The biggest problem with individual pieces of armor granting a bonus is that it penalizes pcs with low armor too much. For example I have a pc with an AC of 23. The rogue and ranger have an AC of 16. If helmets add +1 then the high AC character becomes AC 24 + shield of fire would be AC 26. I would need a nat 20 to hit him. While the rogue and ranger are still 16 and I need roughly a 10 to hit them.
basically you are penalizing a class like the rogue in addition to spell casters, while making some spell casters that can use armor even stronger.
Just an idea. That said, the idea is to correct weaknesses. I'm newer to D&D, but my sense is that there a fair amount of endarounds that allow non-armored builds to replicate the AC. Which I don't mind terribly - I like there being multiple ways of having some kind of AC. But I thought it seemed like armor had a pretty steep price of having high strength? I'm not sure of all the exploits, so could be off. I am not sure +1 to AC is a huge difference, but the idea being that martials are supposed to be able to take hits, partially through superior AC. So if a Wizard can replicate that AND pull off world-bending magic, that steals the fire from martials a bit? So a correction, not a pentalty. Again, just spitballing.
When you start the game with heavy armor, it's only chain mail, so 16 AC, 17 if you can take Defense fighting style. Not sure how that compares with other non-martial classes and all their defenses?
So in my particular situation, full plate, martial feat, warforge, +1 shield for AC 23. Paladin spell can bump that to AC 25. The rogue and and ranger in the party have +1 to AC but are basically stuck at AC 16/17 while the Cleric, paladin and fighter are all AC 20, AC 23/25. I’m already at the point where the Paladin will always be the last PC standing and the Rogue/Ranger are going to be the first to drop (they also have lower hp). So while the divide is meant to get fighters, clerics, and Paladins closer to more magic types it makes them far outpace the other martial focused characters that don’t wear helmets. You also don’t necessarily help the divide because spellcasters can easily wear armor via multiclassing.
The best way to equalize the classes is to have more than one encounter per day. Every encounter that happens the spell casters become weaker and weaker.
The biggest problem with individual pieces of armor granting a bonus is that it penalizes pcs with low armor too much. For example I have a pc with an AC of 23. The rogue and ranger have an AC of 16. If helmets add +1 then the high AC character becomes AC 24 + shield of fire would be AC 26. I would need a nat 20 to hit him. While the rogue and ranger are still 16 and I need roughly a 10 to hit them.
basically you are penalizing a class like the rogue in addition to spell casters, while making some spell casters that can use armor even stronger.
Just an idea. That said, the idea is to correct weaknesses. I'm newer to D&D, but my sense is that there a fair amount of endarounds that allow non-armored builds to replicate the AC. Which I don't mind terribly - I like there being multiple ways of having some kind of AC. But I thought it seemed like armor had a pretty steep price of having high strength? I'm not sure of all the exploits, so could be off. I am not sure +1 to AC is a huge difference, but the idea being that martials are supposed to be able to take hits, partially through superior AC. So if a Wizard can replicate that AND pull off world-bending magic, that steals the fire from martials a bit? So a correction, not a pentalty. Again, just spitballing.
When you start the game with heavy armor, it's only chain mail, so 16 AC, 17 if you can take Defense fighting style. Not sure how that compares with other non-martial classes and all their defenses?
So in my particular situation, full plate, martial feat, warforge, +1 shield for AC 23. Paladin spell can bump that to AC 25. The rogue and and ranger in the party have +1 to AC but are basically stuck at AC 16/17 while the Cleric, paladin and fighter are all AC 20, AC 23/25. I’m already at the point where the Paladin will always be the last PC standing and the Rogue/Ranger are going to be the first to drop (they also have lower hp). So while the divide is meant to get fighters, clerics, and Paladins closer to more magic types it makes them far outpace the other martial focused characters that don’t wear helmets. You also don’t necessarily help the divide because spellcasters can easily wear armor via multiclassing.
The best way to equalize the classes is to have more than one encounter per day. Every encounter that happens the spell casters become weaker and weaker.
Cool. What level is that at? Currently at level 9 I have +1 Splint Armor, a Shield, and Defensive Fighting Style. AC total of 21.
