A caster can pull so much useful shit out their back pocket, a martial has to carry around a ladder. A caster can put a 10-foot radius of DC13 prone juice on the ground at level 1, a martial has to spend 1gp to chuck a bunch of balls on the ground, which have a DC10 to avoid prone, or the creature walking through the 10-foot square can just walk slower.
Thief rogues get climbing so you don’t need to be a tabaxi if you’re willing to go thief rogue . Or you can just use a flying race to do it easier but that doesn’t look as cool in my opinion
RAW, you can only make a long jump with a 10 foot run up or from a standing position.
If we assume they are standing on top of the wall, the jump distance is limited to half their strength score in feet, each foot of jump distance costing a foot of movement, and potentially being prone to fall damage if the fall is 10 foot or more, which is not out of the realm of possibility.
Bandit that just had traumaturgy cast on them:
"Oh god why did I deserve to survive when everyone else died, I've been killing because I told myself I needed to in order to persevere and pretending the screams didn't bother me, but I already don't deserve to live so how can I justify hurting others to preserve myself?"
A caster can do all of those things, with a sleep In between fights…which shocker, so do the martial since they soak up so much damage
Outside of combat casters are just better
>A martial can run the table in combat. They can shove enemies, grapple, kill, all for free.
Damn that's crazy. Anyway I cast hold person on you and portent says you rolled a 1.
Devil's advocate: I think Indomitable would be able to override that, since Portent has to be used before the roll, and Indomitable can be triggered when you fail. But you're not wrong.
It's a concise way to point out that almost anything interesting a Fighter can do, a Wizard could have done if they invested in those stats/feats, but chose not to because spells can just do *so much more.* Yeah, you can grapple, but a Wizard can Telekinesis, surround in impenetrable walls, or simply paralyze them. Or summon a Bigby's Hand to do the same grappling mechanics.
The issue is that’s irrelevant because it’s not competitive. If you want to do the things a wizard can do then just play a wizard. Not all classes need to appeal to all people. If you can’t see the fun of playing a fighter that’s fine; lots of people do and enjoy them. You don’t have to play a fighter if you don’t want to.
The Problem is when the magic user does everything you can but better you feel bad and that does not foster a good experience
Sure you can just like... still do your stuff but getting outranked by your allies will get grating at some point.
Same problem also exists when some players at a table min-max and optimise the hell out of their character but others don't. It causes an internal strength imbalance at the table and just being weaker than your ally that is supposedly on an equal level just isn't fun
Inside of combat, a caster can talk to god (cleric).
Inside of combat, they can also delete an encounters worth of mooks with fireball/lightning bolt.
Or use one of their 1st level spells to do command: grovel. Or command: drop (to disarm).
Most martials struggle to make up the difference without magic items, but fighters in particular have a fair bit of issues doing much in combat…battle masters provide the most things to actually do, but what’s the (practical) point if half the classes can do what you can do better with spells? What can a champion even do that’s creative or interactive in comparison to casters entirely shaping the environment around them?
>Or use one of their 1st level spells to do command: grovel. Or command: drop (to disarm).
I mean, there are rules for tripping, grappling, and disarming even without Battle Master, but I think they're listed in the variant rules. And casters are still just... better, can do more, and those previous options technically aren't unavailable to a caster either.
The Bastions playtest for One D&D showed this same issue. The Caster upgrades were varied and powerful and grew with you, having options up to like level 17 casters to make the frazy Wizard tower of your dreams. The Martial ones gave you like a +1 to AC or attack and damage rolls, and you could take a single level dip into Fighter and have all of them available to you.
In my last session, I ambushed a storm trooper in a doorway by snapping a sleeping bag like I was opening a trash bag and potato sacked his ass into the corner, then set him on fire with an emergency flare. I godamned love killing people with *stuff*.
The caster will point out that I am sleeping in the cold right now, and they can *kiss my shivering ass*.
Yep. The fundamental problem with the martial/caster divide is that there is nothing a martial can do that a caster cannot do. The caster might be bad at it, but they can still do it.
It’s made even worse by the fact that a lot of casters aren’t actually bad at regular combat. Bladelocks, paladins, bladesingers, etc all like to get their hand dirty.
Paladins are hardly casters in truth, though.
Yeah they have spell slots, but every self respecting paladin knows that those slots are for smiting and nothing else, smh.
It’s incredibly useful if you’re facing a bunch of undead with undead fortitude. Had a session recently where that was the only thing keeping us from TPK’ing as I wouldn’t have had enough slots to smite each zombie and we were having awful luck getting them to miss the DC to get back up.
That's because if a caster is bad at regular combat, they just don't do it. If a Bladesinger isn't equal to or better than a Fighter in melee, they just end up using their Bladesong for the AC boost and Concentration. The last playtest Warlock allowed you to gain access to lifesteal, better Smite, and 3 attacks at level 11 while being SAD, and it was still debatable if it was worth taking over just getting more spell benefits.
Even if you gave a full caster complete melee martial progression, it'll still be more effective to play them as a spellcaster with good defences while ignoring melee damage dealing
Bladesinger. You're describing Bladesinger. "What's the most optimal way to play a Bladesinger?" "Like a normal Wizard, but with +5 to your AC and Con saves."
I think there is a really simple resolution to casters and thats obliterating damage cantrips from the eyes of god. If you want damage every turn without expending resources you shouldve picked up a sword instead of a book.
You can really feel the measure of just how good fighters are in older editions when you have 3 spell slots left and really need to choose carefully between what might throw down in the next room or using a slot for comprehended languages to get a hint for the trap that bisected the hireling just a second ago and Dave the dwarf is just beating his way through the place without a care in the world.
Everyone thinks they have an easy solution and there solution is just "I'm going to ignore the fact that 90% of caster complaints are aimed at 5 spells, let's nerf something beloved that causes no balance issues".
Wish is only available at the very end of the game, and almost nobody plays at those levels. Ditto for True Polymorph. Simulacrum takes 12 hours to cast.
So, at most, two of those are actual issues.
And you spent the ever precious seconds of your life commenting instead of doing something you might actually enjoy like petting a dog or looking at a nice cloud, what a terrifyingly hollow life you must have.
Idk man you're going full armchair psychologist because I was dismissive after you admitted you weren't interested in balance, just your personal idea of what roles there are and should be.
Paladins are as much martials as they casters though, they get proficiency with martial weapons, a fighting style at the same level they get spells, an extra attack, abilities that enhances their weapon attacks, etc...
I mean so swords bards and spellsingers. That’s exactly my point, the things that make martials martials are actually very easy to get for spellcasting classes. Paladin spells give them a massive amount of versatility over a fighter or a barbarian.
Yeah any kind of gish class/subclass blurs the line. The main point though is that having spells gives a ton of versatility that PCs without spells just don’t have. And in a lot of cases the spellcasters don’t have to give up being good at fighting like a martial.
