Martials are stronger than casters [Archive] (2024)

Giant in the Playground Forums > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > > Martials are stronger than casters

PDA

View Full Version : Martials are stronger than casters

Pages :[1]2

clash

2024-07-18, 09:53 PM

Slightly provocative on purpose but here's a discussion point.

So sure in theoretical tier 4 full casters have as many spell slots as they want and super powerful world shattering spells, but let's look at the levels you actually play at.

My level 1 wizard has exactly two spells he can cast before he's stuck with cantrips. That's only twice he can do something significant in the entire day.

Cantrips are unlimited sure, but what do they do? Damage cantrips do roughly half of what a weapon attack will do. Non damaging cantrips basically amount to things you can do without magic but with magical.

Mold earth - I cast shovel
Light - I cast torch
Mage hand - I open the door
Thaumaturgy - I cast talk loud

You get my point. So what are these significant things that you can do twice a day that make it worthwhile to resort to cantrips the rest of the day.

"Sleep can end encounters" - actually it can't. It can make it easier for your fighter buddy to do more of his job which actually ends the encounter.

Charm person. Yay advantage on social checks. Or play a rogue and pick up expertise and have a similar bonus all day long in every social encounter.

Bless, entangle, faerie fire - all great if you have a fighter buddy that can actually do the job of ending the encounter.

Damage spells deal on average 15 damage on the high side compared to a great sword swing doing 11 every hit and the fighter can deal double that with action surge multiple times per day.

And to trade off for doing less damage and not being able to end encounters on their own they also have lower AC and less HP and in some cases less ASIs.

Ok ok. That's level 1. Let's go up a tier. Surely at level 5 casters have the all powerful third level spells and can compete.

The mighty broken fireball spell deals 8d6 damage at level 5. Well ahead of the damages curve. Fighter has extra attack and can deal 4d6 +8 normally or 8d6 +16 with action surge again more times per day than wizard can cast fireball. And that's unoptomized without a subclass or feat. The wizard gets the consultation prize of being able to clear out mooks while the martials handle the real threat.

Hypnotic pattern is another winner... Or is it? It is great if it gets everyone. Otherwise they can easily snap each other out of it and even if it works it's really just so you fighter buddy can do the real work again.

Fly - let's me get places the DM didn't want me to go or had a way I could get without wasting a spell slot. But hey you get to sing "I did it my waaay"

Other useful ones like knock just burn resources doing something the rogue can accomplish for free not too mention skills are inherently unlimited in scope where spells have predefined limits.

Not seeing a ton of winners from 4th or 5th level spells either and how many games actually get past level 10 to get into 6th level spells and higher?

GeoffWatson

2024-07-18, 10:02 PM

Only at low levels, and only in some situations.

GeneralVryth

2024-07-18, 10:17 PM

Only at low levels, and only in some situations.

You could just as easily say casters are only stronger at higher levels and only in some situations. The reality is martials likely start off a little stronger, and slowly as Tier 4 is approached casters take a lead. The rate that happens depends a great deal on the party and GM.

Ignimortis

2024-07-18, 10:51 PM

Slightly provocative on purpose but here's a discussion point.

So sure in theoretical tier 4 full casters have as many spell slots as they want and super powerful world shattering spells, but let's look at the levels you actually play at.

My level 1 wizard has exactly two spells he can cast before he's stuck with cantrips. That's only twice he can do something significant in the entire day.

Mold earth - I cast shovel
Light - I cast torch
Mage hand - I open the door
Thaumaturgy - I cast talk loud

Except you're already losing HERE. Mold Earth moves earth at a rate of 5 cubic feet per 6 seconds. Can you do that with a shovel? That's a godsdamned excavator you've got there, with none of the logistical problems. Light creates a light that cannot be smothered underwater, does not react poorly to explosive gas (a real problem with underground caverns, actually), and does not require keeping a hand free. Mage Hand opens doors at a range of 30 feet, can manipulate objects out to the same range, and carry up to 10 pounds. All out to 30 feet. You can trigger traps with it, too. Thaumaturgy is not a Wizard spell, Prestidigitation is (clean clothes anywhere? warm and tasty food anytime?), but even Thaumaturgy isn't just "I talk loud", it's "I talk loud while the ground is shaking and thunder rumbles ominously".

You get my point. So what are these significant things that you can do twice a day that make it worthwhile to resort to cantrips the rest of the day.

"Sleep can end encounters" - actually it can't. It can make it easier for your fighter buddy to do more of his job which actually ends the encounter.

Charm person. Yay advantage on social checks. Or play a rogue and pick up expertise and have a similar bonus all day long in every social encounter.

Bless, entangle, faerie fire - all great if you have a fighter buddy that can actually do the job of ending the encounter.

Damage spells deal on average 15 damage on the high side compared to a great sword swing doing 11 every hit and the fighter can deal double that with action surge multiple times per day.

And to trade off for doing less damage and not being able to end encounters on their own they also have lower AC and less HP and in some cases less ASIs.
But do you need a Fighter buddy for that? Why not a Paladin buddy who does pretty much all the same things only better AND can cast a few spells after level 1? Or even a martially-bent Cleric, which, before level 5, does things pretty similarly except they can cast spells of their own, including healing ones. Do you need a Rogue, or a Bard does those same things about as well except also being a 9th level spellcaster?

Ok ok. That's level 1. Let's go up a tier. Surely at level 5 casters have the all powerful third level spells and can compete.

Fly - let's me get places the DM didn't want me to go or had a way I could get without wasting a spell slot. But hey you get to sing "I did it my waaay"
Videogame thinking. Fly opens up a truly horrendous amount of potential roadblock bypasses, even while it's a single-target spell. Going where the DM doesn't want you to go is the TTRPG staple, I'd even say it's half the point of TTRPGs.

Fireball isn't meant to be used against single targets, and if you get even three targets into it, it does 24d6. These three targets do not need to be chaff, either - two ropers and one troll is a functional level 5-6 encounter, if on the harder side. Fighter will struggle to deal consistent damage to ropers (AC20 vs +8 to-hit) and will need fire damage to overcome the troll's regeneration. If you think this is too hard of a fight, replace the ropers with minotaurs.

If you're facing a single tough enemy, Slow them and watch them crumble - 5e casting means you have extreme flexibility in whether to Fireball or Slow at any given time while you have the slots.

Hypnotic Pattern still forces an enemy to spend movement and an action to wake their buddy up, which means that it can shut down a whole encounter down for one turn even if half the targets make their save - or single out one enemy who isn't willing to spend the time to wake someone up and instead charges the party.

Oh, and all those level 1 and level 2 spells also went nowhere, and you can still use them.

Other useful ones like knock just burn resources doing something the rogue can accomplish for free not too mention skills are inherently unlimited in scope where spells have predefined limits.

Not seeing a ton of winners from 4th or 5th level spells either and how many games actually get past level 10 to get into 6th level spells and higher?
Skills are unlimited in scope? Very well, call me when you've had a Rogue unlock a hidden extraplanar pathway between two points with Sleight of Hand, because Dimension Door does that at level 7. Or when a Rogue Medicines someone back to life, because Revivify does that at level 5 and Raise Dead does that at level 9 better. Or when a Rogue Acrobatics themselves up a 100-ft sheer wall, because, again, Fly does that at level 5.

And all games I've been in (that didn't fall apart in three sessions, at least) went at least to level 13 or 14, so at least 7th level spells.
------------------------
Your point seems to be that the game is mostly resolved through HP damage. While true, well, the thing is...Fighter is not even very good at that (and has zero ways of keeping the damage up while retaining good defenses). Paladin is generally on pace for damage while providing more support and some limited spellcasting. For ranged damage, Ranger also does about as well if not better, while...also having some basic spellcasting (and these days doesn't even need to waste slots on Hunter's Mark).

And when the game sometimes isn't about HP damage, Bard is as good at skills as the Rogue, except they're also a primary caster at the same time AND can just choose to be decent at combat through subclasses for the main events.

Unless your parties are ran ragged with 6+ encounters every day (yet the frontline Fighter miraculously avoids running out of HP very quickly, which has not been my experience in the slightest), your points just don't hold up in play.

clash

2024-07-18, 11:57 PM

But do you need a Fighter buddy for that? Why not a Paladin buddy who does pretty much all the same things only better AND can cast a few spells after level 1? Or even a martially-bent Cleric, which, before level 5, does things pretty similarly except they can cast spells of their own, including healing ones. Do you need a Rogue, or a Bard does those same things about as well except also being a 9th level spellcaster?

Videogame thinking. Fly opens up a truly horrendous amount of potential roadblock bypasses, even while it's a single-target spell. Going where the DM doesn't want you to go is the TTRPG staple, I'd even say it's half the point of TTRPGs.

If you're facing a single tough enemy, Slow them and watch them crumble - 5e casting means you have extreme flexibility in whether to Fireball or Slow at any given time while you have the slots.

By crumble you mean be less effective until either the martials take them out or he breaks your concentration because again you have poor AC so you better have somebody else protecting you. Abs only less effective if they have multiattack or a effective bonus action.

Oh, and all those level 1 and level 2 spells also went nowhere, and you can still use them.

Meanwhile you've spent one of the most powerful spells in your arsenal slowing down their progress a bit.

Skills are unlimited in scope? Very well, call me when you've had a Rogue unlock a hidden extraplanar pathway between two points with Sleight of Hand, because Dimension Door does that at level 7. Or when a Rogue Medicines someone back to life, because Revivify does that at level 5 and Raise Dead does that at level 9 better. Or when a Rogue Acrobatics themselves up a 100-ft sheer wall, because, again, Fly does that at level 5.

And all games I've been in (that didn't fall apart in three sessions, at least) went at least to level 13 or 14, so at least 7th level spells.

And my highest had been level 11 and the designers themselves have said the must play time is meant to be spent between 3 and 11. Just look at the exp charts for proof.

Your point seems to be that the game is mostly resolved through HP damage. While true, well, the thing is...Fighter is not even very good at that (and has zero ways of keeping the damage up while retaining good defenses). Paladin is generally on pace for damage while providing more support and some limited spellcasting. For ranged damage, Ranger also does about as well if not better, while...also having some basic spellcasting (and these days doesn't even need to waste slots on Hunter's Mark).

I would like to see a ranger build out damage a fighter but that's Besides the point. Ranger, Paladin, fighter, barbarian. The martial classes that hit stuff with sticks are more effective than the classes that cast spells.

Ignimortis

2024-07-19, 12:44 AM

Which is great if you want to run a construction company and the dirt is already loose. Less great when all you need to do is dig up a coffin and it have 20 minutes to spare to get it finished anyways which takes all of 6 seconds at the table regardless. Yes I agree there's advantages to cantrips. My point is none of them really allow you to do things you couldn't have done otherwise.
Yes, they just allow you to do things better, and lots better. If you have 20 minutes to dig up a coffin, alright, cool. If you have half a minute to dig up the treasure and vamoose, Mold Earth wins, shovel is useless. There is no situation in which Mold Earth is worse than a shovel outside of an antimagic field or trying to use the shovel as an improvised weapon.

Cleric keeps up until level 5 but that's not very long. Most of the game is between 3 and 10. Paladin sure but I'm not thinking non magical vs magical so much as beat stick vs wand for my comparison. Fighter was just my example because it's a very simple comparison point which again is not optimized at all in any of my examples.
You can build a caster (even a primary one) to be quite effective in combat (even at dealing HP damage and survivability). You cannot build a non-caster to be similarly effective at magic. That's the crux of it.

Unless you're DM prepared very detailed areas he assumed you wouldn't reach you're either flying to get to empty areas or he's making it up on the spot. Once he knows you use it it tends to become a self fulfilling prophecy where there is content you can only reach by flying because you can fly.
Or they just make a world and do not prepare encounters where you slot A into B to get access to area C. Or yes, they make something up on the spot. Again, the sheer ability to improvise something is why people play TTRPGs instead of videogames. This is a point in favor of Fly, not against it.

Why do you assume that the caster has poor AC? Getting a good AC as a caster isn't even that hard. Like, yes, if you're a wizard with 12 DEX and Mage Armor and no Shield, your AC is poor. If you're a Wizard with 16 DEX, Mage Armor and both a real shield and the Shield spell, your AC is likely better (18, with +5 on demand several times per day) than the greatsword Fighter's, especially when you actually need it.

Not even gonna touch on divine casters, which can all get very good ACs without making any effort at all, mostly because shields are stupid in 5e. Or bladesingers. Or valor bards. Etc, etc.

Will every caster have good AC? No. But can any caster class get good AC? Certainly, with possibly Sorcerer having the worst time of it (yet another case of Sorcerers not being loved by 5e).

As for "they will only crumble if (they have possibly the most common feature for enemies)", well, duh. But they also take a -2 to AC, so that's a bonus for your HP damage dealers. And halve their speed, which makes skirmishing easier. AND Slow affects up to 6 targets, also, which means you can again make several targets suffer. And it has a range of 120 feet, which means you can cast it from somewhere way beyond the "move+attack" range for most creatures. Especially with half speed.

Meanwhile you've spent one of the most powerful spells in your arsenal slowing down their progress a bit.

If you consider making the whole enemy side stop and waste a turn "slowing their progress a bit" (and that being a mostly unfortunate result, given that the majority of enemies around that time have a low-ish WIS save, against DC15), then I don't know what to tell you. Ok, let's see, a Fighter going all out is going to make four greatsword attacks and deal 8d6+20 (+1 weapon) damage. This is a maximum of 68 damage barring critical hits. This doesn't even kill a single CR4 or above enemy. You will need two turns, perfect hit rate and perfect damage to drop a single enemy outside of GWM (which drops your hitrate to "terrible" at this point) or blowing your BM dice to do 4d8 more damage. Is this supposed to be more impressive than stopping combat for a turn? (in which turn the HP damage dealers can actually focus fire someone to hopefully bring them down).

This depends on the DM and how well you roll. Also how often it comes up that these specific scenarios are actually needed. See the fly example. But scaling a sheer 100 foot wall should definitely be possible with a high enough roll and the other too certainty with rolls in the 30s.
In seven years of playing 5e, I have never seen a GM allow that. As for how often that comes up? Well, with spells it comes up all the time, because you can use them for things like these. (also, rolls in the 30s? You mean, a rogue with 20 DEX and expertise in acrobatics at level 9, who rolls an 18+ on a d20? Yes, that is certainly a less common occurrence than someone just saying "hey I got this spell").

And my highest had been level 11 and the designers themselves have said the must play time is meant to be spent between 3 and 11. Just look at the exp charts for proof.
The designers for 5e do not know how to do high-level in part because of how insanely good magic gets at level 11 and beyond. And also because how terrible the martial capabilities get at level 11 and beyond, also. They have already had to downgrade most enemies to beatstick status just so that a level 20 Fighter wouldn't be 100% invalidated by a level-appropriate dragon or a demon.

Not more effective. More expedient in resolving situations that require an application of HP damage to HP bar. More effective at super low levels, sure. At around level 5, the scales are at the very least even. And even then you can have half-casting without basically any loss in HP damage values. If you're really into it, 50% of martial "value" can be gotten in a single-level dip. 5 levels give you 90%, although a lot of caster subclasses just hand those 90% to you on a silver platter without diminishing your spellcasting. Not even gonna talk about Warlocks giving out autoscaling martial-equivalent damage with 2 levels' worth of features.

As for a Ranger, in the stated levels of play (3 to 11), a Hunter Ranger pretty much outdoes a Fighter handily at damage with the same parameters until level 11. +1d6 damage on every hit, +1d8 damage once per turn - for an archer build, those add up to an Action Surge every two to three rounds, basically. For an XBE TWF build, it's even better because you get more on-hits. Unless you're in an environment that specifically coddles short-rest classes by doing a short rest after each combat yet doing 6+ combats per day, the Ranger should take the cake.

NecessaryWeevil

2024-07-19, 12:52 AM

Usually the argument is that casters are stronger, so thanks for the refreshing change.
That being said, I'll raise the point that's usually made in response to caster supremacy:
D&D is a team game. Casters and martials do different things, or at least are stronger in different areas. This is a good thing, as it adds versatility and gives everyone a niche.

Example:
Last night we fought an ancient green dragon who was also a necromantic spellcaster.
Our Barbarian went toe-to-toe with it using his flying boots, and our ranger piled on the damage with powerful arrow attacks.
Meanwhile, our casters, though weakened because, for story reasons, they were half-casters without access to arcane spells, kept an endless mob of skeletons and wights off of the ranger so he could do his job, countered the dragon's spells, healed the martials, and rendered them resistant to Poison damage and temporarily immune to half the conditions in the book, including Dead. Four Rangers would have been drowned in a sea of skeletons. Four flying Barbarians would have given the dragon a run for his money, yeah, but would have no answer to the dragon's spells and would have been coughing their lungs out the entire time. More to the point, three of us would have been bored because we didn't want to play Barbarians.

An arbitrarily strong martial's strength is weakness if they can't bring it to bear on the enemy.

Hurrashane

2024-07-19, 01:00 AM

A big reason I enjoy martials more than casters a lot of the time is because casters are all or nothing (or very little) a lot of the time.

I cast a twinned hold person, both targets save. Cool. There goes one of my few 2nd level slots and sorcery points for nothing.

I fireball a group of enemies and because of poor rolls deal about 12 damage to those who didn't make their save. Woo.

I cast scorching ray and none of my rays hit. (This is actually a long time problem for me, I can usually only hit maybe 1/3 rays if I'm lucky)

As a martial even if I miss all my attacks I can usually do something that's helpful. A bonus action, or just being there to absorb attacks.

Rynjin

2024-07-19, 03:08 AM

Yes if you deliberately undersell the contribution of a spell for the sole purpose of making it seem weak it does appear to be weak

Scintillating observation

elyktsorb

2024-07-19, 04:37 AM

I mean, Wizards get to use Light Crossbows, and their Dex is usually the same as their Int until 4th level, or is only +1 less than it usually.

So they deal slightly less damage than a fighter will be, but they can also do things that just bypass obstacles/encounters.

Also isn't Action Surge at 2nd lvl, not 1st?

I can't really say much for fighters in general, of the 2 really long campaigns I've played in 5th edition that went up to 12th and 15th level, both of the people who played fighters in each of them didn't particularly stand out much compared to the other players.

The campaign that ended around 12th level, the Fighter was basically just a 'Ranger' they pretty much stood back and shot people with arrows and were quite unlucky with Sharpshooter a lot of the time.

The standout of that campaign was pretty much the Warlock, who was a Celestial Warlock

The one that went to 15th level, the Fighter was a Samurai, who was actually using the Charger feat of all things. The main standout of this campaign was the Rogue/Sorcerer, they had 1 level of Shadow Sorcerer for like, I think just darkvision, but they were also a thief rogue who was pretty consistently doing amazing damage.

Eldariel

2024-07-19, 05:05 AM

I mean, Wizards get to use Light Crossbows, and their Dex is usually the same as their Int until 4th level, or is only +1 less than it usually.

So they deal slightly less damage than a fighter will be, but they can also do things that just bypass obstacles/encounters.

If you convert their daily resources into damage (e.g. convert Sleep disables to damage in terms of how many enemies they disable vs. an action used attacking), over 8 encounters with 3 rounds, Fighter's Fighting Style will get outdamaged let alone if we account for the fact that familiar has a lot of direct combat value (including absorbing attacks and damage that could just drop PCs, if enemies do target it) and that having a large burst of abilities such as Sleep in the start of a combat is WAY more important than doing steady damage since bursting down enemies denies them actions for all 3 rounds while doing steady damage denies them only 1-2 actions.

And on level 5, Spirit Guardians, Conjure Animals, Animate Dead, Tasha's Summons, etc. come into play so a caster-only party has absolutely no trouble doing the fighter-half of the deal too way better than actual fighters can, while still being full casters (and we're talking about spells with durations from 10 minutes to 24 hours so it's not like you'll run out of slots any time soon). To not even talk about the Moon Druids, Bladesingers, Swords Bards, Warlocks, etc. that can just straight-up be warriors in addition to being full casters (and Artificers and Paladins are pretty nice too).

Typically these kinds of arguments die when the player actually tries a party with only casters, preferably against as-harsh-as-possible encounters. The tougher the campaign, the better caster parties perform compared to non-caster+caster mixed party, simply because they have more ways to take initiative, scout, avoid ambushes, and in general, solves encounters efficiently; Mold Earth and Shape Water both let you create on-the-spot walls, trenches and such, which are obviously useful for instance while Ritualized Water Walk + Shape Water just lets the party walk in the air (to say nothing of just staying mobile atop Phantom Steeds; very few enemies outside extremely cramped quarters can deal with a party having 200' movement speed from dashing Steeds - and it only takes 44 mins to ritualize new ones for 4 characters if they do die and you can maintain them indefinitely as long as you keep ritualizing them).

GeneralVryth

2024-07-19, 05:34 AM

You're right they do, though not in the way you think. Having actually competed martial heavy versus caster heavy parties against each other head to head several times in Solasta playthroughs for fun, the martials tend to fair as well or better than the caster heavy parties.

Tanarii

2024-07-19, 05:36 AM

Absolutely. At least Arcane Casters.

The four Arcane Casters (Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard) don't start to catch up until mid to late Tier 2. And they haven't pulled ahead in low Tier 3.

JackPhoenix

2024-07-19, 05:52 AM

Of course martials are stronger. Casters rarely need Str, with the exception of paladins, some rangers, few cleric domains, and druids who get to use bear's strength instead. And any non-barbarian martial is better off using Dex anyway.

Xervous

2024-07-19, 06:31 AM

Nice bait.

Pure martials generally sit at the end of the decision making process, after the DM decides what goes in a scene and the actual classes have voted with their resources. Theres no expectation or obligation for the NPC grade classes and builds to be catered to.

As others have mentioned skills are broadly accessible and its possible to set up characters which do the martial thing and more.

On a more antagonistic note theres a reason rogue and barbarian are considered the two worst classes. They need to be spoon fed scenes or otherwise have a very benevolent DM in order to make the most of their threadbare kit. Designing hard encounters and playing the opposition with a moderate degree of tactical acumen hedges then out well before all other classes**, and ironically other classes do skills better than the rogue while also getting a full serving of class features.

**melee only groundbound classes in general will suffer as the difficulty dial goes up. Fighter can be built ranged and hybridization keeps paladin relevant as the dial gets turned up.

DeTess

2024-07-19, 06:55 AM

I have actually played in an all caster party in a tough campsign. And not tanky casters either, two wizards, a sorcerer and a warlock. It was fun in a hilarious way, with every fight a desperate struggle to lock down the monsters with big damage or control before we got eaten.

Obviously things would have been easier if we had a solid frontliner or two to help out, but all wizards is viable, if scary and swingy.

Speaking of my personal experience, I really wish there were martials who were mechanically more like casters. Lots of options, powerful resources to manage, etc. I really like the aesthetics of martials, but mechanically I'm more a fan of casters.

Segev

2024-07-19, 07:07 AM

Quibble: sleep absolutely can end an encounter. You don't have to kill all the hostiles to end it. If they are all asleep, you can just abscond.

LudicSavant

2024-07-19, 07:15 AM

My level 1 wizard has exactly two spells he can cast before he's stuck with cantrips. That's only twice he can do something significant in the entire day. You got your very first class feature wrong; Arcane Recovery gives you a total of 3 spells per day at level 1. Rituals are also quite handy, and can be used as much as time allows right out of the gate.

Cantrips are unlimited sure, but what do they do? Quite a bit actually!

Damage cantrips do roughly half of what a weapon attack will do.

Mold earth - I cast shovel
Light - I cast torch
Mage hand - I open the door
Thaumaturgy - I cast talk loud

You get my point.

