Now comparing EK to BS in melee by level I only think the Bladesinger is better at level 6. At Level 7 the EK can essentially do the same thing but it does cost them a bonus action. If they both have feats that use their bonus action then maybe BS is better until level 11 were being a fighter just shines in melee with 3 attacks. The BS level 14 ability almost looks to catch up but doesn’t quite get them there. Now while the EK is the superior Gish in melee combat the BS outshines it in every other department. BS has better spell slot progression by far, better out of combat spell options, better in combat spell options, ritual casting, and arcane recovery.
BS effectively gets 3 attacks per turn without using a BA immediately at level 6 thanks to Haste a whole 5 levels before the EK does (with Warcaster + Bladesong they need not worry about losing concentration). BS also has more maneuverability than an EK (higher walk speed, 30ft teleport as a BA and ability to give themselves a 60ft fly speed), and higher AC than an EK AC=13(Mage Armour)+5(Int)+3(Dex)+2(Haste)+5(Shield)=28. With absorb elements BS is better protected from AoE damage than an EK, and the BS will have a higher Wis save than the EK. Sure the BS has less HP but this is generally balanced by their better defenses.
I'd also like to see the number of spellslots decreased so that full casters only ever gain 1 spellslot per level after level 1.
Now comparing EK to BS in melee by level I only think the Bladesinger is better at level 6. At Level 7 the EK can essentially do the same thing but it does cost them a bonus action. If they both have feats that use their bonus action then maybe BS is better until level 11 were being a fighter just shines in melee with 3 attacks. The BS level 14 ability almost looks to catch up but doesn’t quite get them there. Now while the EK is the superior Gish in melee combat the BS outshines it in every other department. BS has better spell slot progression by far, better out of combat spell options, better in combat spell options, ritual casting, and arcane recovery.
BS effectively gets 3 attacks per turn without using a BA immediately at level 6 thanks to Haste a whole 5 levels before the EK does (with Warcaster + Bladesong they need not worry about losing concentration). BS also has more maneuverability than an EK (higher walk speed, 30ft teleport as a BA and ability to give themselves a 60ft fly speed), and higher AC than an EK AC=13(Mage Armour)+5(Int)+3(Dex)+2(Haste)+5(Shield)=28. With absorb elements BS is better protected from AoE damage than an EK, and the BS will have a higher Wis save than the EK. Sure the BS has less HP but this is generally balanced by their better defenses.
I'd also like to see the number of spellslots decreased so that full casters only ever gain 1 spellslot per level after level 1.
Note I said BS was better at everything else, but nothing you said makes it better in melee, and some of it is only true in a vacuum. So you spend a turn casting haste and if you lose haste you lose a turn. Seems fair for the risk. I’ve seen people lose concentration on DC 10 check with advantage. Dice do that. I also love how you are bringing in casting leveled spells like BS has unlimited spell slots. Haste, and fly are concentration and the same level spell so that’s a choice. You can’t cast shield and block a crit and more hp is a better way to survive a crit. Your higher AC example last one round and used 3 spell slots. 1 of which was probably an action to cast the previous round.The EK is already doing damage. If you focus on getting 5 Int, it’s going to suck when you miss that BB by 1 or 2. The EK has had 2 ASI by 7th level and once in melee can hit more accurately with BB and another attack. At 11th EK is doing 3 attacks probably with a shadow blade or heavy weapon depending on if they want a shield. Another advantage to the EK is if it wanted to dump Int it could and focus on abjuration spells and magic missile, the BS can’t and is always a little more MAD.
I think 1 spell slot per level beyond 1st might be heavy handed. That would mean one encounter per day. And I meant one combat, social, or skill per day. Also while cantrips are considerably strong with spells as is if the it lvl 7 a full caster only had 8 spell slots, Four level, a 2, a 3, and a 4, the flaw with cantrip damage would become evident. It’s too swingy if it’s your primary damage. That’s why agonizing blast exist to augment EB. Fire bolt at lvl 7 could do 20 dmg, but it could also do only 2. My other fear is a system to restrictive on number of spell slots will stifle creative play and lead to analysis paralysis.
The core problem is that there are two ways of solving the problems:
Make spellcasters less fantastic
Make martial characters more fantastic.
And there are people vociferously opposed to both of those.
I am slightly confused as to what you mean when you say "fantastic". To me at least, the most viable solutions to the disparity are things like buffing the damage, armor class, or outside of combat features for Warriors.
We can still have the base class for Warriors be somewhat grounded by reality and be far more powerful than it already is. That is a possible and appropriate way to solve the disparity.
On the topic of spellcasters, I don't think anyone really wants them to be nerfed and have the cool abilities people have enjoyed for nearly a decade be taken away. It just doesn't feel very 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.
I am slightly confused as to what you mean when you say "fantastic". To me at least, the most viable solutions to the disparity are things like buffing the damage, armor class, or outside of combat features for Warriors.