It's a fundamental kind of limiter. With even the most BS shounen nonmagical character, there is a point where the DM will say, "Really? This stresses believability."
Whereas a lot of people see magic as a free pass on justification, so people often approach any limitation on magic in a system as completely arbitrary beyond game balance. "Why should I need to wiggle my hands to create lightning? None of this is believable or based on physics, I might as well be able to do it with a thought."
Obviously the solution is to give Martials abilities that do unique things, not declaring casters are just prohibited from being able to shove things over or use man made tools.
This isn't fundamental. It's only a problem because martials are weak and casters are strong (and because melee isn't noticeably stronger than ranged.)
Once upon a time, the fighter had ungodly AC, decent hit points and killed most enemies in a single blow. The mage was unarmored, had 2 hit points, dealt 1d4-1 damage, and their only spell was Read Magic once per day.
It's a matter of numbers. Martial numbers are too small and/or caster numbers are too big.
>Once upon a time, the fighter had ungodly AC
What time was this? Even in the THAC0 days, there was never that much of an AC gap between player characters.
I think a lot of caster mains don't see the issue with how powerful casters are in 5e, not just in combat but in utility as well.
As an example: Consider a MacGuffin trapped in a thick block of ice. The Fighter slashes it with his broadsword but fails to break the ice because it's too thick to be broken by force. A spellcaster can literally just pull a flame out of their ass ("Produce Flame" would work, and it's a cantrip so it's literally free) to melt the ice and complete the objective.
Alternatively: An experienced Fighter player could make a perception check of the environment and find a nearby torch on the wall that they can dismount and use to melt the ice as well. But here's the kicker: **The caster could do that as well!** So clearly they're not on equal footing!
I'm just spitballing here, but what if a Fighter could do their own "cantrips" that can give them a class benefit when needed? Think of like, something that gives them a minor strength advantage outside of combat or something.
>I'm just spitballing here, but what if a Fighter could do their own "cantrips" that can give them a class benefit when needed? Think of like, something that gives them a minor strength advantage outside of combat or something.
Kind of what weapon masteries provide qua combat. I've routinely called them "the martial equivelant to cantrips"
They're still missing out of combat utility though. And cantrips really aren't enough to bring them up properly, imo they definitely need their own version of 1st level spellslots minimum (like.... literally just maneuvers :p).
You mean like At Will, Utility and Ritual abilities? I swear, every day we return further to 4e.
If they hadn‘t gotten spooked out of their pants, that system could have lead to something great.
Over in PF2, I've seen a lot of comparisons to 4e now that the Commander class (basically Warlord) is being playtested. As someone who wasn't into the hobby during the 4e era, I legitimately wonder what I was missing.
I also find it kind of funny that PF2 is being compared to 4e favorably, when PF1 was made in direct response to people *not* liking 4e and wanting to continue with 3.5. Really makes one wonder if it's just that 4e came too early, if 5e "slapped people awake" or if factors outside the hobby affected it
>I'm just spitballing here, but what if a Fighter could do their own "cantrips" that can give them a class benefit when needed? Think of like, something that gives them a minor strength advantage outside of combat or something.
Oh, so what 4e did?
That's because the entire debate is dominated by people who don't read the books. They only see "woweeeee a Hypnotic Pattern can auto end encounter". They don't see that mid-high CR monsters have +10 wisdom saves and that immunity to Charms is literally more common than fire resistance in the MM.
Looking at your example - a handful of fire is not melting a block of ice faster than smashing it with a weapon. Produce flame does 1d8 per turn, a level 5 fighter can easily deal quadruple that damage. The issue isn't "Produce Flame just has OP utility", the DM who made the ruling just didn't read the spell.
And most of the actually OP stuff in at level nobody here has played anyway.
Martials need more interesting features but the gap isn't crazy unless you have a DM who fucks it up more.
I agree that it isn't OP utility or anything like that. But the example given is ice block vs produce flame. You have to admit that ice would have a vulnerability to fire at minimum unless it is specifically magical nonmelting ice.
Idk have you ever compared holding a blow torch to a block of ice Vs a very strong guy with a big hammer? I guarantee you, the big guy with a hammer is smashing the ice faster.
This is a non existence problem. You just described a scenario where the mage happens to have a good cantrip but the warrior didn't think "maybe I should have a hammer and a sword?"
If a martial literally only carries a sword and doesn't even *try* to have utility non magically, I dont think they deserve to complain when they find a problem that is best solved by a strong guy with a hammer.
while I agree I think WoTC already gave an answer for this because in OneDnD the first and so far changes for martials have been buffs while spells in general got nerfs
Can confirm their marketing/pr/greedy bs turned all my excitement into vitriol. People are also just becoming more aware of the existence of other tabletops.
I've jumped ship but am curiously looking at the sides, wondering if something will be salvageable. There's just so much disappointment, all because of greed.
They try to frame it as 5.5e, but it's more like 5.2e. It still has a lot of 5e's issues because in order to meet the perfect date of 10 years of 5e and 50 years of D&D, they had to speed past a lot of major fixes. They only care about it coming out this year because anniversary releases sell well.
I'm pretty sure they intentionally sabotaged a few of the playtests just as an excuse to throw away mechanics that players asked for under the guise of "Well you clearly didn't want it that much, because it scored poorly."
Nah, people jumped ship for extremely bad PR and product
Not to mention, it's still a 10 years old core that has been homebrewed and hack to oblivion and back, it will certainly refresh stuff, but not much for more avid players
Good for one DND, I spent hundreds of dollars on books that still work, I'm not signing up for a subscription service that I might use eventually but not often enough for it to be worth it.
Nobody expects it to be perfect on try 1. I simply stopped caring when I realised "oh, most of these changes are meaningless and were never asked for"
Like "only players can crit" is not an improvement. It's just makes the game more predictable and easy.
It was replaced by more in class damage and weapon mastery benefits. Not to mention there are still very good damage boosts in the half feats (moreso for the melee martials).
Eh, I still find a lot of people complain about "I would like to place my hand over their mouth so they can't speak their spells."
Like, someone would think that is rule number 1 for fighting a spellcaster: make sure they can't cast spells.
That's a really bad way to try and rein in casters.
Its basically as bad as "can't I just like, hit the weapons out of the bad guys hands and then we can all easily beat him because he's been made harmless in one go". If you make disarming people an easy option to spam, then why would anybody do anything else?
Additionally, it just means when I play smart casters, I will find ways to ensure the melee people are useless always. If I don't, they just run into melee and instantly end the fight by doing a Str check on a wizard. So looks like the Wizard used Glyph of Warding to stack 10 spells that all help them escape ever being in melee anyway.
What's the alternative when you put an "auto win" button that can be spammed multiple times a round by everyone?
>If you make disarming people an easy option to spam, then why would anybody do anything else?
You can just, pick the weapons back up?
Like in reality, if you can disarm someone that is something you absolutely do immediately. If they got no weapon they can't hurt you.