Casters at level 1 use weapon attacks about as well as anyone, whether it's a Cleric bashing faces in, a Hexblade with Booming Blade, or a Wizard getting Advantage from a flyby familiar. You don't really use spell attack cantrips much until later. In the meantime, other cantrips are quite useful. For example:

Guidance - At this level, it's a larger-than-Expertise bonus (2.5 vs 2) to any ability check (instead of just two skills) from anyone in the party (instead of just yourself).

Create Bonfire - This is a very effective way to block up chokepoints, especially with a familiar or unseen servant (ritual) dropping oil squares. It's also a great combo tool for parties that can reposition enemies, able to rack up surprisingly high damage very efficiently if you know what you're doing.

Control Flames - Allows you to create an area of light comparable to the Daylight spell, or a massive directional light with a bullseye lantern. I've seen this be a game changer in campaigns that track visibility closely, quite a few times. Also allows a lot of creative tricks, too.

Thorn Whip - It's a combo machine. For starters, pull someone into that Control Flames + oil fire. Or if you get a height advantage (lots of ways to do so), pull them off the ground and drop them prone.

Minor Illusion - You can fill entire threads with the creative uses for this one.

Booming Blade / Green Flame Blade - A Warlock using this is one of the best level 1 melee characters available. Again, casters use weaponry just fine at level 1.

Shape Water - Create cover, jam doors, break locks, make stairs, create slippery terrain, block hallways, create tools, etc.

Mold Earth - The amount of material moved here is less "I cast shovel" and more "I cast excavator."

Mage Hand - It's not just that you opened the door, it's that you did so from a safe distance. Remote operation is a godsend in old school deathtrap dungeons.

"Sleep can end encounters" - actually it can't. It can make it easier for your fighter buddy to do more of his job which actually ends the encounter. Sure it can. A successful sleep means you have ten full rounds to put your foes in an unwinnable situation, which is plenty to cuff 'em, tie 'em up, bury them up to the neck in mold earth, surrounding them with ball bearings, or whatever the heck else you want, while having your whole party ready actions to attack to give a rude (and likely fatal) awakening. Your "martial friends" don't need to do the attacking here, a party of casters readying attacks will finish someone off just fine at level 1.

Heck, even the notion that martials are going to be the best at making weapon attacks is a hasty assumption at low levels. Hexblades and certain Clerics are among the best level 1 attackers in the game. Moon Druids have a remarkable level 2.

Damage spells deal on average 15 damage on the high side compared to a great sword swing doing 11 every hit and the fighter can deal double that with action surge multiple times per day. If we have Action Surge we're no longer talking about level 1. A level 2 slot can be something like Rime's Binding Ice which can trivialize multiple enemies with its control effect (in addition to dealing ~14 damage per target, and half on a "miss"), while a level 3 slot can be something like Fireball which does an average of 28 damage per target and half that even if you "miss."

Or it can be a spell with a duration like Spirit Guardians, which adds damage every round on top of what you're already doing with the rest of your action economy. Or just... Conjure Animals being insane.

But even a level 1 spell can result in quite a bit more damage than the supposed "high side" of 15. For example using Command or Dissonant Whispers to trigger multiple OAs can shred many low level threats.

Ok ok. That's level 1. Let's go up a tier. Surely at level 5 casters have the all powerful third level spells and can compete.

Multiple enemies are a very real and deadly threat.

And if you're dealing with a single enemy, you wouldn't be using Fireball in the first place, you'd be using a single target elimination option, like, I don't know, buzzsawing someone to death on a Cloud of Daggers.

Other useful ones like knock just burn resources doing something the rogue can accomplish for free not too mention skills are inherently unlimited in scope where spells have predefined limits. Knock isn't even one of the better spells for opening doors. For example, you can use Silence as a ritual and just hand out sledgehammers to go through not only doors, but walls, without making a sound, or using a slot. For another example, you can use Enlarge/Reduce on a door.

Not seeing a ton of winners from 4th or 5th level spells either
This tells me that you have a lot more to learn about the classes in question, because there's tons of powerful spells here, whether it's summoning spells, hazard combos, powerful utility and control, and more!

Casters have a high skill ceiling, which is good news for you; there's an awful lot of potential for you to explore that you haven't yet! https://forums.giantitp.com/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png

Chronos

2024-07-19, 07:27 AM

While we're at it, sure, a level 1 spellcaster only gets two times that they can do something cool (actually, three times, for a wizard), but that's true of any level 1, really. Because after two or three encounters, you're level 2. First level is deliberately designed to be super-brief, because it sucks for everyone.

schm0

2024-07-19, 08:31 AM

I am confident this thread will be a source of constructive discourse.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-19, 08:39 AM

Mold Earth is the game and players having their cake and eating it too. In a game where people don't track Disadvantage in Dim Lighting, Ammunition, Cover, Encumbrance, and all of these other things that make their heads hurt... they're going to track soil types? LMAO

I'm sure many DMs go in depth on the types of "loose earth" in the game, and casters have wasted actions because "Actually, this is a rocky compacted soil, so Mold Earth has no effect". /sarcasm

More on point... having played many barbarians at low levels, they are gods among men. And having played alongside many casters at low levels they're... not great. Watching a party member deal 0 damage with their cantrip, and then go down to a couple of hits is painful. And I generally don't play in games that require everyone to sit around while the caster squeezes every bit of utility out of any spell they have to MacGyver any and every situation. Thank god for that as it'd be boring af, but also means there isn't some galaxy brain playstyle that opens up as we gain levels either.

J-H

2024-07-19, 08:49 AM

Martials are stronger at single target damage, and are better at consistent damage (assuming dice that don't hate them) than casters. Martials are also typically tougher to kill (higher AC & HP), and are better at long range (>150') combat if built for it than casters are.

Casters can be stronger at versatility depending on spell selection (my 10th level Evoker isn't), are definitely better at AOE damage, have a lot more options to disable (but not kill) enemies, and are better at mobility than all martials except the monk. Casters tend to be harder to disable (Int/Wis saves, Blink, Misty Step; exception: Paladins and Monks are very hard to disable at high levels) but most are more fragile than martials in terms of HP and AC.

Xervous

2024-07-19, 08:54 AM

My experience with low level barbarians is that the other characters are down doing 0 damage and the barbarian is simply getting ignored by the goblins because theres nothing stopping them from killing the archery fighter and the warlock. The barbarian generally survives, but its only by merit of being such a low threat.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-19, 09:11 AM

Barbarian
Chance to hit goblin 55%
With Reckless 80%
Average damage 9-10
While Raging 11-12

Conclusion: Barbarians are low level threats to goblins and goblins can ignore them.

I'm not sure that's all adding up but if you say so :smallamused:.

Skrum

2024-07-19, 09:16 AM

I love the provocative title and argument!

I don't think you're *entirely* wrong either. IME, levels 1-4 really do belong to the martial characters. Barb especially is quite potent, or if someone grabs PAM at 1st, two attacks is king. Casters play their part and they absolutely have moves, but their relative lack of spell slots means martial's higher AC, HP, and at will damage are very strong.

Everyone gets a big jump at 5th, but none bigger than 3rd level spells. This is where casters begin to really command the battlefield, and notable swing encounters. I would still call them pretty even at this point. The game in fact is at its most healthy - casting feels strong, martialing feels strong, and each has a really nice lane to work in.

I think it kinda goes downhill after this though. Most martial classes have gotten their best features by 6, and at 7 casters get 4th level spells. But perhaps more impactful, they kinda don't care about slots any more. They have enough that the barb is gonna run out of HP before the wizard or cleric runs out of slots.

Liberal magic items can help the martials maintain their lane though 8, 9, maybe 10, but it's noticably narrowing on them. They're not the toughest any more. Damage is still good, but it's not way better the way it was at 3rd or 4th.

LudicSavant

2024-07-19, 09:42 AM

The thing that makes someone an unusually large threat to goblins (e.g. a larger threat than other party members) is if they're unusually good at dealing with large numbers of dastardly little guerilla fighters who keep firing from dark tunnels then disengaging/hiding as a bonus action. Simply being able to do enough damage to kill one in melee is the easiest part; almost everyone can do that.

Witty Username

2024-07-19, 09:59 AM

Goblin
AC 15, HP 7

Barbarian
Chance to hit goblin 55%
With Reckless 80%
Average damage 9-10
While Raging 11-12

Conclusion: Barbarians are low level threats to goblins and goblins can ignore them.

Yeah, when numbers are this low on the monsters end alot of caster things just start to lose relevance, often because martials will make short work of it on their own.

A barbarian like up top has something like a 90% chance of killing a goblin on a successful hit. (Which means something like 45% or 72% chance to kill on a given attack).

Notably, a poison spray (highest damage available generally) has a 50% kill before accounting for accuracy. When someone like TM says your better off using the help action or dodge action to just stay out of the way this is what they are talking about.

Segev

2024-07-19, 10:04 AM

Honestly, a feature for some warrior types that let them deal with groups as if they had pooled hp would be a nice one.

But damage is not the main thing that makes people say casters outdo martials is the utility stuff that can change the way the game is played.

Even things that make martials "keep up" with the minimum required abilities for combat flight magic or flying mounts, ways to deal damage to mundane-immune enemies, etc. are just one pillar. It is a pillar that can help with the others (combat happens while exploring and can be a tool to trade on for social favors), but it isn't going to build an army and project power. And martials should absolutely have features that support building armies using the social pillar at higher levels.

Atranen

2024-07-19, 10:09 AM

Casters are more variable than martials. With optimal tactics, lots of time to set up, players and a GM who don't penalize you for pulling out rituals all the time, enemies who (correctly) skip the front line to run back and attack the casters, then sure, casters are stronger. You can always imagine a scenario where casters are better.

As played on the majority of my AL tables, under the scenarios presented in those modules? Martials come out ahead, no questions asked.

Someone mentioned all martial parties doing better in Solasta as well. That's a bit more limited in what you can do than tabletop, just by future of being a video game, so it checks out to me.

Xervous

2024-07-19, 10:17 AM

Good assessment.

Goblin
AC 15, HP 7

Barbarian
Chance to hit goblin 55%
With Reckless 80%
Average damage 9-10
While Raging 11-12

Conclusion: Barbarians are low level threats to goblins and goblins can ignore them.

I'm not sure that's all adding up but if you say so :smallamused:.

Anyone can kill a goblin if the little booger is standing there waiting to take a hit. With 80ft range on their shortbows and all the goblins evasive features barbarians simply cant work hard enough to cull a mess of goblins before the boogers have their way with the rest of the party. The goblins typically attempt to kill the warlock/archer fighter first because theres very little they can do to mitigate 120ft projectile spam, and because theyre bleeding more HD from those targets. Evading an approaching barbarian defuses rage at which point an overextended rageless barbarian would be a target to consider, but in general you wont be seeing many end of day encounters (by definition) and the barbarian will be playing chicken with rage earlier in the day against such evasive mobile ranged threats. Javelin chucking is the main option for contributing before a goblin has been reached, but 1d6+3/30ft is hardly a reliable goblin culler.

Sigreid

2024-07-19, 10:19 AM

IMO, the debate has always been overblown. Balance isn't as important as some think. What's important is that each player regularly gets to meaningfully contribute in a way they enjoy. Especially in 5e, if a player is playing a character without magic it's because they don't want magic powers.

I personally play a lot of wizards and to be blunt about it, my jobs are to 1, act as a utility magic item foe the party and 2, deal with the large amounts of petty mobs so the Fighter and rogue can smash the main threat; who it would cost me most of my daily slots to burn down if I had to be the the one to dps down.

diplomancer

2024-07-19, 12:21 PM

A bit off-topic (perhaps), but it amazes me how much stronger Martials are than Casters in BG3, mostly because of some rules tweaks, and specially the abundance of magical items (which is why this is not totally off-topic, this is going to vary a lot from table to table). Best option is to go with an all Martial party with the Casters using support spells back from camp (Clerics shine at this, what with Death Ward, Max Level Aid, Freedom of Movement, Heroes' Feast and Warding Bond). Give them all also a couple of Bard levels for song of rest and you probably never need to take a long rest.

Xervous

2024-07-19, 12:31 PM

When the max range of bows and spells gets cut to 60ft or so and thrown weapons get similar range, and weapon juggling becomes free, then you get STR martials as all rounders and DEX martials no longer have to worry that much about melee.

You probably didnt find the stuff that lets casters throw DC 25+ CC spells to trivialize all fights, or revorb cleric, theres broken magic items for everyone.

LudicSavant

2024-07-19, 12:45 PM

BG3 gives a ton of good buffs to martials (I made a long list of them in a recent-ish thread), and nerfs a lot of spells (for example, Fireball is closer in size to 5e's Shatter than 5e's Fireball), but casters are still strong enough to solo honor mode without issue. Here's some examples: https://www.reddit.com/r/BG3Builds/comments/18k6rxd/soloed_every_honor_mode_boss/, https://www.reddit.com/r/BG3Builds/search/?q=Best%20solo%20honor%20mode%20Builds&restrict_sr=1

KorvinStarmast

2024-07-19, 12:49 PM

I am confident this thread will be a source of constructive discourse. The blue text was missing on this post. :smallbiggrin:

For the OP, two points.
1. Of course martials are stronger. They are the guy at the gym, so they work out and get really buff. They can bench 500 pounds.

2. Your post overlooks the crucial point that the basic unit of D&D is the Party, in which each PC has a role, and the point of the party is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Synergy is what wins the day.
Example a:
Wizard casts magical weapon, Fighter does damage to immune enemy.

Example b:
Barbarian grapples werewolf, warlock uses Witch Bolt to kill immune enemy.

Example C:
Druid entangles some foes, rogue hits with crossbow (attack with ADV for the ones restrained) which adds sneak attack damage.

Example D:
Bard uses Hypnotic Pattern on a crowd, fighter and paladin take out enemies one at a time while the others stand around looking at the pretty colors.

Yeah, we did that, more than once. (Me bard) Granted, anti synergy is a thing. I had HP'd about a half dozen foes and the Sorcerer lith them up with a fireball. HP done, none of them dead. The butt chewing (me to him) that followed (I had told them why I was doing it) was short and concise. He didn't make that mistake twice.

As Roy Greenhilt says in Strip #1305: Go Team!

Skrum

2024-07-19, 12:50 PM

I haven't explored the most cutting-edge exploits, but in my runs, gish characters are the strongest. Martials definitely benefit enormously from several different things, but spells are still incredibly potent.

Paladins are strong, paladin mixed with warlock and/or sorcerer is stronger. Eldritch Knight (gish in a can) is by far the best fighter subclass.

And IMO, every party needs at least 1 full caster. The CC alone is invaluable. Camp clerics make a huge difference, and they're casters.

If anything, I think BG3 shows at least one route to balancing casters and martials - both have a lane, both contribute, neither overshadows the other on net. It's pretty cool.

ZRN

2024-07-19, 03:09 PM

The level and playstyle make a huge difference. Factors that tilt things towards casters:

1. Playing at higher level
2. The DM doesn't push the party towards the recommended encounters/day
3. Fewer and less powerful/less tailored magic items are available to the party
4. The party (and DM) care a lot about optimizing their combat performance, and build their combat approaches around that.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-19, 04:07 PM

Seems designed to suit the casters; lots of distance and bonus action Disengage to keep away from frontliners, but no cover/darkness/hiding to make ranged attacks a pain. And the barbarian is running forth and closing distance but the goblins will just keep pinging the guys in the back and the frontliner charging them will just sort itself out I guess.

The level and playstyle make a huge difference. Factors that tilt things towards casters:

The average player is not only probably playing in tiers 1-2 with a moderate amount of magic items, they're also not having offline conversations with the party on how to min-max everyone's loadout for optimal performance. Which is why WOTC isn't worried about the imbalance.
All great points, especially point 4 and the last paragraph. This is also why I, generally, am not concerned about this gap; it rarely ever manifests itself in my games. Skrum and I may not see eye to eye on all parts of this, but I agree with him that really it's just letting martials be more cool that is the driving sentiment. Obviously I think they are cool now, I mostly only play martials. But the game is heavily skewed toward the spellcasters, and martials can use more love.

LudicSavant

2024-07-19, 04:54 PM

Goblins represent two of the things Barbarians have disadvantageous matchups against: Guerilla fighters, and mook swarms.

Cover, darkness, and hiding are all things that give the Barbarian additional trouble (and is a common way I've seen rage get wasted). And, incidentally, are things that a Wizard in the party could help the Barbarian solve, such as familiars being able to consistently spot goblin hiding with their passive perception, or Control Flames lighting up the battlefield like it's broad daylight, or AoEs or hazards using their bolt holes against them.

As Roy Greenhilt says in Strip #1305: Go Team!

Witty Username

2024-07-19, 08:22 PM

(for example, Fireball is closer in size to 5e's Shatter than 5e's Fireball),

I have been meaning to as about that, because for one I have done the comparison (although it hasn't been recent) and the BG3 shatter appears to be also smaller. But also it seems to be about the right size I would expect from 5e shatter using measuring rules like BG3 does.

Do you have sources for this? And were all AoE spells reduced in size?
Edit: I checked the wiki, and that does seem to be the case, shatter lost some size as well.
With an exception, why hypnotic pattern was not reduced in size, I have no clue.
--
There is a thing I have noticed on the martial-caster divide, or rather resources vs at will abilities. And that is a potential bias when running optimized encounter.
When an encounter is deadly or greater, resources get used and at will abilities tend to lack sufficient impact but I have noticed a change towards the more moderate end.
Casters (or rather any character that has a significant resource pool) tend to lack options in these encounters - beyond spending resources, which by my interpretation of the DMG is a failure scenario for such encounters.

Thoughts?
Does an increased volume of trivial encounters have an impact on these principles in comparison to a (relatively short number of deadly ones).

diplomancer

2024-07-19, 08:58 PM

Hmm, that sounds interesting, lets see whats the tactics with Ansur. Oh, fire a bunch of arrows and use Action Surge, never using a single spell. Yes, it`s technically a Swords Bard(with at least 2 Fighter levels), but if your best strategy is not casting spells, calling it a caster is a stretch.

My first runs I was very excited about the very high spell DCs. But when your mostly martial party can easily do about 800 points of damage in a round, you stop caring about those very high spell DCs, and even though there are supplies aplenty that resting is not a big deal, I do take some pride in going for a long time without a long rest. In my current run, Im about 1/3 through on the 3rd act, taking only one short rest so far. Acts I and 2 were not much different, with me taking Long Rests more to advance the story than because I actually need to. When I was playing with casters, they would run out of slots a lot faster and Id take more frequent Long Rests.

LudicSavant

2024-07-19, 09:46 PM

were all AoE spells reduced in size? No: Some things are bigger, some things are smaller, some are the same. And it's not just sizes that changed, there are a ton of balance and rules changes in BG3.

Witty Username

2024-07-20, 12:34 AM

I took a gander at the lists,
It looks like some are claiming doing a solo honor run with a level 12 battlemaster (which is nerfed as I understand it).
That implies they did quite a bit for martials generally if that is the case.
--
I will keep the spell nerfs in mind on my next run, Fireball is already a spell I don't like very much and some of this explains why Evoker felt a bit like a lame duck on tactician.

Amnestic

2024-07-20, 04:54 AM

Eh, BG3 can be mostly solo'd on honour mode, start to finish, in under 50 minutes. Clever tips/tricks and game knowledge are going to matter more than class usually.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-20, 08:35 AM

Martials are usually stronger than casters in video game adaptations of D&D. It was the same story in BG1 and 2 and in Neverwinter Nights 1-2. It's mostly because of items, a place where Larian have gone wildly overboard. By the end of Act 1, the party should have probably a dozen magic items that either shouldn't exist at all on tabletop or are awarded only in level 15-20 play. Open hand monk is arguably the strongest class/subclass in BG3, and it's not because monks are incredible. It's because the game is littered with easily accessible items for monks that are incredibly overpowered.

Generally, if you look at the strongest Honor Mode builds, or builds that are designed to work in modded gameplay where the ability to do hundreds of damage/round is necessary, what you'll find is that they're built around items (or, admittedly, rule changes Larian made without understanding their effects, like Tavern Brawler). The ring of the mystic scoundrel and helm of arcane acuity by themselves enable a whole playstyle that can't be reliably replicated on tabletop.

Xervous

2024-07-20, 10:02 AM

I think you're imagining a scenario that suits your needs here. If the goblins have all of this distance and cover to dart behind and be evasive, why wouldn't they take out the melee character that is actively hunting them down and closing distance? Why target the ranged attackers that might not even be able to see them or target them, and are readying actions that may not come around?

Goblins die horribly to anything that's lined up to attack them, they're not going to win the fight unless it's a horribly lopsided setup where they have the numbers to overwhelm (in which case they could also kill the approaching barbarian with only minimal backpedaling). Their numbers get thinned faster than they can kill a determined Barbarian, but they can force other PCs to death savings throws quicker (and exhaust additional resources by tempting the players into popup healing). Spreading out at a distance defuses typical caster threats of the level range such as sleep and the bonus action hide puts additional risk on non cantrip spells; casters end up as worse archers.

Ironically stretches of open terrain is the best case for the Barbarian, as difficult terrain and verticality give the goblins more avenues for staying apart from one another. Not paying for diagonal movement in 5e effectively narrows open areas down towards 1D paths, and it's a lot harder to trade a single goblin for a multi turn detour of the barbarian.

Again, the goblins aren't here to win, they're here to be the nastiest speed bump possible. That is accomplished by hitting the PC who has the highest damage:durability ratio. A 14 CON barbarian's HD is worth 18 damage against most assorted low level enemies, a 14 CON fighter's HD is worth 8 and the warlock is likely looking at 6-7 per. On a side note monks do horrible naughty things to any quantity of goblins and a monk was the best performer for the deadly+ goblin moshpit.

LudicSavant

2024-07-20, 12:49 PM

That implies they did quite a bit for martials generally if that is the case.

Yes; there are broad systemic buffs to martials in BG3, it's not just the class features that got better. For example, Strength was reworked and made into an actually-good stat in BG3, enough so that one can justify putting it on monks or even casters.

Shoves are massively more effective than in tabletop, able to send enemies flying many times farther than 5 feet, and activated as a bonus action instead of an action. Thrown weapons are much, much better, in terms of accuracy, range, action economy, damage, feat synergy, and item synergy. Jumps are bonus action pseudo-teleports that scale their movement distance dramatically based on Strength, and can easily be buffed to cross the entire screen (and more) like a genuine hulk jump. Objects are lighter and can be thrown farther, and barrelmancy is a thing. Creatures can be thrown. Tavern Brawler is a better feat than Sharpshooter. Weapon switching action economy is reworked, so you can seamlessly switch between a ranged and melee set, shield included. Hand crossbows can get a bonus action attack WITHOUT crossbow expert. Itemization is very different, with easily-swapped Christmas tree bonuses that can completely overhaul your character. Consumables are far more effective, and anyone can use scrolls. Weapons in general grant battle-master-esque maneuvers that can be swapped out simply by changing weapons. Half and 3/4 cover no longer exists. High ground bonuses do, and they benefit attack roll-based actions significantly. Crit range bonuses can be stacked. And so on and so on and so on. I made a much longer list in the BG3 thread. Basically, Larian did serious work, they didn't just copy-paste from the 5e rulebooks.

And yes, definitely read the spells on your next playthrough, don't assume they work like in 5e. Some of the best spells in tabletop are dramatically nerfed (a lot of control spells are, like sleet storm), some of the formerly-bad ones are reworked to be really damn good, many have new interactions with Larian's element systems (like creating surfaces, making people wet, dealing double damage to people who are wet, obscurement working differently, etc), some are basically new mechanics entirely.

