The dame in the classes is so ridiculously skewed.
A fighter with 4 attacks, 3 hits, 2 of which are a crit will do less damage than a caster with a single spell and the target saves.
Completely out of wack, and they wonder why nobody wants to play a standard fighter any longer.
Welcome to the martial/caster divide. I don’t think it is quite as bad as you make it out to be when looking at single target damage. But AOE’s and utility/control spells etc can really demonstrate the divide.
As a caster I can tell you that the fighter does more damage on average, over three rounds of combat.
The rare situation where the wizard may do more damage is when they are facing a group of weaklings and only for one or two rounds before they use up their highest level spell slot.
Fighters are one of the most commonly taken classes because they do more damage. Echo knights for example are very powerful.
Wizards are known for battle field control and solving problems/protection rather than more damage.
The damage discrepancy exists, but it's most prominent in white room theorycrafting. The big thing to remember is that while casters can nova hard, they also fall off fast assuming your day has more than a few mob encounters; add to that LR's and against a boss they either need to sit on their big moves for several rounds, or have a bunch of their strong stuff whiff on boss as they burn them off (assuming the DM uses them tactically like they're supposed to). Keep in mind, at 17th level they have one spell slot per level from 6-9, and 3 5th level slots. That's not nothing, but you put them up against a several encounters including say two Legendary enemies, they're not gonna be able to keep up a high octane dpr for the whole day, while a class like Fighter has a lot more that refreshes on a Short Rest.
The dame in the classes is so ridiculously skewed.
A fighter with 4 attacks, 3 hits, 2 of which are a crit will do less damage than a caster with a single spell and the target saves.
Completely out of wack, and they wonder why nobody wants to play a standard fighter any longer.
This is a bit of an oversimplification. While it is true that high level spells have massive power and impact to the games, to scenario you layout is not the standard that is unavoidable.
Lets us the a greatsword (2d6) and use Fireball as an example since it uses d6 for damage. Taking your example of 3 hits (w/ 2 crits) that would equate to an average damage of 35 (10d6) + 3Mod. That already exceeds the 28 (8d6) of Fireball; but now let's add in your requirement of the target saving and that results in 14 damage from the spell. If the spell was cast at 9th level that is an average damage of 49 which on a successful save would be 25 damage. This is without factoring in the Mod value of the fighter or if they have bonus form something like great weapon master (which would make this 75+3Mod and that almost certainly meet or exceed the max value of the spell if the target failed).
Now again, it is true there are high level spells that a fighter cannot come close to matching in a single round of combat. And the game could make adjustments in how casters can access these high level spells to lower the gap between certain classes. But it should be noted that those high end spells are limited in accessibility, and the inclusion of magic items (both in game and homebrew) can make the fighter more potent in combat.
The divide exists and we as players have a responsibility to acknowledge this and work to address it. But the post's implication of the severity of this divide is an inaccurate representation. Yes, there are spells that far more powerful than what some classes can do; no denying that. The use of those spells, however, are limited and as others pointed out, the consistency of the fighter over the rounds prove it to be a powerful force at the table.
On top of what's already been pointed out, fighters get a significantly greater part of their abilities via their subclass than wizards do. A wizard's damage output is largely uneffected by their subclass- evokers get a small boost but that's about it. Fighters can get quite a bit depending on which subclass they choose.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
A fighter with 4 attacks, 3 hits, 2 of which are a crit will do less damage than a caster with a single spell and the target saves.
Let's just check on that. Since the Fighter has four attacks, let's use level 10 for the two attacks plus an extra two from Action Surge. And the target has no resistances so no special gear is needed by the fighter and the caster doesn't need Elemental Adept feat. The fighter has had three ASIs at this point. The caster has two.
Fighter using a great sword, doing 2d6 damage, strength of 16 (for a +3 damage boost) and great weapon master feat. The average damage for a great sword is 7. So we've got 7 + 3 + 10 = 20. Now the crits: 7 + 7 + 3 + 10 = 27 x 2 = 54. 54 + 20 = 74 damage against the target.