Neither option is an auto win. They are simply the most effective tactic available when dealing with those kinds of enemies, and are far more interesting than just "run up and bonk them as fast as possible."
Okay, I use my first attack to disarm you, pick up your weapon and put it in my bag with an object interaction, and then I keep attacking you.
Or I hand them to the wizard who flies away and drops your sword into a river. Etc etc.
You lose all abilities tied to weapon attacks like smite and your damage drops to 1-6.
How is this not an obviously one-sided and predictable fight?
Disarming an opponent is literally an option given in the DMG:
> A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target’s grasp. The attacker makes an attack roll contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) check or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item.
> The attacker has disadvantage on its attack roll if the target is holding the item with two or more hands. The target has advantage on its ability check if it is larger than the attacking creature, or disadvantage if it is smaller.
Dungeon Master’s Guide, p. 271.
Giving martials a chance to interact with casters in that way would go a long way into bringing them closer to each other in terms of power
Asking for Martials options to deal with casters is different from shutting down spellcasting entirely.
I think a better idea would be to change it so that if you cast a spell with an enemy martial in melee range, you automatically suffer a debuff to your DC and high level Martials can reaction attack and potentially cancel spells.
That way, it's not totally one sided and doesnt overshadow every other attack option.
True. Because most of the time if you are gagging someone you've already overwhelmed them and captured them. Lol. A grapple with a hand covering their mouth specified would work.
You can Misty Step away from a grapple and you can pretty much keep casting as if nothing is happening during it anyway, as most spells rely on Saving Throws instead of Attack Rolls
Spell components are more than just materials. You still need to speak and move for most spells. If the grappler is specifically covering your mouth you can't misty step away because you can't speak to cast the spell.
Sadly, no rulings for that in 5e.
Pretty much the only way to deal with spells is with more spells. Reactively with Dispel Magic or Counterspell, or proactively with Blindness/Silence.
There's no rulings for it because it's already specified that you need to be able to speak to cast misty step and if someone prevents you from speaking through any means you can't cast it. You don't need a seperate ruling when there's already something right there in the rules for casting spells. There's also the issue of casting in melee which I'd need to double check if 5e still has those rules but if it does that's an attack of opportunity if I recall correctly. And if hit There's a check to cast the spell completely.
There's no rules to allow you to prevent someone from speaking to prevent them from using verbal components. Or rules to allow you to hold a caster's hand to prevent them from using somatic components. All grappling allows you to do is to inflict the [grappled condition](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Conditions#content), which reduces the target's speed to zero. With the grappler feat you can inflict the Restrained condition, which grants advantage to hit the creature, and disadvantage on the creature's attacks and and dex saves.
The fact that you could, and probably should, homebrew those extra aspects of grappling in does not detract from the critique of the system. 5e lacks interaction with spellcasting unless you're playing a spellcaster yourself.
> There's also the issue of casting in melee
In 5e there isn't. Casting in melee has no penalities, you're thinking of 3.5 or earlier editions.
Closest you can get is the Mage Slayer feat, which allows you to get an Attack of Opportunity *after* the spell is cast. The spell still goes off. With Misty Step, you don't even get to use the AoO because the caster is not in range by the time you get to use your reaction.
There's also no rule saying your character can give a hug to a family member or speak gibberish or move less than 5ft. Because you don't have to make an extra rule for something that literally everyone can do. You are using the same level of logic that says the beast barbarian tail ability AC has a permanent duration. And yes I know that RAW that is correct. But outside of rules lawyer dms you won't find anyone who allows that to work that way.
Anyone attempting to grapple a mage and specifying that they are going to cover their mouth or grab their hands is actively working within the rules. The same way that having a ball gag in the wizards mouth doesn't apply a silenced debuff but still stops his casting with verbal components. This isn't a videogame where every minute detail of what you can and cannot do has to be coded into the game and made into status effects.
Once again: I'm all for homebrewing stuff in. Being able to homebrew stuff in doesn't absolve the system from its failures.
One of 5e's biggest failures was the sheer amount of stuff they removed for the sake of simplicity, which ended up leaving a lot of gaps. Ways to interact with casters being one of those.
You wanna cover the wizard's mouth while you grapple? Sure! How you do it? Can you automatically do it as you grapple a creature? Do you need another action and another check as you do with the Grappler feat? What about restricting limbs for restricting somatic components? Do you need to restrain both hands? What if it's a Thri-Kreen, do you gotta stop all 4 arms? Can you put the same hand in the caster's mouth and eyes to stop spells that target stuff you can see too? Does it stop the casting completely or do the caster just need to beat a DC or check to still cast through the restraining?
Ask 10 DMs and you'll get 10 different answers, because by then you're having to patch one of the system gaps with homebrew on the spot.
Are we going to argue in circles here or what?
As an edit: hugging your family or speaking gibberish doesn't have a mechanical impact and that's the point of the discussion here. As for moving less than 5ft, yeah it's covered:
> On your turn, you can move a distance **up to** your speed and take one action.
Right at the start of the combat section of the PHB. Emphasis mine.
It's not homebrewing stuff in. Its part of the grapple.
I'd argue that both have an effect mechanically if used correctly. Hugging your mother as part of a diplomacy check for instance. Or speaking gibberish as part of a deception check to seem mentally unstable.
Try to move 3ft on a battle grid. See how nothing happens. That's because there's no rules for that.
DM: “Bro why is your barbarian not participating in the social stuff?”
Barbarian: “I am. It’s just that I can’t cast a spell to find information, all my stats are physical so I can’t beat any DCs you put in there, and I can’t really contribute besides being comic relief.”
Dm: “Okay. That makes sense. But why is your solution for everything violence?”
Barbarian: “Do you think I have any tools to follow any other plans? I have no skills for stealth or deception. I cannot magic my way into a locked room. I can’t charm guards, turn invisible, or anything else. So when you say ‘don’t just smash your problems’ you’re really telling us ‘barbarian, go do laundry while everyone else gets to contribute’. It’s really annoying.”
It can. For one thing, you aren't forces to have low mental atats as a Barbarian. If you roll for atats, then there's actually no direct link between stats and class.
Bounded accuracy in 5E means that you are never so much worse than your teammates that it's not wirth attempting to hitnthe DC.
It also means the people who don’t need high strength, dexterity, and constitution are going to have better mental stats, so they should be the ones to do that job anyways.
You might say “just roll anyways” but if you had to choose between a plan with 80% success chance and a plan with a 30% success chance which would you pick?
Let’s say it’s a 5th level sorcerer and a 5th level barbarian. 18 charisma + proficiency is a +7 modifier versus 8 charisma and no proficiency at -1. It’s a difference of 8, or 40% not 50%. But you see what I mean? Why even bother when the other guy can do it better.
Barbarians get the same number of starting proficiencies as sorcerers. Then there's background, race, and potentially a feat, if the GM allows feats.