Tanarii

2024-07-20, 04:28 PM

Goblins love squishy arcane casters as targets because they're easy to do damage to. That's the main reason martials and Cleric/Druid are more powerful than casters well into Tier 2. Higher AC and more HP.

YMMV if your DM allows the armor feats or MC dips for armor. In that case, enjoy your gishy arcane caster :smallamused:

Zuras

2024-07-20, 08:41 PM

5e has very limited niche protection for any classes, honestly. Ive seen all sorts of party compositionsall casters, all martials, 3 Rogues and a Druidthey all worked reasonably well. An all caster party takes a bit more work with the build, but you can cover most of the party role bases if youre using feats.

Fundamentally, though, martials are always going to feel weaker until WotC puts out a long rest based martial that can nova most of their daily resources in a single fight. Classes able to save their resources for flashy effects in the final fight are always going to look better.

In games with solid niche protection like AD&D, the discussion of power level is almost meaningless, since Magic Users arent getting anywhere without fighters to protect them, and fighters will be very bored sitting around healing 1 hp/day without clerics.

Witty Username

2024-07-20, 08:50 PM

I wonder if this is why I have heard more than a few complaints about warlock, several coworkers have been doing BG3 playthroughs of various seriousness but everyone has found warlock consistently lackluster.
Higher level spells seem to have consistently taken a hit, which makes having 2 slots per combat just bad. I personally have ended up as my most common cast on will counterspell with whatever slot available with no regrets, and most others don't feel high impact enough to bother with more than a couple levels of warlock.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-20, 10:21 PM

There is a thing I have noticed on the martial-caster divide, or rather resources vs at will abilities. And that is a potential bias when running optimized encounter.
When an encounter is deadly or greater, resources get used and at will abilities tend to lack sufficient impact but I have noticed a change towards the more moderate end.
Casters (or rather any character that has a significant resource pool) tend to lack options in these encounters - beyond spending resources, which by my interpretation of the DMG is a failure scenario for such encounters.

Thoughts?
Does an increased volume of trivial encounters have an impact on these principles in comparison to a (relatively short number of deadly ones).
My experience has been that the casters I play with are not looking to drop their big spells unless they think it will be really effective/necessary. So if we're having more moderate encounters, I'm not seeing these sort of show-stopping OP "I am become death" type of plays. Everything is pretty normal. If we have an encounter that's gone sideways or we think it looks very difficult, they'll drop their big spells and it will have an impact of course.

If you're playing in games that require resource expenditure all of the time because it's way more difficult than the designers intended, then yeah, the classes with more and stronger resources are going to shine a lot more. That's why I dismiss a lot of the claims we see on the forum, because it's a specific style of play that facilitates the performance and therefore the claims.

1. Again, hasn't been my experience that "anything" can kill goblins easily. Low level casters using cantrips are not very lethal. They have even odds of hitting/missing, and don't deal lethal damage. So goblins are not dying horribly to them for a few rounds. This is not the case with weapon attacks, and especially with honking two handed weapons and rage bonus damage.

2. Your argument seems very meta. I don't think a lot of tables play this way, and I know my DM for my live weekly game doesn't. But even still, it's fine. You are basically agreeing with me, but want to insist it's because DMs make it so. So... sure, low level barbarians are gods among men and casters die easily because... DMs choose to target casters over barbarians. Not my experience but no problem.

3. Why don't the goblins start the encounter at 250ft distance? Start attacking at that distance, get 2 turns of attacks before the PCs can react due to Surprise. And try to maintain distance and attack? Even at Disadvantage, some attacks will hit before the PCs can close in and retaliate. At low levels, a single hit is a lot of damage. Heck, if the goblins can Hide as a bonus action each turn, they're attacking from Hiding and can cancel out the Disadvantage with Advantage. Seems like you can surround the party at that distance and get a nice TPK easily.

LudicSavant

2024-07-20, 11:27 PM

A generic level 1 Wizard can very easily kill a goblin outright with their weapon attack, either in melee (dual-wielding light weapons) or at range (using a crossbow). If their familiar's up, they generate advantage, too.

That's the thing about level 1, casters use weapons just fine. Bonfire + Oil will usually one-shot them, too.

You don't really need direct attack cantrips like Fire Bolt until level 5+.

Witty Username

2024-07-21, 02:02 AM

You don't really need direct attack cantrips like Fire Bolt until level 5+.

I would personally say most casters don't need direct attack cantips. At 5th level cantrip damage isn't so much better than weapon attacks so much as on par.
By 10th level is when they start to get noticeably better but the damage is pretty low at that point. Now they do have other effects which can be good, ray of frost for movement speed reduction or firebolt for setting areas on fire.

Kane0

2024-07-21, 03:04 AM

Yeah the important part of cantrips is commonly the rider, but also sometimes damage type. You dont usually pick Shocking Grasp because you want to get into melee and deliver that juicy lightning damage with advantage against the armored target, it normally used in order to get away safely from said armored foe while still contributing damage.
Likewise ray of frost slows a target from getting to you (or getting away), chill touch halts regeneration or an annoying enemy healer, vicious mockery and mind sliver directly debuff the target's rolls, and so on. The cantrips that are pure damage are frequently not held as in as high regard unless that output is decidedly better (save targeted, range, number of targets, damage type and/or raw die size)

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-21, 08:02 AM

Again, in my experience, caster players are playing the caster fantasy and using cantrips, as opposed to the magical crossbowman fantasy.

And again, in my experience, not in forum theory world, casters, in particular wizards, are frail at these low levels, so I haven't seen them running up to the frontline and dual-wielding either lol. But hey, every table is different.

Tanarii

2024-07-21, 09:30 AM

Yeah, not only do arcane casters other than Bards use cantrips instead of weapons, they have to do it often. Even through Tier 2. Long rest resource classes have to husband them. Even if you're not doing more than a normal adventuring day, which is IMX very rare, you still only get enough for 2 spells per combat at level 7 for wizards/sorcerers/bards. And you only ever get enough for 1 of your highest two spell slots.

Meanwhile short rest and no rest classes just keep on trucking, even once they're well past the adventuring day.

But that's not what makes arcane casters lower powered. It's that they're no only limited ammo cannons ... they really are still made of glass. Unless you can consistently hide in the back and around corners and no be attacked by flanking enemies coming from behind, you're easily the most likely to go down.

Like I said, parties made of mostly arcane squishies in Tier 1 and Tier 2 are the ones I'd see TPK. And even when they didn't, they were the ones getting mauled the most.

Witty Username

2024-07-21, 10:45 AM

Again, in my experience, caster players are playing the caster fantasy and using cantrips, as opposed to the magical crossbowman fantasy.

Yep yep.

On the first point I definitely agree that is what alot of people do. I do different, my play habits are from 3.5 where cantrips cost spell slots. In which case a side arm weapon was more necessary.
I do think there is some argument that there are cantrips that are better and healthier for the game in the ones that don't deal damage like dancing lights and minor illusion (given the goblin stuff I could see a number of ways the utility cantrips could be more helpful).

I think people miss that they need to survive 2-3 levels. Armor dips generally mean not playing a first level caster at all, and feats mean pushing armor to 4th level.
Defensive spells like shield are powerful but sharply limited. And this is still going to come up short,
Barbarians have rage and fighter second wind on top of better AC and HP.
Also you have things that don't come up in this conversation,
Barbarians reasonably have 14 dex, the can use crossbows and longbow as proficiently as most other characters, casters especially since 16 dex is possible but not always a priority.

My experience has been that the casters I play with are not looking to drop their big spells unless they think it will be really effective/necessary. So if we're having more moderate encounters, I'm not seeing these sort of show-stopping OP "I am become death" type of plays. Everything is pretty normal. If we have an encounter that's gone sideways or we think it looks very difficult, they'll drop their big spells and it will have an impact of course.

My personal observations are more directed towards all caster parties which is more incline with some of the claims made.
Take the goblin holdouts
At level 2, 4 goblins is a medium encounter for a 4 person party

Now this is something a party should be able to do resourceless. So no spells, no action surge, no rage.
Generally this is not to hard for the average party - something like a barbarian, ranger or warlock with AB should be able to clean pretty easy and most parties have 2-3 people in this range.

But say we are dealing instead with a druid, wizard, cleric and bard.
This party is relying on that cleric pretty significantly to deliver on that AC and kill potential. Weapons will get there but most of these will have a half chance of gobos surviving hits.

Take cleric (highest AC and HP here) vs ranger
AC even with medium armor and shield
HP, edge ranger
Melee damage, edge ranger with dueling
D6+Stat about average damage of 5.5
translation about a 1/3 chance of killing a goblin on a hit
Vs d8+Stat+2 kills on a 2, ranger has a lesser chance of not killing this goblin than the cleric did of killing it
Ranged, edge ranger with heavy crossbow
D8 + Stat, 4/8 1/2 to kill
D10 + Stat, 7/10 kill

The translations into time, this means the caster party will need to focus fire to kill goblins,
The party with a mix of strong at will damage will be able to spread an potentially kill multiple goblins a turn and kill goblins each turn more consistently.

What this means is more turns the goblins have to deal damage, reposition and such.
Now what the caster party will likely do is solve this with resources, as that is worth the mitigation. But this means that more moderate encounters,
Say a pair of orcs, classic zombies and skeletons, a ghoul or Ogre will also do this.

In this sense an 'optimized' caster party is likely doing less well in comparison to more dangerous encounters, resources are assumed used and so having them is the check, not whether they are needed to perform basic functions.

Tanarii

2024-07-21, 10:51 AM

I think people miss that they need to survive 2-3 levels. Armor dips generally mean not playing a first level caster at all, and feats mean pushing armor to 4th level.
It really is amazing how much these optional rules distort the game. Too bad they didn't play test them.

KorvinStarmast

2024-07-21, 11:06 AM

Again, in my experience, caster players are playing the caster fantasy and using cantrips, as opposed to the magical crossbowman fantasy. All of my warlocks start at level 1 with a light crossbow and a 14 or 16 dex. 1d8+2 or 1d8+3 is better than 1d10+0. same to hit chance. EB is for resistant enemies or level 2 and beyond, tactically. It's also has a better range than Light Crossbow.

It really is amazing how much these optional rules distort the game. Too bad they didn't play test them. *grin* I see what you did there. *golf clap*

Witty Username

2024-07-21, 01:14 PM

It really is amazing how much these optional rules distort the game. Too bad they didn't play test them.

Eh, they are mostly fine, taking a level off is alot of trouble if you actually play at low levels.
Every fight you don't have hypnotic pattern or counterspell because you are 65 pounds heavier is real bad.
Especially when the fighter took something useful like, not doing that, and doubling their attack power because of it.

Dork_Forge

2024-07-21, 01:39 PM

Well it's been a while old thread, but I'm loving the twist so let's do thisss.

I'll preface with D&D is a team game and at no point are martial-only or caster-only parties expected as the norm. Not in the fiction, not in the split of classes, and ime, not in the reality of what people play.

For the purposes of this discussion I consider anything with a spell progression to 9th level spells as casters. I consider Paladins and Rangers martials and Artificers are defined too much by their subclass to fit into either.

Tier 1 martials are better at damage, they just are. Spell slots are too scarce and cantrips too poor to really make an argument otherwise. And of the martials, the majority of them are better at weapon damage than casters attempting it. (Fighting Styles, Sneak Attack, Rage, Martial Arts attacks).

Martials are tougher to kill. They generally have higher HP from a HD PoV and will often realistically have higher HP from higher Con (this is for multiple reasons in game and not white rooming). They also get better AC built in, with those needing Dex (rogues and Monks) for their AC upping it anyway. This is by design. Casters are meant to be squishier or have to invest in order to get tougher. Mage Armor and Shield are examples of this. Druids are going to struggle for decent armor without DM intervention and Clerics are intended to function like lite martials half the time.

Martials remain better at single-target damage, damage consistency, and durability pretty much throughout. Pointing at edge cases or particular builds does not disprove this, that actually just highlights that in general casters are bad at these things without a lot of investment.

Spells are not as good as advertised by caster hype folks. The declarations of caster dominance usually relies on generous readings/rulings, shrodinger spell choices, and a magic pouch that spits out the spell slot you need to win an argument. Realistically speaking, there is no problem in the game that a spell can solve that isn't solvable otherwise. This is because your DM is not going to stonewall you for not having the prescience to choose the right spell/option.

Now let's take a look at the smattering of procaster stuff that has cropped up in this thread:

Cantrips The overwhelming majority of the time this is just a magical way of doing something you can do anyway, I haven't seen this actually disproven, sometimes you can do it quicker, you spent like 1 of 3 cantrips you have on it so yeah?

Mold Earth - Only applies to loose earth for the 'excavator' mode. That means it's useless the vast majority of the time unless you're playing in an area that would be nightmarish to actually traverse. Yes, a shovel/pickaxe is better than this. Yes, you could get a job as a JCB replacement, but you built an adventurer.

Guidance - Concentration, short duration, and noticeable components greatly reign this in compared to the panacea to skill checks it often gets sold as. It's a good cantrip, I like someone in the party having it, but it's amazingness is generally overblown.

Sleep - This doesn't end encounters on it's own, the enemies still need to be dealt with, and avoiding friendly fire is easier said than done with initiatives varying. It can be great, but it's not happening every encounter and it still relies on, probably martials, dealing with it. You could just walk away, but realistically that's just leaving an encounter for later in a lot of scenarios, nevermind witnesses to pass along information.

Casters use weapons too! I do find a kind of hilarious hypocrisy to the notion that casters are so much better than casters, for the casters to then LARP as crappy martials for 4 levels. But let's address this. As already mentioned above, no they are not as good at weapon damage as martials, both for lack of features and proficiencies, but also realistically most casters people actually play are not throwing a +3 into Dex or Str, so the martials probably have stat advantage here too.

But my favourite example of this nonsense is pointing to a Wizard doing it with a light crossbow. With what money? They're the only arcane caster that can't start with one from their starting gear, so have to buy. They need 25GP for the weapon itself, then 1GP for bolt case and 1GP for your first 20 bolts. So even a Noble can't afford all of it. But it gets better, because isn't Find Familiar so lauded and a must have and all that, it certainly comes up in these conversations enough. But that's 10GP per summoning, ignoring acquiring a brazier. Suddenly a 1st level Wizard starting with even a single casting of FF and a useable crossbow is nothing but a white room pipedream. And it doesn't get better. Before people have said 'well, level 2 then,' but the fact is that pushing such a large expense on an expense heavy class pretty much ruins their finances for a while unless the party digs them out of that hole.

Finally, here's a claim I roughly seen made here, a caster can be made into a good martial but a martial can't be made into a good caster. And yeah, I disagree. Even the standout options for this, like the obscenely buffed Tasha's Bladesinger, are not actually standing up to that claim in comparisons against real martials. I'm sure there will be a rebuttal with bladetrips and Shadow Blade, but the simple fact is that the casters are spending heavy investments and often relying on outlier options to catch up to martials and sometimes rival their damage.

And the other side of that arugment is largely true, you're obviously not getting higher-level spells on martials, but you can get a lot of, and I mean a lot, of magic on a martial.

Obviously, the low-hanging fruit here are the half casters (up to 5th level) and the third casters (up to 4th level). But there are a lot of races that offer spellcasting or spell-like abilities, subclasses that give spells or improved versions of them (like a Psi Warrior getting Telekinesis, a 5th level spell). But then there are feats, and the power creep has made grabbing magic in feats super easy. Fey Touched and Shadow Touched offer a lot, Magic Initiate is still great, and Ritual Caster for utility. Heck, being a Drow and taking Drow High Magic gives an otherwise mundane martial the same kind of spell power as a low-level full caster (better in some ways, since you get a casting of Dispel).

And finally, if I had to choose between an all martial or all caster party, especially from 1st level, I'd go martial. Not only do I think it'd end up being more fun, but I reckon they'd have a significantly easier time and a much lower chance of TPKing.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-21, 02:19 PM

Well it's been a while old thread, but I'm loving the twist so let's do thisss.

Now let's take a look at the smattering of procaster stuff that has cropped up in this thread:

And the other side of that arugment is largely true, you're obviously not getting higher-level spells on martials, but you can get a lot of, and I mean a lot, of magic on a martial.

In before the "wizards start with two spellbooks and can sell one in order to afford a crossbow" arguments.

I hope 2024 DMG includes Panhandling as a downtime activity so wizards can afford all the equipment they need to remain relevant at low levels lol. Flasks of oil, familiar summons/re-summons, crossbow and bolts, etc etc.

LudicSavant

2024-07-21, 02:36 PM

Oil costs 1sp. Daggers are 2gp each.

As for crossbows, it is very much within the realm of possibility to get one, by any of a wide variety of means. You can even get it for free with certain backgrounds (for example, if anyone in the party is a Soldier, they can requisition simple equipment). But if you don't have one, it doesn't make much of a difference, daggers and oil is fine, and starting equipment issues are by their nature short-lived.

Dork_Forge

2024-07-21, 03:46 PM

Having a familiar or unseen servant light oil on fire is a neat trick that will not work at all tables or for all parties and whilst it might work at some tables, falls more into the 'neat white room tactics' casters often end up bandying about.

Whether or not the 27 GP worth of crossbow and paraphernalia is considered 'simple equipment' is a massive leap, since there's a thing called the equipment table devoid of any weapons.

And regardless of how long starting gear costs bother a PC (in this case it'd probably plague that PC financially until level 3-4 and they'd never be flush until mid-Tier 2), they shouldn't be handwaved away as they are a part of the game, and it's one of the *many* things that gets discounted as the argument for caster supremacy builds.

Xervous

2024-07-21, 03:48 PM

A few points.

1. For the low level combats that don't push towards deadly the matter tends to be decided in 3-4 rounds, 2 of which your typical melee combatant would be spending maneuvering while flinging out attacks from a convenient ranged weapon. The light crossbow mentioned by others sees frequent use in putting down skirmishing creatures at this level. With 6 goblins being a medium encounter for a 4xL3 party it's an average of 18 shots if we ignore the specifics of cantrips, a little less for Toll the Dead spam, and use of TtD for finishing off wounded targets gets it slightly under 17. A single casting of bless is only a net 2.6 shots (3.6 faster, -1 casting action). A full party of archery style crossbow users finishes the encounter in avg 12 shots. And just for reference a 4man lineup of eblast does it in 14 shots. Aside from the fighting style and agonizing blast, this is the damage most characters have put forth since level 1. That 4 goblin L2 medium encounter gets smoked in 3 rounds and most of the barbarian's kills will be from a heavy crossbow. Opening up the range to Hard and Deadly encounters can serve up such delights as 11 goblins (deadly) for a L3 party which will demand resources be spent to address their starting 60 damage presence.

I should note that the calculus changes drastically once martials get their extra attack and various classes pick up movement enhancements. It becomes a lot easier to shunt attention off squishier characters when they're only exposing themselves to singular readied shots (by peeking out from total cover or doing pushup sniping) rather than the full volleys that can be declared during a creature's turn. Some monsters do get longer range shots, but if you look to the books where that stuff is happening frequently there's far worse problems that are best elaborated on in another thread (Oopsall! of force damage).

2. Many tables can avoid straying towards the Nash Equilibrium but the relatively low frequency at which this tends to happen does not change the fact that it exists (and may be problematic if it goes against design intent). A character in a fighting game having a demanding infinite stalling technique won't really impact a game with the bros or your local casual scene as it's neither obvious nor feasible for most people to reproduce, but it's a serious issue if you want the game to avoid being ruined by that nugget of knowledge. Lifeberry is one example of something well outside the game's design intent that most players will never encounter and most tables beyond that address the matter with bans or houserules. Build choices and combat tactics are two sides of the same coin, highlighting that Lifeberry (or prenerf healing spirit) destroys much semblance of HP management is little different from highlighting how certain classes get hedged out when the DM stops sandbagging team monster. If there was explicit guidance spelling out that narrative play is the prime objective of combat with various details being supplied to further the fantasies of each class I wouldn't be writing this brick wall of a post. If there was a decent primer on tactics and difficulty we could at least point to that for standard expectations and maybe even it would have a warning of what happens when you turn up the tactics dial!

The claim was simply that martials are good stat blocks, but the system hasn't equipped the STR characters in a fair manner. I'd love to see them get more and not have to rely on the DM's benevolence to achieve consistent relevance in combat.

3. Goblins have 60ft darkvision and the typical audible range for average adventuring party activity is 70ft (DM screen encounter distance). An open field during the day makes the possible start distance arbitrary, but unless there's mounts involved or the party has <30ft movement PCs that nobody can carry you don't see an encounter unless both sides seek it. Encirclement with surprise is indeed TPK material, but most of that is the surprise portion and encirclement is the result of multiple failed checks rather than one.

LudicSavant

2024-07-21, 04:27 PM

Whether or not the 27 GP worth of crossbow and paraphernalia is considered 'simple equipment' is a massive leap, since there's a thing called the equipment table devoid of any weapons.

The table you seem to be thinking of is actually called the "adventuring gear" table. Weapons are featured in the equipment chapter, are frequently and repeatedly referred to as equipment throughout said chapter and the PHB as a whole, and are entirely within the bounds of the sort of thing that a soldier might reasonably requisition (and is in fact far cheaper than getting, say, horses from said feature). This is but one of many, many different ways that a level 1 character could conceivably get a light crossbow. The rules for using oil are also clearly spelled out in the player's handbook.

Blatant Beast

2024-07-21, 04:28 PM

You could loot a Light Crossbow in the first encounter.
Starting Wealth and Equipment could very greatly from table to table.
(If a player really wants to have a very basic piece of equipment, as a DM, I'm probably going to allow it, because, it just is not that big of a deal, balance-wise).

The Mending Cantrip can let a PC fill the role of a Blacksmith or Tinker, which means they could potentially make 2GP per day as Skilled Labor. In the Forgotten Realms, a 'week' is 10 days, (hence the Tenday moniker), one week of downtime basically almost pays for a light crossbow.

A spell caster being able to buy a light crossbow, is not an insurmountable charge, CLEARLY, given certain conditions.

Are Martials "stronger" than casters in T1, probably, but the degree of difference in 5e is much lower than in AD&D.

All in all, though, I find these types of discussions tedious now. This topic is an example of D&D Identity warring, "My Fighter can kill your Magic-User" "Nah, my Wizard will Charm your Fighter and make him my valet" type of posturing, and frankly is just plain childish.

Have fun, having the conversation, but I am out.

LudicSavant

2024-07-21, 04:50 PM

Agreed. The truly frustrating bit is that those who seem to have their sense of identity wrapped up in 'casters vs martials' keep overgeneralizing; the truth is that who's better doesn't fall neatly along lines of "caster or non-caster." It's build and class specific. Clerics generally have a better level 1 than Sorcerers. Fighters have a better level 1 than Monks (which at level 1 are basically a worse version of a dual-wielding Dex Fighter). And so forth. And even among the stronger options, everything has its good and bad matchups.

Blatant Beast

2024-07-21, 06:12 PM

Very True! The question that immediately popped in my head when seeing the thread title was: Define what stronger means in this context.

Is it Hit Point Total, DPR, or PC contribution?

The answer will depend upon what is meant by stronger.

Skrum

2024-07-21, 06:21 PM

Very True! The question that immediately popped in my head when seeing the thread title was: Define what stronger means in this context.

Is it Hit Point Total, DPR, or PC contribution?

The answer will depend upon what is meant by stronger.

Would've been an excellent bait and switch if OP was just referring to Str score.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-22, 05:13 PM

All of my warlocks start at level 1 with a light crossbow and a 14 or 16 dex. 1d8+2 or 1d8+3 is better than 1d10+0. same to hit chance. EB is for resistant enemies or level 2 and beyond, tactically. It's also has a better range than Light Crossbow.
The irony that the original at-will caster, inspiration for the 3.5 Reserve Feats, would still be lobbing bolts with a crossbow because it deals more damage lol :smallcool:.