Also two pieces I'm guessing aren't the norm are: Warforged and Shield of Faith? The spell is concentration, and could easily be replaced by comparable or better spells. So that's -3 there. Two more variable would be: Fighting Style (many may take Dueling) and a Shield (many may use Two-Handed Weapons). So that's another possible -3, down to either 22 or 19. So it's possible to pile on a max AC build, but that sacrifices damage at every step. Totally viable, just saying it is a maximal example.
More encounters - I'm all for it. Just doesn't seem the norm? Wonder if for DMs it just seems burdensome to story/role play to have to fit a minimum or 3 or more combats in. To some degree it could feel like a time/planning tax for DMs to throw less meaningful combats at a party just to burn through consumable abilities? I dunno.
Except they really really don’t. Martials maintain far more consistent combat performance in tier 3 than casters.
Which is not really relevant, because the issue is not primarily combat performance (though the lack of area damage in most martial's kit is an issue), it's "solve problem" ability. There are a lot of problems that are simply insoluble without a primary spellcaster, whereas doing without martial character is rarely worse than inconvenient.
Which is why at least half the martial subclasses give them some kind of overt powers.
Ah yes, late tier 3 abilities that are on a par with second level spells. I'm sorry, but no. It's not enough to have powers... they have to be powers at a similar level of nonsense to full casters.
Except they really really don’t. Martials maintain far more consistent combat performance in tier 3 than casters. Despite the spin, the reality is that casters get 1 to 3 good shots, except at this point powerful enemies have multiple strong saves, Legendary Resistances, and often Magic Resistance as well. If all that happens is the party walks up to a single BBEG and fights they can try and nova them down, but if they’re actually put through two or three encounters against more than trash mobs the tank starts running lean and you see a lot of spells splash against saves or LRs.
1 to 3 good shots? Sounds like you're only counting uppermost spells in tier 3? But plenty of other mid or even low-level spells can be quite impactful, from what I've seen in my limited experience. Especially if you consider buffs, healing, and remedies. Martials usually can only attack. In tougher fights, you'll need to be able to handle a variety of challenges.
I can only think of two back-to-back sets of large combats over the past year where our group was pressed hard, running through our casters' spells and group HP. But it wasn't just the casters, it was all of us in different ways. Perhaps our martials maintained some damage through the end? But still pretty sure the average favored the casters.
Which again is fine. I don't think exactness is the goal. Comparable or complementary contributions is all. Sounds like some here feel that is what we have currently. I would say there is plenty of room for martials to be better at what they do (hit better or harder or more + tank somewhat) and/or have some kind of control aspect. 2024 Weapon Masteries are a step in that direction, as are some revamped martial classes like Monk and Fighter to a lesser degree.
If those other spells aren’t breaking the dynamic in tier 2, they’re not going to move the needle in tier 3, when they stop getting more slots. Seriously, look at the numbers, then stop and think about where martials are at. You can squeeze something like 33 average damage out of Steel Wind Strike with nothing on a miss, or 36 out of Cone of Cold if they fail a save. Heck, an upcast Fireball is a smidge behind CoC. Now, at level 11 a Fighter with a basic d12 weapon has the average potential for 35 damage purely by weapon die and ability mod; a TWF is one point behind. A Rogue does a smidge less at 30. For a Barbarian just using Reckless Attack for Brutal Strikes it’s 34- yes, I know we’ve debated how good Brutal Strikes is elsewhere, but the to hit numbers are the same as the other classes like this. And all of this is without any subclass features or consumable class features, meaning this is the baseline damage every. Single. Turn.
Full casters? They get two 5th level shots from level 10 to 18, and the damage goes downhill from there on all those lower level slots. Are they better at AoE coverage? Yes. Can they pull off big plays with debuffs, terrain manipulation, etc? Sure, when things come together. Do they categorically outclass martials for punching a specific target in the face? No, they don’t.
Except they really really don’t. Martials maintain far more consistent combat performance in tier 3 than casters.
Which is not really relevant, because the issue is not primarily combat performance (though the lack of area damage in most martial's kit is an issue), it's "solve problem" ability. There are a lot of problems that are simply insoluble without a primary spellcaster, whereas doing without martial character is rarely worse than inconvenient.