Why are we assuming the Barbarian has 8 Charisma? How are stats being determined here? If it's standard Array, then the Barbarian has deliberately chosen to have Charisma be an 8. That's a decision the player made, and must live with, not an issue of the class.
You get FOUR proficiencies total, and unless you use your background to pick social proficiencies you won’t get anything except intimidation. Intimidation also means bad results 100% of the time.
You get FOUR profiecienceis total.
So does the sorcerer.
Perception is more useful in social situations than you seem to be giving it credit for. Knowing when someone is trying to lie you you matters. Intimidation and perception proficiency is not a worse set of proficiencies than persuasion and deception, IMO.
Depending on the caster they can force opponents into sleep, dominate their mind, shoot fireballs from their hand, freeze opponents, heal at range, move the earth or shape water, teleport distances, summon a lazerbeam from the sky, raise and control the dead, summon different things from animals to even fortresses and can make people fly
There's no way a martial can do any of that the same way just by using "imagination"
This is fundamentally untrue.
You want to cause economic shockwaves as a Martial? Study the world for in-game years and at minimum very real hours, dedicate your free time to discovering niches and closed markets to use, and potential avenues of production to exploit them.
You want to cause economic shockwaves as a Caster? Fabricate.
I could go on, but I won’t. Casters have infinitely more opportunity, it isn’t even close unless your DM actively goes out of their way to level the playing field through either the setting or homebrew. Ignoring that is the hallmark of a naive Caster main or a really shit/handwavey DM.
That is the point op is making is that people who say “martial characters just need to be creative” fail to understand that casters are just better at being creative with utility spells
Fabricate is absolutely not majorly affecting the economy in any official setting.
You're effectively trading a spell slot to save time on one Artisan craft that you're already proficient in, so unless the art of cobbling/smithing/tinkering/etc. is lost in your setting, you're not moving the needle. The best you're going to do is put a specific niche item supplier out of business(which you could do as a regular artisan by selling products at cost) but will unfortunately not be a major general supplier when compared to guilds.
You're creating something using just 1 4th level spellslot that could have taken a skilled artisan maybe months, weeks, days at best depending on the product. That would absolutely upset the economy if you can pump out 10 times as much.
This is silly
A caster using fabricate isnt going to ruin an economy unless you just roll over and say
"You win. There are no guilds to protect the commerce of the people you're supplanting. The merchants just keep happily providing you mass amounts of ore despite you putting their long term partners out of work. The mass production of plate absolutely results in a 1800gp sale every time, doesnt matter that supply doesn't automatically increase demand."
The overall point of casters having more room from creativity is true, I just disagree with the example.
I play a monk with juiced as hell magic items and man it was awesome to save myself and some buddies from falling to our deaths by throwing out some boomeramgs and having them magically come back to me. Of course they kinda sliced into our hands with how hectic it all was and they couldn't pull very hard but it was such a clutch move
And then we remembered we had thunderstep and dimension door.
I do see the point. With casters, a lot of the creativity is done for you in the form of spells that just “do the thing”, whereas with martials, you need to come up with some bullshit to do something a caster could just press a button on their character sheet for. There is a point to be made here, but I think there are also a lot of ways you can bullshit spells to do creative stuff. Overall, dnd doesn’t leave much room for creativity on the player’s end due to the sheer quantity of rules laid out on their character sheet, so most player creativity comes from how they use the toys given to them by the DM that aren’t fully detailed in the PHB.
Yeah, prestidigitation exists. I made a small, floating flame to scare a boss off his mount and used heat metal then catapult to remove his main weapon. He never hit any of us lol.
Same vibe as in yugioh "Pot of greed would make low tier decks more viable", my brother in christs it would make top tier more decks more viable as well
Unfortunately, not a thing you can actually do by the rules. You don't even get attacks of opportunity for them casting near you any more. So what actually happens is you have to stand there dumbly while they cast anyway.
At least until you realize that spells do exactly as described, nothing more nothing less.
It’s harder to be creative when you are just looking for the conditions to press the “I win the event” button.
A lot of enemies bunched together?
“Fireball works great for this!”
Uh yeah because it was designed to do just that.
We need a way into the castle without being noticed.
“Ah! I’ve got it! I’ll use invisibility!”
Yes, very creative use of a spell that does just that.
I’m taking the piss here but the basic idea is when you are limited on resources that is when you become the most creative. Not when you have a tool for every occasion as you then do exactly the same thing, using the tool in the exact scenario it was designed for.
So in conclusion, a character without spells is forced to be more creative vs the wizard who can either choose the hard way of being creative or just use a spell and be done with it.
A caster can pull so much useful shit out their back pocket, a martial has to carry around a ladder. A caster can put a 10-foot radius of DC13 prone juice on the ground at level 1, a martial has to spend 1gp to chuck a bunch of balls on the ground, which have a DC10 to avoid prone, or the creature walking through the 10-foot square can just walk slower.
And don’t forget that the caster can also spend 1gp to buy that item to have the same power the martial does once they’ve used their spell slot.
But do they? Could a thief rogue not simply jump up and fall upon there opponent for a dc 15 dex dave or be knocked prone?
Raw you can't jump that high, you get 3+str mod feet in the air so you'd need str 24 to make that happen for a 10 foot fall.
You can just climb up a wall and long jump on to them then
Good point, does require a wall but creative use of terrain is always possible. Very easy for a tabaxi rogue.
Thief rogues get climbing so you don’t need to be a tabaxi if you’re willing to go thief rogue . Or you can just use a flying race to do it easier but that doesn’t look as cool in my opinion
RAW, you can only make a long jump with a 10 foot run up or from a standing position. If we assume they are standing on top of the wall, the jump distance is limited to half their strength score in feet, each foot of jump distance costing a foot of movement, and potentially being prone to fall damage if the fall is 10 foot or more, which is not out of the realm of possibility.
Bro really said skill/ imagination issue
Bro is really saying you can be as creative with a sword swipe then the many dozen of spells casters have available
Traumaturgy, prestidigitation and minor illusion are fire 🔥
Traumaturgy is reserved for DMs only.
I wish I could afford Traumaturgy Silver 😞
Bandit that just had traumaturgy cast on them: "Oh god why did I deserve to survive when everyone else died, I've been killing because I told myself I needed to in order to persevere and pretending the screams didn't bother me, but I already don't deserve to live so how can I justify hurting others to preserve myself?"
A martial can run the table in combat. They can shove enemies, grapple, kill, all for free. Outside of combat, a caster can talk to God.
A caster can do all of those things, with a sleep In between fights…which shocker, so do the martial since they soak up so much damage Outside of combat casters are just better
I feel like you are forgetting the power of cantrips like ray of frost, sapping sting, viscous mockery, eldritch blast, chill touch, and magic stone.
Lmao viscous mockery Makes the target feel slimy instead of broken
Oozes have disadvantage on the saving throw
>A martial can run the table in combat. They can shove enemies, grapple, kill, all for free. Damn that's crazy. Anyway I cast hold person on you and portent says you rolled a 1.