Buffing damage and armor class of Warrior/"mundane" characters does literally nothing to stop the disparity. Warriors already deal drastically more damage outside of very rare spells and tend to have, easily, 10+ AC over the average caster. The disparity has nothing to do with defenses or damage, it has to do with the fact that spellcasters can do hundreds of different things "mundane" characters simply can't match or compete with. "Outside combat features" are rejected because players don't pick Fighters or Barbarians to be diplomats, they pick those classes to hit stuff - and as you have noted yourself on several billion occasions, asking players to expect more from their D&D than "i hit stuf reel hard" is just being terribly unfair and exclusionist and awful and should make the person asking feel so horrible they never want to play again.
We can still have the base class for Warriors be somewhat grounded by reality and be far more powerful than it already is. That is a possible and appropriate way to solve the disparity.
No you can't and no it isn't. Pantagruel is correct - either "Mundane" characters get less mundane or spellcasters get more mundane. No other solution. When you have a guy in a metal gimp suit with a sharp stick whose entire repertoire consists of "I poke with stick" next to Harry Dresden, Merlin, and Gandalf, you're gonna see disparity in abilities no matter how sharp and pokey the sharp stick is.
On the topic of spellcasters, I don't think anyone really wants them to be nerfed and have the cool abilities people have enjoyed for nearly a decade be taken away. It just doesn't feel very fun.
Lots of people want spellcasters nerfed. A significant chunk of the playerbase (or at least a significant chunk of the playerbase that cares about the issue) sees spellcaster power as the culprit and want spellcasters sharply nerfed, on top of DMs hating a high-level spellcaster's ability to simply cast Solve Problem a dozen times a day. They, in fact, did nerf spellcasters heavily in Fourth Edition, in conjunction with empowering "mundane" characters to be less mundane, and it resulted in no real disparity at all from what I've heard. And people hated it. Because despite what the goobers who hate spellcasters for being "too fantastical" think, D&D's spellcasting system is one of the game's greatest strengths. D&D lets magic users be magic users, in a way almost no other system I've encountered/toyed with does. Other systems give you dramatically fewer uses of magic and make those uses dramatically weaker and more limited in scope, to the point where someone used to D&D wonders why someone would even bother studying the difficult mysteries of the arcane only to get, like...five uses of cantrip-level magic a day, if that.
D&D's spellcasting system is one of its biggest differentiators, and needs to remain. That means that "mundane" characters need to get less mundane for the disparity to shrink, but people keep snarling like animals whenever someone mentions the slightest bit of improvement to a mArTiAl ClAsS because "martial" means "cannot do anything at all that cannot be done by average modern-day salaryman with a light gym subscription." It's not like it's a world where magic suffuses everything and evolution/the gods/insane mages producing creatures with explicitly and outlandishly supernatural - to us - abilities is perfectly normal and natural or anything. Warriors completely and utterly eschewing any and all forms of supernatural boost and Charles Atlas-level training in order to learn how to swing one sword one time once makes no god damn sense in a D&D world, and yet people refuse to let martials benefit from the magic richness of the world even the slightest bit.
Until y'all unclench and let martials be supermartial? The disparity will never shrink or disappear.
Lots of people want spellcasters nerfed. A significant chunk of the playerbase (or at least a significant chunk of the playerbase that cares about the issue) sees spellcaster power as the culprit and want spellcasters sharply nerfed, on top of DMs hating a high-level spellcaster's ability to simply cast Solve Problem a dozen times a day. They, in fact, did nerf spellcasters heavily in Fourth Edition, in conjunction with empowering "mundane" characters to be less mundane, and it resulted in no real disparity at all from what I've heard. And people hated it. Because despite what the goobers who hate spellcasters for being "too fantastical" think, D&D's spellcasting system is one of the game's greatest strengths. D&D lets magic users be magic users, in a way almost no other system I've encountered/toyed with does. Other systems give you dramatically fewer uses of magic and make those uses dramatically weaker and more limited in scope, to the point where someone used to D&D wonders why someone would even bother studying the difficult mysteries of the arcane only to get, like...five uses of cantrip-level magic a day, if that.
As far as I know, Pathfinder 2e addressed that by moving some of the more spectacular and convenient problem-solving magic up a level or two, making duration or range shorter, etc. Invisibility lasting 10 minutes instead of 1 hour is already enough to make a caster think more about how to use it, 10 minutes won't cover the entire span of any infiltration mission. No need to take away spellcasters' toys, but WotC could tone down how freely they're used.
I am slightly confused as to what you mean when you say "fantastic". To me at least, the most viable solutions to the disparity are things like buffing the damage, armor class, or outside of combat features for Warriors.
Buffing damage and armor class of Warrior/"mundane" characters does literally nothing to stop the disparity. Warriors already deal drastically more damage outside of very rare spells and tend to have, easily, 10+ AC over the average caster. The disparity has nothing to do with defenses or damage, it has to do with the fact that spellcasters can do hundreds of different things "mundane" characters simply can't match or compete with. "Outside combat features" are rejected because players don't pick Fighters or Barbarians to be diplomats, they pick those classes to hit stuff - and as you have noted yourself on several billion occasions, asking players to expect more from their D&D than "i hit stuf reel hard" is just being terribly unfair and exclusionist and awful and should make the person asking feel so horrible they never want to play again.