That’s a different discussion, and personally I’ve seen magic items and skill checks solve problems a lot more often than spells. As I believe was previously pointed out here, solving problems with spells relies on having the correct spells prepared, which is far from a given.
I'm kinda late to the party here - but I don't want casters weaker. I want melee stronger. Variously, martials might be able to shield spells (reduce damage or effect), reflect spells (maybe an attack roll?), break effects (shrug off CC), harass casters (say, reaction Misty Step when a spell is cast, or something) ... I dunno, stuff like that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I'm kinda late to the party here - but I don't want casters weaker. I want melee stronger. Variously, martials might be able to shield spells (reduce damage or effect), reflect spells (maybe an attack roll?), break effects (shrug off CC), harass casters (say, reaction Misty Step when a spell is cast, or something) ... I dunno, stuff like that.
You mean like what Indomitable, Evasion, Deflect Energy, Danger Sense, repeatedly attacking, etc. already do, before we get into subclass features and feats?
The biggest problem with individual pieces of armor granting a bonus is that it penalizes pcs with low armor too much. For example I have a pc with an AC of 23. The rogue and ranger have an AC of 16. If helmets add +1 then the high AC character becomes AC 24 + shield of fire would be AC 26. I would need a nat 20 to hit him. While the rogue and ranger are still 16 and I need roughly a 10 to hit them.
basically you are penalizing a class like the rogue in addition to spell casters, while making some spell casters that can use armor even stronger.
Just an idea. That said, the idea is to correct weaknesses. I'm newer to D&D, but my sense is that there a fair amount of endarounds that allow non-armored builds to replicate the AC. Which I don't mind terribly - I like there being multiple ways of having some kind of AC. But I thought it seemed like armor had a pretty steep price of having high strength? I'm not sure of all the exploits, so could be off. I am not sure +1 to AC is a huge difference, but the idea being that martials are supposed to be able to take hits, partially through superior AC. So if a Wizard can replicate that AND pull off world-bending magic, that steals the fire from martials a bit? So a correction, not a pentalty. Again, just spitballing.
When you start the game with heavy armor, it's only chain mail, so 16 AC, 17 if you can take Defense fighting style. Not sure how that compares with other non-martial classes and all their defenses?
So in my particular situation, full plate, martial feat, warforge, +1 shield for AC 23. Paladin spell can bump that to AC 25. The rogue and and ranger in the party have +1 to AC but are basically stuck at AC 16/17 while the Cleric, paladin and fighter are all AC 20, AC 23/25. I’m already at the point where the Paladin will always be the last PC standing and the Rogue/Ranger are going to be the first to drop (they also have lower hp). So while the divide is meant to get fighters, clerics, and Paladins closer to more magic types it makes them far outpace the other martial focused characters that don’t wear helmets. You also don’t necessarily help the divide because spellcasters can easily wear armor via multiclassing.
The best way to equalize the classes is to have more than one encounter per day. Every encounter that happens the spell casters become weaker and weaker.
Cool. What level is that at? Currently at level 9 I have +1 Splint Armor, a Shield, and Defensive Fighting Style. AC total of 21.
Also two pieces I'm guessing aren't the norm are: Warforged and Shield of Faith? The spell is concentration, and could easily be replaced by comparable or better spells. So that's -3 there. Two more variable would be: Fighting Style (many may take Dueling) and a Shield (many may use Two-Handed Weapons). So that's another possible -3, down to either 22 or 19. So it's possible to pile on a max AC build, but that sacrifices damage at every step. Totally viable, just saying it is a maximal example.
More encounters - I'm all for it. Just doesn't seem the norm? Wonder if for DMs it just seems burdensome to story/role play to have to fit a minimum or 3 or more combats in. To some degree it could feel like a time/planning tax for DMs to throw less meaningful combats at a party just to burn through consumable abilities? I dunno.
So he could have an AC 22 at whatever level he gets 1500 good for plate armor. Which can be as early as like level 4-5) I had a fighter and the party used all the party funds to buy me mythial plate mail once). The 23 is at any point you get a +1 to ac magic item.