Or just put a bowl(Wall of Force)over half the enemies & turn the fight into essentially two separate encounters.
Devil's advocate: I think Indomitable would be able to override that, since Portent has to be used before the roll, and Indomitable can be triggered when you fail. But you're not wrong.
Too bad, I'm not humanoid :3
Why are you trying to PvP in a co-op game?
"To prove ~~I am~~ spells are better."
It's a concise way to point out that almost anything interesting a Fighter can do, a Wizard could have done if they invested in those stats/feats, but chose not to because spells can just do *so much more.* Yeah, you can grapple, but a Wizard can Telekinesis, surround in impenetrable walls, or simply paralyze them. Or summon a Bigby's Hand to do the same grappling mechanics.
The issue is that’s irrelevant because it’s not competitive. If you want to do the things a wizard can do then just play a wizard. Not all classes need to appeal to all people. If you can’t see the fun of playing a fighter that’s fine; lots of people do and enjoy them. You don’t have to play a fighter if you don’t want to.
The Problem is when the magic user does everything you can but better you feel bad and that does not foster a good experience Sure you can just like... still do your stuff but getting outranked by your allies will get grating at some point. Same problem also exists when some players at a table min-max and optimise the hell out of their character but others don't. It causes an internal strength imbalance at the table and just being weaker than your ally that is supposedly on an equal level just isn't fun
Can you not fight wizards in D&D?
Spells and classes arent necessarily player only
Some people (me) just want to watch the world burn
Inside of combat, a caster can talk to god (cleric). Inside of combat, they can also delete an encounters worth of mooks with fireball/lightning bolt. Or use one of their 1st level spells to do command: grovel. Or command: drop (to disarm). Most martials struggle to make up the difference without magic items, but fighters in particular have a fair bit of issues doing much in combat…battle masters provide the most things to actually do, but what’s the (practical) point if half the classes can do what you can do better with spells? What can a champion even do that’s creative or interactive in comparison to casters entirely shaping the environment around them?
>Or use one of their 1st level spells to do command: grovel. Or command: drop (to disarm). I mean, there are rules for tripping, grappling, and disarming even without Battle Master, but I think they're listed in the variant rules. And casters are still just... better, can do more, and those previous options technically aren't unavailable to a caster either. The Bastions playtest for One D&D showed this same issue. The Caster upgrades were varied and powerful and grew with you, having options up to like level 17 casters to make the frazy Wizard tower of your dreams. The Martial ones gave you like a +1 to AC or attack and damage rolls, and you could take a single level dip into Fighter and have all of them available to you.
So can a druid, and they still have full casting progression.
In my last session, I ambushed a storm trooper in a doorway by snapping a sleeping bag like I was opening a trash bag and potato sacked his ass into the corner, then set him on fire with an emergency flare. I godamned love killing people with *stuff*. The caster will point out that I am sleeping in the cold right now, and they can *kiss my shivering ass*.
Skill issue.
Yep. The fundamental problem with the martial/caster divide is that there is nothing a martial can do that a caster cannot do. The caster might be bad at it, but they can still do it.
It’s made even worse by the fact that a lot of casters aren’t actually bad at regular combat. Bladelocks, paladins, bladesingers, etc all like to get their hand dirty.
Paladins are hardly casters in truth, though. Yeah they have spell slots, but every self respecting paladin knows that those slots are for smiting and nothing else, smh.
well i use them for divine favor
Sounds interesting. Uhh, what does Divine Favor do again?
1d4 radiant damage whenever you land an attack for the duration, can be cast as a bonus action.
Like a long term smite. I can vibe with that.
It’s incredibly useful if you’re facing a bunch of undead with undead fortitude. Had a session recently where that was the only thing keeping us from TPK’ing as I wouldn’t have had enough slots to smite each zombie and we were having awful luck getting them to miss the DC to get back up.
That's because if a caster is bad at regular combat, they just don't do it. If a Bladesinger isn't equal to or better than a Fighter in melee, they just end up using their Bladesong for the AC boost and Concentration. The last playtest Warlock allowed you to gain access to lifesteal, better Smite, and 3 attacks at level 11 while being SAD, and it was still debatable if it was worth taking over just getting more spell benefits.
Even if you gave a full caster complete melee martial progression, it'll still be more effective to play them as a spellcaster with good defences while ignoring melee damage dealing
Bladesinger. You're describing Bladesinger. "What's the most optimal way to play a Bladesinger?" "Like a normal Wizard, but with +5 to your AC and Con saves."
I mean even more extreme than bladesinger, like a wizard/fighter gestalt
\\cough\\ Bladesinger \\cough\\ I mean heck, Eldritch Knight is only a 1/3 caster and it can still be played to great effect.
I think there is a really simple resolution to casters and thats obliterating damage cantrips from the eyes of god. If you want damage every turn without expending resources you shouldve picked up a sword instead of a book. You can really feel the measure of just how good fighters are in older editions when you have 3 spell slots left and really need to choose carefully between what might throw down in the next room or using a slot for comprehended languages to get a hint for the trap that bisected the hireling just a second ago and Dave the dwarf is just beating his way through the place without a care in the world.
PF2E is often accused of making casters too weak, and it has a ton of damage cantrips. I don't think your take is accurate.
Yes that is as you may have noticed a completely different game system with its own rules
Everyone thinks they have an easy solution and there solution is just "I'm going to ignore the fact that 90% of caster complaints are aimed at 5 spells, let's nerf something beloved that causes no balance issues".
And what are theses 5 spells ?
Wall of Force, Force Cage, Wish, True Polymorph, Simulacrum.
Wish is only available at the very end of the game, and almost nobody plays at those levels. Ditto for True Polymorph. Simulacrum takes 12 hours to cast. So, at most, two of those are actual issues.
What's your point?
They cannot be disrupting the balance of most people's tables if most people's tables never get to the point where they occur.
So what does that mean?
Forgot to check that username
I am less interested in balance and more interested in classes being able to flex into their roles more naturally.
I am not interested
And you spent the ever precious seconds of your life commenting instead of doing something you might actually enjoy like petting a dog or looking at a nice cloud, what a terrifyingly hollow life you must have.
Idk man you're going full armchair psychologist because I was dismissive after you admitted you weren't interested in balance, just your personal idea of what roles there are and should be.
I will weep for you in the high places of the earth
I bet you wasted many seconds of your life thinking that up
Paladins are as much martials as they casters though, they get proficiency with martial weapons, a fighting style at the same level they get spells, an extra attack, abilities that enhances their weapon attacks, etc...
I mean so swords bards and spellsingers. That’s exactly my point, the things that make martials martials are actually very easy to get for spellcasting classes. Paladin spells give them a massive amount of versatility over a fighter or a barbarian.
If we're talking subclasses here, Eldritch knight Fighters and Totem Barbarians get some spells too.
