D&D isn’t trying to emulate reality, it’s trying to emulate action movies. When John McClane (Die Hard & sequels), Dutch (Predator), or Rambo (First Blood & sequels) get hurt, does it slow them down? Nope. They pause for a quick rest, pull the glass out of their feet (or whatever), and then keep right on going until the end credits. That’s what D&D is trying to represent. Remember, it’s a game, not a simulator.
D&D isn’t trying to emulate reality, it’s trying to emulate action movies. When John McClane (Die Hard & sequels), Dutch (Predator), or Rambo (First Blood & sequels) get hurt, does it slow them down? Nope. They pause for a quick rest, pull the glass out of their feet (or whatever), and then keep right on going until the end credits. That’s what D&D is trying to represent. Remember, it’s a game, not a simulator.
True. But that just proves my point: the game, including some things martials can do aren't realistic. Even if it wasn't completely designed to be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Someone's agility should be reflected by their dex score, not their level. But anyways, speed in D&D is the same at lower levels as it is for higher ones. The only impacting factor that is likely to change is your constitution score, and then I guess it should be reflected off that instead of your level.
Speed isn't the same thing as agility. No-one is saying that speed changes with level currently (other than monks and barbarians), just that maybe it should.
Someone's agility should be reflected by their dex score, not their level. But anyways, speed in D&D is the same at lower levels as it is for higher ones. The only impacting factor that is likely to change is your constitution score, and then I guess it should be reflected off that instead of your level.
Speed isn't the same thing as agility. No-one is saying that speed changes with level currently (other than monks and barbarians), just that maybe it should.
Fair but someone did say fighters should be as fast as Usain by level 5. And my point still stands: with 5e's current rules, there's not that much of a big difference for sprinting between level 1 and 5. The only thing is the L4 ASI if it's spent on con, which probably wouldn't happen anyway.
I mean... are they realistic? Fighter dashing 10 turns in a row while wearing plate armour can move 600 foot or almost 183 meters, where 10 turns is a minute... Usain Bolt would love those speeds.
Sleep is just a knock out blow, paralyze I don't want to get into. But there is an untapped method of getting some effects that is still sort of magical without being spellcasting, and that's poisons/alchemy. I think a rogue or fighter subclass that uses poisons like that could be interesting.
Usain Bolt did 100m in 9,58 seconds. His walking speed in DnD would be 100m/9,58sec=2Xm/6sec, X=(100m*6sec)/(9,58sec*2)=31,32m=102,74ft. A plate-wearing knight moving over three times slower is alright, I'd say))
Mmm, maybe, the idea still seems crazy to me that a full plated adventurer with weapons, gear, etc is hitting those types of speeds but ah well.
Yeah, but also every fighter is not Usain Bolt, or even a third as fast as him when in plate armor.
They should as fast as Usain Bolt and more by level 5.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
D&D isn’t trying to emulate reality, it’s trying to emulate action movies. When John McClane (Die Hard & sequels), Dutch (Predator), or Rambo (First Blood & sequels) get hurt, does it slow them down? Nope. They pause for a quick rest, pull the glass out of their feet (or whatever), and then keep right on going until the end credits. That’s what D&D is trying to represent. Remember, it’s a game, not a simulator.
True. But that just proves my point: the game, including some things martials can do aren't realistic. Even if it wasn't completely designed to be.
I will grant you your point, but since the game is not designed to be realistic, I fail to see the significance of the point you are making. Like, you’re not wrong, but why does it matter? Namean?
D&D isn’t trying to emulate reality, it’s trying to emulate action movies. When John McClane (Die Hard & sequels), Dutch (Predator), or Rambo (First Blood & sequels) get hurt, does it slow them down? Nope. They pause for a quick rest, pull the glass out of their feet (or whatever), and then keep right on going until the end credits. That’s what D&D is trying to represent. Remember, it’s a game, not a simulator.
True. But that just proves my point: the game, including some things martials can do aren't realistic. Even if it wasn't completely designed to be.
I will grant you your point, but since the game is not designed to be realistic, I fail to see the significance of the point you are making. Like, you’re not wrong, but why does it matter? Namean?
