There is a lot of talk about a divide between what Martial classes can do in DnD, and what Spellcasting classes are capable of. The divide between them is almost spoken of as an accepted truth. A lot of people have written about it, made videos about it, and suggested solutions for the problem. With a new edition on the way, I'm curious how much the divide is real, and how much it matters.
So the question is - are Martials really weaker than Casters?
I made the poll with the option to choose multiple answers to try to allow everyone to pick as nuanced a response as possible. My hope is to better understand the root of this common complaint. And to maybe come to a consensus on how to improve things if given the chance.
Are we all just convincing ourselves that there is an issue where one doesn't really exist? Are Martials just as strong as Casters, but in different ways?
Or is there some imbalance, but it doesn't really matter? DnD isn't a competitive sport. It might be alright if not every class is as good at some things as others.
Or is the divide a real and important issue, no matter the build, level, or style of game?
Is the Martial really only weaker in certain games? If your table doesn't play by the suggested 6-8 encounters a day with 2 short rests. If your campaign only has one big fight per adventure, where spellcasters can just dump all of their strongest spells and the warriors don't make the most of their abilities. If your campaign is more focused on social encounters than combat. If a high Athletics skill isn't as useful as a high Persuasion skill. Or only in certain builds.
Is the Martial only weaker in certain Tiers of play? Do they feel good until higher levels when the most world-changing spells come online? Or is it a mid tier problem? Or low level?
Or are Martials overall pretty good in combat, but only suffer in the utility department? Do they carry their weight well in a fight but have little to do in social encounters or exploration? Do they need more options out of combat?
Or is the divide not really as big as it might look? Are there a few issues but not enough to worry about much? Are they easily fixed with some house rules or simple updates?
Or do you just think they're boring? Maybe their power level is fine, but Casters get so much more to do. Maybe a Fighter is just as useful to the party, but they don't have as many interesting options during play so they feel worse.
I hope that I covered most things. If not, please feel free to select 'Other' and explain in the comments. And please be civil. Everyone is just expressing their own opinions from their own experiences. And the game we love should be able to accommodate many different styles of play. DnD is for everyone.
I think they're stronger than martials, and they always have been. I also think as the editions have come and gone, the disparity has grown much wider. In 1e days, a magic-user needed a 19 int to cast 9th level spells (and there were no asi, so a 19 int was all but impossible without DM buy-in), and casting times worked differently, so it was possible to have your spell interrupted mid-cast, and you leveled up at the slowest rate of any of the classes, and when you were copying a spell to your spellbook, there was a chance you'd fail and never be able to learn the spell, ever, and the purely vancian casting and memorizing was much more punishing, and you had a d4 for hit dice, which you always rolled, even at level 1. (For the record, I'm not saying we should go back any of to that)
In spite of those factors, and probably a few others I'm forgetting, magic users who survived to high levels were easily the most powerful characters. And that was OK. And personally, even though it's a very different game now, I think it's still OK. In spite of the power difference, there's still people who prefer playing martials, because character power isn't the be-all, end-all of reasons to play something. Sometimes, you just want to be the person who solves all of their problems by beating them it an ax. What matters is that martials are still fun to play, for those who want to play them.
I think the biggest disparity is outside of combat. Especially at higher levels, casters have enough spell slots and access to so many different spells that they have a way of just casting "Solve Problem" for just about every possible thing you can look to throw at them. Meanwhile, martials are stuck with just making checks and trying to come up with something creative. However, every character can make skill checks, but casters can often bypass this with spells, which is the crux of the martial VS. caster outside of combat disparity.
Personally, I believe that martials and casters are relatively balanced in combat. Why do I think this? Because martials typically have a higher armor class and more hit points. The biggest problem I see in combat is that the spellcasters just stand behind the martials firing spells, and the big bad guys typically ignore them in order to deal with the threat in their face. This is a big problem, since it allows spellcasters to get away with launching attack after attack without taking much, if any, damage.
Most casters really aren't built to deal with an angry Ogre in their face. They can easily be one-shotted or killed, which is why I think DMs hesitate to go after them. So if you play monsters optimally, then yes, I think martials and casters are balanced in combat. Personally, I think outside of combat is where the biggest disparity lies. But I'm just one random person on the internet voicing their opinion on a matter that is incredibly hard to quantify or accurately measure, so don't listen to me lol. :)
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 think the line is pretty blurry between casters and martials, with so many classes being half casters or having sub-classes with magical leaning, and the ability to multi-class or take specific feats if you want to take some magic on the side. Add in magic items, manoeuvres, special skills and feats, and everyone always has options and a way to engage.
Hopefully we will soon see the Playtest of the martials, which will show us what ideas they have to make weapons more interesting. Currently there is little reason to pick one weapon that does 1d6 damage over another, but if there are effects tied to the type of weapon then weapon choice matters and carrying multiple types becomes useful.