Fortunately, I did not say that. What I did say was that there should be at least one simple Warrior class, and that class would preferably be Fighter, because Fighter is already relatively simple and it is liked and enjoyed as just that.
It is possible to add a bit of complexity to Fighter, though it should be done in small amounts to ensure that it is done in a way that works for both types of players and is hopefully optional.
The other Warrior and Martial classes however are all able to have buffs to outside of combat skills and to have increased complexity.
We can still have the base class for Warriors be somewhat grounded by reality and be far more powerful than it already is. That is a possible and appropriate way to solve the disparity.
No you can't and no it isn't. Pantagruel is correct - either "Mundane" characters get less mundane or spellcasters get more mundane. No other solution. When you have a guy in a metal gimp suit with a sharp stick whose entire repertoire consists of "I poke with stick" next to Harry Dresden, Merlin, and Gandalf, you're gonna see disparity in abilities no matter how sharp and pokey the sharp stick is.
Less mundane, maybe, but that would preferably be done in higher tiers in limited amounts and via things like subclasses that the DM can more easily ban. Obviously, Merlin and Gandalf are incredibly high-level casters, and Warriors would be able to be a bit less "grounded by reality" at higher levels.
However, I do think Warriors cam still be somewhat realistic and grounded by reality - because that is the playstyle some groups want -and still be as powerful or close to as powerful as Wizards and other Casters. The ways to buff them just have to actually make some sense and not be too unrealistic. Giving them some more things like Superiority tom some Warriors and outside of combat features to others will help significantly.
Realism is often a flavor thing. And I think groups that want to have Warriors be somewhat be realistic doesn't actually require all of the cool mechanics to not be utilized.
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.
However, I do think Warriors cam still be somewhat realistic and grounded by reality - because that is the playstyle some groups want -and still be as powerful or close to as powerful as Wizards and other Casters.
In tier 1, yes. In tier 2, maybe. In tier 3-4, no chance.
It's possible to make them look mundane (generally through extremely favorable coincidences), but it really still isn't grounded in reality.
Lots of people want spellcasters nerfed. A significant chunk of the playerbase (or at least a significant chunk of the playerbase that cares about the issue) sees spellcaster power as the culprit and want spellcasters sharply nerfed, on top of DMs hating a high-level spellcaster's ability to simply cast Solve Problem a dozen times a day. They, in fact, did nerf spellcasters heavily in Fourth Edition, in conjunction with empowering "mundane" characters to be less mundane, and it resulted in no real disparity at all from what I've heard. And people hated it. Because despite what the goobers who hate spellcasters for being "too fantastical" think, D&D's spellcasting system is one of the game's greatest strengths. D&D lets magic users be magic users, in a way almost no other system I've encountered/toyed with does. Other systems give you dramatically fewer uses of magic and make those uses dramatically weaker and more limited in scope, to the point where someone used to D&D wonders why someone would even bother studying the difficult mysteries of the arcane only to get, like...five uses of cantrip-level magic a day, if that.
As far as I know, Pathfinder 2e addressed that by moving some of the more spectacular and convenient problem-solving magic up a level or two, making duration or range shorter, etc. Invisibility lasting 10 minutes instead of 1 hour is already enough to make a caster think more about how to use it, 10 minutes won't cover the entire span of any infiltration mission. No need to take away spellcasters' toys, but WotC could tone down how freely they're used.
I agree with the toning down, along with some kind of expansion in the quality/type of skills martial characters can access compared to casters that give martials some situations where the easiest solution is one only they can provide.
Less mundane, maybe, but that would preferably be done in higher tiers in limited amounts and via things like subclasses that the DM can more easily ban. Obviously, Merlin and Gandalf are incredibly high-level casters, and Warriors would be able to be a bit less "grounded by reality" at higher levels.
I totally disagree. Gandalf is not a high level caster in D&D terms, he barely casts any spells and mostly fights with a sword. Even when he does cast spells they aren't particularly powerful, we see him cast: Arcane Lock (2nd level) in Moria, a specialized Fear (3rd level) against the Nazgul to save Faramir, Greater Restoration (5th level) on Theodin... that’s really about it.
Merlin maybe a bit more powerful but he rarely casts more than 1 spell a day.
Most fantasy mages outside of D&D are closer to warlocks than any of the full caster classes. They cast one or two game-changing spells, but then are relatively ordinary/weak the rest of the time.
I agree with the toning down, along with some kind of expansion in the quality/type of skills martial characters can access compared to casters that give martials some situations where the easiest solution is one only they can provide.
Personally, I'm against letting martials go full anime. IMO not only magic should be more costly and limited, the side effects should be emphasized more, as magic crudely messes up reality for fast results. It already exists to a degree: Knock opens locks, but with a very loud noise, while a rogue with a lockpick will do it quietly. Charm Person lets you quickly gain someone's favor, but once the spell wears out, the person won't be happy about having been manipulated by magic - which won't be the case if you win them over naturally. There should be more of that.
Control over the spell is important, too. In most cases, you can just end your concentration and end the spell whenever it's convenient to you. For example, new summoning spells let you unsummon the creature by simply ending your concentration. On one hand, it gives your enemy a chance to disrupt your tactics, something for you to protect and value. But I liked it more when concentration merely controlled the creature. If you lost it, the creature was on its own for the rest of the duration, potentially turning against you or wreaking random havoc in accordance with its nature.