That said, warlocks don't come to mind when I think of the caster/martial divide :smallbiggrin:. But fair point, and warlocks do indeed start play with a light crossbow as part of their starting equipment.

But more to my point... the claims of who is stronger than who and by how much will vary. My experience; no casters with crossbows. Your experience; totally different. Well, actually, do the other non-warlock casters in your groups use crossbows? (I think it's probably more normal for older players since that was the norm back in the day.)

But the crossbow point is funny to me because:

Wizards: I don't want to use a crossbow, I want to use magic.
WotC: Okay, here are at-will attack cantrips.
Wizards: Wtf did you do to my spreadsheet math? I'll stick with the crossbow...

LudicSavant

2024-07-22, 05:25 PM

My experience; no casters with crossbows. Your experience; totally different. Well, actually, do the other non-warlock casters in your groups use crossbows?

Sorcerers also have light crossbows as a default starting equipment option. As do Bards. And Clerics. And Druids.

Your choice to have no casters with crossbows is just that: Your choice. It's not reflective of an actual limitation of the classes in question.

diplomancer

2024-07-22, 05:32 PM

Sorcerers also have light crossbows as a default starting equipment option. As do Bards. And Clerics. And Druids.

Your choice to have no casters with crossbows is just that: Your choice. It's not reflective of an actual limitation of the classes in question.

Druids can start with Crossbows, but they don't get proficiency in it, which I think is kinda cool, since it's the most "civilized" weapon.

Keltest

2024-07-22, 05:40 PM

Sorcerers also have light crossbows as a default starting equipment option. As do Bards. And Clerics. And Druids.

Your choice to have no casters with crossbows is just that: Your choice. It's not reflective of an actual limitation of the classes in question.

I mean, your casters are minmaxing to deal like one damage more on average with an ammunition based weapon (which costs extra money) than with their cantrips for 4 levels. What are they killing with that +1 average damage that they weren't before? Why is that worth it?

LudicSavant

2024-07-22, 06:43 PM

Is this a serious question or are you joshing me? I genuinely can't tell.

If it's a serious question:
Ammunition is very cheap; it costs a couple of copper pieces a shot, and if you even care you can recover half of it after a battle, or craft your own.

The reason someone might spend more money to deal a little more damage is the same reason that someone might pay more for a martial weapon than a simple weapon; the cost just is not that much, and little bonuses add up -- heck, the Dueling style and Rage bonus are both "only" a +2. Also, cantrip known slots are valuable and scarce. If my caster is using a weapon, I'm not going to use a weapon instead of cantrips, I'm going to be using both. At level 1 a caster only has a few cantrips known, and those are goodies like Guidance or Control Flames or Create Bonfire or Minor Illusion or Booming Blade or whatever.

Keltest

2024-07-22, 06:48 PM

Is this a serious question or are you joshing me? I genuinely can't tell.

If it's a serious question:
Ammunition is very cheap; it costs a couple of copper pieces a shot, and if you even care you can recover half of it after a battle, or craft your own.

The reason someone might spend more money to deal a little more damage is the same reason that someone might pay more for a martial weapon than a simple weapon; the cost just is not that much, and little bonuses add up -- heck, the Dueling style and Rage bonus are both "only" a +2. Also, cantrip known slots are valuable and scarce. I'm not going to use a weapon instead of cantrips, I'm going to be using both. At level 1 a caster only has a few cantrips known, and those are goodies like Guidance or Control Flames or Create Bonfire or Minor Illusion or whatever.

Of course its a serious question. A wizard spent a decent amount of resources on that crossbow, and even without that, they could just, well, not. They get cantrips for free. What is the extra +1 damage of the crossbow doing for you to justify that monetary cost? What's the point? And building that 16 dex means you miss out on con as well.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-22, 07:31 PM

Sorcerers also have light crossbows as a default starting equipment option. As do Bards. And Clerics. And Druids.

Your choice to have no casters with crossbows is just that: Your choice. It's not reflective of an actual limitation of the classes in question.

Crossbows are, in fairness, not on the starting equipment list for wizards, and aren't reliably available to them at character creation.

LudicSavant

2024-07-22, 07:36 PM

Crossbows are, in fairness, not on the starting equipment list for wizards, and aren't reliably available to them at character creation.

There are ways to reliably get it on a Wizard, but even if you don't have a crossbow, you can use any of the other things that were mentioned first (which, incidentally, outdamage crossbows). Which makes this conversation extra ridiculous; a crossbow is not required to meet the goalpost in the first place.

Keltest

2024-07-22, 08:21 PM

I mean sure, if the goalpost is "literally able to make an attack roll" then yeah, be a sorcerer dual wielding daggers at level 1. I can think of a lot of reasons why the guy with 7 hit points and no armor proficiency probably doesn't want to be in attack range of somebody who can deal more damage in one hit than they have HP, let alone marching into melee range when they have bows or some such, but it is a thing you can do.

LudicSavant

2024-07-22, 09:58 PM

As I said, the goalpost can be met by almost anyone, including a wizard that's just using daggers or a light crossbow, which is why it's not a very helpful goalpost.

elyktsorb

2024-07-22, 11:48 PM

I also find it funny that this thread brings up Wizard a lot, as if Wizard is the only spellcaster. When spellcaster implies that there are actually several other classes martials as a whole have to outdo.

LudicSavant

2024-07-23, 12:05 AM

Right? 9/13 classes are casters or half casters.

Blatant Beast

2024-07-23, 12:09 AM

Crossbows are, in fairness, not on the starting equipment list for wizards, and aren't reliably available to them at character creation.

The Player's Handbook also has a roll for starting equipment option, which fits older D&D Traditions. A Wizard starts with 4d4x10 GP to purchase starting gear. A minimum roll of 40gp is more than enough for a Wizard to buy a Light Crossbow and some quarrels, plus some minimal gear.

Having a Spellbook, is a class feature for 5e, btw. The Spellbook listing in the Equipment section is for when the Wizard decides to pen a backup spellbook.

As if, that only happens in this particular thread, ;). The answer for why this happens is clear: the temptation to wage identity wars, is too great...else we would have seen greater efforts to further define what, "stronger" means.

Inquisitor

2024-07-23, 02:40 AM

Overall I can't say as a DM I've had a lot of problem balancing the game around any characters that my players have made until well into tier 3. Yeah, early tier 1 (particularly level 1) a couple of martials have a big edge. For example, Fighters getting, with 2 SRs, 3 cracks per day at an effectively improved version of a Cure Wounds since Second Wind is a bonus action on top of being tanky martials makes them stand outs. But honestly how much level 1 are most people playing? Level 2? Published stuff often either starts at 3rd or basically handwaves the first level or 2.

I also think the example that's used by the OP of the Wizard doesn't tell the whole story. Play a Cleric from level 1-10, any Cleric. There aren't any weaknesses: HP, AC, Spells, Decent Resourceless Damage, Wis Saves, since Tasha's reletively SAD since every subclass can get a cantrip bonus at level 8 and even if your CD is mediocre you can convert some of that to spells.

sithlordnergal

2024-07-23, 04:10 AM

First, I'm gonna have to actually disagree with you right here. I have had many DMs that have shrugged their shoulders and said "You don't have the required spell? Too bad, you fail." I myself do the same thing. If the party needs to plane shift and they don't have plane shift, then they fail that mission. Now, there are multiple ways you could have access to Plane Shift. The caster in the party doesn't need to be the one to know it. But if you don't have those other ways, then sorry buddy, you can't continue. Go do something else, you failed.

In fact, playing this way is what showed me just how limited the Cleric spell list is when my party didn't have an Arcane Caster. Fly isn't on the Cleric spell list? Sorry, you can't do anything that requires flight. Do you need to travel quickly from one place to another but don't have Teleport? You're walking, and probably not gonna make it in time. You failed the time sensitive mission, time to reap the consequences.

I myself add certain puzzles like that. Is there a door that can only be opened by the Bless spell but no one has Bless? Guess you're not opening the door. No amount of skill checks or damage will break through that door. Move on, you lose the loot behind the door. Is there a Prismatic Wall in front of you and you didn't prepare the 7 specific spells needed to get past it? Sorry friend, you can either take the damage by walking through it or turn around.

I feel like doing so makes the world feel much more realistic and interesting. If all the spells you need are handed to you, why bother learning new spells to begin with. If you're entering a dungeon, best thoroughly research the history of that dungeon to figure out what you might need to open each door. Now, I would do the same with Skill Checks...but there are generally spells that allow you to emulate those Skill Checks in a better way. Need a strength check to move an object? Well, as long as its not 1000 pounds, Telekinesis can do it. Locked door and no Thieves' Tools? Knock fixes it. Of course, you need to prepare those spells in order to cast them, but my dungeon design encourages the preparation of utility spells.

I know you're just going over the mentioned spells...I will say, people chose some really poor spells. Like, I wouldn't call any of these amazing by any means, outside of Guidance. Personally, if I were looking at mind blowing cantrips I'd be looking at things like Light, Mage Hand, Message, and Minor Illusion. Out of those spells, Light is the only one that can be replicated via non-magical means, and even then the Light spell is SO much better than a Torch or Lantern. You can just toss Light onto an item you're already carrying, such as a Shield, Staff, your Clothes and you're good for an hour. Doesn't matter if you're underwater, on land, in the rain, whatever. It'll pretty much always work, and the few places it won't work are places where mundane light fail as well.

As for the rest, well:

Message allows you to communicate with creatures without anyone else being able to hear you up to 120 feet away. The spell specifically states that "The target (and only the target) hears the message...", and they can even reply to you. There's not even a limit on how many words you can use in your message, like there is in Sending. Not only that, but it can only be blocked by "Magical silence, 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood...", and it can go around corners and through openings. This spell is perfect for anyone scouting ahead, or if you wanna coordinate something with someone without being heard. I can't think of any mundane ways to emulate this that don't include a chance of being caught.

Mage Hand seems like it should be able to be replicated by mundane means. After all, its just a hand, right? But that's where you're wrong. There aren't many creatures with a 30ft reach, and don't have to worry about any potential negative effects. According to the spell, your Mage Hand can manipulate objects, open unlocked doors/containers, pull things out of and put things into said containers, and can mess with things within vials. Basically, it can do all your basic things that a normal hand can do, just at a distance of 30 feet, thus keeping the caster safe from any potential harm.

Minor Illusion kind of speaks for itself, though just like all illusions it requires the DM to run illusions properly. I've seen some DMs say "Ohh, there are flaws in the illusion because its a cantrip/low level spell." No, that's not how it works. Minor Illusion does not state it has ANY flaws in the illusion. It does state that illusions made by it give no other sensory effect, but they do not have flaws. If you use Minor Illusion to make a chest, its gonna look like a regular old chest. If you decide to use Minor Illusion to create a rock to hide in as cover, its gonna look like a regular old rock. And it's gonna take interaction with the illusion or making an Investigation check to see past it. Show me the mundane way of creating magical illusions that a standard adventuring party would have access to.

As for Sleep...I'll be honest, never been impressed by it. Yes, it is an encounter ending spell, but I don't find it very reliable. That said I think we have some pretty different ideas on what counts as "encounter ending". I would say if you have incapacitated all enemies in such a way that they can't really break free, the encounter is essentially over. Like Tasha's Hideous Laughter isn't encounter ending since every round they get a Save, and damage gives the target an immediate save at advantage. Compare that to Sleep where if you've successfully put all your targets to sleep, they're done. All attacks are at Advantage, all attacks are auto-crits, and you're free to do whatever you like to them. Wanna tie them up before you kill them? You can do so, and there's nothing they can do about it. You don't need a martial at that point. Anyone with a dagger can kill them.

I do agree that Casters using weapons is pretty hilarious. Like...I don't see much reason for it. If you're a Caster, and you're using a Light Crossbow or a Dagger to deal damage, you either messed up somewhere, you're doing a meme build that doesn't use Cantrips, or you're going for the pure Caster GISH class. The first one is a mistake on the player, the other two are specific choices.

And the other side of that arugment is largely true, you're obviously not getting higher-level spells on martials, but you can get a lot of, and I mean a lot, of magic on a martial.

That said, I gotta disagree with you right here. Now, it does depend on the Subclass you choose. For example, an Abjuration Wizard is never going to match a martial class, while the Valor Bard sucks as a Martial Class till they reach level 10 and steal Swift Quiver, but even then they're not great. But GISHes like a Blade Pact Hexblade? Bladesinger? Swords Bard? Moon Druid? Those are the GISH classes that match and surpass the martial classes. And they don't really need a heavy investment to do so.

Hexblades are effectively the GISH Paladin, with a better Smite, fewer immediate slots, and their casting stat is their attack stat, so they don't have to worry about splitting their ASIs.

The Swords Bard is essentially the Rogue, but with a greater focus on battlefield control and defense then the pure damage the Rogue does with Sneak Attack.

And then you have the Moon Druid which doesn't really need much explanation. Out of every subclass in the game, I've never seen one get called OP more often then the Moon Druid does. And its not hard to see why. It dominates the lower levels, especially since you get it at level 2, and remains a powerhouse through tiers 2 and 3. And as for Tier 4...well...the second you reach level 20, you're almost impossible to kill since you can refresh your Elemental HP every round with a bonus action. Hell, people like to say Wild Shape is weakest at levels 7 to 8, but even then its still insanely tanky. Like, consider a level 8 Moon Druid. Assuming you started with 16 Con, which you always should as a Moon Druid, you took the average HP, and you've seen some CR 2 beasts you're looking at a total HP pool of 143 at the least, to 187 HP at the highest. That's on par with the effective HP of a Raging Barbarian of the same level. And its not like the Wild Shape forms are bad at combat either. They can hold their own.

And while there are plenty of ways to get magic now days on your Fighter, they're still not quite as effective as a proper spell caster. Don't get me wrong, I adore Fey Touched and Shadow Touched. Being able to teleport and turn invisible while also having a bonus spell of your choice is great. Rune Shaper with its plethora of spells is wonderful. But the main downside for those is that you can only use them once per day. Meanwhile the full casters get to have their cake and eat it too by using spell slots and getting a free cast every day. And yes, the options you're given are decent, but you really can't compete against a full caster when it comes to the amount of options they can pull from.

I'd say this heavily depends on your DM. If your DM provides you with the spells needed to bypass stuff, it'll work out. If you're at my table, or one of my DM's tables, you're gonna have a bad time. Cause the DM will ask you "Do you have a way to cast X spell?" And if you say no, the DM is gonna shrug and say "Welp, guess you don't have a way to finish this quest. Better luck next time, here's hoping nothing bad happens cause you couldn't complete it."

EDIT: And yes, this literally just happened to my party. We don't have a wizard in the party. We were nearly done with a high level quest that required a Wizard to cast the final bit of a spell to end a curse. No-one in the party was a wizard, we couldn't find a wizard willing to complete the spell, and when we tried talking to some Clerics of the deity causing the curse they said "Why would we interfere when our God has this handled". We were unable to complete the quest, and had to give up at the very end. That section of land will remain cursed for who knows how long now, and there's not a thing my party can do about it.

Amnestic

2024-07-23, 05:04 AM

You think that a door that is impervious to all damage is realistic? And I guess the walls are too, otherwise they could just chisel around the door.

diplomancer

2024-07-23, 06:12 AM

Not just a Wizard spell, but a spell cast by a Wizard? In that case, this is not really an advantage for casters, just wizard-bias on the part of your DM. After all, he could have easily designed a curse that requires "the touch of a Paladin's pure hand" to break it, or "a sword wielded by a great Fighter", and so on. And if he never designs those, but does design adventures that require a Wizard, well...

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-23, 06:40 AM

Having a Spellbook, is a class feature for 5e, btw. The Spellbook listing in the Equipment section is for when the Wizard decides to pen a backup spellbook.

No, having a spellbook isn't a class feature. Spellcasting is a class feature, and the spellbook is granted by the starting equipment package. The sentence which reads, in part, "you have a spellbook" occurs immediately after the Equipment header and the final bullet point: A spellbook. The "you have a spellbook" sentence is not linked to rules, but tells the player where they can find more information about spellcasting and wizard spells. One paragraph later, there's another sentence saying "you have a spellbook", again referring to the one granted to you by your starting equipment package, and explains that leveled spells have to be scribed in a spellbook while cantrips (the content of the previous paragraph) do not. The Starting Equipment section in Ch. 5 is unambiguous: you either get your class and background packages, or you get gold pieces. Wizards start with six level 1 spells known. Scribing a level 1 spell, even using the expedited process for replacing a spellbook, costs 10gp. A spellbook itself costs 50gp. A light crossbow is 25. In order to start with a full spellbook and a light crossbow using the Ch. 5 starting wealth variant rule, you need a pretty significant high roll.

GloatingSwine

2024-07-23, 07:04 AM

You think that a door that is impervious to all damage is realistic? And I guess the walls are too, otherwise they could just chisel around the door.

Of course they would chisel around the door. They've just found an indestructible door do you know how much they could sell that for? They'll have it off its hinges in minutes.

clash

2024-07-23, 08:03 AM

In my experience it's actually the opposite. Usually DMs that require one specific solution to a problem with no player creativity allowed to solve it strongly Nerf casters even more. I mean take a look at even your examples created by a DM with an obvious strong caster bias and even they Nerf casters. That door that requires bless? No wizard can open it and I'm guessing they can't dimension door to the other side cause DM says so. The druid can't shift into an earth elemental and earth glide through the floor for similar reasons. And typically when they require only one solution it's the in game solution the DM designed and not a spell. Teleport doesn't work, you must use the portal I designed encounters around. Fly doesn't work. It's suddenly an anti magic field etc. if a DM isn't going to allow alternative solutions then casters don't even get to pretend they made an impact outside of combat unless the solution is like you illustrated above very specifically by chance lined up with the caster in the campaign and at that point it could have been you must have green hair too open the door. Oh no one made a character with green hair? You're out of luck.

Tanarii

2024-07-23, 09:11 AM

That said, warlocks don't come to mind when I think of the caster/martial divide :smallbiggrin:.
Me neither, but that's because warlocks are a little stronger in Tier 1 than Wizards, Sorcerers, or Bards. They're still not Martial or Cleric/Druid strong, but they've typically got an extra point of AC and HP. And more importantly, they have the advantage of running on Short Rest recharge instead of Long Rest.

Despite popular internet views, IMX in Tier 1 and Tier 2 actual play, long rest resources are a disadvantage and result in over-all lower power. Not an advantage or increase in power. They require careful husbanding to make it to the next long rest without gassing out early.

schm0

2024-07-23, 09:49 AM

I'm going to be pretty blunt in saying this, but there is no argument that could ever persuade me otherwise: this is 100% bad DMing. The DM should never block progress based on a class feature, let alone a specific spell that the party may or may not even possess. If there's a door that has a lock, and the players don't have the key, it shouldn't mean they can't get past it. They can kick it down, pick the lock, or try to talk their way in. This philosophy is generally accepted as a best practice for a reason.

Saying "too bad, so sad, there is only one solution and the player should have chosen it when creating their character" is no better than "rocks fall, they die". It's rigging the game against the players and punishing them for not making a choice they didn't know they had to make in the first place. It removes player agency in a heavy handed and unfair way. There should always be an option to fail forward or succeed in some other way.

There's no potions of flying, flying carpets, wings of flying, or brooms of flying in your game? Why does it require a spell? Can't the players seek out an archmage to help them teleport? What about permanent, physical gates? Teleportation circles? Do they not exist in your world?

There should always be another way. The DM knows the party's capabilities. It's one thing to block progress after multiple failed attempts, but if the DM is intentionally designing obstacles that can't be surmounted by the party, then that DM is working in an antagonistic manner against the players. D&D is a shared collaborative storytelling game, and this... isn't it.

So you allow magical solutions to mundane problems, but not mundane solutions to magical problems. It's no wonder that so many players perceive a martial caster disparity when DMs work so hard to create the problem themselves.

diplomancer

2024-07-23, 10:00 AM

Yeah, if there's a door that can only be opened with Bless, being, I suppose, immune to Knock, that means that there are doors immune to Knock in this world. Which means it's trivial to have a door that can only be opened with a lockpick, and not the Knock spell.

Blatant Beast

2024-07-23, 10:01 AM

No, having a spellbook isn't a class feature. Spellcasting is a class feature, and the spellbook is granted by the starting equipment package..

PHB, Pg 114, there is this section:
"SPELLBOOK
At 1st level, you have a spellbook containing six 1st-level
wizard spells of your choice. Your spell book is the
repository of the wizard spells you know, except your
cantrips, which are fixed in your mind."

It is right above the "PREPARING AND CASTING SPELLS" section.

If you look at a physical PHB or digital copy, you will notice that the "SPELLBOOK" Header is in the same font as the other subsections of Spellcasting.

The "YOUR SPELLBOOK" Sidebar, also on the same page, is further evidence that undercuts your argument, as indeed there is a section of that sidebar called: "Replacing the Book" which explicitly mentions, making a backup copy of your spellbook. This is why Spellbooks are listed as equipment, you get the 1st one free, but have to pay full retail on the replacement.:smallbiggrin:

If words do what they say they do, "At 1st level you have a spellbook" as a class feature is pretty ironclad.

I'm afraid, Quickly, I find your interpretation to be incorrect.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-23, 10:03 AM

I think you're being unfair here, especially as he says "there are multiple ways you could have access to Plane Shift. The caster in the party doesn't need to be the one to know it." Reading charitably, there's a lock with a key; the key is available to the players in a variety of ways; it's up to the players to find and use the key. That seems... completely reasonable to me. Picking the lock can be analogous to stealing a scroll of plane shift. Talking your way in -- convincing someone else to cast plane shift. Kicking the door down -- I guess convincing someone else to cast plane shift or getting a scroll thereof with menaces. It's not an exact analogy. But at least as presented, I think that while there's only one solution there are a variety of means to achieve that solution, and that's fine with me.

I'd agree with you if the situation was that the door could only be opened via plane shift and the party knows that, but none of the party members can cast plane shift, there are no magic items or consumables that cast plane shift and there are no NPCs willing or able to do it either. That, I think, would be unambiguously bad. But it doesn't seem like that's what's happening, at least in the plane shift example.

I'd also say that the one-method-one-solution problem you've identified and correctly called out as bad DMing is ubiquitous in 5E's official modules.

It is right above the "PREPARING AND CASTING SPELLS" section.

If you look at a physical PHB or digital copy, you will notice that the "SPELLBOOK" Header is in the same font as the other subsections of Spellcasting.

The "YOUR SPELLBOOK" Sidebar, also on the same page, is further evidence that undercuts your argument, as indeed there is a section of that sidebar called: "Replacing the Book" which explicitly mentions, making a backup copy of your spellbook. This is why Spellbooks are listed as equipment, you get the 1st on free, but have to pay full retail on the replacement.:smallbiggrin:

If words do what they say they do, "At 1st level you have a spellbook" as a class feature is pretty ironclad.

I'm afraid, Quickly, I find your interpretation to be incorrect.

You have a spellbook because it's listed specifically under Equipment. Variant starting equipment has not been introduced yet. When it is, the rule is unambiguous: you either get class plus background equipment, or you get gold. If you want it to be a class feature, then there's no reason for you to "get the first one free but have to pay full retail on the replacement"; if it's text describing the rules of a feature then At First Level You Have a Spellbook, and you don't need to buy a replacement until you become level two. You Have a Spellbook, so whenever you lose one a new one should, by the text of what you think is a class feature, just pop into your inventory. So just start the game with n gold.

