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.
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.