Most fantasy mages outside of D&D are closer to warlocks than any of the full caster classes. They cast one or two game-changing spells, but then are relatively ordinary/weak the rest of the time.
Most fantasy mages outside of D&D are ritual casters outside of maybe cantrip-level abilities, and their rituals have complicated prerequisites (time, place, materials, etc) which make casting a major spell a significant plot line, not a casual activity.
Honestly, I think the main problem here is more about how much fun it is to play one class or another. I'm not saying that warriors can do game-changing actions like casters. But I do think they need to have more combat options than just hitting. In my opinion, the most fun part of a fight is the decision making. That's why I prefer to play casters, since they have a lot of options available, and a lot of decisions to make. Instead, the warriors have very few options. The fighter can decide if he uses the second wind, or action surge. Or, at most, if he grapples. But most of the time all he does is move, and hit whatever is in front of him until he kills it. And the barbarian more of the same (and even fewer options than the fighter). That is why I think it is necessary to give them more options. They don't have to be super powerful options. They don't have to be game-changing things. They just have to be options so that warriors can make decisions beyond hitting with their weapon.
On a personal note, I recently played a mini-campaign with my first barbarian in 10 years. I was bored to death. The fights seemed eternal to me since I practically had no decision to make. And yes, the character was effective and one of the biggest threats in the group. But it was soporific to play that. That's a problem, since at my usual game table nobody wants to play warriors anymore. And not because they are bad, but because they are boring in combat (weird, by the way. Since theirs should be combat).
Honestly, I think the main problem here is more about how much fun it is to play one class or another. I'm not saying that warriors can do game-changing actions like casters. But I do think they need to have more combat options than just hitting. In my opinion, the most fun part of a fight is the decision making. That's why I prefer to play casters, since they have a lot of options available, and a lot of decisions to make. Instead, the warriors have very few options. The fighter can decide if he uses the second wind, or action surge. Or, at most, if he grapples. But most of the time all he does is move, and hit whatever is in front of him until he kills it. And the barbarian more of the same (and even fewer options than the fighter). That is why I think it is necessary to give them more options. They don't have to be super powerful options. They don't have to be game-changing things. They just have to be options so that warriors can make decisions beyond hitting with their weapon.
On a personal note, I recently played a mini-campaign with my first barbarian in 10 years. I was bored to death. The fights seemed eternal to me since I practically had no decision to make. And yes, the character was effective and one of the biggest threats in the group. But it was soporific to play that. That's a problem, since at my usual game table nobody wants to play warriors anymore. And not because they are bad, but because they are boring in combat (weird, by the way. Since theirs should be combat).
I 100% agree with this. Martial characters need to be able to make impactful choices beyond 'do I kill this guy extra hard, or do I save it for the next guy?' and I think that the best way to do this is to simply expanding the number of actions available to people who wield a weapon; giving things like Parry and Riposte as a reaction to being attacked, Lunging Attack as bonus action for when things are slightly too far away, different kinds of attacks, like power attacks or a quick attack, or simply codifying things like Disarming people.
Any or all of these things would do great things in bridging the divide between martials and caster, at least in terms of fun.
Honestly, I think the main problem here is more about how much fun it is to play one class or another. I'm not saying that warriors can do game-changing actions like casters. But I do think they need to have more combat options than just hitting. In my opinion, the most fun part of a fight is the decision making. That's why I prefer to play casters, since they have a lot of options available, and a lot of decisions to make. Instead, the warriors have very few options. The fighter can decide if he uses the second wind, or action surge. Or, at most, if he grapples. But most of the time all he does is move, and hit whatever is in front of him until he kills it. And the barbarian more of the same (and even fewer options than the fighter). That is why I think it is necessary to give them more options. They don't have to be super powerful options. They don't have to be game-changing things. They just have to be options so that warriors can make decisions beyond hitting with their weapon.
On a personal note, I recently played a mini-campaign with my first barbarian in 10 years. I was bored to death. The fights seemed eternal to me since I practically had no decision to make. And yes, the character was effective and one of the biggest threats in the group. But it was soporific to play that. That's a problem, since at my usual game table nobody wants to play warriors anymore. And not because they are bad, but because they are boring in combat (weird, by the way. Since theirs should be combat).
Then OTOH there are many players that LIKE that they don't have to remember 20 different spells and have to try an pick the exact right one when they are put on the spot in combat. This is the fundamental conflict, some players want simple, some players want complex. Currently 5e addresses this by martials being simple and casters being complex, and both martials and casters having build options that allow them to play as in-the-thick-of-it melee characters or a safe-hiding-in-the-back ranged characters.
Not every class has to appeal to every player, and quite honestly it's not possible for every class to appeal to every player. The best WotC can aim for is that at least one class appeals to every player.
Then OTOH there are many players that LIKE that they don't have to remember 20 different spells and have to try an pick the exact right one when they are put on the spot in combat. This is the fundamental conflict, some players want simple, some players want complex. Currently 5e addresses this by martials being simple and casters being complex, and both martials and casters having build options that allow them to play as in-the-thick-of-it melee characters or a safe-hiding-in-the-back ranged characters.