Caster uses a 5th level spell slot, the highest available at level 10. We'll use Cone of Cold since it is 5th level and has a saving throw. The average for 8d8 damage is 36 damage. But let's go the full damage of 64. So.... 10 damage less than the fighter with a great weapon master feat... and the target made its save so it only took 32 damage... Well, that's an AoE which isn't usually used on a single target for obvious reasons... let's use an attack roll spell instead.
Caster uses Inflict Wounds at 5th level. That's 7d10 necrotic. One roll, but we'll say it hits but no crit. That's 42 damage on average. Still less than the fighter. Let's make it a crit, that's 84 damage!
That's why nobody wonders why Fighter is the most played class.
To be fair, the posts are assuming that Fighters are hitting every time with their strikes, while the casters are possibly failing (or rather, their targets are succeeding) as well as using AoE spells to get a single target. There ain't many things that can match a Meteor Swarm cast on an army for pure damage output. However, as per normal in these discussions, the "poor martials" side is comparing the martials' Cap America "I can do this all day long" with casters' once-a-day nova.
Neither comparison is fair.
That said, combat isn't the issue. They work fairly fine. Martials are much better at the beginning - they're hitting hard and often while tanking hits while casters are often able to be one-shot killed and offensively can light the enemy up with pretty colours. Later, casters can do damage, but are still squishy and require protection - this forces cooperation between the two groups. That's fine.
No, the issue is everything else. Martials get more of the same as they level up while casters become semi-omnipotent and capable of doing whatever a martial can. That can be a problem because while casters are doing awesome stuff, martials are the third wheel on a hovercraft.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To be fair, the posts are assuming that Fighters are hitting every time with their strikes, while the casters are possibly failing (or rather, their targets are succeeding) as well as using AoE spells to get a single target. There ain't many things that can match a Meteor Swarm cast on an army for pure damage output. However, as per normal in these discussions, the "poor martials" side is comparing the martials' Cap America "I can do this all day long" with casters' once-a-day nova.
Neither comparison is fair.
That said, combat isn't the issue. They work fairly fine. Martials are much better at the beginning - they're hitting hard and often while tanking hits while casters are often able to be one-shot killed and offensively can light the enemy up with pretty colours. Later, casters can do damage, but are still squishy and require protection - this forces cooperation between the two groups. That's fine.
No, the issue is everything else. Martials get more of the same as they level up while casters become semi-omnipotent and capable of doing whatever a martial can. That can be a problem because while casters are doing awesome stuff, martials are the third wheel on a hovercraft.
I generally agree with this analysis, though I would expand upon it in two ways.
First, while the problem becomes worse as players level up, the out-of-combat utility problem is apparent even from the early levels of the game. Take, for example, any social encounter. Charisma is used for all four social skills (Persuasion, Performance, Deception, Intimidation), so, if you are a frontline fighter who specs into Strength, Dexterity (for AC), and Constitution, it does not matter that you are the kind of massive Barbarian or Fighter who one would not want to meet in a dark alley - the Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and perhaps Cleric are better at intimidating folks into doing what they want… even if they did not train in the skill.
This only becomes worse as folks level up - casters get all kinds of nasty social interaction spells that can use their other stats to manipulate targets, making an existing disparity far worse.
Second, I would suggest the utility makes casters far more formidable in combat as well. One can make all kinds of arguments that casters and martial classes have similar damage outputs as the day progresses due to resources - but damage is not what makes a caster dangerous, it is all the other things they can do. Casters have the ability to segregate a monster from combat, turning a balanced fight into two lopsided ones. Or lay down fields which transform the map through obstacles or damage.
Martial classes can engage in battle; Casters get to define the shape of that battle.
Martial classes can engage in battle; Casters get to define the shape of that battle.
Terrain defines the shape of the battle. There are reasons there are still boots on the ground even in modern warfare, even though artillery and air power have far more raw firepower. Burning down a forest important to you is problematic. Burning down a city important to you, even more problematic.
Similarly, enemies will, or at least should, become more sophisticated as level increases. They will spread out more, take cover more, will be harder to find, harder even to identify.
Casters will define the shape of the battle, but that does not equal dominate it.
As I said in my initial post, the way Casters get to dictate a fight is, in part, through controlling terrain. Something like Moonbeam, Hunger of Hadar, etc. can redefine a battle by trapping enemies, controlling where they can safely stand, or otherwise reshaping the field of battle.