I don't know anymore. Someone said something that spellcasters got to be all unrealistuc and cool, and they need crits while spellcasters don't because of that. The whole thread has veered wildly off-topic since then. Anyways, yeah, why were having this whole segment of conversation on realism in D&D no longer makes any sense:)
I mean... are they realistic? Fighter dashing 10 turns in a row while wearing plate armour can move 600 foot or almost 183 meters, where 10 turns is a minute... Usain Bolt would love those speeds.
Sleep is just a knock out blow, paralyze I don't want to get into. But there is an untapped method of getting some effects that is still sort of magical without being spellcasting, and that's poisons/alchemy. I think a rogue or fighter subclass that uses poisons like that could be interesting.
Usain Bolt did 100m in 9,58 seconds. His walking speed in DnD would be 100m/9,58sec=2Xm/6sec, X=(100m*6sec)/(9,58sec*2)=31,32m=102,74ft. A plate-wearing knight moving over three times slower is alright, I'd say))
Mmm, maybe, the idea still seems crazy to me that a full plated adventurer with weapons, gear, etc is hitting those types of speeds but ah well.
Yeah, but also every fighter is not Usain Bolt, or even a third as fast as him when in plate armor.
They should as fast as Usain Bolt and more by level 5.
Someone's agility should be reflected by their dex score, not their level. But anyways, speed in D&D is the same at lower levels as it is for higher ones. The only impacting factor that is likely to change is your constitution score, and then I guess it should be reflected off that instead of your level.
This conversation has veered wildly off track. First off, comparing the average fighter to Usain Bolt, even if you calculate for plate armor and stuff, is not a very good comparison. But on a more related note, martials like fighters and barbarians aren't that realistic, for example, they can literally be hit by arrows or slashed with swords dozens of times before going unconscious, (not even dying) but I guess a lot of stuff in D&D really isn't realistic, but yeah fighters and barbarians are still included in that, just to a slightly lesser extent.
Also, barbarians and fighters are way, way, more buff than anyone could possibly be in real life. Especially when compared to the time period D&D is mostly replicating. But again, yeah, D&D is not very realistic anyways, and martials aren't exceptions to that rule.
Hit points are not meat points.
"Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck."
"Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious."
Wow, you just taught me something new. But anyways, D&D is still not very realistic: the fact that you can engage in 8 random fight every day as a bunch of random adventures, and come out uninjured, is also not very realistic. And if you do come out injured, the fact that it doesn't slow you down is also unrealistic.
Oh, so is the fact that PC's fall unconscious while NPC's die. But anyways, D&D is very unrealistic, and again, even if hit points isn't one ways it is unrealistic, many other things are. And again, fighters and barbarians and other martials, especially the ones that channel godly powers, aren't realistic either.
While HP can reflect a lot of things, there isn't much around that it lets a fighter stand in the elemental plane of fire and take no noticeable damage for multiple rounds, fall 300 feet and hop right back up on repeat, stand in the middle of a breath weapon that can melt stone like its nothing etc. People can try and narrate it away but for large swaths of the game it just does not work. They are superhuman from HP. And then we look at everything else, they can swing a dagger and hurt a 50 ton scaled beast whether they are in a position to stab a vulnerable spot or not etc. So yeah they are not realistic, its time for the game to just flat out accept that and lean into it, I know 4e did and while the game was not loved having competent martials was not one of the complaints.
Someone's agility should be reflected by their dex score, not their level. But anyways, speed in D&D is the same at lower levels as it is for higher ones. The only impacting factor that is likely to change is your constitution score, and then I guess it should be reflected off that instead of your level.
Speed isn't the same thing as agility. No-one is saying that speed changes with level currently (other than monks and barbarians), just that maybe it should.
Fair but someone did say fighters should be as fast as Usain by level 5. And my point still stands: with 5e's current rules, there's not that much of a big difference for sprinting between level 1 and 5. The only thing is the L4 ASI if it's spent on con, which probably wouldn't happen anyway.
I mean... are they realistic? Fighter dashing 10 turns in a row while wearing plate armour can move 600 foot or almost 183 meters, where 10 turns is a minute... Usain Bolt would love those speeds.
Sleep is just a knock out blow, paralyze I don't want to get into. But there is an untapped method of getting some effects that is still sort of magical without being spellcasting, and that's poisons/alchemy. I think a rogue or fighter subclass that uses poisons like that could be interesting.