I see a lot of the balance outside combat being DM related. If none of the non-combat encounters the group face play into a martials skillset, he/she won' t really shine. Casters often have methods of dealing with non-combat situations with their magic and in cases, stats. If encounters and challenges run from Intelligence to Charisma, casters are more likely to shine. Getting into Strength and Dexterity tests and martials will star to give a good showing.
In combat, I agree with the above about the martials doing as much or more in combat. Taking damage, containing enemies, making themselves enough of a threat to keep the enemy occupied. Casters do get the BIG one shot damage bursts, but so do Rogues, or Paladins with smites, Fighters with 3 attacks can compete with the Wizard's growing spell list. I feel they are pretty equal in how much they do in combat.
Overall, I feel they are balanced but the campaign is what dictates if their skills are utilized or not. If the DM balances the challenges out of combat to suit his party, everyone will get a chance in the spotlight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The combat divide is heavily dependent on the type of combat challenge. Martials have significantly higher single target damage output at pretty much any tier, but spellcasters are a lot better at dealing with hordes, either through area damage (hitting ten targets and doing 200+ total damage with a single fireball is entirely feasible) or zoning effects (a third level fighter holding a passageway against a horde of orcs probably stops a couple of them before going down. A third level druid casts spike growth and walks away whistling). It's actually sort of a problem -- part of the design goal of bounded accuracy was for low CR monsters to retain relevance, but it's only actually true for ranged attackers that can retain substantial spacing, the encounter builder might think 24 zombies is a deadly challenge for a fifth level party, but it isn't.
Thanks for the amazing responses everyone. It's a lot of good points to think about when we talk about 'the divide.' And very worth considering for any plans to bridge that gap. Adventure design and encounter building matters a lot. As well as possibly giving martials their own utility features. Ones that fit their non-magical theme. But give them more ways to interact with the world that don't depend as much on DMs creating specific scenarios.
Normally casters have more options, specially utility. But except for a few cases is fully dependent on spells available: not every caster prepares every spell for every ocasion on every single day... and if you "divine your way" to know whats ahead of you, you have already spend resources.
As some have said, some casters have dificulty in combat, specialy in early levels where survival and a healthy body between him and enemies are necesary. Unless theres only few combats each day, then resources become a thing (does that solve problems or keep the caster alive).
Other thing that I see people forget, is that this game is normally a collaborative game... not a race between players. If not, people will not fear the msrtials becoming dominated or disabled.
In the end the disparity only means something if people give meaning to it. I've played many characters of different classes and rols and my job in many pillars mattered, even when a caster solved a major problem with one spell.
You pose many questions and statements that have been asked before, such as; I want to fix..., does an issue exist and people have made videos, posts and written a lot about fixes. In general if a lot of people are talking about an issue decide for yourself if it is a problem in your game as well as do their comments and arguments have any weight or are they simply talking and or writing for another reason (money, they have to talk/write about something, etc).
I would do a search of the forums for your question as there have been pages of posts in the past that may help you out with what you are trying to do. Then play test the ideas in your game that you think may fix things and see what changes in your game play. One thing people often have a problem with is what they like in their game and how that rule change would be received by other gamers. So it is important to identify what type of gamer you are and your group is. For example I have found that it is much easier to ignore rules the it is to create them and if a game is more of a wargame it is easier for people to house rule it to play a more "Theater of the Mind (TotM)" style game then it is for a TotM game to be house ruled into a war game. But your mileage may vary as things I find easy you may not and vise versa.
In my opinion, this topic is something the designers should have fixed first and then done other fixes after that as IMHO they may have to adjust the fundamental foundation's of how classes work and how the combat system works.
Personally, I believe that martials and casters are relatively balanced in combat. Why do I think this? Because martials typically have a higher armor class and more hit points. ...
Most casters really aren't built to deal with an angry Ogre in their face. They can easily be one-shotted or killed, which is why I think DMs hesitate to go after them. So if you play monsters optimally, then yes, I think martials and casters are balanced in combat. Personally, I think outside of combat is where the biggest disparity lies. But I'm just one random person on the internet voicing their opinion on a matter that is incredibly hard to quantify or accurately measure, so don't listen to me lol. :)
There’s a common belief among players that spellcasters are squishy, and martials are not. This is the “Squishy Caster” Fallacy:
At the levels I play - and I've never reached level 10 in 5e - I believe a martial can generally kill a caster more easily than a caster can kill a martial. There are some situational components in there, I'm well aware how badly a Sleep spell may bode for a martial trying to gank a caster.
I feel this is the way it should be. That's entirely personal, but I do feel the caster should need some protection to be able to rely on their magic taking care of everything else - and without said protection, a martial should be .. 'stronger' - 1v1.
For the same reason, I allow barbarians to burn a Rage usage to break any cc. Including sleep. Despite this, no one has ever elected to play a barbarian in my games.
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.