Not every class has to appeal to every player, and quite honestly it's not possible for every class to appeal to every player. The best WotC can aim for is that at least one class appeals to every player.
Problem the First: every D&D party more or less requires there to be a mix of martial meatheads and casty things. So if you have a table where everybody is on the "likes to engage with the game, make decisions, and enjoy rich game depth" spectrum? Not everybody gets to do that. Somebody has to play the dumb meathead that can barely remember which end of the mace is the one you hold and which end is the one you swing at the enemy.
Conversely, if you have an entire tableful of people on the "decision-making sucks and I hate having to think or engage with the game at all, I just want to swing whichever end of a mace at whatever's in front of me" end of the spectrum? Not everybody gets to do that. Somebody has to play the casty thing that can solve problems the army of Dumb Meatheads can't, and has to deal with actually engaging with D&D even though they really hate having to do it.
Making it such that there are no options for "complex" martial characters and also no options for "simple" spellcasters means tables that don't have a correct mix of player types have to deal with somebody always being forced to take on a role they don't want to fulfill.
Problem the Second: saying "not everything can appeal to everyone!" is factually true but also a useless statement. It's Wizards' job to give the playerbase as a whole as many options as they can. Giving up on making a class broadly applicable because 'we want to make [X class] for people who love [X class]' is also "we don't care if people who aren't fans of [X class] hate it because they don't matter."
Nobody can realistically go through the game playing nothing but their one single favorite class, they will eventually have to branch out unless they only ever play one game once and then quit. It's one of the reasons I'm so pissed off at the UA Druid; they're making it "for people who love druid" while completely ignoring people who might just maybe want to be a fan of druids but can't stand the fact that the entire class is nothing but a pointless chassis for closet-furry shapeshifter bullshit.
This idea people have that simplicity is always 100% better than any amount of "complexity" and anyone who disagrees can just shut the **** up and play the stupid wizard is toxic, bad, and counterproductive. Telling somebody to shut up and play the wizard all the time is as uncool as making other tables play Boulder Parchment Shears to see who has to waste a campaign playing the meathead instead of getting to make decisions.
I find the argument that all martials must be simple just because people like the play style bizarre, and I also don't believe that anyone enjoys taking the attack action soooo much that having any other options ruins combat for them.
And besides, I don't believe that anyone is advocating for all martial characters to have 20 different 'spells' to remember; I know I certainly ain't. I simply think more people would enjoy it if Fighters, the supposed masters of weaponry, could do more than whack people over the head. Why can't we whack with style? Why can't we respond to being whacked with a flair that belies our supreme skill, rather than simply taking it and saying, 'Ouch?'
And besides, Barbarian will always exist for those who want the simple play style, and the simple play style fits in well with its thematics.
I agree with the toning down, along with some kind of expansion in the quality/type of skills martial characters can access compared to casters that give martials some situations where the easiest solution is one only they can provide.
Personally, I'm against letting martials go full anime. IMO not only magic should be more costly and limited, the side effects should be emphasized more, as magic crudely messes up reality for fast results. It already exists to a degree: Knock opens locks, but with a very loud noise, while a rogue with a lockpick will do it quietly. Charm Person lets you quickly gain someone's favor, but once the spell wears out, the person won't be happy about having been manipulated by magic - which won't be the case if you win them over naturally. There should be more of that.
Control over the spell is important, too. In most cases, you can just end your concentration and end the spell whenever it's convenient to you. For example, new summoning spells let you unsummon the creature by simply ending your concentration. On one hand, it gives your enemy a chance to disrupt your tactics, something for you to protect and value. But I liked it more when concentration merely controlled the creature. If you lost it, the creature was on its own for the rest of the duration, potentially turning against you or wreaking random havoc in accordance with its nature.
I agree with the first part but not the second. The latter gives the DM yet another thing to adjudicate when they likely already have their hands full. The biggest benefit to the new Tasha summons is that the DM doesn't have to worry about what creatures are in the area, whether they will wreck the balance of the encounter they spent hours planning, and what will happen if they run amok to their own devices; the summon is easy for even newer players to control, easy for the DM to plan around, and if the spell is disrupted they leave. They're varied enough to be fun for the player but straightforward enough to keep the DM's already hard job from being any harder, and that's a great thing for both sides.
Then OTOH there are many players that LIKE that they don't have to remember 20 different spells and have to try an pick the exact right one when they are put on the spot in combat. This is the fundamental conflict, some players want simple, some players want complex. Currently 5e addresses this by martials being simple and casters being complex, and both martials and casters having build options that allow them to play as in-the-thick-of-it melee characters or a safe-hiding-in-the-back ranged characters.
This is the problem.
There are players who like complicated and also want to swing a sword. There are players who like simple and also want to cast spells.
Then OTOH there are many players that LIKE that they don't have to remember 20 different spells and have to try an pick the exact right one when they are put on the spot in combat. This is the fundamental conflict, some players want simple, some players want complex. Currently 5e addresses this by martials being simple and casters being complex, and both martials and casters having build options that allow them to play as in-the-thick-of-it melee characters or a safe-hiding-in-the-back ranged characters.