Usain Bolt did 100m in 9,58 seconds. His walking speed in DnD would be 100m/9,58sec=2Xm/6sec, X=(100m*6sec)/(9,58sec*2)=31,32m=102,74ft. A plate-wearing knight moving over three times slower is alright, I'd say))
Mmm, maybe, the idea still seems crazy to me that a full plated adventurer with weapons, gear, etc is hitting those types of speeds but ah well.
Yeah, but also every fighter is not Usain Bolt, or even a third as fast as him when in plate armor.
They should as fast as Usain Bolt and more by level 5.
Just to clarify, I don't necessarily think every martial has to be that fast, but I think they should all of build options that let them get there. While I don't think these crit rules have anything to do with balance, people are wanting to use them to balance spell casters. And it would not do that in the slightest, it just makes them less fun. When it comes to balancing they have two options, nerf spell casters massively in the later tiers, and nerf them a bit in earlier tiers, or buff martials a bit in combat with more versatility, and buff them massively out of combat.
Like I would have no problem with them stopping all spells at level 5 and spells of 6-9 become ritual only effects, I play some OD&D games that do that. Hey go for it, and heck change all casters to the warlock model of 2 spells a short rest, have at it, but that would be such a massive change it would go against their stated design goals. I don't think rolling battle master effects into all martials with maybe a separate pool for utility effects like super jumps, fast running, charming voice etc would break their goal.
"Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck."
"Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious."
Wow, you just taught me something new. But anyways, D&D is still not very realistic: the fact that you can engage in 8 random fight every day as a bunch of random adventures, and come out uninjured, is also not very realistic. And if you do come out injured, the fact that it doesn't slow you down is also unrealistic.
Oh, so is the fact that PC's fall unconscious while NPC's die. But anyways, D&D is very unrealistic, and again, even if hit points isn't one ways it is unrealistic, many other things are. And again, fighters and barbarians and other martials, especially the ones that channel godly powers, aren't realistic either.
Well, coming uninjured out of 8 fights is purely a matter of how DM tunes the difficulty. It's gonna exhaust all of their resources to blast enemies easily; unless it's 8 successful ambushes on small groups, someone's bound to lose more than half of their hit points)
NPCs dying while PCs fall unconscious is purely a matter of convenience. Otherwise you'd have to say you're finishing every enemy after the combat's over, that's just hassle, the game assumes you do it by default. Then there's an option to knock a creature out with a melee attack instead of killing them if you really need that guy/thing alive ("Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe, rather than deal a killing blow. When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls unconscious and is stable.").
"Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck."
"Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious."
Wow, you just taught me something new. But anyways, D&D is still not very realistic: the fact that you can engage in 8 random fight every day as a bunch of random adventures, and come out uninjured, is also not very realistic. And if you do come out injured, the fact that it doesn't slow you down is also unrealistic.
Oh, so is the fact that PC's fall unconscious while NPC's die. But anyways, D&D is very unrealistic, and again, even if hit points isn't one ways it is unrealistic, many other things are. And again, fighters and barbarians and other martials, especially the ones that channel godly powers, aren't realistic either.
Well, coming uninjured out of 8 fights is purely a matter of how DM tunes the difficulty. It's gonna exhaust all of their resources to blast enemies easily; unless it's 8 successful ambushes on small groups, someone's bound to lose more than half of their hit points)
NPCs dying while PCs fall unconscious is purely a matter of convenience. Otherwise you'd have to say you're finishing every enemy after the combat's over, that's just hassle, the game assumes you do it by default. Then there's an option to knock a creature out with a melee attack instead of killing them if you really need that guy/thing alive ("Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe, rather than deal a killing blow. When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls unconscious and is stable.").
Yes, but it's still unrealistic. Having that default of monsters knocking PC's unconscious, but PC's getting to choose whether or not to kill or knock unconscious, may be for convenience, but it makes no sense. And monsters don't have that option for PC's, so again it's not realistic. But anyways, D&D isn't realistic, and I don't even know why we're still having this segment of discussion.