Sorry, but you're going to have to provide something better than that link as evidence to convince me. As a general tip, if someone frontloads their article with a bunch of maths that they never actually use, at least not to the level they develop it, they're likely up to shenanigans. They're trying to impress you so you accept their authority so you'll accept what they're saying without thinking too critically about what they're saying as well as intimidating you because most people see that level of maths and go "huh, this looks complicated, I'll just skip over and accept what they're saying", and this one dedicates 25% of the article to maths that they never use (it's interesting, but not really useful to their point because they don't actually use it).
Things that jumped out at me while reading it, dealing with kids and not concentrating at all:
Yes, casters can wear armour too, if they're proficient. Let's split this into medium/light and heavy armour:
Casters can get light or medium armour. They're generally outmatched by martials who will generally have a better Dex which adds to the AC.
The vast majority aren't natively proficient to heavy armour and require a specific feat or a multiclass to get the proficiency, which most casters will not do (either for simplicty or the fact that it tends to harshly punish them with high opportunity costs). Martials can get the proficiency and start with heavy armour as a base feature (ie no need for a specific subclass). While many don't, this is a definite lean towards martials.
Yes, with effort, casters can equal or even exceed martials in AC...but the part they forget is that this uses finite resources from the caster. Action economy and spell slots. Martials just sit there chilling out with their naturally high AC. Yes, this suits casters because the idea is that they ideally sit out of the action and only have to deal with the occasional hit, so expending resources to deal with them isn't a big deal. Admittedly, at higher levels this becomes less of a thing, but at low levels, it's (literally) a killer. If they were doing what martials are expected to do, deal with consistently being attacked, they'd be fodder. Why are the roles set out so that casters aren't dealing with that? Because they're squishy.
Yes, casters can get shields. We generally don't see them with them though, and why not? Oh yeah, shields cripple most casters. With the exception of Clerics (and Paladins, but they're half caster, half martial), you need two hands free to cast any spell that has both an M component and an S component. That's over half of them. Now this is conjecture because it would be too onerous to thoroughly check, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest that those spells are also the more potent ones. Sure, you can get a feat (war caster, I think?) to overcome it...but it's not like casters have loads of free ASIs to spread around. Contrary to what the article claims, casters have plenty of attributes they need buffing as well (and don't get extra ones, unlike Fighters). The thing is that they handwave this problem away...and then complain that martials need both hands for crossbows! See post #14 for a correction to the problem of shields for a caster.
The article makes a "best of you, worst of us" comparison. They spend most of it talking about casters being optimised for AC, even to the point of crippling themselves to do it (can't cast the majority of spells, using their action economy and spell slots for defensive purposes), and then whine that such casters will be better tanks than...martials who are optimised for damage.
They make a big deal out the mental attribute saves...but by far the most common is Dex, which favours martials. The difference between the results is also important. Yes, I'd generally rather fail a Dex than a Wis or Int. However, it's not because it's less dangerous. Instead, the other types tend to be disabling, it takes me out of the fight for a period. That's really bad for the party, because they've lost a damage absorber and a dealer at the same time. However, I'll be back, when I pass my repeat saving throw the next turn. A Dex save is an actual killer, and so being prone to that is more likely to lead to character death. Since we're talking specifically about squishiness and not about the ability to contribute to the party...Dex saves are better.
If we're really going to give any weight to saves in the caster's favour, let's talk about concentration saves, which are the bane of the caster's usefulness...oh wait, the article doesn't address this? That's curious.
They make a big thing out of Dodge...when was the last time anyone used it? I've always had much more important things to do than basically an effective +3 to AC and Dex saves. Occasionally I might use Disengage if I get engaged and need to flee, but Dodge? No. Martials and casters can both use it, with similar consequences. Indeed, if things aren't really pear-shaped, martials have more use for it. Why? Because they can afford to be tanks better than casters.
I'm sure there are more problems, but I'm tired, and my kids love my attention, so I'm distracted. There is a case to be made that casters aren't as squishy as we sometimes portray here on the boards. However, that article starts with that premise, then attempts to prove it, which is always a poor mentality for creating strong arguments. Casters have low HP, low AC and low bonuses to the common saves. Yes, they can mitigate these somewhat, at cost, but all the same, they're squishier than martials, especially at lower levels.
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 thought that if a spell had M and S components, that you just needed one free hand, because the somatic part is actually moving the material around etc. Or maybe that was just a house rule.
However, the caster does need to be proficient with shields...and only Clerics and Druids get that natively. The only ways to get it is via the Moderately Armored feat or by multiclassing. The only martial that doesn't is the Rogue...which I don't really class as a martial anyway. So yeah, you're correct that shields don't necessarily block spells, but it'll often cost you a feat to cast any at all, and if it doesn't, then your class is built for tanking which comes with compromises to pay for it.
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.
The wizard in the article has intelligently and deliberately invested in their “sturdiness” whereas the fighter is using a hand crossbow. How often do we actually see that? Outside of CBE, it’s a terrible choice. Fighters have MUCH better options available to them. Did the author sandbag the fighter to make their point, hoping we wouldn’t notice the wizard is being compared to something very subpar? It sure seems like it because, if you give them a sensible weapon, one that doesn’t tie up both their hands for a measly d6 damage, fighters can and probably will use a shield too.