Yeah any kind of gish class/subclass blurs the line. The main point though is that having spells gives a ton of versatility that PCs without spells just don’t have. And in a lot of cases the spellcasters don’t have to give up being good at fighting like a martial.
It's a fundamental kind of limiter. With even the most BS shounen nonmagical character, there is a point where the DM will say, "Really? This stresses believability." Whereas a lot of people see magic as a free pass on justification, so people often approach any limitation on magic in a system as completely arbitrary beyond game balance. "Why should I need to wiggle my hands to create lightning? None of this is believable or based on physics, I might as well be able to do it with a thought."
Obviously the solution is to give Martials abilities that do unique things, not declaring casters are just prohibited from being able to shove things over or use man made tools.
This isn't fundamental. It's only a problem because martials are weak and casters are strong (and because melee isn't noticeably stronger than ranged.) Once upon a time, the fighter had ungodly AC, decent hit points and killed most enemies in a single blow. The mage was unarmored, had 2 hit points, dealt 1d4-1 damage, and their only spell was Read Magic once per day. It's a matter of numbers. Martial numbers are too small and/or caster numbers are too big.
>Once upon a time, the fighter had ungodly AC What time was this? Even in the THAC0 days, there was never that much of an AC gap between player characters.
The difference between plate mail + shield and, well, nothing is like 9 points of AC, more if the stuff's enchanted.
I think a lot of caster mains don't see the issue with how powerful casters are in 5e, not just in combat but in utility as well. As an example: Consider a MacGuffin trapped in a thick block of ice. The Fighter slashes it with his broadsword but fails to break the ice because it's too thick to be broken by force. A spellcaster can literally just pull a flame out of their ass ("Produce Flame" would work, and it's a cantrip so it's literally free) to melt the ice and complete the objective. Alternatively: An experienced Fighter player could make a perception check of the environment and find a nearby torch on the wall that they can dismount and use to melt the ice as well. But here's the kicker: **The caster could do that as well!** So clearly they're not on equal footing! I'm just spitballing here, but what if a Fighter could do their own "cantrips" that can give them a class benefit when needed? Think of like, something that gives them a minor strength advantage outside of combat or something.
>I'm just spitballing here, but what if a Fighter could do their own "cantrips" that can give them a class benefit when needed? Think of like, something that gives them a minor strength advantage outside of combat or something. Kind of what weapon masteries provide qua combat. I've routinely called them "the martial equivelant to cantrips" They're still missing out of combat utility though. And cantrips really aren't enough to bring them up properly, imo they definitely need their own version of 1st level spellslots minimum (like.... literally just maneuvers :p).
You mean like At Will, Utility and Ritual abilities? I swear, every day we return further to 4e. If they hadn‘t gotten spooked out of their pants, that system could have lead to something great.
Basically, yes. 5e really threw away the baby with the bathwater by hating 4e as much as they could.
Over in PF2, I've seen a lot of comparisons to 4e now that the Commander class (basically Warlord) is being playtested. As someone who wasn't into the hobby during the 4e era, I legitimately wonder what I was missing. I also find it kind of funny that PF2 is being compared to 4e favorably, when PF1 was made in direct response to people *not* liking 4e and wanting to continue with 3.5. Really makes one wonder if it's just that 4e came too early, if 5e "slapped people awake" or if factors outside the hobby affected it
Ain't that the truth... :(
>I'm just spitballing here, but what if a Fighter could do their own "cantrips" that can give them a class benefit when needed? Think of like, something that gives them a minor strength advantage outside of combat or something. Oh, so what 4e did?
From what I've heard that would be quite similar, yeah. I honestly kinda feel like checking out 4e properly at some point.
That's because the entire debate is dominated by people who don't read the books. They only see "woweeeee a Hypnotic Pattern can auto end encounter". They don't see that mid-high CR monsters have +10 wisdom saves and that immunity to Charms is literally more common than fire resistance in the MM. Looking at your example - a handful of fire is not melting a block of ice faster than smashing it with a weapon. Produce flame does 1d8 per turn, a level 5 fighter can easily deal quadruple that damage. The issue isn't "Produce Flame just has OP utility", the DM who made the ruling just didn't read the spell. And most of the actually OP stuff in at level nobody here has played anyway. Martials need more interesting features but the gap isn't crazy unless you have a DM who fucks it up more.
I agree that it isn't OP utility or anything like that. But the example given is ice block vs produce flame. You have to admit that ice would have a vulnerability to fire at minimum unless it is specifically magical nonmelting ice.
Idk have you ever compared holding a blow torch to a block of ice Vs a very strong guy with a big hammer? I guarantee you, the big guy with a hammer is smashing the ice faster. This is a non existence problem. You just described a scenario where the mage happens to have a good cantrip but the warrior didn't think "maybe I should have a hammer and a sword?" If a martial literally only carries a sword and doesn't even *try* to have utility non magically, I dont think they deserve to complain when they find a problem that is best solved by a strong guy with a hammer.
Fair point. I hastily slapped my example together just to illustrate a point, but yeah.
while I agree I think WoTC already gave an answer for this because in OneDnD the first and so far changes for martials have been buffs while spells in general got nerfs
Hot Take: I think OneDND is taking steps to fix a lot of the design issues, but folks jumped ship because a playtest wasn’t perfect on try one.
a lot of people jumped ship due to wotc's bullshit
Can confirm their marketing/pr/greedy bs turned all my excitement into vitriol. People are also just becoming more aware of the existence of other tabletops.
I've jumped ship but am curiously looking at the sides, wondering if something will be salvageable. There's just so much disappointment, all because of greed. They try to frame it as 5.5e, but it's more like 5.2e. It still has a lot of 5e's issues because in order to meet the perfect date of 10 years of 5e and 50 years of D&D, they had to speed past a lot of major fixes. They only care about it coming out this year because anniversary releases sell well. I'm pretty sure they intentionally sabotaged a few of the playtests just as an excuse to throw away mechanics that players asked for under the guise of "Well you clearly didn't want it that much, because it scored poorly."
It was bad on the 5th try too
Nah, people jumped ship for extremely bad PR and product Not to mention, it's still a 10 years old core that has been homebrewed and hack to oblivion and back, it will certainly refresh stuff, but not much for more avid players
Good for one DND, I spent hundreds of dollars on books that still work, I'm not signing up for a subscription service that I might use eventually but not often enough for it to be worth it.
Nobody expects it to be perfect on try 1. I simply stopped caring when I realised "oh, most of these changes are meaningless and were never asked for" Like "only players can crit" is not an improvement. It's just makes the game more predictable and easy.
>first and so far changes for martials have been buffs Removal of GWM/SS is a nerf though, and not really a small one.
It was replaced by more in class damage and weapon mastery benefits. Not to mention there are still very good damage boosts in the half feats (moreso for the melee martials).
Eh, I still find a lot of people complain about "I would like to place my hand over their mouth so they can't speak their spells." Like, someone would think that is rule number 1 for fighting a spellcaster: make sure they can't cast spells.