The player 100% is sacrificing damage output for AC. Which I think has been more detrimental to the party but not the character who will only die during a TPK.
the game is based on dungeon crawling and to have dungeon crawls you need to be able to handle 6+ encounters per day. The problem is most games have moved away from the dungeon craw. Which is also why warlocks are bad off as they need like three short rests per day. There isn’t a lot that can be done here.
Giving individual items a +1 to AC doesn’t really help with casters who can easily multi class into fighter (via dex) and then wear plate armor while casting spells.
Except they really really don’t. Martials maintain far more consistent combat performance in tier 3 than casters.
Which is not really relevant, because the issue is not primarily combat performance (though the lack of area damage in most martial's kit is an issue), it's "solve problem" ability. There are a lot of problems that are simply insoluble without a primary spellcaster, whereas doing without martial character is rarely worse than inconvenient.
Idk my party doesn’t have a primary caster and doesn’t seem to be having any issue.
Except they really really don’t. Martials maintain far more consistent combat performance in tier 3 than casters.
Which is not really relevant, because the issue is not primarily combat performance (though the lack of area damage in most martial's kit is an issue), it's "solve problem" ability. There are a lot of problems that are simply insoluble without a primary spellcaster, whereas doing without martial character is rarely worse than inconvenient.
Idk my party doesn’t have a primary caster and doesn’t seem to be having any issue.
I agree, this is largely a problem of imagination. Martials can absolutely solve problems but they do it in a different way. IMO a more interesting way. Casters are often really boring in their utility. I was in one campaign with a Wild Fire Druid and they kept insisting to use their group teleportation for everything! We had to sneak into a castle to steal documents, the Wizard starts going on about using the Darkness spell or Fog Cloud to disguise our approach, the Bard is trying to convince the DM to use Suggestion/Charm person to walk through the front door, the Wildfire Druid is saying we just teleport in with their WildFire Spirit. Meanwhile our rogue isn't being allowed to speak to suggest getting some disguises, a grappling hook, and a row boat to sneak in via the water and not alert the guards with tons of suspicious spells, or burst of fire every time we teleport.... Honestly, after 20 minutes of arguing and trying to convince the DM, the party finally concluded that just sneaking in would probably work the best.
The biggest problem with individual pieces of armor granting a bonus is that it penalizes pcs with low armor too much. For example I have a pc with an AC of 23. The rogue and ranger have an AC of 16. If helmets add +1 then the high AC character becomes AC 24 + shield of fire would be AC 26. I would need a nat 20 to hit him. While the rogue and ranger are still 16 and I need roughly a 10 to hit them.
basically you are penalizing a class like the rogue in addition to spell casters, while making some spell casters that can use armor even stronger.
Just an idea. That said, the idea is to correct weaknesses. I'm newer to D&D, but my sense is that there a fair amount of endarounds that allow non-armored builds to replicate the AC. Which I don't mind terribly - I like there being multiple ways of having some kind of AC. But I thought it seemed like armor had a pretty steep price of having high strength? I'm not sure of all the exploits, so could be off. I am not sure +1 to AC is a huge difference, but the idea being that martials are supposed to be able to take hits, partially through superior AC. So if a Wizard can replicate that AND pull off world-bending magic, that steals the fire from martials a bit? So a correction, not a pentalty. Again, just spitballing.
When you start the game with heavy armor, it's only chain mail, so 16 AC, 17 if you can take Defense fighting style. Not sure how that compares with other non-martial classes and all their defenses?
So in my particular situation, full plate, martial feat, warforge, +1 shield for AC 23. Paladin spell can bump that to AC 25. The rogue and and ranger in the party have +1 to AC but are basically stuck at AC 16/17 while the Cleric, paladin and fighter are all AC 20, AC 23/25. I’m already at the point where the Paladin will always be the last PC standing and the Rogue/Ranger are going to be the first to drop (they also have lower hp). So while the divide is meant to get fighters, clerics, and Paladins closer to more magic types it makes them far outpace the other martial focused characters that don’t wear helmets. You also don’t necessarily help the divide because spellcasters can easily wear armor via multiclassing.