Sure, a caster could use fireball or the like and act as artillery. Fireball, I would argue, is a generally bad use of a spell slot - you can get much more out of playing god and remaking the battlefield to your advantage than you can just lobbing some damage.
Edit: To be clear, I am not saying that martial classes do not have their place in the game, or that they are not necessary to support your casters. Merely that, outside of combat they feel like they can do next to nothing; inside of combat they often feel eclipsed by the many, many more interesting things casters can do
Agreed. Dividing an encounter in half by throwing up a wall of fire, which I’ve done (or even putting half the encounter asleep with the sleep spell at low levels) can really change the tide of a battle way more than a martial getting more attacks and more damage.
Or Hypnotic Pattern or Slow or all those types of spells
Martial classes can engage in battle; Casters get to define the shape of that battle.
Terrain defines the shape of the battle. There are reasons there are still boots on the ground even in modern warfare, even though artillery and air power have far more raw firepower. Burning down a forest important to you is problematic. Burning down a city important to you, even more problematic.
Similarly, enemies will, or at least should, become more sophisticated as level increases. They will spread out more, take cover more, will be harder to find, harder even to identify.
Casters will define the shape of the battle, but that does not equal dominate it.
As I said in my initial post, the way Casters get to dictate a fight is, in part, through controlling terrain. Something like Moonbeam, Hunger of Hadar, etc. can redefine a battle by trapping enemies, controlling where they can safely stand, or otherwise reshaping the field of battle.
Sure, a caster could use fireball or the like and act as artillery. Fireball, I would argue, is a generally bad use of a spell slot - you can get much more out of playing god and remaking the battlefield to your advantage than you can just lobbing some damage.
Edit: To be clear, I am not saying that martial classes do not have their place in the game, or that they are not necessary to support your casters. Merely that, outside of combat they feel like they can do next to nothing; inside of combat they often feel eclipsed by the many, many more interesting things casters can do
Agreed. Dividing an encounter in half by throwing up a wall of fire, which I’ve done (or even putting half the encounter asleep with the sleep spell at low levels) can really change the tide of a battle way more than a martial getting more attacks and more damage.
Or Hypnotic Pattern or Slow or all those types of spells
Which is why a savvy enemy would avoid engagements in convenient large open fields (which are usually not all that worth fighting over anyway) and have skirmishers out front so dividing them would not really affect them that much and meanwhile the mass of the enemy force can wait until impatient casters have exhausted such options. Harrying enemy forces and drawing fire with feints / cannon fodder affects troops with limited ammo more than those with better supply.
That’s all well and dandy if you are playing a strategic-scale game or thinking about how a war would look; it does not reflect the reality of how D&D often functions. Many of the enemies you encounter are not savvy. Many of the fights are somewhere enclosed, like a dungeon, where you can murder everyone behind you and use things like a Wall of Fire to control a choke point. Many fights are done with a big boss monster, which can be rendered trivial if the caster manages to debilitate the monster (or even use something like their reaction to Counterspell and take out the monster’s entire action).
Now, could a DM do things to mitigate the disproportionate effect a caster has on the battlefield? Sure, and I would advocate that more DMs should be doing that.
But we have five decades of information showing that is not how the game is played. We should not pretend DMs are magically going to change.
Lets us the a greatsword (2d6) and use Fireball as an example since it uses d6 for damage. Taking your example of 3 hits (w/ 2 crits) that would equate to an average damage of 35 (10d6) + 3Mod. That already exceeds the 28 (8d6) of Fireball; but now let's add in your requirement of the target saving and that results in 14 damage from the spell. If the spell was cast at 9th level that is an average damage of 49 which on a successful save would be 25 damage.
This and the Cone of Cold example above aren't what OP is talking about. You only CoC or Fireball when you're hitting multiple enemies, and that's where OP is getting bent out of shape.
Fireball, even at level 3, can easily do 100 damage against a group of enemies. How is this not OMGbroken? Two things:
Targeting - a fighter can concentrate all damage on one target, or can spread it out. This flexibility is key in a game where most enemies with 1hp left hit just as hard as enemies with all their hp.