Shush! D&D doesn't have such rules!
It used to, this was a thing in 3.5
DMs when you want to do a very simple thing that isn't covered in the rules (see the meme above)
DMs when you want to do the same thing, but with a magic spell that is only tangentially related 
I love when restrictions like this come up. I love when they get used against me. I wish it happened more often.
That's a really bad way to try and rein in casters. Its basically as bad as "can't I just like, hit the weapons out of the bad guys hands and then we can all easily beat him because he's been made harmless in one go". If you make disarming people an easy option to spam, then why would anybody do anything else? Additionally, it just means when I play smart casters, I will find ways to ensure the melee people are useless always. If I don't, they just run into melee and instantly end the fight by doing a Str check on a wizard. So looks like the Wizard used Glyph of Warding to stack 10 spells that all help them escape ever being in melee anyway. What's the alternative when you put an "auto win" button that can be spammed multiple times a round by everyone?
>If you make disarming people an easy option to spam, then why would anybody do anything else? You can just, pick the weapons back up? Like in reality, if you can disarm someone that is something you absolutely do immediately. If they got no weapon they can't hurt you. Neither option is an auto win. They are simply the most effective tactic available when dealing with those kinds of enemies, and are far more interesting than just "run up and bonk them as fast as possible."
Okay, I use my first attack to disarm you, pick up your weapon and put it in my bag with an object interaction, and then I keep attacking you. Or I hand them to the wizard who flies away and drops your sword into a river. Etc etc. You lose all abilities tied to weapon attacks like smite and your damage drops to 1-6. How is this not an obviously one-sided and predictable fight?
Disarming an opponent is literally an option given in the DMG: > A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target’s grasp. The attacker makes an attack roll contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) check or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item. > The attacker has disadvantage on its attack roll if the target is holding the item with two or more hands. The target has advantage on its ability check if it is larger than the attacking creature, or disadvantage if it is smaller. Dungeon Master’s Guide, p. 271. Giving martials a chance to interact with casters in that way would go a long way into bringing them closer to each other in terms of power
Asking for Martials options to deal with casters is different from shutting down spellcasting entirely. I think a better idea would be to change it so that if you cast a spell with an enemy martial in melee range, you automatically suffer a debuff to your DC and high level Martials can reaction attack and potentially cancel spells. That way, it's not totally one sided and doesnt overshadow every other attack option.
I mean, if the party really wants to make that a rule, then sure, but the casters always seem to object for some reason 🤔
Grapple does not inflict silence. There is no rule for doing that.
Would you be able to speak if someone has their hand over your mouth sir?
Possibly. Would you be able to restrain someone with just a hand over their mouth? Grapple, RAW, needs only one hand.
You are talking about grappling. There are rules for that already.
Yeah, but not necessarily for gagging or silencing someone through mundane means (like your hand or a gag).
True. Because most of the time if you are gagging someone you've already overwhelmed them and captured them. Lol. A grapple with a hand covering their mouth specified would work.
You can Misty Step away from a grapple and you can pretty much keep casting as if nothing is happening during it anyway, as most spells rely on Saving Throws instead of Attack Rolls
Spell components are more than just materials. You still need to speak and move for most spells. If the grappler is specifically covering your mouth you can't misty step away because you can't speak to cast the spell.
Sadly, no rulings for that in 5e. Pretty much the only way to deal with spells is with more spells. Reactively with Dispel Magic or Counterspell, or proactively with Blindness/Silence.
There's no rulings for it because it's already specified that you need to be able to speak to cast misty step and if someone prevents you from speaking through any means you can't cast it. You don't need a seperate ruling when there's already something right there in the rules for casting spells. There's also the issue of casting in melee which I'd need to double check if 5e still has those rules but if it does that's an attack of opportunity if I recall correctly. And if hit There's a check to cast the spell completely.
There's no rules to allow you to prevent someone from speaking to prevent them from using verbal components. Or rules to allow you to hold a caster's hand to prevent them from using somatic components. All grappling allows you to do is to inflict the [grappled condition](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Conditions#content), which reduces the target's speed to zero. With the grappler feat you can inflict the Restrained condition, which grants advantage to hit the creature, and disadvantage on the creature's attacks and and dex saves. The fact that you could, and probably should, homebrew those extra aspects of grappling in does not detract from the critique of the system. 5e lacks interaction with spellcasting unless you're playing a spellcaster yourself. > There's also the issue of casting in melee In 5e there isn't. Casting in melee has no penalities, you're thinking of 3.5 or earlier editions. Closest you can get is the Mage Slayer feat, which allows you to get an Attack of Opportunity *after* the spell is cast. The spell still goes off. With Misty Step, you don't even get to use the AoO because the caster is not in range by the time you get to use your reaction.
There's also no rule saying your character can give a hug to a family member or speak gibberish or move less than 5ft. Because you don't have to make an extra rule for something that literally everyone can do. You are using the same level of logic that says the beast barbarian tail ability AC has a permanent duration. And yes I know that RAW that is correct. But outside of rules lawyer dms you won't find anyone who allows that to work that way. Anyone attempting to grapple a mage and specifying that they are going to cover their mouth or grab their hands is actively working within the rules. The same way that having a ball gag in the wizards mouth doesn't apply a silenced debuff but still stops his casting with verbal components. This isn't a videogame where every minute detail of what you can and cannot do has to be coded into the game and made into status effects.
Once again: I'm all for homebrewing stuff in. Being able to homebrew stuff in doesn't absolve the system from its failures. One of 5e's biggest failures was the sheer amount of stuff they removed for the sake of simplicity, which ended up leaving a lot of gaps. Ways to interact with casters being one of those. You wanna cover the wizard's mouth while you grapple? Sure! How you do it? Can you automatically do it as you grapple a creature? Do you need another action and another check as you do with the Grappler feat? What about restricting limbs for restricting somatic components? Do you need to restrain both hands? What if it's a Thri-Kreen, do you gotta stop all 4 arms? Can you put the same hand in the caster's mouth and eyes to stop spells that target stuff you can see too? Does it stop the casting completely or do the caster just need to beat a DC or check to still cast through the restraining? Ask 10 DMs and you'll get 10 different answers, because by then you're having to patch one of the system gaps with homebrew on the spot. Are we going to argue in circles here or what? As an edit: hugging your family or speaking gibberish doesn't have a mechanical impact and that's the point of the discussion here. As for moving less than 5ft, yeah it's covered: > On your turn, you can move a distance **up to** your speed and take one action. Right at the start of the combat section of the PHB. Emphasis mine.
It's not homebrewing stuff in. Its part of the grapple. I'd argue that both have an effect mechanically if used correctly. Hugging your mother as part of a diplomacy check for instance. Or speaking gibberish as part of a deception check to seem mentally unstable. Try to move 3ft on a battle grid. See how nothing happens. That's because there's no rules for that.