The best way to equalize the classes is to have more than one encounter per day. Every encounter that happens the spell casters become weaker and weaker.
I wouldn't compare the classes in that way. Played to their intended role the Rogue shouldn't be the first to drop as they shouldn't be in the front line. Also, depending on the attack the Rogue might have the best defense with Uncanny Dodge, Evasion and later Slippery Mind. A Rogue can also easily wear better armor with a feat or dip. Why is your Ranger stuck at that AC? Half-plate (15), 14 or better DEX (17), a shield (19), Defense Fighting Style (20), without a bit of magic to help.
You are absolutely right that the casters benefit greatly from having fewer encounters between rests and that is a problem for balance.
You shouldn't be able to teleport through a Wall of Force because spell goes into the Ethereal plane. Teleport only happens on the same plane you are on.
i don't think that the divide is a far apart as you think. Most people probably have the experience of a DM who played a spell caster and wiped out most of your party. That's because the DM is a playing a prepared spell caster and was probably in their stronghold/lair.
High level martials already have enough Hit points, AC and saving throw proficiencies to take whatever the Spell caster can dish. In the case of the Monk, they have Deflect Energy or Evasion to potentially come out unscathed and redirect some of that damage right back at them.
For most martials, time and space is the culprit. Spell casters easily teleport or fly to a safe distance and zap you, summon mobs or whatever.
But again you only play against the DM who is prepared because they know all of the PC's abilities. Normal sorcerers will not be so prepared. Just look at how your team mate spell casters might struggle to find a spell to cast, if the party doesn't fight often enough to know which offensive spells that is their go to.
1. Where does it say that Teleport goes into the Ethereal Plane? I haven't seen that anywhere.
2. The power level can be similar when applied to one opponent but the other facets of a spellcaster far outstrips most martial characters. Got a room full of opponents? Caster. Need to move to another area, maybe over a chasm? Caster. Need to reshape the battlefield, or wall off certain opponents for a bit? Caster. Need to travel across the world? Caster.
Many, many game situations challenge a martial character but are easily solved by a caster. That said, one on one against a tough monster a martial is in his/her element.
You shouldn't be able to teleport through a Wall of Force because spell goes into the Ethereal plane. Teleport only happens on the same plane you are on.
Teleportation does not say it passes through the ethereal plane. Spells and other abilities that block teleportation say so specifically.
1. Where does it say that Teleport goes into the Ethereal Plane? I haven't seen that anywhere.
2. The power level can be similar when applied to one opponent but the other facets of a spellcaster far outstrips most martial characters. Got a room full of opponents? Caster. Need to move to another area, maybe over a chasm? Caster. Need to reshape the battlefield, or wall off certain opponents for a bit? Caster. Need to travel across the world? Caster.
Many, many game situations challenge a martial character but are easily solved by a caster. That said, one on one against a tough monster a martial is in his/her element.
You forgot the most important part for 2- caster if they have access to and prepared/learned the right spell. Teleporting the whole party from Point A to Point B is a 6th level spell that only Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards have on their list, and that's with a 500 ft line of sight limit. Traveling across the world is either a 5th level spell if a landing point has been prepared for you, a 7th level spell that requires a landing point, relatively intimate familiarity with the area, or a macguffin the DM essentially needs to hand you to be anywhere near reliable, or a 6th level spell that expressly requires you to have had contact with the destination and have access to a Large plant. Battlefield control and AoE is something they do better, yes. Almost as if this is a game designed so different classes have different strengths, and thus will excel in certain areas, no? And, frankly, field control via walls is overrated- barring some really convoluted combo the best you're likely to manage is just walling off the BBEG while you kill the mooks, which is nice but rarely game-changing. I'm in a tier 3 party with a Wizard right now; he's been in the party for a while. I assure you, he doesn't whip out the perfect magical solution to every obstacle, nor does he single-handedly control the battlefield. He blasts stuff, counters and dispels, and occasionally has a utility spell at hand for some other purpose.
The power level can be similar when applied to one opponent but the other facets of a spellcaster far outstrips most martial characters. Got a room full of opponents? Caster. Need to move to another area, maybe over a chasm? Caster. Need to reshape the battlefield, or wall off certain opponents for a bit? Caster. Need to travel across the world? Caster.