That's why 'Spellbook' isn't a class feature. It's a piece of equipment, treated the same as any other piece of equipment, granted on character creation. The Spellbook header calls attention to the piece of equipment listed under the Equipment header, which all wizards get when they create their character, then explains what it is: it contains six first-level spells of your choice, and is the repository of the leveled spells you know. It's the same as the Spellcasting Focus header present under the Spellcasting class feature of all caster classes -- it explains what a particular piece of equipment, listed under the Equipment header, is for and why you have one.

As for the sidebar about replacing your spellbook, that's not why they're listed as equipment. They're listed as equipment because they are equipment. That is completely unambiguous. The sidebar simply outlines the process of expanding the wizard's spell list (it's referenced under Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher) and creating a backup of the book -- the rules for replacing the book are "use the same procedure" as outlined in the previous paragraph, which explains how to copy spells from one spellbook into a backup.

diplomancer

2024-07-23, 10:18 AM

It is right above the "PREPARING AND CASTING SPELLS" section.

If you look at a physical PHB or digital copy, you will notice that the "SPELLBOOK" Header is in the same font as the other subsections of Spellcasting.

The "YOUR SPELLBOOK" Sidebar, also on the same page, is further evidence that undercuts your argument, as indeed there is a section of that sidebar called: "Replacing the Book" which explicitly mentions, making a backup copy of your spellbook. This is why Spellbooks are listed as equipment, you get the 1st on free, but have to pay full retail on the replacement.:smallbiggrin:

If words do what they say they do, "At 1st level you have a spellbook" as a class feature is pretty ironclad.

I'm afraid, Quickly, I find your interpretation to be incorrect.

"At 1st level, you have a spellbook". Yes. Because it's on your class equipment list. Or because you can buy one with the gold you get at first level if you choose to roll for gold (as already mentioned, chapter 5 makes it clear that your starting equipment comes only from these two options, either Class+Background Equipment, or Starting Gold).

This particular spellbook, whether you buy it or get it with your equipment list, exceptionally, has 6 spells in it, for free (in the same way you will add two spells/level every level for free). But guess what, if your 1st level wizard decides to sell his spellbook, he doesn't get infinite free ones as long as he's level 1 (which would be the logical consequence of thinking "at 1st level, you have a spellbook" is an apodictical truth, and not a consequence of your equipment choices).

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-23, 11:02 AM

Your choice to have no casters with crossbows is just that: Your choice. It's not reflective of an actual limitation of the classes in question.
1. No kidding.
2. My comments are based on actual play experience. As with most of the claims around caster supremacy, asserting that something *can* be done, doesn't mean it actually is done at most tables. Yes, a wizard can dual wield two daggers lol. No, I've never seen this as an actual wizard fighting style at a game. See also "I start the game with two spellbooks".
3. The classes are in fact limited in how good they are with weapon attacks actually. Wizards and clerics and druids don't get fighting styles, and Rage and Reckless and Sneak Attack and Steady Aim and all the other features that assist with making weapon attacks.

Players: We don't have Plane Shift.
DM: ...then sorry buddy, you can't continue. Go do something else, you failed.

But it seems to me it would be more like this:

Players: None of us has Plane Shift.
DM: If you don't have Plane Shift you can't continue.
Players: Then sorry buddy, we can't continue. Go plan another adventure for us.

It's like... who is dunking on who here? Seems like a waste of getting a group together and scheduling sessions and committing to a game if at the end of it you were going to require a very specific scenario for a chance at winning.

Back in the day, adventures would flat out tell you "It would be good to have xyz class of x level in the party" or "You need someone that can Turn Undead" or "The party will need to be able to traverse underwater...".

The only way to avoid this and play the way you're describing is for a wizard to be in the party AND ALSO for the wizard to choose every utility spell available to make sure the game doesn't just end.

Hexblades are effectively the GISH Paladin, with a better Smite, fewer immediate slots, and their casting stat is their attack stat, so they don't have to worry about splitting their ASIs.

The Swords Bard is essentially the Rogue, but with a greater focus on battlefield control and defense then the pure damage the Rogue does with Sneak Attack.

The Bladesinger is equal to the Fighter with lower HP, but equivalent damage, higher AC, and ways to mitigate damage when they are hit. Now, I will say this, the damage amounts fluctuate depending on level. For example, at level 11 a Fighter with a Greatsword deals more damage then a bladesinger using Shadowblade and Booming Blade. But that same Wizard deals more damage using the same tactic at level 14 since they get to add their Int Modifier to every hit. All while being tankier then a Greatsword Fighter at all levels thanks to Bladesong and Shield. Now, I will admit that's using a lot more resources then the Fighter, since we're using a 2nd level spell and a cantrip. But we can easily tone it down to just a Rapier and cantrip, and we can compare it to your standard Sword and Board Fighter with Dueling and a Longsword, at which point the Wizard matches them.
Haven't seen any of these perform better with weapons than my own characters. I am playing a barbarian alongside a bladesinger right now and it's fine. We just reached tier 2 and so far haven't had any issues of being outstaged or outperformed. They're a wizard, that likes to be in melee, and is often getting knocked unconscious or close to it. They shine when they are casting spells like Burning Hands and, now, Fireball.

Elemental forms on the other hand are even more durable, in particular the earth elemental. But it's also taking up two uses of wild shape. The fire elemental damage is nice since you can burn with your movement, with your attack, and catch them on fire for damage on enemy turn as well. But... I'm a GWM Rune Knight fighter with 3, often 4, attacks so meh.

Anyways, the cope is real my friends.

1 billion caster supremacy threads: *rainbows and sunshine*
1 single martial thread: Identity wars! Frustrating! Overgeneralizing!

diplomancer

2024-07-23, 11:25 AM

I can see it now:

Rules Lawyer Wizard Player "I'm giving my spellbook to the Fighter, that means I'm level 1 and don't have a spellbook, but that's impossible according to my class features, so I can have a new spellbook with 6 more spells for free. Now I'm giving this new spellbook to the Cleric, hey, another Spellbook with 6 spells for free!. Who says my familiar can't have a spellbook, I'm giving one of my spellbooks to my familiar, oops, that's another Spellbook!"

Yeah, that's not going to fly (though books probably will!).

LudicSavant

2024-07-23, 11:42 AM

My comments are based on actual play experience. I'm sure they are. So are everyone else's.

Last caster I played in tier 1 was a dex-based War Cleric with Sharpshooter. You've never seen one, and casters never use weapons in your games? Well great, so what?

Blatant Beast

2024-07-23, 11:51 AM

I can see it now:

Yeah, that's not going to fly (though books probably will!).

Way to stay classy, and not misrepresent people's posts. (Facepalm)

No other caster has a section, like the Wizard class's Spellbook portion of Spellcasting.
Clerics do not have Divine Foci specifically called out, Warlocks have nothing similar, so on and so forth. Wizards do, however.
If you read the following:

SPELLBOOK
At 1st level, you have a spellbook containing six 1st-level
wizard spells of your choice. Your spell book is the
repository of the wizard spells you know, except your
cantrips, which are fixed in your mind.

...and think that does not mean a Wizard starts with a spellbook as part of their spellcasting feature...then I do not know what to say to you. Do you also believe Wizards do not get Ritual spells?

This is what a Wizard rolls for their starting gold under the rule variant of Starting Gold on page 143: Wizard 4d4 x 10 gp

A spellbook costs 50gp....do you really think the development team meant for the Wizard to potentially start with no spellbook in a game that uses rolled gold pieces, and thus be unable to play? Of course not, that is just logic.

In the 2024 Wizard video, Jeremy Crawford, mentions that Ritual Magic feature listed under the Spellcasting section, is getting a standalone feature called Ritual Adept...which is exactly the same as Ritual Magic, but is being separated out because people were missing the feature when reading the class.

What we can infer from this, is indeed you get literally everything listed under the 5e Wizard's Spellcasting section, including:
SPELLBOOK
At 1st level, you have a spellbook containing six 1st-level
wizard spells of your choice. Your spell book is the
repository of the wizard spells you know, except your
cantrips, which are fixed in your mind.

If you chose not to believe it, then that is on you.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-23, 11:54 AM

I'm sure they are. So are everyone else's.

Last caster I played in tier 1 was a dex-based War Cleric with Sharpshooter. You've never seen one, and casters never use weapons in your games? Well great, so what?
You're positing dual-wielding level 1 wizards and asking me so what lol? The audacity :smallamused:.

LudicSavant

2024-07-23, 11:57 AM

You're positing dual-wielding level 1 wizards and asking me so what lol?

Last Wizard I played in tier 1 occasionally dual-wielded; it's not like they were holding a shield in their hands to stop 'em. Again, you haven't seen one? So what?

Tendril

2024-07-23, 12:05 PM

This is what a Wizard rolls for their starting gold under the rule variant of Starting Gold on page 143: Wizard 4d4 x 10 gp

A spellbook costs 50gp....

I am now imagining a wizard who rolls 50gp for his starting gold, beginning play with his spellbook and literally nothing else. Who needs clothes anyway?

stoutstien

2024-07-23, 12:07 PM

I am now imagining a wizard who rolls 50gp for his starting gold, beginning play with his spellbook and literally nothing else. Who needs clothes anyway?

Well if it's anything like a Knight's tale it would lead to an interesting character at least.

Segev

2024-07-23, 12:23 PM

I am now imagining a wizard who rolls 50gp for his starting gold, beginning play with his spellbook and literally nothing else. Who needs clothes anyway?

At the very least, warforged can probably get away without 'em!

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-23, 12:31 PM

Last Wizard I played in tier 1 occasionally dual-wielded; it's not like they were holding a shield in their hands to stop 'em.
Occasionally? Nice little qualifier you have there. It was absent from your previous rebuttal. So martials don't deal better damage in low tiers because occasionally wizards dual wield daggers? If you say so...

Again, you haven't seen one? So what?
If you find my comments uninteresting, simply ignore them :smallamused:.

But my experiences align with the what the OP is saying, and I suspect they align with more tables than yours. As you know, I'm always talking about how helpful any commentary actually is. Tier 1 wizards dual-wielding daggers as an example of casters dealing more damage is not very helpful. By your own admission, it wasn't even something that you did regularly. Now imagine someone that's not tracking every single decimal and approaching the game strictly from a mechanics perspective. They might have chosen to play a wizard because they want to... use magic :smalleek:.

LudicSavant

2024-07-23, 12:37 PM

So martials don't deal better damage in low tiers because occasionally wizards dual wield daggers? If you say so...

So this is of course a blatant strawman.

What was actually said was that almost anyone can kill a lone goblin that walks into melee with them, even a wizard with daggers. The real threat of goblins isn't the difficulty of killing one that walks up to you.

Then you complained about the notion of a Wizard using a simple weapon.

If you find my comments uninteresting, simply ignore them :smallamused:.
{Scrubbed}

J-H

2024-07-23, 12:47 PM

Actual play: the 9th level sorcerer in my Baldur's Gate II game still uses his crossbow some. Cha 18, Dex I think 16, and he has a +2 crossbow with some bolts that do +3d6 poison damage on a failed Con save. He gets Hunter's Mark from his subclass, so a crossbow hit can do 1d8+1d6+5, +3d6 on a failed save, versus a cantrip doing 2d10.

Blatant Beast

2024-07-23, 01:04 PM

Well if it's anything like a Knight's tale it would lead to an interesting character at least.

"Uhh, Merlin, your 'wand' is showing."

sithlordnergal

2024-07-23, 01:43 PM

You think that a door that is impervious to all damage is realistic? And I guess the walls are too, otherwise they could just chisel around the door.

Actually, it can be very realistic in the game due to Damage Thresholds. While the example in the DMG is a castle wall, the hull of a ship, which can be significantly thinner and smaller then an entire stone wall, has a damage threshold of 15. If you can't deal 16 damage or more with each attack, that boat is effectively impervious to all attacks. A large, thick, heavy door made out of iron, steel or stone, that's also been enchanted? I'd give that some kind of damage threshold, on top of the 17 to 19 AC, along with a high amount of HP. If you can't beat the damage threshold, you can't break it down. And if its costing you limited resources to meet the damage check, I'm gonna let you know before you waste all your resources just to open one door.

Fun fact, I actually snagged the Bless Door from a module. Now, the module requires a use of Channel Divinity, and its a T1 game so the only teleport available is Misty Step. I did modify the door in my own game to require Bless. But you can make a similar door that only works with a different ability/spell. Like if I wanted to make a door that can only be opened by a Paladin? Only way to get past the door is with a Divine Smite.

You bet your dice there are doors that can't be opened by magical means. >=D There are also traps and puzzles that can't be bypassed via any magic, you gotta do it the manual way. Heck, I even have some traps that can only be bypassed with a low roll. So the Rogue that has expertise in Thieves' Tools, and can't roll below a 15? Yeah, they can't open the door. But the Fighter who's never picked up a set of Thieves' Tools in his life and dumped Dex? Easy check.

Obviously I also have things that can be bypassed via normal means. But they're good ways to mix things up for the party and keep them on their toes.

I'd also say that the one-method-one-solution problem you've identified and correctly called out as bad DMing is ubiquitous in 5E's official modules.

Yeah, I think of it as a lock with a key. Additionally, I encourage my players to heavily research things before they enter a major place, so they'll have a good idea of what kinds of keys they might need. For example, my players had to deal with a Vampire in one campaign. They learned early on that the Vampire's lair was in the Shadowfell, and the Vampire used Plane Shift to hop in and out of the Shadowfell to easily do what he wanted. They did try to catch the Vampire in the Material Plane a few times, but the Vampire typically managed to slip away via magic items and spells. Eventually it got to a point where they decided they needed to just go to the Shadowfell to deal with the vampire.

Cue multiple fact finding sessions to learn as much as they could about the Shadowfell, the lair, and a way to reach the Shadowfell. If they had failed to get Plane Shift, they would have simply had to find a way to properly trap the Vampire in the Material Plane.

Interesting. This reads to me as a gotcha to the players, framed like this:

Players: We don't have Plane Shift.
DM: ...then sorry buddy, you can't continue. Go do something else, you failed.

But it seems to me it would be more like this:

Players: None of us has Plane Shift.
DM: If you don't have Plane Shift you can't continue.
Players: Then sorry buddy, we can't continue. Go plan another adventure for us.

Mmm, I failed to emphasize the research aspect that goes into dungeon delving for the games I play. That's on me. It feels a lot less like a "Gotcha" when you go in knowing you need xyz. For example, if the players are going to deal with a Beholder lair, some basic research is going to reveal that Beholders adore making lairs that include a lot of verticality, and enjoy making areas that can only be reached via flight. If the players decide not to research, or don't bring a way to Fly, then get stuck? That's on the players, not on me. Same with things like needing Plane Shift or Water Breathing. If the players decide to prepare in advance, they're gonna know what they need.

Of course, they may not have immediate access to the things in question. They could also lock themselves out of getting specific things that could help them. If you wanna use Potions of Flying, but you decided to steal from and attack the city's best Alchemist earlier in the campaign, you might not be able to buy Potions of Flying in the city. You'll have to find some other way to get those potions, either by stealing them, making amends, or brewing Potions of Flying. And if all of those fail, you may have to go find a different method of flight entirely, either via a magical item or a spell like Fly or Polymorph.

In any case, the methods for flight are available in the world, but they're not just being handed to you. And you could lock yourself out of ways to gain access to fly depending on your actions within the world. It could be as easy as buying a potion, or you could be in a position where you have to leave and come back much later.

Haven't seen any of these perform better with weapons than my own characters. I am playing a barbarian alongside a bladesinger right now and it's fine. We just reached tier 2 and so far haven't had any issues of being outstaged or outperformed. They're a wizard, that likes to be in melee, and is often getting knocked unconscious or close to it. They shine when they are casting spells like Burning Hands and, now, Fireball.

Playing a fighter right now alongside a tier 3 moon druid. The beast forms are... fine. The biggest thing here is just how insanely durable the druid is, but the beast form attacks are... well nothing that my fighter is getting insecure over lol.

And yeah, there's a reason I compared Moon Druids to Barbarians, and Bladesingers to Fighters. Fighters and Barbarians fill very different roles in melee combat. Bladesingers and Moon Druids work the same way. Bladesingers can fill the same niche that a Fighter does, which is dealing high amounts of consistent damage in melee while spending few resources. As long as the Bladesinger snagged Booming Blade or Green Flame blade, their special Extra Attack lets them keep up. Meanwhile Barbarians and Moon Druids fill the role of the tank. Comparing the DPR of your Fighter to the Moon Druid would be similar to comparing the DPR of your Fighter to a Bear Totem Barbarian that focused on maxing their Con first. I'd kind of hope you outdamage the Barbarian.

schm0

2024-07-23, 02:03 PM

IMHO, a world should not be designed to regularly subvert player agency while simultaneously refusing to allow the party to fail forward and making it practically impossible/improbable to achieve their goals in another way.

I don't think I was too unfair, honestly. I was basing my reply on the whole of the statement. Note that the following sentences read:

But if you don't have those other ways, then sorry buddy, you can't continue. Go do something else, you failed.

That's antagonistic DMing, plain and simple. Such a DM could arbitrarily make the closest NPC who could perform such a task too far to reach in time (as was suggested), or bait the party into using their scroll of plane shift prior to such a theoretical encounter. A reasonable DM will work with the party (or at least on their behalf) to ensure that they can, at the very least, fail forward and complete the objectives in another way.

And to the larger point of this thread, the relative strength of a PC is based on what they can bring, literally and thematically, to the table. If the DM says, "you must have this extremely specific solution to this general problem that only a small handful of classes even possess" then they are largely shutting down the problem-solving portion of the game and replacing it with a class feature lottery in which most players will lose no matter what they try to do. What's worse is that the players might find out after the fact, having wasted who knows what effort to arrive at such a terribly designed obstacle.

I'd also say that the one-method-one-solution problem you've identified and correctly called out as bad DMing is ubiquitous in 5E's official modules.

I run and/or read through lot of official modules and have never anything resembling the "obstacles with ridiculously niche solutions" as presented here, let alone any that have one solution.

sithlordnergal

2024-07-23, 02:30 PM

I don't think I was too unfair, honestly. I was basing my reply on the whole of the statement. Note that the following sentences read: But if you don't have those other ways, then sorry buddy, you can't continue. Go do something else, you failed.

That's antagonistic DMing, plain and simple. Such a DM could arbitrarily make the closest NPC who could perform such a task, or bait the party into using their scroll of plane shift prior to such a theoretical encounter. A reasonable DM will work with the party to ensure that they can, at the very least, fail forward and complete the objectives in another way.

And to the larger point of this thread, the relative strength of a PC is based on what the entirety of what they can bring, literally and thematically, to the table. If the DM says, "you must have this extremely specific solution to this general problem that only a small handful of classes even possess" then they are largely shutting down the problem-solving portion of the game and replacing it with a class feature lottery in which most players will lose no matter what they try to do. What's worse is that the players might find out after the fact, having wasted who knows what effort to arrive at such a terribly designed obstacle.

I wouldn't say its poor DMing in and of itself. Now, it would be poor DMing if the players had no way of knowing ahead of time. But if the players are given the chance to find out they're gonna need some specific spell/ability, and they either don't do the research to find out about it before hand despite being told they should probably do some research first, or they know about the obstacle and their inability to bypass it on their own, but choose to do nothing about it? That's not on the DM, that's on the player. Its not my fault if the players charge headfirst into a dungeon and run into a brick wall because they ignored my suggestion of researching first. And if the players decided to burn bridges and made an enemy of the guy who casts Plane Shift? Again, that's on the players, not the DM. If the consequences of the player's own actions prevent them from succeeding, then that's the player's fault. Find a way to make amends or steal a scroll, otherwise you can't Plane Shift until you learn the spell or find someone else to cast it.

And with Plane Shift you really can't fail forward. The only ways to get to a different plane are Plane Shift, Gate, and more recently some very specific Spelljammers if I remember correctly.

I run and/or read through lot of official modules and have never anything resembling the "obstacles with ridiculously niche solutions" as presented here, let alone any that have one solution.

Really? The Bless Door is a slight modification on a door specifically taken from a Tier 1 adventure in Tales of the Yawning Portal. There's a door that can only be opened with a use of Channel Divinity. There are no other ways to open it, you cannot pick the lock, Knock will fail, you cannot break it down, and you can't teleport through it because its a T1 adventure. If you successfully open it you get the Nightcaller, which is an item that lets you cast Animate Dead once per day. If you don't have a Cleric or Paladin, you straight up can't get the item.

From what I remember in Tomb of Annihilation there were a handful of places you couldn't get past unless you had a specific spell, ability, or race available to you.

J-H

2024-07-23, 02:31 PM

I'm surprised the Wizard is so fragile...though that could be due to limited spell slots and only having 2 uses of Bladesong at low levels. I've seen Bladesingers match and surpass a lot of martial characters in melee when given similar levels of optimization and magic items. Heck, on the highest extremes, I have an AL Sorcadin that has a base 29 AC, and can boost it to 36 with spells. Only character I've ever seen that matched that level of AC was a Bladesinger. Of course, that was AL specific where everything is broken. But even in standard play, I find Bladesingers are able to easily keep up with Fighters on the frontline.
I'm the DM for this campaign, and I also DM'd another campaign that had a goblin Bladesinger that died at 4th level (he was at low HP and got critted by a Warlock who rolled max damage on I think Eldritch Blast - 28 damage, auto kill).
1. Bladesingers still have wizard HP. At level 4, that was enough to one-hit kill the bladesinger outright due to unlucky dice. Someone with frontliner HP (d10 is worth +8hp at that level) would have survived. They can't absorb as many hits.

2. Bladesong isn't always up. When the Phase Spider wins initiative and bites first, the Bladesinger is just as squishy as any other wizard (AC around 16). There are also only 2-3 uses per day, and 5e is built around a 5-8 encounter per day cadence, so a Bladesinger can't count on always having Bladesong available.

3. There are still only 4 1st level slots to power Shield. If you're not running short / nova adventuring days, those go away really quickly if your Bladesinger is depending on Shield to avoid being hit. Shield also competes with Absorb Elements in terms of damage mitigation.

4. At low levels, you don't have Dex 20 & Int 20, you have Dex 16 and Int 16 for an AC of 19 counting Mage Armor and 2-3/day Bladesong. Anything with +4 to hit can still hit 30% of the time, so that Shield spell sees quite a bit of use.

Bladesinger is pretty nice because it's a wizard that dabbles in weapon use, but I think an Eldritch Knight is more durable and better at actually fighting with a weapon... EK just doesn't have the ability to open a fight with Fireball as early, or Meteor Swarm at all.

sithlordnergal

2024-07-23, 02:44 PM

I'm the DM for this campaign, and I also DM'd another campaign that had a goblin Bladesinger that died at 4th level (he was at low HP and got critted by a Warlock who rolled max damage on I think Eldritch Blast - 28 damage, auto kill).
1. Bladesingers still have wizard HP. At level 4, that was enough to one-hit kill the bladesinger outright due to unlucky dice. Someone with frontliner HP (d10 is worth +8hp at that level) would have survived. They can't absorb as many hits.

Yeah, I'll certainly give the Fighter that. The do have a lot more HP then a Wizard, especially at low levels. So a crit like that will absolutely end a Wizard. Outside of those crits though, they tend to be decently tanky on the front line. As for the rest:

- Yes, Bladesong won't be active 24/7, however at the start of a fight the Wizard should probably be in the backline. They get a nice little boost to their speed, so they can move up to melee distance when needed. While something like the Phase Spider can happen, by staying in the backline you're attempting to avoid getting targeted.

- Yes, at low levels you'll have about 19 AC with 16 Int and 16 Dex. A 30% chance to be hit is really good odds that you won't be hit, so you won't be using Shield as often as you might think. And you have a fair amount of slots to use Shield with, since you can upcast it. I've had many a wizard spend a 2nd level slot on Shield when I needed it.