DM control - if the wizard is fireballing 8 guys at once, it's because the DM set that situation up. A good DM changes up enemy formations, battlefield positions, and terrain to allow different types of characters to shine at different times. There are plenty of situations where fireball is just not viable.
No, damage isn't a problem. There is a divide, but combat is not where it is a major issue.
Lots of martial/caster heat this week. I love Fighters, personally; Fighters and Monks are probably my favorite two classes, although Rogues come in close. I think the martial classes could use some love, but damage is the last place most of them need it. You want to compete with a Wizard in per-round damage as a Fighter? Here's how you do it:
This and the Cone of Cold example above aren't what OP is talking about. You only CoC or Fireball when you're hitting multiple enemies, and that's where OP is getting bent out of shape.
The OP posted that the fighter does less damage than a caster does when "the target saves" so was not referring to multiple enemies.
Now, could a DM do things to mitigate the disproportionate effect a caster has on the battlefield? Sure, and I would advocate that more DMs should be doing that.
But we have five decades of information showing that is not how the game is played. We should not pretend DMs are magically going to change.
If the DM is not adjusting encounters to compensate for growing party power/capabilities, then that is a DM problem, not a rules problem.
Man, people are really brutal to DMs on these boards. All DMs are different, but the rules as written are always the same. If all these different DMs are reading the same rules and individually recreating the same problem... Maybe the main issue isn't the DMs.
That’s all well and dandy if you are playing a strategic-scale game or thinking about how a war would look; it does not reflect the reality of how D&D often functions. Many of the enemies you encounter are not savvy. Many of the fights are somewhere enclosed, like a dungeon, where you can murder everyone behind you and use things like a Wall of Fire to control a choke point. Many fights are done with a big boss monster, which can be rendered trivial if the caster manages to debilitate the monster (or even use something like their reaction to Counterspell and take out the monster’s entire action).
Now, could a DM do things to mitigate the disproportionate effect a caster has on the battlefield? Sure, and I would advocate that more DMs should be doing that.
But we have five decades of information showing that is not how the game is played. We should not pretend DMs are magically going to change.
If the DM is not adjusting encounters to compensate for growing party power/capabilities, then that is a DM problem, not a rules problem.
If the rules are not adjusting to five decades of information, that is a rules problem and a DM problem. Putting the burden of balancing classes solely on the shoulders of already burdened DMs is, of course, absurd--we all know there is a DM shortage; there is an even greater shortage of DMs who have the skills required to adjust encounters to create situations where every single member of the party feels useful. Heck, even Wizards does not do this with their own prewritten adventures, where the encounters tend toward what has been typical of the past five decades of how players play.
Fortunately, Wizards has opted to actually address the disparity problem through rules, rather than bury their heads in the sand and pretend DMs will suddenly change. A lot of the improvements in the 2024 rulebook are specifically designed to give martials more ways of influencing combat. The Weapon Mastery system, for example, allows players to have some additional battlefield effects. Rogues and Barbarians are receiving additional ways to use their class resources to control and shape the battlefield through various tricks and additional access to things like forced movement. Monks--one of the few utility classes which had the ability to shape battle before the update--are being improved.
Now, could a DM do things to mitigate the disproportionate effect a caster has on the battlefield? Sure, and I would advocate that more DMs should be doing that.
But we have five decades of information showing that is not how the game is played. We should not pretend DMs are magically going to change.
If the DM is not adjusting encounters to compensate for growing party power/capabilities, then that is a DM problem, not a rules problem.
Man, people are really brutal to DMs on these boards. All DMs are different, but the rules as written are always the same. If the all these different DMs are reading the same rules and individually recreating the same problem... Maybe the main issue isn't the DMs.
Or maybe it is; without more data on what segment of the population is having the issues, it’s impossible to determine to what degree operator error is at play. Though frankly, I’m honestly willing to lean towards operator error; having a big boom in the number of people playing the game means you’re gonna have a lot more DMs without experience on either end of the table trying to simply build encounters by just dropping a roughly appropriately scaled encounter in front of the party without planning out details like terrain or accounting for specific party capabilities. Plus YouTubers honestly somewhat exacerbate the problem of people basing their scaling assumptions on white room abstracts as opposed to an active adventuring day and a responsive DM.