The reason why cantrips increment is to keep them relevant...like weapon attacks do. Weapon attacks increase in number, pretty much on a par with Cantrip damage. Indeed, weapon attacks improve more - more weapon attacks means more opportunities to crit, you can also spread out damage (as opposed to cantrips which generally attack a single target, and if they only had 1HP left? Too bad, it's wasted. Individual weapon attacks also increase potency due to ASIs generally increase your flat damage per strike from +3 to +5.
Cantrip damage increasing to keep them relevant is not justification for removing crits.
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.
Cantrip damage increases incrementally. A weapon attack does not. If you want cantrips to crit, keep them at base damage.
I've countered that argument, among others, HERE, and in short, what you said is not true and leaves out several details.
1. Weapon attacks increase as the PC's relevant ability score does.
2. And this one is the main reason, while a cantrips damage in one attack may increase, martials overrall damage increases too. When comparing what one class can do on their turn to what another can do, you can't just calculate for the cantrips attack, and only one of the martials many attacks, which do increase by level. A more accurate chart is in the linked thread, and it compares the damage a fighter, barbarian, and wizards cantrip can do in one turn, and in short, the wizards cantrip does not win out.
This is a classic example of backward logic. Materials are weaker compared to Caster. We could buff martials and make them more interesting and versatile. But no, that's too much work we will instead nerf casters.
Sure I get what you are saying with the slight increase to damage over all attacks, but the cantrip is the most minor attack a spellcaster has. The 20th level longsword wielding champion fighter may attack 4 times, for a whopping 2d8 weapon damage each time. Big whoop.
They don't need to be made more versatile and interesting, they need to do more damage with a basic weapon attack compared to a cantrip. I dont disagree with you really, you either need to nerf casters or buff martials and live with whether you want a depowered or superheroic game. Either works if the classes are close to each other in power level. If 100 people were forced to pick between a fighter or a wizard, is the split 50/50? I doubt it.
This is a classic example of backward logic. Materials are weaker compared to Caster. We could buff martials and make them more interesting and versatile. But no, that's too much work we will instead nerf casters.
That depends on how you define "weaker." Plus, repeatedly adding buffs just means you need to inflate everything else to keep things interesting.
The martial classes actually occupy a pretty good spot in the game. I don't get the outrage.
They don't need to be made more versatile and interesting, they need to do more damage with a basic weapon attack compared to a cantrip. I dont disagree with you really, you either need to nerf casters or buff martials and live with whether you want a depowered or superheroic game. Either works if the classes are close to each other in power level. If 100 people were forced to pick between a fighter or a wizard, is the split 50/50? I doubt it.
You're correct, but I suspect the wrong way. Fighter is the most popular class, followed by Rogue. Then it depends on the source but it's either Barbarian or Wizard. In one source, there is only one full Caster in the top 50% of PHB classes.
I agree that martials need a boost, but it's not because they're less popular. Where they need boosting is not in combat either - but outside. They just don't gain much whereas casters become demigods.
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.
Sure I get what you are saying with the slight increase to damage over all attacks, but the cantrip is the most minor attack a spellcaster has. The 20th level longsword wielding champion fighter may attack 4 times, for a whopping 2d8 weapon damage each time. Big whoop.
They don't need to be made more versatile and interesting, they need to do more damage with a basic weapon attack compared to a cantrip.
Martials do far more damage on their turn when compared to the basic cantrip damage, as the table in the previously linked thread clearly shows. And how "minor" of an attack a cantrip is depends on the level you're playing at, and how many fights/resource draining encounters you have per a day.
Quote from mmacgregor>>I dont disagree with you really, you either need to nerf casters or buff martials and live with whether you want a depowered or superheroic game. Either works if the classes are close to each other in power level. If 100 people were forced to pick between a fighter or a wizard, is the split 50/50? I doubt it.
I'm glad we're getting closer to finding a common ground. However, I think adding to the power level of martials and making them more fun to play, as opposed to making spellcasters less fun, is clearly the better path for WotC to take.
As for your other point, don't know whether it'd be 50/50, it really depends on the group of people/type of game, but I do get what you're saying. Anyways, this can all be solved by buffing martials, as opposed to removing crits on spells.
This is a classic example of backward logic. Materials are weaker compared to Caster. We could buff martials and make them more interesting and versatile. But no, that's too much work we will instead nerf casters.