LudicSavant

2024-07-23, 03:04 PM

This is what a Wizard rolls for their starting gold under the rule variant of Starting Gold on page 143: Wizard 4d4 x 10 gp

It's actually even worse than that: 50gp is only the price for a blank spellbook. If one takes the interpretation that we disregard the "you start with a spellbook" line, then 4d4x10gp is not enough gold to afford a spellbook with 6 spells in it at all!

Obviously, this is not intended, and we know that because the devs have straight up told us that the intent is that you start with a spellbook whether you can afford it or not. Worked like that in past editions too.

KorvinStarmast

2024-07-23, 03:38 PM

You have a spellbook because it's listed specifically under Equipment. Variant starting equipment has not been introduced yet. When it is, the rule is unambiguous: you either get class plus background equipment, or you get gold.
No. We have had this edition in our hot little hands for 10 years, and there are still people who cannot parse the very straightforward text in the PHB on this matter. Rather than repeat some of the other points offered to you, I'll wander down the other line:
If you are laying this on your players, that's bad DMing.
Why?
The PHB is a player facing book. Countermanding that when the rules text is that clear needs strong justification.

I can see it now:

Yeah, that's not going to fly (though books probably will!). This is why DM's use "rocks fall, everyone dies" on occasion. :smallcool:

If you chose not to believe it, then that is on you. I'd have put it differently, but I agree.

we know that because the devs have straight up told us that the intent is that you start with a spellbook whether you can afford it or not. Worked like that in past editions too. That also.

schm0

2024-07-23, 04:28 PM

We can agree that poor planning should result in setbacks for the party. Where we fundamentally disagree is the idea that a failure to pick up on some out of character suggestions that the party ultimately doesn't follow should lead to a complete and utter stop of the adventure. "It's not my fault" is precisely the problem here. If the players have gotten to a point where they can no longer move forward in your adventure, that is 100% is your fault. You designed it that way. Players are human beings and entirely fallible, and adventures should be designed with that in mind. They should also not be designed with a single solution that bars all progress.

Secondly, you are glossing over the very real possibility that, as much as you dangle the solution in front of them, due to arbitrary decisions made in the character creation and leveling up process your party doesn't have the right key for your lock. So now they have to waste time in their adventure searching for some convoluted solution to your problem because they didn't pick the right class and prepare the right spell. That is 100% bad DMing.

I'm looking at my copy right now, and it doesn't say anything about a channel divinity or any other class ability being the only solution required to open the door:

Carvings on the western door show skeletal dragons. A Draconic inscription on the door reads, "Rebuke the dead, open the way." Within 5 feet of the door, the air is noticeably cooler, and the door itself is cold to the touch. The locked door opens only when someone targets it with a knock spell or an effect that turns undead. If someone does so, the door glows ghostly blue and swings open silently. ...If someone tries to open the door without first deactivating the lock, a scythe blade springs forth, targeting the area immediately in front of the door: +5 to hit, 4 (1d8) slashing damage....The blade is concealed in a slot in the ceiling, 10 feet up. A character who succeeds on a DC 20 Wisdom (Perception) check can find the slot before the trap is sprung.

The opening, once discovered, can be blocked with an iron spike or a similar object. A character who does so must make a DC 15 Dexterity check or Strength check. On a failed check, the blockage falls out when the trap is sprung. Alternatively, a character can use thieves' tools and a successful DC 20 Dexterity check to pull the trap mechanism out of the slot and dismantle it. Either task takes about a minute.

So no, there are multiple ways to get through the door, including simply opening it and walking through. This is good design.

From what I remember in Tomb of Annihilation there were a handful of places you couldn't get past unless you had a specific spell, ability, or race available to you.

The 5e adventure based off Tomb of Horrors? The most unfair adventure of all time that was designed to teach players a lesson? Well, if you were to find an exception to the rule, that would be it. There's literally an entire section regarding replacing dead characters and a unique game mode called "meat grinder". Perhaps we shouldn't hold that up as a shining example of fair and balanced design?

Even so, while I'm sure there are certainly some deadly and dastardly traps in that adventure, I would be willing do bet a dollar there are none that have but one (and only one) solution that requires a class ability to proceed.

Dork_Forge

2024-07-23, 04:39 PM

Oh no, I used a colloquial name for the table, the point, however, still stands.

Requisitioning simple equipment most likely means misc. gear, not expensive weapons and trained beasts. You're certainly not 'temporarily requisitioning' bolts that will break. It's a background feature, pushing it to free starting equipment like a crossbow is pushing it in an rule abusive way just because it's a bit ambiguous to prove a point.

I also never said anything about the use of oil not being described. I said the way you frequently advocate for using it will not work at all tables, and the tables it is an option on it likely won't work consistently/be consistently available.

You could loot a Light Crossbow in the first encounter.

You sure could, if the first encounter had a light crossbow and the DM agreed that it was in salvageable condition. In other words, yes you could if the DM basically caters your preferred playstyle immediately, regardless of needing the help because trying to minmax beyond the scope of the rules hoping for handwaves.

Starting Wealth and Equipment could very greatly from table to table.
(If a player really wants to have a very basic piece of equipment, as a DM, I'm probably going to allow it, because, it just is not that big of a deal, balance-wise).

This is an example of said handwaving/catering, and the argument could easily be flipped to giving martials minor magic items. A ring of Mage Hand would be basic right, it's only a cantrip?

No, the Mending cantrip does not allow a PC to be a Blacksmith or Tinkerer. Proficiency in Blacksmith or Tinkerer tools does. Both of those jobs require far more than repearing tears/breaks. Unless that blacksmith literally never makes anything, sharpens anything, and turns away anyone with armor damage that could be fixed with a hammer?

Shoe a horse? Sure, let me bust out my Mending cantrip!

Have fun, having the conversation, but I am out.

G'day

The reason for this stems from 'the other side' of things, a lot of times when these conversations come up you get a lot of arguments which are not actually about the whole spread of casters, but basically about Wizards.

Find Familiar, ritual casting, a wide amount of spells to be prepared for anything etc. etc. A lot (most?) of the time people end up talking about Wizards, regardless of whether or not they say the name.

As for this specific part? It's surprisingly common for some people to advocate for Wizards using light crossbows because they have the proficiency, then handwave the actual expenses it entails.

Oh, welcome back!

Rolling for gold does not really help the problem though. 4d4x10 is a generous average of 100GP, so let's look at a Wizard rolling perfectly average and choosing to rep that crossbow lyf:

Crossbow and related: 27 GP
Component Pouch: 25 GP
Pack of gear (explorer's etc.): varies, but the Wizard could have got 40 GP or 10 GP, so let's be generous and practical and say 10 GP
Clothes: let's ignore all reason and say only one set, common, 5SP

Total so far: 62 GP, 5SP

So that's a Wizard with the bare minimum possessions/gear and only one set of common clothing. Now let's add the Wizardy stuff:

Find Familiar: 10GP per, it's apparantely being used in combat and scouting so it will die often, let's say 3, so 30GP
Oil: Let's say 5, because I'm going to try and be realistic for this Wizard carrying stuff. 5 SP

That takes us to 93 GP, leaving 7 GP to cover living expenses (a week of modest living), bribes, or other small purchases. AKA, if you roll even 1 below average corners have to start being cut. If it takes you more than a couple of adventuring days to get paid, you're probably broke. If you have to buy a spellbook? It doesn't remotely work.

And this is with barebones gear, the Wizard doesn't even own a quill or change of clothes, and no melee weapon.

So if you do roll for gold, you could make it work, or you could easily end up with significantly less than default starting gear. The same way you could roll for stats and end up with an above point buy array. Or, as I typically roll, you could end up with an array of multiple negatives and nothing higher than a 13.

Having a Spellbook, is a class feature for 5e, btw. The Spellbook listing in the Equipment section is for when the Wizard decides to pen a backup spellbook.

The options are the Wizard starts with two spellbooks, a ridiculous starting wealth compared to other classes, or they get one which is reflected in their starting gear.

I, and by the looks of it others in this thread, take that as their starting equipment, and you need to replace it if you roll like you need to replace the clothes you no longer get by default either.

Looking at the roll by wealth table, the Wizard gets an extra d4 over the Sorcerer, given the biggest difference equipment-wise is a spellbook, you could easily argue that is meant to help you get one.

As for what the devs say on the matter, I can't imagine any answer from them that isn't 'of course we didn't overlook a class potentially missing the core thing they need to function.' Whether it was an oversight, changing the story to smooth down 5e's edges more to new comers, or always the truth, they were never going to say the thing that might upset the player here.

It's as if a large number of different people, each with their own opinions and points of view, struggle to come to consensus on things they have varying opinions and biases towards. Shocking, really.

Snip for length, the whole not having spell thing

I'm going to assume you came off here worse than intended based on subsequent replies.

A player should never be hardlocked out of progression because of character creation choices, that's bad DMing. If they have alternatives, and a reasonable expectation to know they need those alternatives, then that's more reasonable and in line with what I was saying.

I wouldn't personally limit progression/succeses to a single point of failure personally, but if I do then the solution is definitely in the party's wheel house, it might just cost them a lot of gold to get someone else to do it. If there are NPCs that could do it but would never agree, than that's the same as them not existing and the progression becomes a gotcha.

Personally, I rather allow multiple options.

I'll preface this by pointing out I said the majority can be done mundanely, not all.

As for the Light discourse, it's a good option, it is not universally better than a mundane option. Even from a spellcasting perspective, a party with a torch lantern has easy access to a flame for Pyrotechincs and won't be left in the dark if Darkness is cast (which would extinguish Light regardless of Darkness staying up or moving out of it). Then there's the benefit of being able to hood a lantern, or direct light with a bullseye.

Point being, Light is great, but it's not the be-all end-all.

As for the rest, well:

This would largely fall under the exception I made, but I will point out you're being generous to Message. You have to cast a spell with full VSM components, nothing in the spell makes those components unnoticeable and nothings says the V is the message whipsered. It's a lot safer, but you 100% can reveal yourself by casting a spell. You also downplay the what it's blocked by, since it includes common dungeon material (stone) and that 120 ft can get cut down real fast zigzagging around. You might not even be able to tell which direction the creature you want to message is (the spell does say toward the creature) after you have gone so far around corners.

It's really good, I'd prefer telepathy personally, but it's not as failproof as you're claiming here.

Another great one, but again, feels oversold. The mundane option is not 'recreate a hand.' It's do whatever you need at a distance. Throwing stones, using a ten foot pole, and tying a rope/fishing line around stuff accomplishes a lot of what vanilla MH is used for. Still great and the range is nice, but largely replaceable and helpless against anything over 10lbs.

The same issue with Mage Hand, the task is to not find a mundane way to create illusions. It's to find mundane ways to achieve what the illusions were achieving. Still really nice, but not pedestal worthy and I can see a lot of DMs having trouble with the Minor Illusions = Cover cheese.

I find it a bit weird you make that big a distinction between Tasha's and Sleep as you do here. If you hit someone, they wake up and no longer auto-crit. Unless a hard hitting martial is available to one shot lower HP enemies, there's the chance they can escape via check if bound. But my main issue is Sleeping for 1 minute is not ending an encounter, it can contribute to it, but it is not itself doing it.

Agree

So, first I'll clarify I said that it's heavy investment and often outlying options to mostly keep up with martials or rival their damage.

Choosing your subclass, spells, and spending slots/other resources are investment. Making yourself MAD and pumping martial relevant stats instead of others is an investment., that said, you mention things individually again below, so I'll address them.

Hexblades are effectively the GISH Paladin, with a better Smite, fewer immediate slots, and their casting stat is their attack stat, so they don't have to worry about splitting their ASIs.

Hexblades are an outlier subclass (both in comparison to other patrons and general design power), that must invest their Pact and invocations at the build level, then burn their very limited slots to achieve what you're talking about. Nevermind buying medium armor and a shield. That all adds up to heavily investing your character into being a Gish, to basically try and catch up. Eldritch Smite is nice, but once per turn and only 5th level onwards, for example, compared to the Paladin Smite.

The Swords Bard is essentially the Rogue, but with a greater focus on battlefield control and defense then the pure damage the Rogue does with Sneak Attack.

A Swords Bard is MAD and spending limited Bardic Insp on flourishes instead of inspiring. ASI advancement means either stagnating as a base martial with lower Dex or being a worse caster/Sword Bard with fewer BI dice.

The control part maybe, but not defense. The base Rogue's Uncanny and Evasion are powerful defence abilities that don't require a resource.

So, realistically, the Sword Bard is invested and the comparison to Rogue is behind in basically all but control. Assuming the Rogue has no subclass.

The difference between Wizard HP and Fighter HP is so large that it is really hard to ignore, especially since the MADness of a Bladesinger probably emphasises it more with less to go towards Con. Shield, Mage Armor, and Bladesong are all investments to close that gap and get to where the Fighter starts from, because it sure doesn't exceed it, whilst the Fighter (as a class with a SAD default and 2 extra ASIs) has a lot of headroom to go even higher.

Damage-wise, you're kind of proving my point about investment since you're talking about choosing a cantrip and using a 2nd level spell and 14th level class feature to keep up with base Fighter. But since you gave somewhat specific comparisons let's take a look at them:

In the following comparisons I will prioritise maxing the attack stat, then Int for the Wizard. I will also point out that this Shadow Blade Wizard needs two turns of bonus actions to get going, and for the sake of not dying Shadowblade probably isn't first.

2nd level
Wizard Rapier: 1d8+3 = 7.5
S&B Dueler: 1d8+5 = 9.5
Greatsword: 2d6+3 = 10

5th level
Wizard BB Rapier: 3d8+8 = 21.5
Wizard BB Shadow:5d8+8 = 30.5
S&B Dueler: 2d8+12 = 21
Greatsword: 22

So at this point the Wizard is pulling ahead of the no resource, no subclass Fighters, but are still dwarfed by Action Surge and basically any damage boosting subclass.

14th level (wiz +5 Dex +4 Int, all ASIs on stats)
Wizard BB Rapier: 4d8+18 = 36
Wizard BB Shadow2: 6d8+18 = 45
S&B Dueler: 3d8+21 = 34.5
Greatsword: 6d6+15 = 36

The top end remains the same, rapier equals greatsword and Shadow pulls ahead further, but still dwarfed by Action Surge.

Now let's add some actual build to that last one, since the Wizard is defined and invested:

Battle Master Greatsword (for simplicity using ASIs to get more dice, GWM would destroy this but I'm not dealing with accuracy here, damage maneuver on every hit): 6d6+3d10+15 = 52.5

S&B Dueler, EK SB = 48

So... yeah. This is pretty barebones for Fighters, no GWM, no SS, no Piercer or crit considerations etc.

The Wizard has invested so heavily, made themselves a worse caster as a result, and they're still more fragile than the Fighter and falling behind in damage.

Bladesingers are certainly playable, but they do not make good martials, the primarily play catch up.

Moon Druid is peak outlier options and mostly comes down to get hitting a lot in exchange for not casting spells past round 1 and not having and Wild Shapes for scouting. Their damage is never really impressive, they're just HP sponges which is nice, but does not a good martial make.

*additionally they are really swingy on the player knowing what forms are best, which to use when, and the DM agreeing they've seen them.

I mean, the Fighter could be an EK, but that's really besides the point. My point was that you can't make a good martial out of a caster and you can't make a good caster out of a martial. However, you can get a lot more magic on a martial than would first come to mind for most people initially in these arguments.

People tend to wave off martial stuff as easily done or replaced by casters, I was just pointing out that if they want martials can actually pick up a lot of casting pretty easily.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-23, 05:10 PM

I run and/or read through lot of official modules and have never anything resembling the "obstacles with ridiculously niche solutions" as presented here, let alone any that have one solution.

I'm surprised, because there are a bunch of them. The Joy of Extradimensional Spaces only works as an adventure if the entire party jumps through all the portals together; scouting breaks the adventure completely. Lore of Lorue literally follows a preset path -- if the characters try to move away from the route they're taking, there's an invisible, impenetrable wall (and how does the adventure end? "Regardless of the outcome of the characters' efforts, the book's final scene ends the same.") Kandlekeep Dekonstruktion requires that the PCs read a book that a guy who just died at their feet was carrying before anyone notices and tells the guards, then assumes that the guards take the book from the PCs who go do something else, then there's an earthquake and they proactively seek out a particular person they've never interacted with before to start the adventure. The Book of Inner Alchemy can't be progressed unless the PCs make an Investigation check, which is then instantly interpreted for them by an NPC. The titular BBEG of Xanthoria can only be defeated with a Charisma check to make an innocent NPC kill herself; she can't just be killed, and apparently she can't be resurrected, despite this being an adventure for level 16 PCs.

Looking at Radiant Citadel, Salted Legacy's core mystery can only be solved by participating in the market games. There are lots of clues to the identity of the saboteur, but the adventure goes out of its way to make sure they're not valuable. The Fiend of Hollow Mine has a super cool setting and campaign hook, but the adventure requires a lot of successful checks to make progress through, and there's no alternative method to learning the things the characters need to know. Wages of Vice basically involves the PCs stumbling through a series of coincidental events until an NPC explains how his backstory is linked to the killer's -- even though neither he nor the PC know who the killer is -- then a different NPC tells the PCs what clothes the killer was wearing, then a different NPC tells the PCs where they say the killer going. All of this is dependent on three NPCs, two of whom have 16 hp, getting into a fight with the PCs and surviving for four rounds then the PCs deciding to talk to them without just, like, turning them over to the guards. Gold for Fools and Princes requires that the PCs, through skill checks, find some runes, steal papers from the desk of the scholar who's explaining the runes, interpret the runes for themselves which they can only do if they have the papers from his desk, go somewhere else, notice that a guy has a piece of paper, steal the piece of paper that proves the guy tried to assassinate the PCs and do nothing about this until they get him to go somewhere else and publicly confess to treason. There are no alternatives provided to any of these skill checks, and the adventure breaks if the PCs decide not to do any of them.

Edit: one I missed is Dragon of Icespire Peak. In the dragon barrow, if the lead character is not "prodding ahead with a pole or similar tool", a tunnel that's 60' long will collapse. If the party is in the tunnel when that happens, it's Rocks Fall Everyone Dies. Edit again: Buried Dynasty! The emperor will only believe the PCs that his special potions of longevity are made by torturing a gold dragon if they give him three of four specific pieces of evidence gathered from across the rest of the adventure: documents from a secretary, a confession note, sample potions of longevity (why does this count as evidence? presumably he's familiar with them already), and a gold dragon scale. If they don't have those pieces, they are exiled from the city; it is not possible to convince the emperor otherwise. This is interesting given that the audience is occurring IN THE MIDDLE OF A PERFORMANCE OF THE IMPERIAL OPERA. The characters have just crawled out of a trapdoor MID-PERFORMANCE (the trapdoor in the center of the opera stage leads to the villain's secret dragon-torture laboratory. I don't know why either). THEY HAVE EXITED THROUGH THE SAME HATCH THAT THE GOLD DRAGON THEY FREED LITERALLY JUST FLEW OUT OF. The only thing the dragon has to say for itself is reiterating what's in the text boxes back at the start of the adventure.

No. We have had this edition in our hot little hands for 10 years, and there are still people who cannot parse the very straightforward text in the PHB on this matter.

Yes! It is extremely straightforward. You have a spellbook because one has just been provided for you in the Equipment section. It has its own bullet point and everything. If having a spellbook was a class feature, why would it need to be listed there? Are you supposed to have two? The text says "you have a spellbook", singular. You can't have a duplicate spellbook if the rule is that you can only have a singular spellbook. Nor do you need to worry about losing it; it says "you have a spellbook". If you don't have a spellbook anymore, then that's no longer true, so one must just pop back into your inventory. Except again, it's referring to the piece of equipment you've been given under the previous header. If it was a class feature, it wouldn't be listed under Equipment.

Class features can't be sold or given away. They're permanent parts of the character. Even the paladin's Sacred Oath class feature doesn't include specific rules about what happens; it suggests seeking absolution from a cleric or spending a night in prayer. A paladin who deliberately violates the oath, "at the DM's discretion ... might be forced to abandon this class". They don't have the class features turned off, they just can't take any more levels in paladin.

As for what happens if you low-roll your gold? Either play it out or don't use the alternative starting equipment variant rule. Take background plus class as you are expected to do. Clerics don't have Divine Focus called out? There's a header for every primary caster, Spellcasting Focus, about this piece of equipment explaining that they can use it to cast spells. It doesn't say "you have a divine focus" because the text is copied and pasted across every spellcasting class with that feature -- bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, warlocks, wizards and paladins. Sorcerers, warlocks and wizards aren't guaranteed to have a focus because they can choose between a spellcasting focus and a component pouch, so they don't always start with a focus when using the standard equipment package.

People who are trying to make spellbooks into class features are not reading things in a straightforward manner. They're wishcasting something that has no basis in logic and creates tons of problems with the plain, obvious meaning of the rules, and as far as I can tell there's no purpose to it except that they want wizards to have crossbows at level 1.

diplomancer

2024-07-23, 05:47 PM

Way to stay classy, and not misrepresent people's posts. (Facepalm)

Pointing out what your position actually entails is not misrepresenting your position. That my example that follows the logic of your position is so egregious no one believes they can get away with it does not make your own more restrained apllication of the same logic any more tenable.

...and think that does not mean a Wizard starts with a spellbook as part of their spellcasting feature...then I do not know what to say to you. Do you also believe Wizards do not get Ritual spells?

Yeah, yeah, wizards are special and get to ignore the plain rules of chapter 5 on starting equipment.

This is what a Wizard rolls for their starting gold under the rule variant of Starting Gold on page 143: Wizard 4d4 x 10 gp

Yes. That's what should happen. Same way that anyone else who gambled and rolled poorly would have to live with their choices. Be it for starting equipment or for attributes. The Rogue would have to choose between getting decent weapons or thieves' tools for instance (and if he doesn't buy the thieves' tools, guess what, he won't be able to accomplish his role well, and he will waste some of his class features). But hey, the Wizard is guaranteed a Crossbow (yay!), and he doesn't need a spellbook for Cantrips, he'll be fine, won't he? A nice DM would waive the initial spell inscribing cost once the Wizard buys one. A nicer DM might even say "you know 6 spells, and we can assume you have Int+level of them prepared".

If you chose not to believe it, then that is on you.
No, you really can't infer from Jeremy Crawford's unrelated changes to the 24 rules anything about the 14 rules. Specially when Jeremy Crawford has actually tweeted that a level 1 Wizard has to buy a spellbook with starting gold or pick one from the equipment package:

https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/524722474601046016

LudicSavant

2024-07-23, 06:01 PM

Specially when Jeremy Crawford has actually tweeted that a level 1 Wizard has to buy a spellbook with starting gold or pick one from the equipment package Keep in mind that he corrects himself on this very point in a later tweet.

Are you supposed to have two? Nope, just the one.

Slipjig

2024-07-23, 06:11 PM

There's a big difference between, "if you don't have this exact solution (e.g. Bless prepared), then you miss out on some optional loot" and "if you don't have this exact solution, you fail the adventure".
I'd still say the first one isn't good adventure design, unless the item isn't important or you provide another way for the party to cast it elsewhere in the adventure (scroll, recruitable NPC caster, etc).
The second one, though, is just the classic springboard to the next adventure: "Only the Sacred Golden Railroad Spike, last seen in the Impenetrable Vaults of Clan McGuffin, will open this plot-critical door. Guess we know where we're headed next!"
Of course, it sounds like the Turn Undead Door from TftYP isn't even that. Turning Undead is way it's SUPPOSED to be opened, but the text explicitly provides other ways of doing so.

diplomancer

2024-07-23, 06:15 PM

Keep in mind that he corrects himself on this very point in a later tweet.