That's a gross oversimplification. I played a campaign from level 1-17 as a Rogue-Warlock in a party with a Wizard, Cleric, Ranger and Paladin. My character ended up with PTSD from all the times that Teleport went wrong for us, we got magical mishaps twice, ended up in the wrong place 3 times, and only once actually went to the desired destination on the first try. It's more like the teleport scene in Spaceballs than a reliable method of transportation.
The power level can be similar when applied to one opponent but the other facets of a spellcaster far outstrips most martial characters. Got a room full of opponents? Caster. Need to move to another area, maybe over a chasm? Caster. Need to reshape the battlefield, or wall off certain opponents for a bit? Caster. Need to travel across the world? Caster.
That's a gross oversimplification. I played a campaign from level 1-17 as a Rogue-Warlock in a party with a Wizard, Cleric, Ranger and Paladin. My character ended up with PTSD from all the times that Teleport went wrong for us, we got magical mishaps twice, ended up in the wrong place 3 times, and only once actually went to the desired destination on the first try. It's more like the teleport scene in Spaceballs than a reliable method of transportation.
It is NOT a gross oversimplification. We have just had different experiences in the game. I’ve played since about 1978 and can count the number of teleport accidents for my groups on the fingers of both hands.
Whether teleport is unreliable depends on what you try to do with it; there are two fairly accessible ways (teleportation circle and linked item) for reducing failure rate to zero, and use of scrying is usually sufficient to get failure rate down to 25%.
Whether teleport is unreliable depends on what you try to do with it; there are two fairly accessible ways (teleportation circle and linked item) for reducing failure rate to zero, and use of scrying is usually sufficient to get failure rate down to 25%.
A teleportation circle has to have been created by someone, so all you're really saving is a fee to use an existing teleportation circle network. Hardly game changing. Linked items likewise imply an NPC in the world who could cast the spell for you, so again all you're really saving yourselves is from asking a favour / doing an escort mission. See I would have thought when people go on and on about how powerful casters are, at least someone would cite bringing people back from the dead as why they are powerful, but they don't which I find really strange. Why is fast-travelling at the permission of DM fiat, more powerful than preventing someone having to roll a new character?
You have to have seen a location to scry it, and frankly I wouldn't put a scrying sensor above "seen casually" either, though that is more a personal take than hard RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So in my particular situation, full plate, martial feat, warforge, +1 shield for AC 23. Paladin spell can bump that to AC 25. The rogue and and ranger in the party have +1 to AC but are basically stuck at AC 16/17 while the Cleric, paladin and fighter are all AC 20, AC 23/25. I’m already at the point where the Paladin will always be the last PC standing and the Rogue/Ranger are going to be the first to drop (they also have lower hp). So while the divide is meant to get fighters, clerics, and Paladins closer to more magic types it makes them far outpace the other martial focused characters that don’t wear helmets. You also don’t necessarily help the divide because spellcasters can easily wear armor via multiclassing.
The best way to equalize the classes is to have more than one encounter per day. Every encounter that happens the spell casters become weaker and weaker.
Cool. What level is that at? Currently at level 9 I have +1 Splint Armor, a Shield, and Defensive Fighting Style. AC total of 21.
Also two pieces I'm guessing aren't the norm are: Warforged and Shield of Faith? The spell is concentration, and could easily be replaced by comparable or better spells. So that's -3 there. Two more variable would be: Fighting Style (many may take Dueling) and a Shield (many may use Two-Handed Weapons). So that's another possible -3, down to either 22 or 19. So it's possible to pile on a max AC build, but that sacrifices damage at every step. Totally viable, just saying it is a maximal example.
More encounters - I'm all for it. Just doesn't seem the norm? Wonder if for DMs it just seems burdensome to story/role play to have to fit a minimum or 3 or more combats in. To some degree it could feel like a time/planning tax for DMs to throw less meaningful combats at a party just to burn through consumable abilities? I dunno.