That depends on how you define "weaker." Plus, repeatedly adding buffs just means you need to inflate everything else to keep things interesting.
The martial classes actually occupy a pretty good spot in the game. I don't get the outrage.
If WotC feels there is work to be done to balance martials and spellcasters, then it's going to be a lot of work no matter what. Yes, if they buff martials they may need to inflate a few monsters and stuff, but firstly, they're already doing that. And secondly, if they nerf spellcasters they'll need to rebalance everything down well keeping in mind that martials are still the same, which makes it harder to find the same balance as before. Oh, and nerfing spellcasters takes a lot of fun out of the game, among other things. I will reiterate this because I feel it needs to be reiterated, removing crits from spellcasters doesn't solve the martial VS. spellcaster "inbalance," it just makes things less fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
D&D isn’t trying to emulate reality, it’s trying to emulate action movies. When John McClane (Die Hard & sequels), Dutch (Predator), or Rambo (First Blood & sequels) get hurt, does it slow them down? Nope. They pause for a quick rest, pull the glass out of their feet (or whatever), and then keep right on going until the end credits. That’s what D&D is trying to represent. Remember, it’s a game, not a simulator.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
True. But that just proves my point: the game, including some things martials can do aren't realistic. Even if it wasn't completely designed to be.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Speed isn't the same thing as agility. No-one is saying that speed changes with level currently (other than monks and barbarians), just that maybe it should.
Fair but someone did say fighters should be as fast as Usain by level 5. And my point still stands: with 5e's current rules, there's not that much of a big difference for sprinting between level 1 and 5. The only thing is the L4 ASI if it's spent on con, which probably wouldn't happen anyway.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I will grant you your point, but since the game is not designed to be realistic, I fail to see the significance of the point you are making. Like, you’re not wrong, but why does it matter? Namean?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I don't know anymore. Someone said something that spellcasters got to be all unrealistuc and cool, and they need crits while spellcasters don't because of that. The whole thread has veered wildly off-topic since then. Anyways, yeah, why were having this whole segment of conversation on realism in D&D no longer makes any sense:)
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.While HP can reflect a lot of things, there isn't much around that it lets a fighter stand in the elemental plane of fire and take no noticeable damage for multiple rounds, fall 300 feet and hop right back up on repeat, stand in the middle of a breath weapon that can melt stone like its nothing etc. People can try and narrate it away but for large swaths of the game it just does not work. They are superhuman from HP. And then we look at everything else, they can swing a dagger and hurt a 50 ton scaled beast whether they are in a position to stab a vulnerable spot or not etc. So yeah they are not realistic, its time for the game to just flat out accept that and lean into it, I know 4e did and while the game was not loved having competent martials was not one of the complaints.
Just to clarify, I don't necessarily think every martial has to be that fast, but I think they should all of build options that let them get there. While I don't think these crit rules have anything to do with balance, people are wanting to use them to balance spell casters. And it would not do that in the slightest, it just makes them less fun. When it comes to balancing they have two options, nerf spell casters massively in the later tiers, and nerf them a bit in earlier tiers, or buff martials a bit in combat with more versatility, and buff them massively out of combat.
Like I would have no problem with them stopping all spells at level 5 and spells of 6-9 become ritual only effects, I play some OD&D games that do that. Hey go for it, and heck change all casters to the warlock model of 2 spells a short rest, have at it, but that would be such a massive change it would go against their stated design goals. I don't think rolling battle master effects into all martials with maybe a separate pool for utility effects like super jumps, fast running, charming voice etc would break their goal.
'Should' is prescriptive, not descriptive -- it's not saying how the game currently is, it's saying how it's desirable for the game to work.
Well, coming uninjured out of 8 fights is purely a matter of how DM tunes the difficulty. It's gonna exhaust all of their resources to blast enemies easily; unless it's 8 successful ambushes on small groups, someone's bound to lose more than half of their hit points)
NPCs dying while PCs fall unconscious is purely a matter of convenience. Otherwise you'd have to say you're finishing every enemy after the combat's over, that's just hassle, the game assumes you do it by default. Then there's an option to knock a creature out with a melee attack instead of killing them if you really need that guy/thing alive ("Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe, rather than deal a killing blow. When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls unconscious and is stable.").