This is the problem.
There are players who like complicated and also want to swing a sword. There are players who like simple and also want to cast spells.
Also, 'simple' should not mean 'inferior'.
Martials aren't inferior by and large, casters DPR is abysmal compared to martials. I've just been DMing a party of: a cleric, a bard, an artificer, and a barbarian. The barbarian is responsible for 75-80% of the total damage done by this party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
BS effectively gets 3 attacks per turn without using a BA immediately at level 6 thanks to Haste a whole 5 levels before the EK does (with Warcaster + Bladesong they need not worry about losing concentration). BS also has more maneuverability than an EK (higher walk speed, 30ft teleport as a BA and ability to give themselves a 60ft fly speed), and higher AC than an EK AC=13(Mage Armour)+5(Int)+3(Dex)+2(Haste)+5(Shield)=28. With absorb elements BS is better protected from AoE damage than an EK, and the BS will have a higher Wis save than the EK. Sure the BS has less HP but this is generally balanced by their better defenses.
I'd also like to see the number of spellslots decreased so that full casters only ever gain 1 spellslot per level after level 1.
Note I said BS was better at everything else, but nothing you said makes it better in melee, and some of it is only true in a vacuum.
So you spend a turn casting haste and if you lose haste you lose a turn. Seems fair for the risk. I’ve seen people lose concentration on DC 10 check with advantage. Dice do that.
I also love how you are bringing in casting leveled spells like BS has unlimited spell slots. Haste, and fly are concentration and the same level spell so that’s a choice.
You can’t cast shield and block a crit and more hp is a better way to survive a crit.
Your higher AC example last one round and used 3 spell slots. 1 of which was probably an action to cast the previous round.The EK is already doing damage.
If you focus on getting 5 Int, it’s going to suck when you miss that BB by 1 or 2. The EK has had 2 ASI by 7th level and once in melee can hit more accurately with BB and another attack. At 11th EK is doing 3 attacks probably with a shadow blade or heavy weapon depending on if they want a shield.
Another advantage to the EK is if it wanted to dump Int it could and focus on abjuration spells and magic missile, the BS can’t and is always a little more MAD.
I think 1 spell slot per level beyond 1st might be heavy handed. That would mean one encounter per day. And I meant one combat, social, or skill per day. Also while cantrips are considerably strong with spells as is if the it lvl 7 a full caster only had 8 spell slots, Four level, a 2, a 3, and a 4, the flaw with cantrip damage would become evident. It’s too swingy if it’s your primary damage. That’s why agonizing blast exist to augment EB. Fire bolt at lvl 7 could do 20 dmg, but it could also do only 2. My other fear is a system to restrictive on number of spell slots will stifle creative play and lead to analysis paralysis.
I am slightly confused as to what you mean when you say "fantastic". To me at least, the most viable solutions to the disparity are things like buffing the damage, armor class, or outside of combat features for Warriors.
We can still have the base class for Warriors be somewhat grounded by reality and be far more powerful than it already is. That is a possible and appropriate way to solve the disparity.
On the topic of spellcasters, I don't think anyone really wants them to be nerfed and have the cool abilities people have enjoyed for nearly a decade be taken away. It just doesn't feel very 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.Feats that have utility and world-changing effects on the scale of spells. Which basically puts you in the scope of anime and demigods by tier 2.
Buffing damage and armor class of Warrior/"mundane" characters does literally nothing to stop the disparity. Warriors already deal drastically more damage outside of very rare spells and tend to have, easily, 10+ AC over the average caster. The disparity has nothing to do with defenses or damage, it has to do with the fact that spellcasters can do hundreds of different things "mundane" characters simply can't match or compete with. "Outside combat features" are rejected because players don't pick Fighters or Barbarians to be diplomats, they pick those classes to hit stuff - and as you have noted yourself on several billion occasions, asking players to expect more from their D&D than "i hit stuf reel hard" is just being terribly unfair and exclusionist and awful and should make the person asking feel so horrible they never want to play again.
No you can't and no it isn't. Pantagruel is correct - either "Mundane" characters get less mundane or spellcasters get more mundane. No other solution. When you have a guy in a metal gimp suit with a sharp stick whose entire repertoire consists of "I poke with stick" next to Harry Dresden, Merlin, and Gandalf, you're gonna see disparity in abilities no matter how sharp and pokey the sharp stick is.
Lots of people want spellcasters nerfed. A significant chunk of the playerbase (or at least a significant chunk of the playerbase that cares about the issue) sees spellcaster power as the culprit and want spellcasters sharply nerfed, on top of DMs hating a high-level spellcaster's ability to simply cast Solve Problem a dozen times a day. They, in fact, did nerf spellcasters heavily in Fourth Edition, in conjunction with empowering "mundane" characters to be less mundane, and it resulted in no real disparity at all from what I've heard. And people hated it. Because despite what the goobers who hate spellcasters for being "too fantastical" think, D&D's spellcasting system is one of the game's greatest strengths. D&D lets magic users be magic users, in a way almost no other system I've encountered/toyed with does. Other systems give you dramatically fewer uses of magic and make those uses dramatically weaker and more limited in scope, to the point where someone used to D&D wonders why someone would even bother studying the difficult mysteries of the arcane only to get, like...five uses of cantrip-level magic a day, if that.