I see a lot of the balance outside combat being DM related. If none of the non-combat encounters the group face play into a martials skillset, he/she won' t really shine. Casters often have methods of dealing with non-combat situations with their magic and in cases, stats. If encounters and challenges run from Intelligence to Charisma, casters are more likely to shine. Getting into Strength and Dexterity tests and martials will star to give a good showing.
I'm not sure what levels you play at, but it seems you're assuming that most out of combat stuff is dealt with via skill checks. Part of the issue of "caster superiority" is that they get spells that just bypass the need for skill checks altogether - both mental and physical.
Oh, you're good at climbing? Well the caster's even better with spider climb
Need to get between two buildings on a highwire using your expertise in Acrobatics? Caster uses Fly and waits for you on the other side.
Heavy boulder in the way? You can hope for a decent Athletics check to move it, or the caster can just cast Telekinesis.
And so on and so forth. There is nowhere for martials to shine because casters can cover all the bases. In my experience at high levels, if the martials have anything to do outside of combat, it's only because the casters are humoring them - and everyone at the table knows it.
There's still plenty of fun to be had in combat and through roleplay that anyone can do, but you do feel a little sting every time the wizard or cleric pulls out a solution from their toolbox that you couldn't hope to match. You have a screwdriver and they have a full set of power tools.
I think casters are more resource dependent. So if you're only doing 1 or 2 combats a day the casters can burn through their spell slots and dish out a lot. 5e seems to have been balanced with the idea of having 6 to 8 medium to hard encounters a day. In that scenario casters can run out of spell slots and be left slinging cantrips which is far below martial capability. From what I hear hardly anyone actually does 6-8 encounters a day, which effectively buffs caster output. Moreso at lower levels I've had days as a caster when I do run out of slots and the martials have to carry the party the rest of the way.
Might be our group is "old school" and when facing mundane "physical" challenges (climb the wall, jump the gap, etc) we have the agile or beefy character use their natural skills get us by, conserving magic for when we need it. By DM dependent I mean if the DM isn't giving these mundane obstacles and challenges, the martials have less opportunity to even attempt to contribute. We haven't had any charismatic fighters or barbarians yet, so social stuff doesn't play well for them and investigations and searches tend to favor other skills they aren't necessarily strong in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
This becomes a lot more obvious when we check out less caster-heavy systems, where non-magical things your martials can do are much more expanded on.
It's not a huge issue, but it is one that does make certain classes more boring in certain situations.
First easy fix IMO is to bake "STR for intimidation" into the class features for Barb instead of in an optional rules part of the DMG. Simple things like this would do wonders for martials in the social pillar.
There is a lot of talk about a divide between what Martial classes can do in DnD, and what Spellcasting classes are capable of. The divide between them is almost spoken of as an accepted truth. A lot of people have written about it, made videos about it, and suggested solutions for the problem. With a new edition on the way, I'm curious how much the divide is real, and how much it matters.
So the question is - are Martials really weaker than Casters?
I made the poll with the option to choose multiple answers to try to allow everyone to pick as nuanced a response as possible. My hope is to better understand the root of this common complaint. And to maybe come to a consensus on how to improve things if given the chance.
Are we all just convincing ourselves that there is an issue where one doesn't really exist? Are Martials just as strong as Casters, but in different ways?
Or is there some imbalance, but it doesn't really matter? DnD isn't a competitive sport. It might be alright if not every class is as good at some things as others.
Or is the divide a real and important issue, no matter the build, level, or style of game?
Is the Martial really only weaker in certain games? If your table doesn't play by the suggested 6-8 encounters a day with 2 short rests. If your campaign only has one big fight per adventure, where spellcasters can just dump all of their strongest spells and the warriors don't make the most of their abilities. If your campaign is more focused on social encounters than combat. If a high Athletics skill isn't as useful as a high Persuasion skill. Or only in certain builds.
Is the Martial only weaker in certain Tiers of play? Do they feel good until higher levels when the most world-changing spells come online? Or is it a mid tier problem? Or low level?
Or are Martials overall pretty good in combat, but only suffer in the utility department? Do they carry their weight well in a fight but have little to do in social encounters or exploration? Do they need more options out of combat?
Or is the divide not really as big as it might look? Are there a few issues but not enough to worry about much? Are they easily fixed with some house rules or simple updates?
Or do you just think they're boring? Maybe their power level is fine, but Casters get so much more to do. Maybe a Fighter is just as useful to the party, but they don't have as many interesting options during play so they feel worse.
I hope that I covered most things. If not, please feel free to select 'Other' and explain in the comments. And please be civil. Everyone is just expressing their own opinions from their own experiences. And the game we love should be able to accommodate many different styles of play. DnD is for everyone.