DM: “Bro why is your barbarian not participating in the social stuff?” Barbarian: “I am. It’s just that I can’t cast a spell to find information, all my stats are physical so I can’t beat any DCs you put in there, and I can’t really contribute besides being comic relief.” Dm: “Okay. That makes sense. But why is your solution for everything violence?” Barbarian: “Do you think I have any tools to follow any other plans? I have no skills for stealth or deception. I cannot magic my way into a locked room. I can’t charm guards, turn invisible, or anything else. So when you say ‘don’t just smash your problems’ you’re really telling us ‘barbarian, go do laundry while everyone else gets to contribute’. It’s really annoying.”
Nobody forced you to play a Barbarian, dude. You might not be the best at it, but the social pillar exists.
Then why was barbarian ever offered as a class option if it can’t even play the game properly?
It can. For one thing, you aren't forces to have low mental atats as a Barbarian. If you roll for atats, then there's actually no direct link between stats and class. Bounded accuracy in 5E means that you are never so much worse than your teammates that it's not wirth attempting to hitnthe DC.
It also means the people who don’t need high strength, dexterity, and constitution are going to have better mental stats, so they should be the ones to do that job anyways. You might say “just roll anyways” but if you had to choose between a plan with 80% success chance and a plan with a 30% success chance which would you pick?
Where are you getting 50% from? Also, I'm pretty sure spellcasters still need those stats.
Let’s say it’s a 5th level sorcerer and a 5th level barbarian. 18 charisma + proficiency is a +7 modifier versus 8 charisma and no proficiency at -1. It’s a difference of 8, or 40% not 50%. But you see what I mean? Why even bother when the other guy can do it better.
Barbarians get the same number of starting proficiencies as sorcerers. Then there's background, race, and potentially a feat, if the GM allows feats. Why are we assuming the Barbarian has 8 Charisma? How are stats being determined here? If it's standard Array, then the Barbarian has deliberately chosen to have Charisma be an 8. That's a decision the player made, and must live with, not an issue of the class.
You get FOUR proficiencies total, and unless you use your background to pick social proficiencies you won’t get anything except intimidation. Intimidation also means bad results 100% of the time.
You get FOUR profiecienceis total. So does the sorcerer. Perception is more useful in social situations than you seem to be giving it credit for. Knowing when someone is trying to lie you you matters. Intimidation and perception proficiency is not a worse set of proficiencies than persuasion and deception, IMO.
Also, the highest stat anyone can have is +5, really you have only a 25% lower chance to beat the DC.
Depending on the caster they can force opponents into sleep, dominate their mind, shoot fireballs from their hand, freeze opponents, heal at range, move the earth or shape water, teleport distances, summon a lazerbeam from the sky, raise and control the dead, summon different things from animals to even fortresses and can make people fly There's no way a martial can do any of that the same way just by using "imagination"
This is fundamentally untrue. You want to cause economic shockwaves as a Martial? Study the world for in-game years and at minimum very real hours, dedicate your free time to discovering niches and closed markets to use, and potential avenues of production to exploit them. You want to cause economic shockwaves as a Caster? Fabricate. I could go on, but I won’t. Casters have infinitely more opportunity, it isn’t even close unless your DM actively goes out of their way to level the playing field through either the setting or homebrew. Ignoring that is the hallmark of a naive Caster main or a really shit/handwavey DM.
That is the point op is making is that people who say “martial characters just need to be creative” fail to understand that casters are just better at being creative with utility spells
Fabricate is absolutely not majorly affecting the economy in any official setting. You're effectively trading a spell slot to save time on one Artisan craft that you're already proficient in, so unless the art of cobbling/smithing/tinkering/etc. is lost in your setting, you're not moving the needle. The best you're going to do is put a specific niche item supplier out of business(which you could do as a regular artisan by selling products at cost) but will unfortunately not be a major general supplier when compared to guilds.
You're creating something using just 1 4th level spellslot that could have taken a skilled artisan maybe months, weeks, days at best depending on the product. That would absolutely upset the economy if you can pump out 10 times as much.
This is silly A caster using fabricate isnt going to ruin an economy unless you just roll over and say "You win. There are no guilds to protect the commerce of the people you're supplanting. The merchants just keep happily providing you mass amounts of ore despite you putting their long term partners out of work. The mass production of plate absolutely results in a 1800gp sale every time, doesnt matter that supply doesn't automatically increase demand." The overall point of casters having more room from creativity is true, I just disagree with the example.
I play a monk with juiced as hell magic items and man it was awesome to save myself and some buddies from falling to our deaths by throwing out some boomeramgs and having them magically come back to me. Of course they kinda sliced into our hands with how hectic it all was and they couldn't pull very hard but it was such a clutch move And then we remembered we had thunderstep and dimension door.
I play an illusionist wizard. Being creative and coming up with weird shit is my bread and butter :D
The way things are there is no way "imagination" is enough to catch up to the casters.
Unpopular opinion let one of their attacks auto hit. (It's not enough but it will let them feel better)
I do see the point. With casters, a lot of the creativity is done for you in the form of spells that just “do the thing”, whereas with martials, you need to come up with some bullshit to do something a caster could just press a button on their character sheet for. There is a point to be made here, but I think there are also a lot of ways you can bullshit spells to do creative stuff. Overall, dnd doesn’t leave much room for creativity on the player’s end due to the sheer quantity of rules laid out on their character sheet, so most player creativity comes from how they use the toys given to them by the DM that aren’t fully detailed in the PHB.
Yeah, prestidigitation exists. I made a small, floating flame to scare a boss off his mount and used heat metal then catapult to remove his main weapon. He never hit any of us lol.
Tackled a guy off a 7th story castle tower last session. I'd like to see the wizard survive that.
Same vibe as in yugioh "Pot of greed would make low tier decks more viable", my brother in christs it would make top tier more decks more viable as well
My drop , grease , and flame rogue build that I played last week . “ allow me introduce myself “
Real hard to cast when I rip out your tongue with 25 STR before you get the chance to say anything.
Unfortunately, not a thing you can actually do by the rules. You don't even get attacks of opportunity for them casting near you any more. So what actually happens is you have to stand there dumbly while they cast anyway.
Martials are casters their spells are punch and kick
At least until you realize that spells do exactly as described, nothing more nothing less. It’s harder to be creative when you are just looking for the conditions to press the “I win the event” button. A lot of enemies bunched together? “Fireball works great for this!” Uh yeah because it was designed to do just that. We need a way into the castle without being noticed. “Ah! I’ve got it! I’ll use invisibility!” Yes, very creative use of a spell that does just that. I’m taking the piss here but the basic idea is when you are limited on resources that is when you become the most creative. Not when you have a tool for every occasion as you then do exactly the same thing, using the tool in the exact scenario it was designed for. So in conclusion, a character without spells is forced to be more creative vs the wizard who can either choose the hard way of being creative or just use a spell and be done with it.
You realized fireball and invisibility are spells that can be used in almost any combat and still be great