D&D's spellcasting system is one of its biggest differentiators, and needs to remain. That means that "mundane" characters need to get less mundane for the disparity to shrink, but people keep snarling like animals whenever someone mentions the slightest bit of improvement to a mArTiAl ClAsS because "martial" means "cannot do anything at all that cannot be done by average modern-day salaryman with a light gym subscription." It's not like it's a world where magic suffuses everything and evolution/the gods/insane mages producing creatures with explicitly and outlandishly supernatural - to us - abilities is perfectly normal and natural or anything. Warriors completely and utterly eschewing any and all forms of supernatural boost and Charles Atlas-level training in order to learn how to swing one sword one time once makes no god damn sense in a D&D world, and yet people refuse to let martials benefit from the magic richness of the world even the slightest bit.
Until y'all unclench and let martials be supermartial? The disparity will never shrink or disappear.
Please do not contact or message me.
As far as I know, Pathfinder 2e addressed that by moving some of the more spectacular and convenient problem-solving magic up a level or two, making duration or range shorter, etc. Invisibility lasting 10 minutes instead of 1 hour is already enough to make a caster think more about how to use it, 10 minutes won't cover the entire span of any infiltration mission. No need to take away spellcasters' toys, but WotC could tone down how freely they're used.
Fortunately, I did not say that. What I did say was that there should be at least one simple Warrior class, and that class would preferably be Fighter, because Fighter is already relatively simple and it is liked and enjoyed as just that.
It is possible to add a bit of complexity to Fighter, though it should be done in small amounts to ensure that it is done in a way that works for both types of players and is hopefully optional.
The other Warrior and Martial classes however are all able to have buffs to outside of combat skills and to have increased complexity.
Less mundane, maybe, but that would preferably be done in higher tiers in limited amounts and via things like subclasses that the DM can more easily ban. Obviously, Merlin and Gandalf are incredibly high-level casters, and Warriors would be able to be a bit less "grounded by reality" at higher levels.
However, I do think Warriors cam still be somewhat realistic and grounded by reality - because that is the playstyle some groups want -and still be as powerful or close to as powerful as Wizards and other Casters. The ways to buff them just have to actually make some sense and not be too unrealistic. Giving them some more things like Superiority tom some Warriors and outside of combat features to others will help significantly.
Realism is often a flavor thing. And I think groups that want to have Warriors be somewhat be realistic doesn't actually require all of the cool mechanics to not be utilized.
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.In tier 1, yes. In tier 2, maybe. In tier 3-4, no chance.
It's possible to make them look mundane (generally through extremely favorable coincidences), but it really still isn't grounded in reality.
I agree with the toning down, along with some kind of expansion in the quality/type of skills martial characters can access compared to casters that give martials some situations where the easiest solution is one only they can provide.
I totally disagree. Gandalf is not a high level caster in D&D terms, he barely casts any spells and mostly fights with a sword. Even when he does cast spells they aren't particularly powerful, we see him cast: Arcane Lock (2nd level) in Moria, a specialized Fear (3rd level) against the Nazgul to save Faramir, Greater Restoration (5th level) on Theodin... that’s really about it.
Merlin maybe a bit more powerful but he rarely casts more than 1 spell a day.
Most fantasy mages outside of D&D are closer to warlocks than any of the full caster classes. They cast one or two game-changing spells, but then are relatively ordinary/weak the rest of the time.
Personally, I'm against letting martials go full anime. IMO not only magic should be more costly and limited, the side effects should be emphasized more, as magic crudely messes up reality for fast results. It already exists to a degree: Knock opens locks, but with a very loud noise, while a rogue with a lockpick will do it quietly. Charm Person lets you quickly gain someone's favor, but once the spell wears out, the person won't be happy about having been manipulated by magic - which won't be the case if you win them over naturally. There should be more of that.
Control over the spell is important, too. In most cases, you can just end your concentration and end the spell whenever it's convenient to you. For example, new summoning spells let you unsummon the creature by simply ending your concentration. On one hand, it gives your enemy a chance to disrupt your tactics, something for you to protect and value. But I liked it more when concentration merely controlled the creature. If you lost it, the creature was on its own for the rest of the duration, potentially turning against you or wreaking random havoc in accordance with its nature.
Most fantasy mages outside of D&D are ritual casters outside of maybe cantrip-level abilities, and their rituals have complicated prerequisites (time, place, materials, etc) which make casting a major spell a significant plot line, not a casual activity.
Honestly, I think the main problem here is more about how much fun it is to play one class or another. I'm not saying that warriors can do game-changing actions like casters. But I do think they need to have more combat options than just hitting. In my opinion, the most fun part of a fight is the decision making. That's why I prefer to play casters, since they have a lot of options available, and a lot of decisions to make. Instead, the warriors have very few options. The fighter can decide if he uses the second wind, or action surge. Or, at most, if he grapples. But most of the time all he does is move, and hit whatever is in front of him until he kills it. And the barbarian more of the same (and even fewer options than the fighter). That is why I think it is necessary to give them more options. They don't have to be super powerful options. They don't have to be game-changing things. They just have to be options so that warriors can make decisions beyond hitting with their weapon.