Which is not really relevant, because the issue is not primarily combat performance (though the lack of area damage in most martial's kit is an issue), it's "solve problem" ability. There are a lot of problems that are simply insoluble without a primary spellcaster, whereas doing without martial character is rarely worse than inconvenient.
If those other spells aren’t breaking the dynamic in tier 2, they’re not going to move the needle in tier 3, when they stop getting more slots. Seriously, look at the numbers, then stop and think about where martials are at. You can squeeze something like 33 average damage out of Steel Wind Strike with nothing on a miss, or 36 out of Cone of Cold if they fail a save. Heck, an upcast Fireball is a smidge behind CoC. Now, at level 11 a Fighter with a basic d12 weapon has the average potential for 35 damage purely by weapon die and ability mod; a TWF is one point behind. A Rogue does a smidge less at 30. For a Barbarian just using Reckless Attack for Brutal Strikes it’s 34- yes, I know we’ve debated how good Brutal Strikes is elsewhere, but the to hit numbers are the same as the other classes like this. And all of this is without any subclass features or consumable class features, meaning this is the baseline damage every. Single. Turn.
Full casters? They get two 5th level shots from level 10 to 18, and the damage goes downhill from there on all those lower level slots. Are they better at AoE coverage? Yes. Can they pull off big plays with debuffs, terrain manipulation, etc? Sure, when things come together. Do they categorically outclass martials for punching a specific target in the face? No, they don’t.
That’s a different discussion, and personally I’ve seen magic items and skill checks solve problems a lot more often than spells. As I believe was previously pointed out here, solving problems with spells relies on having the correct spells prepared, which is far from a given.
I'm kinda late to the party here - but I don't want casters weaker. I want melee stronger. Variously, martials might be able to shield spells (reduce damage or effect), reflect spells (maybe an attack roll?), break effects (shrug off CC), harass casters (say, reaction Misty Step when a spell is cast, or something) ... I dunno, stuff like that.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
You mean like what Indomitable, Evasion, Deflect Energy, Danger Sense, repeatedly attacking, etc. already do, before we get into subclass features and feats?
So he could have an AC 22 at whatever level he gets 1500 good for plate armor. Which can be as early as like level 4-5) I had a fighter and the party used all the party funds to buy me mythial plate mail once). The 23 is at any point you get a +1 to ac magic item.
The player 100% is sacrificing damage output for AC. Which I think has been more detrimental to the party but not the character who will only die during a TPK.
the game is based on dungeon crawling and to have dungeon crawls you need to be able to handle 6+ encounters per day. The problem is most games have moved away from the dungeon craw. Which is also why warlocks are bad off as they need like three short rests per day. There isn’t a lot that can be done here.
Giving individual items a +1 to AC doesn’t really help with casters who can easily multi class into fighter (via dex) and then wear plate armor while casting spells.
Idk my party doesn’t have a primary caster and doesn’t seem to be having any issue.
I agree, this is largely a problem of imagination. Martials can absolutely solve problems but they do it in a different way. IMO a more interesting way. Casters are often really boring in their utility. I was in one campaign with a Wild Fire Druid and they kept insisting to use their group teleportation for everything! We had to sneak into a castle to steal documents, the Wizard starts going on about using the Darkness spell or Fog Cloud to disguise our approach, the Bard is trying to convince the DM to use Suggestion/Charm person to walk through the front door, the Wildfire Druid is saying we just teleport in with their WildFire Spirit. Meanwhile our rogue isn't being allowed to speak to suggest getting some disguises, a grappling hook, and a row boat to sneak in via the water and not alert the guards with tons of suspicious spells, or burst of fire every time we teleport.... Honestly, after 20 minutes of arguing and trying to convince the DM, the party finally concluded that just sneaking in would probably work the best.
I wouldn't compare the classes in that way. Played to their intended role the Rogue shouldn't be the first to drop as they shouldn't be in the front line. Also, depending on the attack the Rogue might have the best defense with Uncanny Dodge, Evasion and later Slippery Mind. A Rogue can also easily wear better armor with a feat or dip. Why is your Ranger stuck at that AC? Half-plate (15), 14 or better DEX (17), a shield (19), Defense Fighting Style (20), without a bit of magic to help.