I'm pretty sure the OP is just wrong. I'm not sure what level he's thinking of, but since he references 4 attacks, probably either somewhere between 5 and 10 (assuming action surge) or 20.
At level 10, the strongest single target nova is probably a level 5 blight doing 9d8 (40), or 20 on a save. A level 10 fighter who hits three times and crits twice, assuming dueling style and a +1 longsword (which isn't by any means the highest damage you'll see at level 10, not even bothering to touch feats) does 5d8+24 (46). Without any crits its still 3d8+24 (37).
At level 20, the wizard is up to 140 (save for 70) with meteor swarm, but a fighter nova is now 8 attacks (action surge exists) and we'll give him a +3 weapon, so his regular damage with six hits (no crits) is 6d8+60 (87).
None of this means there isn't an issue, but the OP is exaggerating.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The dame in the classes is so ridiculously skewed.
A fighter with 4 attacks, 3 hits, 2 of which are a crit will do less damage than a caster with a single spell and the target saves.
Completely out of wack, and they wonder why nobody wants to play a standard fighter any longer.
Welcome to the martial/caster divide. I don’t think it is quite as bad as you make it out to be when looking at single target damage. But AOE’s and utility/control spells etc can really demonstrate the divide.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
As a caster I can tell you that the fighter does more damage on average, over three rounds of combat.
The rare situation where the wizard may do more damage is when they are facing a group of weaklings and only for one or two rounds before they use up their highest level spell slot.
Fighters are one of the most commonly taken classes because they do more damage. Echo knights for example are very powerful.
Wizards are known for battle field control and solving problems/protection rather than more damage.
Fighter is the most popular class.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1648-2023-unrolled-a-look-back-at-a-year-of-adventure#Classes
The damage discrepancy exists, but it's most prominent in white room theorycrafting. The big thing to remember is that while casters can nova hard, they also fall off fast assuming your day has more than a few mob encounters; add to that LR's and against a boss they either need to sit on their big moves for several rounds, or have a bunch of their strong stuff whiff on boss as they burn them off (assuming the DM uses them tactically like they're supposed to). Keep in mind, at 17th level they have one spell slot per level from 6-9, and 3 5th level slots. That's not nothing, but you put them up against a several encounters including say two Legendary enemies, they're not gonna be able to keep up a high octane dpr for the whole day, while a class like Fighter has a lot more that refreshes on a Short Rest.
This is a bit of an oversimplification. While it is true that high level spells have massive power and impact to the games, to scenario you layout is not the standard that is unavoidable.
Lets us the a greatsword (2d6) and use Fireball as an example since it uses d6 for damage. Taking your example of 3 hits (w/ 2 crits) that would equate to an average damage of 35 (10d6) + 3Mod. That already exceeds the 28 (8d6) of Fireball; but now let's add in your requirement of the target saving and that results in 14 damage from the spell. If the spell was cast at 9th level that is an average damage of 49 which on a successful save would be 25 damage. This is without factoring in the Mod value of the fighter or if they have bonus form something like great weapon master (which would make this 75+3Mod and that almost certainly meet or exceed the max value of the spell if the target failed).
Now again, it is true there are high level spells that a fighter cannot come close to matching in a single round of combat. And the game could make adjustments in how casters can access these high level spells to lower the gap between certain classes. But it should be noted that those high end spells are limited in accessibility, and the inclusion of magic items (both in game and homebrew) can make the fighter more potent in combat.
The divide exists and we as players have a responsibility to acknowledge this and work to address it. But the post's implication of the severity of this divide is an inaccurate representation. Yes, there are spells that far more powerful than what some classes can do; no denying that. The use of those spells, however, are limited and as others pointed out, the consistency of the fighter over the rounds prove it to be a powerful force at the table.
On top of what's already been pointed out, fighters get a significantly greater part of their abilities via their subclass than wizards do. A wizard's damage output is largely uneffected by their subclass- evokers get a small boost but that's about it. Fighters can get quite a bit depending on which subclass they choose.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
A fighter with 4 attacks, 3 hits, 2 of which are a crit will do less damage than a caster with a single spell and the target saves.