On a personal note, I recently played a mini-campaign with my first barbarian in 10 years. I was bored to death. The fights seemed eternal to me since I practically had no decision to make. And yes, the character was effective and one of the biggest threats in the group. But it was soporific to play that. That's a problem, since at my usual game table nobody wants to play warriors anymore. And not because they are bad, but because they are boring in combat (weird, by the way. Since theirs should be combat).
I 100% agree with this. Martial characters need to be able to make impactful choices beyond 'do I kill this guy extra hard, or do I save it for the next guy?' and I think that the best way to do this is to simply expanding the number of actions available to people who wield a weapon; giving things like Parry and Riposte as a reaction to being attacked, Lunging Attack as bonus action for when things are slightly too far away, different kinds of attacks, like power attacks or a quick attack, or simply codifying things like Disarming people.
Any or all of these things would do great things in bridging the divide between martials and caster, at least in terms of fun.
Then OTOH there are many players that LIKE that they don't have to remember 20 different spells and have to try an pick the exact right one when they are put on the spot in combat. This is the fundamental conflict, some players want simple, some players want complex. Currently 5e addresses this by martials being simple and casters being complex, and both martials and casters having build options that allow them to play as in-the-thick-of-it melee characters or a safe-hiding-in-the-back ranged characters.
Not every class has to appeal to every player, and quite honestly it's not possible for every class to appeal to every player. The best WotC can aim for is that at least one class appeals to every player.
Problem the First: every D&D party more or less requires there to be a mix of martial meatheads and casty things. So if you have a table where everybody is on the "likes to engage with the game, make decisions, and enjoy rich game depth" spectrum? Not everybody gets to do that. Somebody has to play the dumb meathead that can barely remember which end of the mace is the one you hold and which end is the one you swing at the enemy.
Conversely, if you have an entire tableful of people on the "decision-making sucks and I hate having to think or engage with the game at all, I just want to swing whichever end of a mace at whatever's in front of me" end of the spectrum? Not everybody gets to do that. Somebody has to play the casty thing that can solve problems the army of Dumb Meatheads can't, and has to deal with actually engaging with D&D even though they really hate having to do it.
Making it such that there are no options for "complex" martial characters and also no options for "simple" spellcasters means tables that don't have a correct mix of player types have to deal with somebody always being forced to take on a role they don't want to fulfill.
Problem the Second: saying "not everything can appeal to everyone!" is factually true but also a useless statement. It's Wizards' job to give the playerbase as a whole as many options as they can. Giving up on making a class broadly applicable because 'we want to make [X class] for people who love [X class]' is also "we don't care if people who aren't fans of [X class] hate it because they don't matter."
Nobody can realistically go through the game playing nothing but their one single favorite class, they will eventually have to branch out unless they only ever play one game once and then quit. It's one of the reasons I'm so pissed off at the UA Druid; they're making it "for people who love druid" while completely ignoring people who might just maybe want to be a fan of druids but can't stand the fact that the entire class is nothing but a pointless chassis for closet-furry shapeshifter bullshit.
This idea people have that simplicity is always 100% better than any amount of "complexity" and anyone who disagrees can just shut the **** up and play the stupid wizard is toxic, bad, and counterproductive. Telling somebody to shut up and play the wizard all the time is as uncool as making other tables play Boulder Parchment Shears to see who has to waste a campaign playing the meathead instead of getting to make decisions.
Please do not contact or message me.
I find the argument that all martials must be simple just because people like the play style bizarre, and I also don't believe that anyone enjoys taking the attack action soooo much that having any other options ruins combat for them.
And besides, I don't believe that anyone is advocating for all martial characters to have 20 different 'spells' to remember; I know I certainly ain't. I simply think more people would enjoy it if Fighters, the supposed masters of weaponry, could do more than whack people over the head. Why can't we whack with style? Why can't we respond to being whacked with a flair that belies our supreme skill, rather than simply taking it and saying, 'Ouch?'
And besides, Barbarian will always exist for those who want the simple play style, and the simple play style fits in well with its thematics.
I agree with the first part but not the second. The latter gives the DM yet another thing to adjudicate when they likely already have their hands full. The biggest benefit to the new Tasha summons is that the DM doesn't have to worry about what creatures are in the area, whether they will wreck the balance of the encounter they spent hours planning, and what will happen if they run amok to their own devices; the summon is easy for even newer players to control, easy for the DM to plan around, and if the spell is disrupted they leave. They're varied enough to be fun for the player but straightforward enough to keep the DM's already hard job from being any harder, and that's a great thing for both sides.
This is the problem.
There are players who like complicated and also want to swing a sword. There are players who like simple and also want to cast spells.
Also, 'simple' should not mean 'inferior'.
Martials aren't inferior by and large, casters DPR is abysmal compared to martials. I've just been DMing a party of: a cleric, a bard, an artificer, and a barbarian. The barbarian is responsible for 75-80% of the total damage done by this party.