. You show me a powerful Magic-User in 1e and I will show you a nervous player that knows that all that power comes at a price, one most players are unwilling to sign up for.
Even today when we play B/X I hear endless complaints about how unfair it is by players who play martial classes, to which I always say, if you think its so good, run a Magic-User... at which point they complain about how unfair it is to be a Magic-User. When both sides are complaining about the other, you have balance. Complaining in of itself does not indicate a problem.
The thing about magic users is that they were incredibly bad at low levels and progressed to godly at high levels, so over the course of a campaign, depending what level it started and ended at, magic-users might be overall balanced. An AD&D magic-user has fewer spells per day (than 5e) for level 1-9, more spells per day for level 10+, and because of level scaling of spells, their low level spells were also weaker than equivalent 5e spells before about level 6.
However, people don't really complain about spellcaster power in 5e at level 1-9, they complain about high levels, and those are exactly the levels where wizards in AD&D became more powerful than they are in 5e. It has always been the case in D&D that the sweet spot was mid-levels (5-8 or so), below that level martial characters are dominant, above that level spellcasters were dominant.
Very much not what I said or meant.
I think it's partly that, but I think in larger part it's two things: 1) Spells are the only rules that solidly give you permission to do certain things. As I illustrated before, if you want to get free horses, you have two paths: Rely on the DM to make something up for you, or cast Phantom Steed. The spell is the only solid rule. If you want your character to reliably be able to acquire horses, she needs to be a caster. 2) Spells are the only type of rule that's both modular enough and flashy enough to warrant putting in expansion books. People want to buy rules to fill in the gaps in their games. We all know we can homebrew, but most of us aren't confident in our skills, and regardless, house rules don't persist between tables. So people want to buy solutions. But they won't, usually. They just won't! What they will do is buy rules that are cool and exciting. Spells are cool and exciting, and they fill in gaps.
So the result is that all the gaps are filled by spells, and anyone who wants utility on tap needs to play a caster.
Indeed. Turning casters into casters would be a good start. I see no reason the Wizard should be the one who can 100%-guarantee open a lock rather than the Rogue. If the identity of casters is "can do everything better than everyone else, but only a couple of times a day," then obviously this is going to fall apart dramatically on short adventuring days. And they already have niches anyway! Wizards are the guys who can tamper with magic and create big explosions! Clerics can heal and beat up undead! Do they ALSO need to have the "do your job but better" buttons?
That would work wonders for the players who want to play D&D&D, but it wouldn't do much for the ones who prefer DnD.
Agreed. I wish I could say I had faith in the designers to use a steady hand and to treat the feedback with the care it deserves, but I don't. I think they're just doing whatever scores highly in the polls.
Anyway. DnD players can have their overpowered, functionally limitless casters. All they really have to do is, in the narrative, treat those characters like sidekicks. Pretend like the martials are the heroes that everyone wants to talk to, and the casters are like, here too. Making sure to stick to the rules of magic will also help. Line of effect and components really do make a difference. Finally, use a lot of different stuff. If you never use locked doors, your players will never learn or prepare Knock, and that just means they'll have one more open spell for combat. Or you could follow my earlier advice and just break martials wide open.
At the end of the day it boils down one very really basic but fundamental principle of game design.
Class balance is relative to core mechanical balance. If we are not all using the same core, trying to balance the classes against the core becomes an impossible chore. The reason classes "feel" and are unbalanced is that the core of the balance of the game is based on 6-8 encounters per day structure which no one uses, as such, fiddling with martial or caster classes to try to tune them is objectively impossible to balance given that each of us are using a different version of core. Balance the core and create a centralized structure on which all of our games are balanced and then we can have a conversation about how to tune classes, but its kind of pointless right now because you're balancing classes based on "your" version of core balance, not "a" or "my" core balance. Your game and my game are different because neither of us are playing the same game.
Part of it may be that the power felt more earned back then when magic users had no access to armor or weapons, no multiclass dips, they had D4 HP, and they took more experience to level up so there was a much smaller chance of a magic user making it to 10 than a fighter.
It was definitely a part of it, but a more significant aspect of it was the core balance of the game. Martial classes relied on casters as much as casters relied on martial classes. There was an equilibrium of necessity and importance. Players complained on both sides, but a party was as unlikely to succeed without a couple of martial classes as it was without a caster. The game forced the archetypes, another important element of the balance of D&D that was abandoned long ago upon "player request" that has been causing catastrophic balance issues in the game ever since.
Most of it is that we forget how much people complained back then, plus we didn't have the world wide web so it's not as well recorded and I'm not about to go dumpster diving in the Usenet archives.
Thank you - these are great ideas
I do agree with this - the issue is much more levels 8+ not low levels. The game is flat out broken between martials and spellcasters after level 8-9 somewhere.