Let's just check on that. Since the Fighter has four attacks, let's use level 10 for the two attacks plus an extra two from Action Surge. And the target has no resistances so no special gear is needed by the fighter and the caster doesn't need Elemental Adept feat. The fighter has had three ASIs at this point. The caster has two.
Fighter using a great sword, doing 2d6 damage, strength of 16 (for a +3 damage boost) and great weapon master feat. The average damage for a great sword is 7. So we've got 7 + 3 + 10 = 20. Now the crits: 7 + 7 + 3 + 10 = 27 x 2 = 54. 54 + 20 = 74 damage against the target.
Caster uses a 5th level spell slot, the highest available at level 10. We'll use Cone of Cold since it is 5th level and has a saving throw. The average for 8d8 damage is 36 damage. But let's go the full damage of 64. So.... 10 damage less than the fighter with a great weapon master feat... and the target made its save so it only took 32 damage... Well, that's an AoE which isn't usually used on a single target for obvious reasons... let's use an attack roll spell instead.
Caster uses Inflict Wounds at 5th level. That's 7d10 necrotic. One roll, but we'll say it hits but no crit. That's 42 damage on average. Still less than the fighter. Let's make it a crit, that's 84 damage!
That's why nobody wonders why Fighter is the most played class.
To be fair, the posts are assuming that Fighters are hitting every time with their strikes, while the casters are possibly failing (or rather, their targets are succeeding) as well as using AoE spells to get a single target. There ain't many things that can match a Meteor Swarm cast on an army for pure damage output. However, as per normal in these discussions, the "poor martials" side is comparing the martials' Cap America "I can do this all day long" with casters' once-a-day nova.
Neither comparison is fair.
That said, combat isn't the issue. They work fairly fine. Martials are much better at the beginning - they're hitting hard and often while tanking hits while casters are often able to be one-shot killed and offensively can light the enemy up with pretty colours. Later, casters can do damage, but are still squishy and require protection - this forces cooperation between the two groups. That's fine.
No, the issue is everything else. Martials get more of the same as they level up while casters become semi-omnipotent and capable of doing whatever a martial can. That can be a problem because while casters are doing awesome stuff, martials are the third wheel on a hovercraft.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I generally agree with this analysis, though I would expand upon it in two ways.
First, while the problem becomes worse as players level up, the out-of-combat utility problem is apparent even from the early levels of the game. Take, for example, any social encounter. Charisma is used for all four social skills (Persuasion, Performance, Deception, Intimidation), so, if you are a frontline fighter who specs into Strength, Dexterity (for AC), and Constitution, it does not matter that you are the kind of massive Barbarian or Fighter who one would not want to meet in a dark alley - the Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and perhaps Cleric are better at intimidating folks into doing what they want… even if they did not train in the skill.
This only becomes worse as folks level up - casters get all kinds of nasty social interaction spells that can use their other stats to manipulate targets, making an existing disparity far worse.
Second, I would suggest the utility makes casters far more formidable in combat as well. One can make all kinds of arguments that casters and martial classes have similar damage outputs as the day progresses due to resources - but damage is not what makes a caster dangerous, it is all the other things they can do. Casters have the ability to segregate a monster from combat, turning a balanced fight into two lopsided ones. Or lay down fields which transform the map through obstacles or damage.
Martial classes can engage in battle; Casters get to define the shape of that battle.
As I said in my initial post, the way Casters get to dictate a fight is, in part, through controlling terrain. Something like Moonbeam, Hunger of Hadar, etc. can redefine a battle by trapping enemies, controlling where they can safely stand, or otherwise reshaping the field of battle.
Sure, a caster could use fireball or the like and act as artillery. Fireball, I would argue, is a generally bad use of a spell slot - you can get much more out of playing god and remaking the battlefield to your advantage than you can just lobbing some damage.
Edit: To be clear, I am not saying that martial classes do not have their place in the game, or that they are not necessary to support your casters. Merely that, outside of combat they feel like they can do next to nothing; inside of combat they often feel eclipsed by the many, many more interesting things casters can do
Agreed. Dividing an encounter in half by throwing up a wall of fire, which I’ve done (or even putting half the encounter asleep with the sleep spell at low levels) can really change the tide of a battle way more than a martial getting more attacks and more damage.