You are absolutely right that the casters benefit greatly from having fewer encounters between rests and that is a problem for balance.
You shouldn't be able to teleport through a Wall of Force because spell goes into the Ethereal plane. Teleport only happens on the same plane you are on.
i don't think that the divide is a far apart as you think. Most people probably have the experience of a DM who played a spell caster and wiped out most of your party. That's because the DM is a playing a prepared spell caster and was probably in their stronghold/lair.
High level martials already have enough Hit points, AC and saving throw proficiencies to take whatever the Spell caster can dish. In the case of the Monk, they have Deflect Energy or Evasion to potentially come out unscathed and redirect some of that damage right back at them.
For most martials, time and space is the culprit. Spell casters easily teleport or fly to a safe distance and zap you, summon mobs or whatever.
But again you only play against the DM who is prepared because they know all of the PC's abilities. Normal sorcerers will not be so prepared. Just look at how your team mate spell casters might struggle to find a spell to cast, if the party doesn't fight often enough to know which offensive spells that is their go to.
1. Where does it say that Teleport goes into the Ethereal Plane? I haven't seen that anywhere.
2. The power level can be similar when applied to one opponent but the other facets of a spellcaster far outstrips most martial characters. Got a room full of opponents? Caster. Need to move to another area, maybe over a chasm? Caster. Need to reshape the battlefield, or wall off certain opponents for a bit? Caster. Need to travel across the world? Caster.
Many, many game situations challenge a martial character but are easily solved by a caster. That said, one on one against a tough monster a martial is in his/her element.
Teleportation does not say it passes through the ethereal plane. Spells and other abilities that block teleportation say so specifically.
You forgot the most important part for 2- caster if they have access to and prepared/learned the right spell. Teleporting the whole party from Point A to Point B is a 6th level spell that only Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards have on their list, and that's with a 500 ft line of sight limit. Traveling across the world is either a 5th level spell if a landing point has been prepared for you, a 7th level spell that requires a landing point, relatively intimate familiarity with the area, or a macguffin the DM essentially needs to hand you to be anywhere near reliable, or a 6th level spell that expressly requires you to have had contact with the destination and have access to a Large plant. Battlefield control and AoE is something they do better, yes. Almost as if this is a game designed so different classes have different strengths, and thus will excel in certain areas, no? And, frankly, field control via walls is overrated- barring some really convoluted combo the best you're likely to manage is just walling off the BBEG while you kill the mooks, which is nice but rarely game-changing. I'm in a tier 3 party with a Wizard right now; he's been in the party for a while. I assure you, he doesn't whip out the perfect magical solution to every obstacle, nor does he single-handedly control the battlefield. He blasts stuff, counters and dispels, and occasionally has a utility spell at hand for some other purpose.
That's a gross oversimplification. I played a campaign from level 1-17 as a Rogue-Warlock in a party with a Wizard, Cleric, Ranger and Paladin. My character ended up with PTSD from all the times that Teleport went wrong for us, we got magical mishaps twice, ended up in the wrong place 3 times, and only once actually went to the desired destination on the first try. It's more like the teleport scene in Spaceballs than a reliable method of transportation.
It is NOT a gross oversimplification. We have just had different experiences in the game. I’ve played since about 1978 and can count the number of teleport accidents for my groups on the fingers of both hands.
Whether teleport is unreliable depends on what you try to do with it; there are two fairly accessible ways (teleportation circle and linked item) for reducing failure rate to zero, and use of scrying is usually sufficient to get failure rate down to 25%.
A teleportation circle has to have been created by someone, so all you're really saving is a fee to use an existing teleportation circle network. Hardly game changing. Linked items likewise imply an NPC in the world who could cast the spell for you, so again all you're really saving yourselves is from asking a favour / doing an escort mission. See I would have thought when people go on and on about how powerful casters are, at least someone would cite bringing people back from the dead as why they are powerful, but they don't which I find really strange. Why is fast-travelling at the permission of DM fiat, more powerful than preventing someone having to roll a new character?
You have to have seen a location to scry it, and frankly I wouldn't put a scrying sensor above "seen casually" either, though that is more a personal take than hard RAW.