I feel like the martial/caster disparity is pushed by 2 main things overall: - The 1st issue is number of encounters overall. Most people run 1-2 encounters per long rest, and I don't blame them at all. the DMG only implies that the game was balanced around 6-8 encounters. A lot of people are going to roll their eyes, since players like having their cool epic resources and abilities, but I think a good way to deal with this is to add a variant "milestone" resting which allows the DM to build resting around the story, rather than in game time and players choosing when to rest. 6 fights in 24 hours with 2 1 hour breaks feels quite videogamey, and it hard to write around. period. Casters would have to play a bit conservative, so they can't consistently pull insane fight/narrative changing stuff, but can still have those cool moments. (Honestly I think limiting "cool moments" makes the "cool" stuff "cooler".) For my next campaign I am actually going to start trying something like this and seeing how it goes. (In addition, some spell durations will likely be adjusted due to the adventuring day being stretched out to "until your next ___ rest".) - Another issue is just options. People feel weak without doing the cool epic stuff. I think battle master improves fighter in the options department, but there's no new options the subclass brings after that 3rd level, making it sadly rather a joke in my eyes around level 5 where casters get crazy 3rd level spells. Leveled maneuvers and more superiority die ("high level" maneuvers could cost more die) would make it great and scale better with high level spells. There needs to be some utility options as well. They don't have to be as crazy as 9th level spells, but they need to be accessible, and give martial at least something to do out of combat. I'd say less limited, but less powerful utility would make sense. For example a martial could get a utility feature around the worth of a 3rd level spell, which is very accessible, when casters unlock 5th level spells.
Some "simple" ideas I've made to improve martials which are more "base class" and not complex or "complex" but not actually as some complain (IE: Maneuvers) could be:
- Improvised actions take place of attacks rather than a full turn. This would allow fighters and other martials to interact with the environment a lot more. Maybe some more improvised action rules like minimum (but not maximum) damage values for improvised actions so martials won't feel as if wasting their damage too much. Some sample conditions for environmental effects and checks would be cool too.
- Some actions are in place of attacks such as dodge (maybe not disengage or dash to not step on rogue). New action options would be nice as well.
- Martials can use attacks to cut through spell effects so they're less crippled by them and can fight back. (This could combo great with the next idea)
- They can ready multiple attacks and use them as they please on attacks or any option replacing attacks like Fizban's Dragonborn breath weapon. Another idea for martials to deal with casters is the ability to ready an attack to "rift steal", cutting into a teleportation spell to teleport with them to prevent cheesy retreats. - Exclusive proficiency with certain utility items. (Maybe at level 3 to prevent multiclassing.) Imagine how cool it would be to have something like a BOTW paraglider in D&D!
There is a lot of talk about a divide between what Martial classes can do in DnD, and what Spellcasting classes are capable of. The divide between them is almost spoken of as an accepted truth. A lot of people have written about it, made videos about it, and suggested solutions for the problem. With a new edition on the way, I'm curious how much the divide is real, and how much it matters.
So the question is - are Martials really weaker than Casters?
I made the poll with the option to choose multiple answers to try to allow everyone to pick as nuanced a response as possible. My hope is to better understand the root of this common complaint. And to maybe come to a consensus on how to improve things if given the chance.
Are we all just convincing ourselves that there is an issue where one doesn't really exist? Are Martials just as strong as Casters, but in different ways?
Or is there some imbalance, but it doesn't really matter? DnD isn't a competitive sport. It might be alright if not every class is as good at some things as others.
Or is the divide a real and important issue, no matter the build, level, or style of game?
Is the Martial really only weaker in certain games? If your table doesn't play by the suggested 6-8 encounters a day with 2 short rests. If your campaign only has one big fight per adventure, where spellcasters can just dump all of their strongest spells and the warriors don't make the most of their abilities. If your campaign is more focused on social encounters than combat. If a high Athletics skill isn't as useful as a high Persuasion skill. Or only in certain builds.
Is the Martial only weaker in certain Tiers of play? Do they feel good until higher levels when the most world-changing spells come online? Or is it a mid tier problem? Or low level?
Or are Martials overall pretty good in combat, but only suffer in the utility department? Do they carry their weight well in a fight but have little to do in social encounters or exploration? Do they need more options out of combat?
Or is the divide not really as big as it might look? Are there a few issues but not enough to worry about much? Are they easily fixed with some house rules or simple updates?
Or do you just think they're boring? Maybe their power level is fine, but Casters get so much more to do. Maybe a Fighter is just as useful to the party, but they don't have as many interesting options during play so they feel worse.
I hope that I covered most things. If not, please feel free to select 'Other' and explain in the comments. And please be civil. Everyone is just expressing their own opinions from their own experiences. And the game we love should be able to accommodate many different styles of play. DnD is for everyone.