Yes, but it's still unrealistic. Having that default of monsters knocking PC's unconscious, but PC's getting to choose whether or not to kill or knock unconscious, may be for convenience, but it makes no sense. And monsters don't have that option for PC's, so again it's not realistic. But anyways, D&D isn't realistic, and I don't even know why we're still having this segment of discussion.
True, but the only way fighter speed and it not being realistic was relevant to the current discussion was how it currently is. Not how it should be.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Cantrip damage increases incrementally. A weapon attack does not. If you want cantrips to crit, keep them at base damage.
The reason why cantrips increment is to keep them relevant...like weapon attacks do. Weapon attacks increase in number, pretty much on a par with Cantrip damage. Indeed, weapon attacks improve more - more weapon attacks means more opportunities to crit, you can also spread out damage (as opposed to cantrips which generally attack a single target, and if they only had 1HP left? Too bad, it's wasted. Individual weapon attacks also increase potency due to ASIs generally increase your flat damage per strike from +3 to +5.
Cantrip damage increasing to keep them relevant is not justification for removing crits.
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've countered that argument, among others, HERE, and in short, what you said is not true and leaves out several details.
1. Weapon attacks increase as the PC's relevant ability score does.
2. And this one is the main reason, while a cantrips damage in one attack may increase, martials overrall damage increases too. When comparing what one class can do on their turn to what another can do, you can't just calculate for the cantrips attack, and only one of the martials many attacks, which do increase by level. A more accurate chart is in the linked thread, and it compares the damage a fighter, barbarian, and wizards cantrip can do in one turn, and in short, the wizards cantrip does not win out.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.This is a classic example of backward logic. Materials are weaker compared to Caster. We could buff martials and make them more interesting and versatile. But no, that's too much work we will instead nerf casters.
Sure I get what you are saying with the slight increase to damage over all attacks, but the cantrip is the most minor attack a spellcaster has. The 20th level longsword wielding champion fighter may attack 4 times, for a whopping 2d8 weapon damage each time. Big whoop.
They don't need to be made more versatile and interesting, they need to do more damage with a basic weapon attack compared to a cantrip. I dont disagree with you really, you either need to nerf casters or buff martials and live with whether you want a depowered or superheroic game. Either works if the classes are close to each other in power level. If 100 people were forced to pick between a fighter or a wizard, is the split 50/50? I doubt it.
That depends on how you define "weaker." Plus, repeatedly adding buffs just means you need to inflate everything else to keep things interesting.
The martial classes actually occupy a pretty good spot in the game. I don't get the outrage.
You're correct, but I suspect the wrong way. Fighter is the most popular class, followed by Rogue. Then it depends on the source but it's either Barbarian or Wizard. In one source, there is only one full Caster in the top 50% of PHB classes.
I agree that martials need a boost, but it's not because they're less popular. Where they need boosting is not in combat either - but outside. They just don't gain much whereas casters become demigods.
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.
Martials do far more damage on their turn when compared to the basic cantrip damage, as the table in the previously linked thread clearly shows. And how "minor" of an attack a cantrip is depends on the level you're playing at, and how many fights/resource draining encounters you have per a day.
I'm glad we're getting closer to finding a common ground. However, I think adding to the power level of martials and making them more fun to play, as opposed to making spellcasters less fun, is clearly the better path for WotC to take.
As for your other point, don't know whether it'd be 50/50, it really depends on the group of people/type of game, but I do get what you're saying. Anyways, this can all be solved by buffing martials, as opposed to removing crits on spells.
If WotC feels there is work to be done to balance martials and spellcasters, then it's going to be a lot of work no matter what. Yes, if they buff martials they may need to inflate a few monsters and stuff, but firstly, they're already doing that. And secondly, if they nerf spellcasters they'll need to rebalance everything down well keeping in mind that martials are still the same, which makes it harder to find the same balance as before. Oh, and nerfing spellcasters takes a lot of fun out of the game, among other things. I will reiterate this because I feel it needs to be reiterated, removing crits from spellcasters doesn't solve the martial VS. spellcaster "inbalance," it just makes things less fun.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.