No, he doesn't. He makes a different ruling for multiclass cases (which is not what we're talking about). A different ruling for a different case, by the way, which still assumes a wizard will typically have to pay 50gp, but says, as would be expected for D&D, that the DM might arrange the spellbook some other way. He has never said that a level 1 Wizard starts with a free spellbook apart from his starting equipment or bought from starting gold. If I'm wrong, show when he did so.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-23, 06:18 PM

Keep in mind that he corrects himself on this very point in a later tweet.

Here's what he said in 2014: A wizard's spellbook is freeit's on the class's list of starting equipmentunless you buy the wizard's equipment à la carte. (https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/524717024253984768) Second tweet: Yes, if you opt for starting gold, your character doesn't get any of the free equipment listed for his or her class. (https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/524722474601046016)

Here's what he said in 2018, following up on these tweets directly in response to someone asking about multiclassing: The wizard's Spellcasting feature says you have a spellbook with six 1st-level wizards spells in it of your choice. That means you have a spellbook with those six spells in it. Work out with your DM how you acquired that wondrous book (https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/983491341052071936). Second tweet, two days later in response to the first: If you choose the class's starting equipment option, the book is free (not an option when multiclassing into wizard). Otherwise, a spellbook typically costs 50 gp, but a DM might put the book into your possession some other way. (https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/984110030860386304).

That's everything he's tweeted about the subject. I'd be interested in seeing anything that that contradicts those two tweets from 2014. Even the two from 2018 read, to me, as a suggestion that when you multiclass into wizard you just buy a spellbook that happens to have six first-level spells in it, unless the DM has a better idea. But I accept that that's just an interpretation. The statements from 2014 seem pretty clear, and also not contradicted later in the line's development.

diplomancer

2024-07-23, 06:29 PM

Exactly. The tweets he's responding to, in 2014, have been deleted from twitter, so there's some ambiguity, but if you go to https://www.sageadvice.eu/spellbook-for-free/ and screenshot really fast, you can read them, and they are VERY SPECIFIC AND UNAMBIGOUS. They say:

1-"On page 114 of the PHB, under wizard's abilities, it states a wizard has a spellbook. Would that mean it is free then?"

JC's answer:

A wizard's spellbook is free-it's on the class's list of starting equipment- unless you buy the wizard's equipment a la carte

2- "so if you opt for the starting gold, you have to pay the 50 gold for the spellbook?"

JC's answer:

Yes, if you opt for starting gold, your character doesn't get any of the free equipment listed for his or her class.

It really doesn't get clearer tham this.

schm0

2024-07-23, 06:34 PM

I'm surprised, because there are a bunch of them.

You seem to be conflating linear adventure design and plot hooks with obstacles. That's not at all the subject at hand. (Also, Book of Inner Alchemy does have an Investigation check, but it's not the only way to proceed through the adventure, Xanthoria does not require a Charisma check to defeat as you claim... I don't care to address each claim one by one, but most of those I did look at are completely false or have nothing to do with what I'm describing.)

I was talking about designing an obstacle to the players that only has one solution, and a convoluted one at that. A door that can only be opened by casting Bless and subverts any attempts to open the door using other available means, for example. If the party doesn't have a PC who can cast that specific spell, the entire adventure grinds to a halt.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-23, 06:36 PM

@diplomancer, the tweets haven't been deleted, the guy's protected his account. You have to follow him to see the tweets. Good catch on the SageAdvice site though. Here's what it looks like:

https://i.imgur.com/AWQvZBY.png

You see to be conflating linear adventure design and plot hooks with obstacles. That's not at all the subject at hand. (Also, Book of Inner Alchemy does have an Investigation check, but it's not the only way to proceed through the adventure, Xanthoria does not require a Charisma check to defeat as you claim... I don't care to address each claim one by one, but most of those I did look at are completely false or have nothing to do with what I'm describing.)

Unless Thunderwing sacrifices herself via a DC 15 Persuasion check, the plague doesn't stop and Xanthoria reforms in 1d10 days; that's a failure to defeat Xanthoria. In Inner Alchemy, the only link to the Immortal Lotus is that one Investigation check. Now, granted, it's not the only way to proceed through the adventure: if the players don't make it an NPC does it for them. So I suppose that's fair. Most adventures don't have solutions for the railroads breaking. The adventures grind to a halt.

LudicSavant

2024-07-23, 07:21 PM

Here he says that you have the book because the spellcasting feature says you do.

Second tweet, two days later in response to the first: If you choose the class's starting equipment option, the book is free (not an option when multiclassing into wizard). Otherwise, a spellbook typically costs 50 gp, but a DM might put the book into your possession some other way. (https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/984110030860386304).

The first sentence of this tweet (which you have not included in your quotation) reiterates the third tweet: That the Wizard has a spellbook, period. So even if you roll low enough that you don't have 50gp, the intent appears to be that you work out some way that you have a spellbook anyways. At least, that's what it looks like he's saying to me.

It's kind of a weird ruling, putting the spellbook into this weird quantum state of "you typically need to pay for it, but maybe not, either way you have one." Also weird because we actually know the price of a spellbook with 6 level 1 spells in it, and it's a lot more than 50gp, and it never says anything about the spells being any freer than the book. But c'est la vie, welcome to the world of JC's twitter posts :smalltongue:

Note, this usually won't come up, the probability of rolling that low on 4d4x10 is vanishingly slim, and the probability of rolling enough to get both a spellbook and a light crossbow is actually the statistical majority of the time. The wizard who can't afford a spellbook and a weapon is the statistical unlikelihood, not the other way around.

diplomancer

2024-07-23, 07:30 PM

Here he says that you have the book because the spellcasting feature says you do.

It's kind of a weird ruling, putting the spellbook into this weird quantum state of "you need to pay for it, unless you can't afford it." Also weird because we actually know the price of a spellbook with 6 level 1 spells in it, and it's not 50gp, and it never says anything about the spells being any freer than the book. But c'est la vie, welcome to the world of JC's twitter posts :smalltongue:

The fact that the 2018 ruling is ALL about multiclassing is very relevant. Because multiclassing rules skip starting equipment entirely, you simply don't get any starting equipment when you multiclass, as Crawford even explicitly recalls in his ruling. So some solution has to be given as to how the now wizard acquired his spellbook. Tipically, he paid 50 gold for it. There might be other solutions provided by the DM. But notice what Crawford doesn't say: "you get it for free" (adventuring loot is not free)... which is what your side of the argument wants to twist and turn his ruling into.

But ALL of this is irrelevant to our argument about our level 1 Wizard. Because the 2018 ruling is a ruling about how a multiclass wizard got his spellbook, not about how a level 1 Wizard got his spellbook. We know how the level 1 wizard did it, either by buying it or by having it as part of his starting equipment. If there was any doubt about that, they are dispelled by the 2014 tweets, which, unlike the 2018 tweets, ARE about a Wizard's starting equipment.

Dork_Forge

2024-07-23, 07:38 PM

That's only true if you're talking about just buying those two things, which would be an absurd starting point for the character.

Average 4d4 is 100GP.

Spell book 50GP
Crossbow+basics 27GP

Leaving 23GP to buy a focus, since they can't afford a component pouch, clothes, adventuring basics and living expenses.

That makes buying oil and multiple castings of Find Familiar very iffy, heck even one casting.

You can keep claiming it's easy to start with a crossbow at 1st for a Wizard, but unless the DM is being nice and generous, it really isn't.

schm0

2024-07-23, 07:38 PM

You are incorrect. In the adventure Xanthoria it says:

Convincing Thunderwing to give up her life should be handled through roleplaying rather than ability checks, although you can require the characters to succeed on a DC 15 Charisma (Persuasion) group check if the scene proves difficult to roleplay.

Neither scenario (or any of the others you listed) comes close to what I was talking about.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-23, 08:01 PM

Here he says that you have the book because the spellcasting feature says you do.

When multiclassing, the player and the DM have to work out a way to have a spellbook, whether that's paying 50gp for it or the DM awarding it. At level 1 during character creation, you either get the equipment package or you buy one for 50gp. I don't think there's any weird quantum state here except when trying to make a statement about multiclassing apply to the character creation rules. It seems fairly straightforward, read in light of those two tweets from 2014, which they are a direct continuation of (tweet #3 is a response, four years later, to a question about tweet #2).

@schm0, having Thunderwing voluntarily give herself up is the only solution presented by the adventure, and there's no way around it. She can't be resurrected by any means, nor can her condition be cured, suppressed or removed. Nor, by the information given by the module, can she simply be murdered. And until she's dead Xanthoria has not been defeated. That's a lock that can only be opened by one key. Can't be picked, can't be gone around. Might not be what you're talking about, but I think it was clarified a couple posts ago that you're not reading what nergal is doing accurately either. So I'm going to bow out of this one until we're back to, at minimum, one degree of separation.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-23, 08:34 PM

So this is of course a blatant strawman.
No it isn't. The entire point of this part of the discussion is the lethality of low level casters vs low level martials.

OP: Cantrips deal half damage of weapon attacks.
You: Casters can use crossbows and dual wield daggers, so they're just as lethal as martials (can kill goblins just as easily lol).
Me: I've never seen a wizard dual wielding daggers.
You: I did it with one wizard, occasionally.

The whole point of this is you claiming that wizards can deal as much damage as martials by dual wielding daggers, among other things.

What was actually said was that almost anyone can kill a lone goblin that walks into melee with them, even a wizard with daggers.
Can.
Can.
Can.
Can.
Can.

But do they? As a fighting style? Frequently enough to rebut claims that martials deal more damage at these levels?

No.

The real threat of goblins isn't the difficulty of killing one that walks up to you.
White room forum theory jargon.

The actual truth is that EVERYTHING is lethal at these levels, including goblins in melee lol. You're making this claim to frame things in a favorable way to your position.

Then you complained about the notion of a Wizard using a simple weapon.
I said I don't see wizards using crossbows or dual wielding weapons, and then I poked fun at the caster players that demanded at-will attack spells, and then stuck with crossbows because "math".

I do admit that Fighters have far more HP then a Wizard, and they always will. So if you're just looking at HP, then yeah, the Fighter beats a GISH wizard. But outside of HP, I find Bladesingers are just as durable as a Fighter, can deal as much damage as a Fighter in melee, while also being a full Wizard on top of it all.
I'll add to what JH said that the classes are built for certain styles of play and it all adds up. On the frontline, my barbarian has Advantage on Strength saves, on Dexterity saves, proficiency in Constitution saves. I'm not getting tripped by monsters or grabbed or pushed as easily as others. I make dex saves and negate the remainder damage with Shield Master. I can make poison saves or stun saves. The bladesinger has none of this, and these things bypass Bladesong AC.

The one thing I don't shake off easily is Wisdom saving throws, so in an encounter where scarecrows got the jump on us, I was paralyzed and crit twice before I could act. Took 40 points of damage that would have knocked out any other party member but left my barbarian at 10hp and still able to kill things. I was paralyzed a second time in the encounter, but instead of choosing some variant of Elf, I am playing a Half-Orc, so the third crit in that encounter for me simply dropped me to 1hp, and I was still able to kill things and finish the encounter without dropping to 0.

Now, at level 12 I can grab Resilient Wisdom (I'm probably grabbing Alert at level 8) and say that my wisdom saving throws are fine, but that's 7 levels away. Right now, wisdom saves are a weakness. Similarly, at some point the bladesinger will come online and have more resources to shore up their weaknesses a bit better and deal more damage in melee. But for right now, the bladesinger can get a respectable AC and has a decent attack. But none of its other class features do anything for actually fighting in melee. And to JH's point, when you have a lot of encounters in the day, and you face a lot of enemies, as we do, that's a lot of attack rolls and saving throws coming your way. High rolls happen, crits happen, surprise happens, etc. Shield is 4 rounds of protection at this level, assuming Arcane Recovery. That's 1 encounter and another round of another encounter. We have many more encounters in the day than that.

This is an example of said handwaving/catering, and the argument could easily be flipped to giving martials minor magic items. A ring of Mage Hand would be basic right, it's only a cantrip?
Indeed. And the more we have to interpret the text a certain way, play a certain race, play against theme, use a certain background, etc. we move away from general commentary that is applicable to most tables.

schm0

2024-07-23, 09:10 PM

Every PC can converse in one or more languages. I wasn't talking about a linear progression where roleplay is what advances the plot. Anyone can roleplay. As I wrote earlier:

This is the type of obstacle that was described by sithlordnergal and what I was addressing. Something as basic as social interaction has none of the qualities I mentioned, plain and simple.

Mechalich

2024-07-23, 09:11 PM

And to JH's point, when you have a lot of encounters in the day, and you face a lot of enemies, as we do, that's a lot of attack rolls and saving throws coming your way.

LudicSavant

2024-07-23, 09:25 PM

But I accept that that's just an interpretation.

I appreciate that! I likewise recognize that this is just my interpretation as well.

My interpretation of JC's RAI is that he's saying that the intent is that you typically pay 50gp for the book, but if for some reason that's impossible, you're still supposed to work out with your DM how you obtained the spellbook with six spells in it, because, as he puts it: the spellcasting feature says you have one, and that means you have one. You do not get two, and you should not typically expect to receive it for free if you choose to roll for gold.

My interpretation of the RAW (e.g. "pretend I have never spoken to JC or any of the other devs, and only have access to information literally in the book") is: We have a feature that says we have a spellbook with 6 spells in it, and the equipment list also says we have a spellbook, and these are not two spellbooks; one is referring to the other (such redundancies are common throughout 5e's writing style). The question is essentially one of order of operations, whether A) the equipment list is mentioning the spellbook granted by the feature, or B) the feature is mentioning the spellbook granted by the equipment list.

Now, if it's A (e.g. "the feature doesn't grant it, the equipment list does"), then a wizard who rolls for gold doesn't have a spellbook with 6 spells in it. They can't even spend 50gp to buy it, as that's the cost for a blank spellbook -- we know the cost for a spellbook with 6 spells in it, and it ain't 50gp. The 6 spells only existed in the spellbook from the spellcasting feature, which you didn't start with. Ouch!

If it's B, then we get occasional people saying "well, then what if I give my spellbook away? Do I still have one?" The answer to which I would think is no, for essentially the same reason that Shelter of the Faithful's "you have a residence there" does not shield your residence from being trampled by a Tarrasque.

Dork_Forge

2024-07-23, 09:33 PM

Agree that players have some control, disagree that they have as much as you're saying.

Teleport is a 7th level spell. That means it isn't coming online until 13th level and it's use in the way you describe means intentionally not using your most powerful spell slot for anything but shuttle service. Nevermind the issue that unless you're an even higher level or have multiple casters capable of using it, you can't go in and out on the same day. Then there's the whole thing about Teleport being horrifically unreliable. A dungeon you were clearing is probably 'Seen Casually' so it's only on target on a 54-100. To illustrate this a couple of anecdotes: one of my parties gained access to a casting of Teleport from an NPC, they rolled 3 mishaps back to back. A higher level party with access to it tried to use it in a similar fashion to which you described, multiple times they either mishapped or didn't go exactly where they wanted.

I also don't think time pressure is as uncommon or as disliked as you say. What you're proposing is basically increasing the number of days a dungeon would take to clear. When you start adding that much time suddenly a task there was ample time for becomes a race against the clock or impossible.

That's outside of potential party strife by the way, those that have been more budget conscious or have more short rest resources (or no resources) would probably be annoyed to keep stopping for long rests, which means stopping and doing basically nothing until you can sleep again.

Witty Username

2024-07-23, 09:35 PM

I like this line of reasoning with wizard and spellbooks.

Making a warlock pay for their pact weapon sounds pretty similar in rulling.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-23, 09:38 PM

In pretty much every edition of D&D that has ever existed the strength of martials increases in direct proportion to the # of encounters per day. However, in most situations the players will have at least some control over how many encounters they engage in per day, something that casters are given tools to increase significantly - one obvious example is that once teleport comes online, without some fairly substantial shenanigans, the party can enter/exit the dungeon more or less at will. This means that any comparative advantages dependent upon encounter numbers decrease with increasing level unless the storyline imposes some kind of time limit, which is rare because everyone hates time limits. It is therefore rather difficult to hinge any argument about comparative power based on encounters/day (even though D&D has long tried to do this, making a somewhat fundamental design issue) since there's no real way to standardize that metric.
But the point remains because my point is really about the dice. When you're hinging your frontline strategy on something like "nothing will hit me because my AC is god tier", the unfortunate reality is that... things will still hit you. Even if you remove the number of encounters, we still face encounters with a lot of enemies. That's a lot of dice. It's enough attacks that even if you're good at something, odds are you're going to fail a roll or two or your enemy is still going to land a hit.

When we're facing two dozen wolves, even my barbarian is failing saves vs Trip. So once your Bladesong AC is bypassed, then you just have that d6 Hit Die with a 14 Con. Doesn't take much.

And I'll just add that the OP is really considering lower levels (quote "the levels you actually play at"), and as I mentioned in my post, we just reached tier 2 (level 5). The point being made is at these levels wizards and other casters don't have the resources or flexibility to dictate the game the way you're describing with Teleport. They might... Rope Trick is a way that might force short rests as an example. But then they might not have Web, or Misty Step, or Invisibility, etc. It takes time and levels, that's one of the points being made in the OP.

Dork_Forge

2024-07-23, 09:43 PM

I like this line of reasoning with wizard and spellbooks.

Making a warlock pay for their pact weapon sounds pretty similar in rulling.

It isn't even close:

Pact of the Blade says you create the weapon with an action.

Pact of the Tome, the closer comparison, specifically calls out that your patron gives you the book and tells you how to get a replacement if you lose it.

Neither are similar to the Wizard spellbook thing, neither are on the Warlock's starting gear list, or the gear table, and the features tell you all you need in detail.

LudicSavant

2024-07-23, 09:44 PM

No it isn't. Yes it is. And you just did it again, here:

OP: Cantrips deal half damage of weapon attacks.
You: Casters can use crossbows and dual wield daggers, so they're just as lethal as martials (can kill goblins just as easily lol).

This is very clearly not what I said.

The whole point of this is you claiming that wizards can deal as much damage as martials by dual wielding daggers

Also not at all what I said, nor the point that was being made. :smallannoyed:

J-H

2024-07-23, 09:47 PM

What kind of game has no time pressure? That's easy to control via campaign setup, plot, or dungeon design.
Castle Dracula (3-12): You get a long rest by killing a boss. Long rest opportunities are limited, and you're approaching and in Dracula's castle. Time limit.
Against the Idol of the Sun (13-20+): We had a lot of 1-fight adventuring days, but as days and weeks went by, the enemy got stronger. Teleport was present and used via a Helm of teleportation, which the fighter got and made good use of.
Baldur's Gate 2 (1-20+): Party is currently level 9. Most dungeons are pretty long and have time pressure of "rescue someone" or "If we leave now, they all get away or heal up and prepare for us." The Windspear Hills had, I believe, 7 separate fights plus 6x 1/6ths of a genie fought individually before their one long rest in dungeon.
Dracula's Curse (2-9/10): Party is currently level 5. Every night, successfully resting outside a Hallowed area (only found in non-destroyed temples) gets harder. Clock is ticking and combat is a mix of "dungeons" and random encounters by area when traveling to hit the 5-8 mark on average.

JNAProductions

2024-07-23, 09:55 PM

At low levels, martial features are minimal. Not non-existent, but a 16 Dexterity Wizard shoots a bow of whatever stripe just about as well as a Fighter. A dedicated archer Fighter will have the appropriate style, but against a foe with, say, 14 AC?

+5 vs. +7 to-hit gives us, against AC 14, a crit rate of 1/20 and a hit rate of 11/20 vs. 13/20.
With a d8 damage weapon, a caster is dealing 86% the damage of a martial with the Archery style.

Dork_Forge

2024-07-23, 10:09 PM

+5 vs. +7 to-hit gives us, against AC 14, a crit rate of 1/20 and a hit rate of 11/20 vs. 13/20.
With a d8 damage weapon, a caster is dealing 86% the damage of a martial with the Archery style.

Martials have the option of martial weapons, so upgrading from a shortbow to long bow, or preferably in tier 1, a heavy crossbow from light.

That's both a 10% accuracy increase over the caster and a damage die advantage. Given the scope of damage at early levels and bounded accuracy, that's pretty significant.

Nevermind those using a great sword, or able to leverage reach with a Glaive. But then there's:
- Hunters Mark and Smite/divine favor at 2+
- Martial Arts bonus attacks
- Sneak Damage
- TWF mod damage
- Rage damage

There is a noticeable and significant for the level gap between martials doing martial things and casters attempting the same.

And all of that is assuming that the caster invested a 16 into Dex, instead of Con or having (ime) a much more common spread out style of array.

Witty Username

2024-07-23, 10:11 PM

Neither are similar to the Wizard spellbook thing, neither are on the Warlock's starting gear list, or the gear table, and the features tell you all you need in detail.

Do you also have to pay for the 6 spells in your starting spell book?
It doesn't say how the wizard gets those either. Just that they are in the book.

Also is the actual ruling a wizard that rolls badly doesn't have spells? Note that a wizard can't replace spells unless they are prepared or have the existing book available. A 1st level wizard would be a non-caster and be permanently behind.
And that is the game working as intended?

JNAProductions

2024-07-23, 10:20 PM

Martials have the option of martial weapons, so upgrading from a shortbow to long bow, or preferably in tier 1, a heavy crossbow from light.

That's both a 10% accuracy increase over the caster and a damage die advantage. Given the scope of damage at early levels and bounded accuracy, that's pretty significant.

There is a noticeable and significant for the level gap between martials doing martial things and casters attempting the same.

And all of that is assuming that the caster invested a 16 into Dex, instead of Con or having (ime) a much more common spread out style of array.

Heavy Crossbow that they don't have bolts for, by default, if we're nitpicking equipment.

But sure, adding 1 average damage per hit (2 on a crit) changes it from 86% to 76%. A sizeable chunk less... But not blown out of the water or anything.

Hunter's Mark and Divine Smite both use spell slots, from half casters. At level two they get those twice per day. And never more than three times per day in Tier One.
Martial Arts requires you to be in melee-and I've been told that meleeing with a d8 hit die and not much other than an okay AC isn't a smart plan.
Sneak Attack is at its best in Tier One, but yeah, that's a solid bonus die under pretty much the same conditions.
Rage is Strength-only, so at best your range is Thrown Weapons. It's also only two to three times per day in Tier One.
TWF is, barring some odd builds, melee-only. But it is a pretty potent option in Tier One.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-23, 10:23 PM

At the very least, I would expect a wizard that rolls poorly on gold would be allowed a book. Maybe without starting gold but otherwise is not both not supported by RAW and utterly ridiculous for play.
They should get some of that Tasha's Ranger treatment and turn their spellbook into a spirit spellbook that they can summon and dismiss. Then they can never lose their class feature.

Witty Username

2024-07-23, 10:38 PM

They should get some of that Tasha's Ranger treatment and turn their spellbook into a spirit spellbook that they can summon and dismiss. Then they can never lose their class feature.

I mean, I think this is jest, but that is what scribe wizard does.

I don't mind the replacement rules once play starts (being reduced to prepared list hurts, but that is workable, and coping over time fits prep and discovery), but it does real weird things to the game if DMs just start deciding characters don't start with class features by fiat.
--
I have had similar conversations on the martial end though.
Starting gold and equipment leaves some strange gaps.
Like heavy armor is intended to be "better" lightly than medium armor, and more about build expression
But it is an open question if a fighter or barbarian can afford armor at all much less functional armor.

And this is usually in my space for some great travesty like "I like the idea of my Dwarf Ranger to use a heavy crossbow." Which seems weird to need to invoke the dice gods over.