I think they're stronger than martials, and they always have been. I also think as the editions have come and gone, the disparity has grown much wider. In 1e days, a magic-user needed a 19 int to cast 9th level spells (and there were no asi, so a 19 int was all but impossible without DM buy-in), and casting times worked differently, so it was possible to have your spell interrupted mid-cast, and you leveled up at the slowest rate of any of the classes, and when you were copying a spell to your spellbook, there was a chance you'd fail and never be able to learn the spell, ever, and the purely vancian casting and memorizing was much more punishing, and you had a d4 for hit dice, which you always rolled, even at level 1. (For the record, I'm not saying we should go back any of to that)
In spite of those factors, and probably a few others I'm forgetting, magic users who survived to high levels were easily the most powerful characters. And that was OK. And personally, even though it's a very different game now, I think it's still OK. In spite of the power difference, there's still people who prefer playing martials, because character power isn't the be-all, end-all of reasons to play something. Sometimes, you just want to be the person who solves all of their problems by beating them it an ax. What matters is that martials are still fun to play, for those who want to play them.
I think the biggest disparity is outside of combat. Especially at higher levels, casters have enough spell slots and access to so many different spells that they have a way of just casting "Solve Problem" for just about every possible thing you can look to throw at them. Meanwhile, martials are stuck with just making checks and trying to come up with something creative. However, every character can make skill checks, but casters can often bypass this with spells, which is the crux of the martial VS. caster outside of combat disparity.
Personally, I believe that martials and casters are relatively balanced in combat. Why do I think this? Because martials typically have a higher armor class and more hit points. The biggest problem I see in combat is that the spellcasters just stand behind the martials firing spells, and the big bad guys typically ignore them in order to deal with the threat in their face. This is a big problem, since it allows spellcasters to get away with launching attack after attack without taking much, if any, damage.
Most casters really aren't built to deal with an angry Ogre in their face. They can easily be one-shotted or killed, which is why I think DMs hesitate to go after them. So if you play monsters optimally, then yes, I think martials and casters are balanced in combat. Personally, I think outside of combat is where the biggest disparity lies. But I'm just one random person on the internet voicing their opinion on a matter that is incredibly hard to quantify or accurately measure, so don't listen to me lol. :)
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 think the line is pretty blurry between casters and martials, with so many classes being half casters or having sub-classes with magical leaning, and the ability to multi-class or take specific feats if you want to take some magic on the side. Add in magic items, manoeuvres, special skills and feats, and everyone always has options and a way to engage.
Hopefully we will soon see the Playtest of the martials, which will show us what ideas they have to make weapons more interesting. Currently there is little reason to pick one weapon that does 1d6 damage over another, but if there are effects tied to the type of weapon then weapon choice matters and carrying multiple types becomes useful.
I see a lot of the balance outside combat being DM related. If none of the non-combat encounters the group face play into a martials skillset, he/she won' t really shine. Casters often have methods of dealing with non-combat situations with their magic and in cases, stats. If encounters and challenges run from Intelligence to Charisma, casters are more likely to shine. Getting into Strength and Dexterity tests and martials will star to give a good showing.
In combat, I agree with the above about the martials doing as much or more in combat. Taking damage, containing enemies, making themselves enough of a threat to keep the enemy occupied. Casters do get the BIG one shot damage bursts, but so do Rogues, or Paladins with smites, Fighters with 3 attacks can compete with the Wizard's growing spell list. I feel they are pretty equal in how much they do in combat.
Overall, I feel they are balanced but the campaign is what dictates if their skills are utilized or not. If the DM balances the challenges out of combat to suit his party, everyone will get a chance in the spotlight.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The combat divide is heavily dependent on the type of combat challenge. Martials have significantly higher single target damage output at pretty much any tier, but spellcasters are a lot better at dealing with hordes, either through area damage (hitting ten targets and doing 200+ total damage with a single fireball is entirely feasible) or zoning effects (a third level fighter holding a passageway against a horde of orcs probably stops a couple of them before going down. A third level druid casts spike growth and walks away whistling). It's actually sort of a problem -- part of the design goal of bounded accuracy was for low CR monsters to retain relevance, but it's only actually true for ranged attackers that can retain substantial spacing, the encounter builder might think 24 zombies is a deadly challenge for a fifth level party, but it isn't.
Thanks for the amazing responses everyone. It's a lot of good points to think about when we talk about 'the divide.' And very worth considering for any plans to bridge that gap. Adventure design and encounter building matters a lot. As well as possibly giving martials their own utility features. Ones that fit their non-magical theme. But give them more ways to interact with the world that don't depend as much on DMs creating specific scenarios.
Normally casters have more options, specially utility. But except for a few cases is fully dependent on spells available: not every caster prepares every spell for every ocasion on every single day... and if you "divine your way" to know whats ahead of you, you have already spend resources.
As some have said, some casters have dificulty in combat, specialy in early levels where survival and a healthy body between him and enemies are necesary. Unless theres only few combats each day, then resources become a thing (does that solve problems or keep the caster alive).