Or Hypnotic Pattern or Slow or all those types of spells
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
That’s all well and dandy if you are playing a strategic-scale game or thinking about how a war would look; it does not reflect the reality of how D&D often functions. Many of the enemies you encounter are not savvy. Many of the fights are somewhere enclosed, like a dungeon, where you can murder everyone behind you and use things like a Wall of Fire to control a choke point. Many fights are done with a big boss monster, which can be rendered trivial if the caster manages to debilitate the monster (or even use something like their reaction to Counterspell and take out the monster’s entire action).
Now, could a DM do things to mitigate the disproportionate effect a caster has on the battlefield? Sure, and I would advocate that more DMs should be doing that.
But we have five decades of information showing that is not how the game is played. We should not pretend DMs are magically going to change.
This and the Cone of Cold example above aren't what OP is talking about. You only CoC or Fireball when you're hitting multiple enemies, and that's where OP is getting bent out of shape.
Fireball, even at level 3, can easily do 100 damage against a group of enemies. How is this not OMGbroken? Two things:
No, damage isn't a problem. There is a divide, but combat is not where it is a major issue.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Lots of martial/caster heat this week. I love Fighters, personally; Fighters and Monks are probably my favorite two classes, although Rogues come in close. I think the martial classes could use some love, but damage is the last place most of them need it. You want to compete with a Wizard in per-round damage as a Fighter? Here's how you do it:
Step 1: Get yourself a longbow.
Step 2: Take the Sharpshooter feat.
There are no more steps.
The OP posted that the fighter does less damage than a caster does when "the target saves" so was not referring to multiple enemies.
Man, people are really brutal to DMs on these boards. All DMs are different, but the rules as written are always the same. If all these different DMs are reading the same rules and individually recreating the same problem... Maybe the main issue isn't the DMs.
If the rules are not adjusting to five decades of information, that is a rules problem and a DM problem. Putting the burden of balancing classes solely on the shoulders of already burdened DMs is, of course, absurd--we all know there is a DM shortage; there is an even greater shortage of DMs who have the skills required to adjust encounters to create situations where every single member of the party feels useful. Heck, even Wizards does not do this with their own prewritten adventures, where the encounters tend toward what has been typical of the past five decades of how players play.
Fortunately, Wizards has opted to actually address the disparity problem through rules, rather than bury their heads in the sand and pretend DMs will suddenly change. A lot of the improvements in the 2024 rulebook are specifically designed to give martials more ways of influencing combat. The Weapon Mastery system, for example, allows players to have some additional battlefield effects. Rogues and Barbarians are receiving additional ways to use their class resources to control and shape the battlefield through various tricks and additional access to things like forced movement. Monks--one of the few utility classes which had the ability to shape battle before the update--are being improved.
Or maybe it is; without more data on what segment of the population is having the issues, it’s impossible to determine to what degree operator error is at play. Though frankly, I’m honestly willing to lean towards operator error; having a big boom in the number of people playing the game means you’re gonna have a lot more DMs without experience on either end of the table trying to simply build encounters by just dropping a roughly appropriately scaled encounter in front of the party without planning out details like terrain or accounting for specific party capabilities. Plus YouTubers honestly somewhat exacerbate the problem of people basing their scaling assumptions on white room abstracts as opposed to an active adventuring day and a responsive DM.
I'm pretty sure the OP is just wrong. I'm not sure what level he's thinking of, but since he references 4 attacks, probably either somewhere between 5 and 10 (assuming action surge) or 20.
At level 10, the strongest single target nova is probably a level 5 blight doing 9d8 (40), or 20 on a save. A level 10 fighter who hits three times and crits twice, assuming dueling style and a +1 longsword (which isn't by any means the highest damage you'll see at level 10, not even bothering to touch feats) does 5d8+24 (46). Without any crits its still 3d8+24 (37).
At level 20, the wizard is up to 140 (save for 70) with meteor swarm, but a fighter nova is now 8 attacks (action surge exists) and we'll give him a +3 weapon, so his regular damage with six hits (no crits) is 6d8+60 (87).
None of this means there isn't an issue, but the OP is exaggerating.