Other thing that I see people forget, is that this game is normally a collaborative game... not a race between players. If not, people will not fear the msrtials becoming dominated or disabled.
In the end the disparity only means something if people give meaning to it. I've played many characters of different classes and rols and my job in many pillars mattered, even when a caster solved a major problem with one spell.
To the OP:
You pose many questions and statements that have been asked before, such as; I want to fix..., does an issue exist and people have made videos, posts and written a lot about fixes. In general if a lot of people are talking about an issue decide for yourself if it is a problem in your game as well as do their comments and arguments have any weight or are they simply talking and or writing for another reason (money, they have to talk/write about something, etc).
I would do a search of the forums for your question as there have been pages of posts in the past that may help you out with what you are trying to do. Then play test the ideas in your game that you think may fix things and see what changes in your game play. One thing people often have a problem with is what they like in their game and how that rule change would be received by other gamers. So it is important to identify what type of gamer you are and your group is. For example I have found that it is much easier to ignore rules the it is to create them and if a game is more of a wargame it is easier for people to house rule it to play a more "Theater of the Mind (TotM)" style game then it is for a TotM game to be house ruled into a war game. But your mileage may vary as things I find easy you may not and vise versa.
In my opinion, this topic is something the designers should have fixed first and then done other fixes after that as IMHO they may have to adjust the fundamental foundation's of how classes work and how the combat system works.
Good Luck on your project
There’s a common belief among players that spellcasters are squishy, and martials are not. This is the “Squishy Caster” Fallacy:
https://tabletopbuilds.com/the-squishy-caster-fallacy/
At the levels I play - and I've never reached level 10 in 5e - I believe a martial can generally kill a caster more easily than a caster can kill a martial. There are some situational components in there, I'm well aware how badly a Sleep spell may bode for a martial trying to gank a caster.
I feel this is the way it should be. That's entirely personal, but I do feel the caster should need some protection to be able to rely on their magic taking care of everything else - and without said protection, a martial should be .. 'stronger' - 1v1.
For the same reason, I allow barbarians to burn a Rage usage to break any cc. Including sleep. Despite this, no one has ever elected to play a barbarian in my games.
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.
Sorry, but you're going to have to provide something better than that link as evidence to convince me. As a general tip, if someone frontloads their article with a bunch of maths that they never actually use, at least not to the level they develop it, they're likely up to shenanigans. They're trying to impress you so you accept their authority so you'll accept what they're saying without thinking too critically about what they're saying as well as intimidating you because most people see that level of maths and go "huh, this looks complicated, I'll just skip over and accept what they're saying", and this one dedicates 25% of the article to maths that they never use (it's interesting, but not really useful to their point because they don't actually use it).
Things that jumped out at me while reading it, dealing with kids and not concentrating at all:
Yes, casters can get shields. We generally don't see them with them though, and why not? Oh yeah, shields cripple most casters. With the exception of Clerics (and Paladins, but they're half caster, half martial), you need two hands free to cast any spell that has both an M component and an S component. That's over half of them. Now this is conjecture because it would be too onerous to thoroughly check, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest that those spells are also the more potent ones. Sure, you can get a feat (war caster, I think?) to overcome it...but it's not like casters have loads of free ASIs to spread around. Contrary to what the article claims, casters have plenty of attributes they need buffing as well (and don't get extra ones, unlike Fighters). The thing is that they handwave this problem away...and then complain that martials need both hands for crossbows!See post #14 for a correction to the problem of shields for a caster.I'm sure there are more problems, but I'm tired, and my kids love my attention, so I'm distracted. There is a case to be made that casters aren't as squishy as we sometimes portray here on the boards. However, that article starts with that premise, then attempts to prove it, which is always a poor mentality for creating strong arguments. Casters have low HP, low AC and low bonuses to the common saves. Yes, they can mitigate these somewhat, at cost, but all the same, they're squishier than martials, especially at lower levels.
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 thought that if a spell had M and S components, that you just needed one free hand, because the somatic part is actually moving the material around etc. Or maybe that was just a house rule.
No, you're correct. I misremembered the rule.
However, the caster does need to be proficient with shields...and only Clerics and Druids get that natively. The only ways to get it is via the Moderately Armored feat or by multiclassing. The only martial that doesn't is the Rogue...which I don't really class as a martial anyway. So yeah, you're correct that shields don't necessarily block spells, but it'll often cost you a feat to cast any at all, and if it doesn't, then your class is built for tanking which comes with compromises to pay for it.
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.
The wizard in the article has intelligently and deliberately invested in their “sturdiness” whereas the fighter is using a hand crossbow. How often do we actually see that? Outside of CBE, it’s a terrible choice. Fighters have MUCH better options available to them. Did the author sandbag the fighter to make their point, hoping we wouldn’t notice the wizard is being compared to something very subpar? It sure seems like it because, if you give them a sensible weapon, one that doesn’t tie up both their hands for a measly d6 damage, fighters can and probably will use a shield too.
I'm not sure what levels you play at, but it seems you're assuming that most out of combat stuff is dealt with via skill checks. Part of the issue of "caster superiority" is that they get spells that just bypass the need for skill checks altogether - both mental and physical.
Oh, you're good at climbing? Well the caster's even better with spider climb
Need to get between two buildings on a highwire using your expertise in Acrobatics? Caster uses Fly and waits for you on the other side.
Heavy boulder in the way? You can hope for a decent Athletics check to move it, or the caster can just cast Telekinesis.
And so on and so forth. There is nowhere for martials to shine because casters can cover all the bases. In my experience at high levels, if the martials have anything to do outside of combat, it's only because the casters are humoring them - and everyone at the table knows it.
There's still plenty of fun to be had in combat and through roleplay that anyone can do, but you do feel a little sting every time the wizard or cleric pulls out a solution from their toolbox that you couldn't hope to match. You have a screwdriver and they have a full set of power tools.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I think casters are more resource dependent. So if you're only doing 1 or 2 combats a day the casters can burn through their spell slots and dish out a lot. 5e seems to have been balanced with the idea of having 6 to 8 medium to hard encounters a day. In that scenario casters can run out of spell slots and be left slinging cantrips which is far below martial capability. From what I hear hardly anyone actually does 6-8 encounters a day, which effectively buffs caster output. Moreso at lower levels I've had days as a caster when I do run out of slots and the martials have to carry the party the rest of the way.
Might be our group is "old school" and when facing mundane "physical" challenges (climb the wall, jump the gap, etc) we have the agile or beefy character use their natural skills get us by, conserving magic for when we need it. By DM dependent I mean if the DM isn't giving these mundane obstacles and challenges, the martials have less opportunity to even attempt to contribute. We haven't had any charismatic fighters or barbarians yet, so social stuff doesn't play well for them and investigations and searches tend to favor other skills they aren't necessarily strong in.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Yeah definitely they're lacking options.
This becomes a lot more obvious when we check out less caster-heavy systems, where non-magical things your martials can do are much more expanded on.
It's not a huge issue, but it is one that does make certain classes more boring in certain situations.
First easy fix IMO is to bake "STR for intimidation" into the class features for Barb instead of in an optional rules part of the DMG. Simple things like this would do wonders for martials in the social pillar.
I feel like the martial/caster disparity is pushed by 2 main things overall:
- The 1st issue is number of encounters overall. Most people run 1-2 encounters per long rest, and I don't blame them at all. the DMG only implies that the game was balanced around 6-8 encounters. A lot of people are going to roll their eyes, since players like having their cool epic resources and abilities, but I think a good way to deal with this is to add a variant "milestone" resting which allows the DM to build resting around the story, rather than in game time and players choosing when to rest. 6 fights in 24 hours with 2 1 hour breaks feels quite videogamey, and it hard to write around. period. Casters would have to play a bit conservative, so they can't consistently pull insane fight/narrative changing stuff, but can still have those cool moments. (Honestly I think limiting "cool moments" makes the "cool" stuff "cooler".) For my next campaign I am actually going to start trying something like this and seeing how it goes. (In addition, some spell durations will likely be adjusted due to the adventuring day being stretched out to "until your next ___ rest".)
- Another issue is just options. People feel weak without doing the cool epic stuff. I think battle master improves fighter in the options department, but there's no new options the subclass brings after that 3rd level, making it sadly rather a joke in my eyes around level 5 where casters get crazy 3rd level spells. Leveled maneuvers and more superiority die ("high level" maneuvers could cost more die) would make it great and scale better with high level spells. There needs to be some utility options as well. They don't have to be as crazy as 9th level spells, but they need to be accessible, and give martial at least something to do out of combat. I'd say less limited, but less powerful utility would make sense. For example a martial could get a utility feature around the worth of a 3rd level spell, which is very accessible, when casters unlock 5th level spells.
Some "simple" ideas I've made to improve martials which are more "base class" and not complex or "complex" but not actually as some complain (IE: Maneuvers) could be:
- Improvised actions take place of attacks rather than a full turn. This would allow fighters and other martials to interact with the environment a lot more. Maybe some more improvised action rules like minimum (but not maximum) damage values for improvised actions so martials won't feel as if wasting their damage too much. Some sample conditions for environmental effects and checks would be cool too.
- Some actions are in place of attacks such as dodge (maybe not disengage or dash to not step on rogue). New action options would be nice as well.
- Martials can use attacks to cut through spell effects so they're less crippled by them and can fight back. (This could combo great with the next idea)
- They can ready multiple attacks and use them as they please on attacks or any option replacing attacks like Fizban's Dragonborn breath weapon. Another idea for martials to deal with casters is the ability to ready an attack to "rift steal", cutting into a teleportation spell to teleport with them to prevent cheesy retreats.
- Exclusive proficiency with certain utility items. (Maybe at level 3 to prevent multiclassing.) Imagine how cool it would be to have something like a BOTW paraglider in D&D!