Keltest

2024-07-23, 10:39 PM

They should get some of that Tasha's Ranger treatment and turn their spellbook into a spirit spellbook that they can summon and dismiss. Then they can never lose their class feature.

They did! In Tasha's even. They got a whole subclass about doing that.

Dork_Forge

2024-07-23, 10:56 PM

Do you also have to pay for the 6 spells in your starting spell book?
It doesn't say how the wizard gets those either. Just that they are in the book.

This is really pushing things to make a point. The cost of scribing spells is separate from spells on level up, you get the initial 6 spells at 1st level from spell casting.

And yes, if you play roulette to try and cheese out an advantage on starting gear you didn't need to begin with, and end up in an awkward position because of it, that's the game working as intended. There is no point to rolling for wealth or stats if there is no risk.

99% of Wizards are just going to take the starting gear given. 99% of Wizards are not going to attempt to start the game with a, relatively, expensive weapon for minmax benefit. You want to be the 1% then its perfectly fine for there to be a risk.

After all, they'll never be a non-caster, their cantrips cant be taken away under any interpretation. And if they do get in such a dreadful position they could maybe seek out a loan as mercy from the party or an NPC.

But maybe I'm missing a reason to coddle a player doing their best Icarus impression.

Heavy Crossbow that they don't have bolts for, by default, if we're nitpicking equipment.

Heavy crossbow is most applicable to Fighter, who can start with a bolts and a Heavy crossbow from starting gear. They just end up with a spare light crossbow, which incidentally they could sell to a store for half cost or perhaps to a Wizard in need.

Regardless, coughing up 2GP for bolts and a case is easily afforded by any background in the PHB. The same is not true for the Wizard needing 27GP.

But sure, adding 1 average damage per hit (2 on a crit) changes it from 86% to 76%. A sizeable chunk less... But not blown out of the water or anything.

I'm not really sure what your argument is against. The whole point of what I've been saying is that it was claimed casters in tier 1 can use weapons just as well as martials. That isn't the case, so I gave examples of it not being the case.

Hunter's Mark and Divine Smite both use spell slots, from half casters. At level two they get those twice per day. And never more than three times per day in Tier One.

Hunters Mark lasts an hour and Divine Smite is the option of nova damage, an option the overwhelming majority of casters don't get when using weapons at such early levels.

Oh, I guess whatever that naff Hunters Mark alternative from Tasha's is probably relevant here to plug non HM encounters.

Martial Arts requires you to be in melee-and I've been told that meleeing with a d8 hit die and not much other than an okay AC isn't a smart plan.

This was never about staying at range? Having more HP is better, the biggest issue is the d6 classes. This is heavily mitigated by being more likely to kill the thing before it hits you. Two attacks with mod goes a long way towards that in tier 1.

Sneak Attack is at its best in Tier One, but yeah, that's a solid bonus die under pretty much the same conditions.

I think this is you just agreeing?

Rage is Strength-only, so at best your range is Thrown Weapons. It's also only two to three times per day in Tier One.

Again, this was never about ranged only, so that doesn't matter. Heck, Wizards TWF daggers has been brought up as an alternative to a crossbow, I don't think Barbarians doing Barbarian things is out of bounds.

As for Rage it will typically cover an entire encounter. It's okay it isn't every encounter, the point was martials do it better. That includes the option to have resources spent on it on top of bigger/more dice or further range/reach.

TWF is, barring some odd builds, melee-only. But it is a pretty potent option in Tier One.

I'm not sure 'using daggers' is that much of a strange build, but this was never intended as a ranged suggestion.

Then again, you could just TWF daggers with the thrown style and come out on top damage wise overall Vs trying to throw with TWF style.

This really confuses me a bit, were you maybe addressing the thread title as context for my post? I never said casters are irrelevant, I believe in this thread I've explicitly said they're better at casting, can be okay at martial things if built for it, and that it's a team game where a mix is expected and better.

elyktsorb

2024-07-23, 10:57 PM

People really seem to be getting way too caught up in starting equipment. Like, outside of Adventurer's League, who's DM has really cared all that much if you started with too much standard equipment?

Hell, most DM's I've played with usually let you start with magic items. I mean they're the trinket silly ones for the most part, but still.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-23, 11:01 PM

I mean, I think this is jest, but that is what scribe wizard does.

They did! In Tasha's even. They got a whole subclass about doing that.
Lol, it was in jest :smallbiggrin:.

I have had similar conversations on the martial end though.
Starting gold and equipment leaves some strange gaps.
Like heavy armor is intended to be "better" lightly than medium armor, and more about build expression
But it is an open question if a fighter or barbarian can afford armor at all much less functional armor.

And this is usually in my space for some great travesty like "I like the idea of my Dwarf Ranger to use a heavy crossbow." Which seems weird to need to invoke the dice gods over.
Yeah, Unarmored Defense on the barbarian is considered a ribbon feature that you would never use. But barbarians don't start with any armor in their starting gear lol.

Heavy Crossbow that they don't have bolts for, by default, if we're nitpicking equipment.

But sure, adding 1 average damage per hit (2 on a crit) changes it from 86% to 76%. A sizeable chunk less... But not blown out of the water or anything.

Martials are better than casters, in their field of specialty, especially at low levels. But casters are not so outshone that they're irrelevant or anything-they're just not QUITE as good. But they also have their spells, which to me, more than makes up the difference.
When we're talking about higher levels, I think these differences get lost into bags of hit points. But when we're talking about tier 1, when monsters have like... 13hp or less, these differences stand out a lot. That's why the point is being made. TWFers are dealing ~13 damage, barbarians are dealing 10-12 damage, monks are dealing ~11 damage, rogues are dealing ~10 damage. This damage can take trogs and chokers and wolves right off the map.

Not all enemies are ranged enemies, many enemies want to fight in melee. We all know the name of the game is removing enemies before they can hurt/kill you. In tier 1, this is the martial's game, pure and simple.

Dork_Forge

2024-07-23, 11:02 PM

Hell, most DM's I've played with usually let you start with magic items. I mean they're the trinket silly ones for the most part, but still.

I direct you to my previous point in this thread about the power of compound interest, I mean stacking handwaves in the argument that casters are superior.

But my own approach to this at level 1 is simply, you could swap gear for equivalent. Like the above Dwarf Ranger wanting a heavy crossbow instead of a longbow. But just taking advantage like the Wizard example is a no.

elyktsorb

2024-07-23, 11:14 PM

I direct you to my previous point in this thread about the power of compound interest, I mean stacking handwaves in the argument that casters are superior.

I mean, using Custom Background you can get 60gp from selling back starting equipment at half price. And that'll buy you any starting weapon aside from a Hand Crossbow or a Double Bladed Scimitar

LudicSavant

2024-07-24, 12:42 AM

I mean, using Custom Background you can get 60gp from selling back starting equipment at half price.

Very true.

Hell, most DM's I've played with usually let you start with magic items. I mean they're the trinket silly ones for the most part, but still.

Not to mention that last I checked Wizards were having no trouble affording crossbows in Adventurer's League! Did that ever change?

Sindal

2024-07-24, 01:55 AM

Not really adding yo the discussion much here

My opinion of the split between the two has always been:

🎵 we go together like
Ramma lamma lamma
Dignity da dinga dong🎵

Inquisitor

2024-07-24, 03:35 AM

Hell, most DM's I've played with usually let you start with magic items. I mean they're the trinket silly ones for the most part, but still.

Agreed. This kind of leans into the OP's focus on level 1, which is somewhat tricky to balance. But how many people are spending a lot of time playing level 1? In published stuff (that even includes level 1) you're often dealing with 1-2 sessions and gaining significant loot along the way.

I don't even think a lot of people with significant 5e experience have played enough level 1 to evaluate what's actually good. It's surprising how often I read that Paladins are good tier 1 characters. Sure by level 3 and 4 they're decent, but compare a level 2 Paly, or particularly a level 1 Paly to a Fighter it's pretty clear they're not good.

diplomancer

2024-07-24, 04:58 AM

I mean, using Custom Background you can get 60gp from selling back starting equipment at half price. And that'll buy you any starting weapon aside from a Hand Crossbow or a Double Bladed Scimitar

This is what the PHB says about it (emphasis mine):

Selling Treasure
Opportunities abound to find treasure, equipment, weapons, armor, and more in the dungeons you explore. Normally, you can sell your treasures and trinkets when you return to a town or other settlement, provided that you can find buyers and merchants interested in your loot.

It's pretty clear that the intent of the book for your starting equipment (specially from background) is to round out your character's personality, not to give you random loot to sell for gold.

Now, myself, I'd probably allow it to be done quickly, unless the adventure hook I had in mind really did not allow for it. But I'd make a note of the sort of player I'm dealing with (i.e, one who cares not a whit about background as a roleplaying tool and looks rather at how he can squeeze the smallest of mechanical advantages out of it). But some DMs might just say "no, you haven't had the opportunity to sell it yet". If you're lucky (or unlucky😈) enough to get a DM that just loves roleplaying buying/selling equipment, you will have the fun of spending your first session haggling with different traders, while your fellow players check their phones.

When we're talking about higher levels, I think these differences get lost into bags of hit points. But when we're talking about tier 1, when monsters have like... 13hp or less, these differences stand out a lot. That's why the point is being made. TWFers are dealing ~13 damage, barbarians are dealing 10-12 damage, monks are dealing ~11 damage, rogues are dealing ~10 damage. This damage can take trogs and chokers and wolves right off the map.

Small correction: Monks also do ~13 damage, 1d8+3+1d4+3. Slightly better depending on Race (can be 1d6+3 the unarmed attack).

Eldariel

2024-07-24, 05:01 AM

Typically a merchant who sells adventuring gear will also buy the same gear from you at half the price since that's simply great business for them - make 50% profit with very little effort.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-24, 07:25 AM

I appreciate that! I likewise recognize that this is just my interpretation as well.

The place I differ with you on JC is that multiclassing is different from character creation, and guidance that applies to multiclassing doesn't apply to character creation. To use the parlance of this week in America, a character that's multiclassing into wizard didn't just fall out of a coconut tree. There's a whole play history there in which to gather resources and figure out how to acquire this item. A character that's being created has a set amount of resources and that's what you get. And the one you get at first level has six level 1 spells in it.

Looking at the RAW (I think you have your A and your B reversed here in the explanation? A) is 'equipment list mentions the spellbook granted by the feature', but in the explanatory paragraph A is "the feature doesn't grant it, the equipment list does"), I don't think this tension exists. They start with a spellbook either granted by the starting equipment package or purchased via custom equipment purchase. It has six level 1 spells in it, even if normally it'd cost more than that, because it's the spellbook you started play with.

I like this line of reasoning with wizard and spellbooks.

Making a warlock pay for their pact weapon sounds pretty similar in rulling.

There's no basis anywhere in the rules for making a warlock pay for a pact weapon, which they can create out of thin air every six seconds. So I don't think it's that similar.

Do you also have to pay for the 6 spells in your starting spell book?
It doesn't say how the wizard gets those either. Just that they are in the book.

I mean, I think the way this would go would be rolling four 1s on gold, realizing you can't afford a spellbook, and asking your DM if you can just take the standard class plus background equipment instead of your roll. Then your DM says 'yeah, that's fine' and on you go. You don't have to pay for the starting six spells, because the spellbook you start play with has six level 1 spells in it, however it's acquired. Never more, never less.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-24, 07:42 AM

Not really adding yo the discussion much here

My opinion of the split between the two has always been:

🎵 we go together like
Ramma lamma lamma
Dignity da dinga dong🎵
:smallbiggrin: Very true.

If you have an immortal owl that grants Advantage by flying at your enemies with beak and talon and survives for more than a turn... give the party rogue some love :smallcool:.

Agreed. This kind of leans into the OP's focus on level 1, which is somewhat tricky to balance. But how many people are spending a lot of time playing level 1?
OP speaks about both level 1 and level 5, and other comments here have referred to tiers.

This is what the PHB says about it (emphasis mine):

It's pretty clear that the intent of the book for your starting equipment (specially from background) is to round out your character's personality, not to give you random loot to sell for gold.

Small correction: Monks also do ~13 damage, 1d8+3+1d4+3. Slightly better depending on Race (can be 1d6+3 the unarmed attack).
Oh right, thank you! Also, barbarians deal ~14 damage with TWF, but after they've raged (1d6+5+1d6+2).

Another point that hasn't been mentioned yet is how the "OA calculus" is different in tier 1. An opportunity attack can kill many enemies in tier 1. If they're a little tougher, it is still the case if they've already taken a hit. On the flip side, enemies can take a wizard down in 2 hits, sometimes 1 hit (looking at you orc). A troglodyte deals 12 damage with its multiattack, but has 13hp. That galaxy brain "I can just ignore OAs" strategy looks very different in lower levels, which means the frontline works more as intended. Those with lower HP and defenses want to keep clear of enemies, and enemies don't want to take a free 78% of their HP in damage just for moving.

diplomancer

2024-07-24, 08:04 AM

There's no basis anywhere in the rules for making a warlock pay for a pact weapon, which they can create out of thin air every six seconds. So I don't think it's that similar.

I wouldn't let the player who chose to roll to go back and take standard equipment. I probably would do some special accomodations. Simpler one would probably be something like "you can buy a discount spellbook for 25 gp. However, the worse quality of the book means you can only inscribe 1st level spells in it". Eventually, and almost certainly before level 3, the player would get 50gp and buy his new spellbook. He can keep his old spellbook as a keepsake of his humble beginnings.

KorvinStarmast

2024-07-24, 08:11 AM

Yes! It is extremely straightforward. You have a spellbook because one has just been provided for you in the Equipment section. No. Go and read the quick build section for Wizard and the spellcasting section. You already have a spellbook (per the spellcasting feature) and then the quick build offers you six spells to choose (for beginners) ... intended to speed up the transition from the chargen stage to the 'let's play' stage.

You can make a wizard quickly by following these suggestions:
First, Intelligence should be your highest ability score, followed by Constitution or Dexterity. If you plan the school of Enchantment, make Charisma your next best score. Second, choose the Sage background. Third, choose mage hand, light, and ray of frost cantrips along with the following 1st level spells for your spellbook{bolding mine}: burning hands, charm person, feather fall, mage armor, magic missile, and sleep. Note that this presumes that you already have a spellbook.
The equipment section follows that. You are taking the equipment section out of context: that's called cherry picking, among other things.
And right after that, the spellcasting class feature is very explicit in where the spell book comes from. Whether your choose starting equipment or not, that feature says quite clearly: As a student of arcane magic you have a spellbook containing spells that show the first glimmerings of your true power.
You've got three mentions of that spell book already, and two of them make no bones about "you just have it because you are a wizard." (Dork Forge's later point takes care of the rest.)
Again: what you suggest is not good DMing. It is penal to the player, particularly a beginner, creating a character at level 1.

Here he says that you have the book because the spellcasting feature says you do. Yes.

I like this line of reasoning with wizard and spellbooks.
Making a warlock pay for their pact weapon sounds pretty similar in ruling.

It isn't even close:
Pact of the Blade says you create the weapon with an action.
Pact of the Tome, the closer comparison, specifically calls out that your patron gives you the book and tells you how to get a replacement if you lose it.
Neither are similar to the Wizard spellbook thing, neither are on the Warlock's starting gear list, or the gear table, and the features tell you all you need in detail. Yes.

Martials have the option of martial weapons, so upgrading from a shortbow to long bow, or preferably in tier 1, a heavy crossbow from light.

That's both a 10% accuracy increase over the caster and a damage die advantage. Given the scope of damage at early levels and bounded accuracy, that's pretty significant.

There is a noticeable and significant for the level gap between martials doing martial things and casters attempting the same.

And all of that is assuming that the caster invested a 16 into Dex, instead of Con or having (ime) a much more common spread out style of array. Yes. Not all players Min Max.

Do you also have to pay for the 6 spells in your starting spell book?
It doesn't say how the wizard gets those either. Just that they are in the book.

At the very least, I would expect a wizard that rolls poorly on gold would be allowed a book. Maybe without starting gold but otherwise is not both not supported by RAW and utterly ridiculous for play. There are a certain number of folks who post here who choose the least charitable take on a variety of things in the game. I am not sure where this comes from, but there you have it. And as you say, when one takes a step back these positions often look ridiculous.

This is really pushing things to make a point. The cost of scribing spells is separate from spells on level up, you get the initial 6 spells at 1st level from spell casting.

The whole weapon conversation you replied to was about the suggestion casters can use weapons as well as martials at level 1/low levels. That just isn't true, and it's good and intentional it isn't true. Yes. It's an edge case, see my Warlock examples. :smallsmile: (Also, it's great to see you posting here again! :smallsmile: )

IMO, all Fighters ought to have, as a Fighter only feature, a reaction that is defensive as well as the general offensitve reaction anyone can take (OA). That reaction needs to be something like 'block' or 'obstruct' and will thus return the front liner theme/scheme to the Fighter and other martials if you give it to paladin and barbarian... I've mentioned this before. The point being that someone trying to get past them has to beat a contest roll (or the fighter rolls a "to hit") that stops the enemy from rushing past them to the squishies.

LudicSavant

2024-07-24, 08:14 AM

So A) Equipment list mentions book granted by feature, or B) Feature mentions book granted by equipment list.

If B, then rolling means you give up the thing that granted a spellbook with 6 spells in it (the equipment list), and you must buy it. And we can then look up the price for a spellbook and 6 spells in the PHB (which is unaffordable no matter what you roll; 50gp is only the price for a blank book).

There is no indication from the PHB that the spells are free but the book isn't, or that the first blank book you acquire a la carte populates with spells, or anything like that.

So interpretation B is even worse than "you might get unlucky and roll 40gp."

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-24, 08:17 AM

elyktsorb

2024-07-24, 08:33 AM

If I were trying to squeeze the most mechanical advantage out of a background I'd probably do one of the backgrounds that comes with a feat, or a good ability. If someone makes a custom background just to be able to afford a light crossbow, I'd hardly call that squeezing out the smallest of mechanical advantages. Since the advantage of a light crossbow in this case is what, 2 damage?

Additionally it seems rather hostile to assume that just because a player wants to start with X thing that they don't care about roleplaying. A background is literally just a set of proficiencies, tools, and equipment, typically chosen to help represent the backstory you've made for your character. What if my backstory involves me being a Wizard with a light crossbow?

diplomancer

2024-07-24, 08:39 AM

Correct, A and B are reversed, good catch.

So A) Equipment list mentions book granted by feature, or B) Feature mentions book granted by equipment list.

There is no indication from the PHB that the spells are free but the book isn't, or that the first blank book you acquire a la carte populates with spells, or anything like that.

So interpretation B is even worse than "you might get unlucky and roll 40gp."

There is no price listed for "a spellbook with 6 first level spells in it" in the PHB. I know, I've just checked. There is a blank spellbook, and there are rules about the cost of inscribing spells in it. This very rule about the cost of inscribing spells in a spellbook states that this cost is for spells the Wizard finds on adventuring, or from copying from his old spellbook to another spellbook. The spells the wizard gets from his class feature, not copying from other spellbooks or scrolls, are free. Therefore these spells are free in his beginning spellbook (that he either gets from his equipment package or buys for 50gp)

Fair enough! Personally, I'd allow it, because in 3rd Edition it was explicit in the wizard class that the wizard always begins play with a spellbook independent of any starting equipment. A spellbook, even assuming the six level 1 starting spells are free in the character creation process, is a 50 gp item purchased independently, and the average starting gold for wizards only increased by 25 from 3.5 to 5E (they also lost their starting crossbow, which accounts for the entire difference).
It's a dangerous road to use assumptions from previous editions for 5e. And I guess a lot of these "wizards get a spellbook for free" arguments come from precisely this assumption (though I started playing with BECMI, I'd stopped playing for 15 years when I came back with 5e, so I was mostly "fresh"). An assumption several times denied by Jereremy Crawford.

Again: what you suggest is not good DMing. It is penal to the player, particularly a beginner, creating a character at level 1.

Beginners, specially, should choose the equipment packages (which bypass this issue completely), they were designed with them in mind. If a beginner player was a Wizard and insisted on rolling, I'd warn him of the possible consequences of that decision (well, actually any player who insisted on rolling, but a beginner most specially).

Keltest

2024-07-24, 08:39 AM

Are you playing the future Archchancellor Ridcully?

diplomancer

2024-07-24, 08:49 AM

As I've said, the smallest of mechanical advantages, not worth sacrificing the flavournof a background, in my opinion. And as you can get a custom background with a feat and the best equipment package to sell and get that smallest of mechanical advantages, I don't see why you wouldn't. If a player came to me and said, on the other hand "I don't want a Feat, I just want my wizard to start with a Light Crossbow", I'd reassess my initial judgement.

As I've said, it would be my assumption. It can be revised, of course, I'm not infallible, and maybe this player really wanted a crossbow for roleplaying reasons. But I'd keep an eye on him until proven otherwise.

LudicSavant

2024-07-24, 08:55 AM

Note that you don't need to get anywhere near the best equipment package in order to have more than enough stuff to trade in at 50% sale value. Like, a Folk Hero can afford it no problem. Like I could understand if people were going like "oh geez that guy just took Inheritor because they wanted to start with Splint Mail" (see: stuff people do in Adventurer's League), but this is not even close to that.

In my experience, it's pretty normal for a party to have some gear they wanna trade or sell off when they are told to take preset starting packages. In fact, I find this to be true in pretty much any game where people take preset starting packages, not just D&D.

The spelles the wizard gets from his class, not copying from other spellbooks or scrolls, are free. In which case we are, in fact, getting it from our class.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-24, 08:57 AM

What if my backstory involves me being a Wizard with a light crossbow?
Inevitably it will have to. That's the thing about "I can optimize and roleplay at the same time". It's not that optimization prevents you from roleplaying, it's that if it's your primary goal, it necessarily dictates what you're going to roleplay.

Not everyone is open to a player being led by the nose by the games mechanics. I've asked to refluff stuff before because "hey, it's just words amirite?" and the DM has told me no. So this attitude is once again assumed for casters, even though it's not a guarantee.

KorvinStarmast

2024-07-24, 09:05 AM

A background is literally just a set of proficiencies, tools, and equipment, No, it is not just that. You are cherry picking there. You have chosen to ignore, from the background, role playing prompts in Traits, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws AND you add a feature.
The "feature" I refer to includes things like this from Outlander:

Wanderer
You have an excellent memory for maps and geography, and can always recall the general layout of terrain, settlements, and other features around you. In addition, you can find food and fresh water for yourself and up to five other people each day, provided the land offers berris, small game, water and so forth. In other words, no survival check needed in most wilderness areas. :smallwink:
I don't disagree with you that 'has a light crossbow' is a feature that any character might have in a custom background: work with your DM on the Feature aspect of that custom background.

Therefore these spells are free in his beginning spellbook (that he either gets from his equipment package or buys for 50gp) I guess that could work, but for a beginning player the quick build and standard equipment package is (IME) a superior approach.

It's a dangerous road to use assumptions from previous editions for 5e.
While I generally find that a reasonable position, JC has contradicted himself so frequently (see his {Scrubbed} SA change for the Shield Master feat as but one example) that citations of his become less reliable.

elyktsorb

2024-07-24, 09:07 AM

Inevitably it will have to. That's the thing about "I can optimize and roleplay at the same time". It's not that optimization prevents you from roleplaying, it's that if it's your primary goal, it necessarily dictates what you're going to roleplay.

I routinely play bad multiclasses for thematic reasons (or fun), it doesn't mean I'm not going to play them as optimally as I can.

No, it is not just that. You are cherry picking there. You have chosen to ignore, from the background, role playing prompts in Traits, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws AND you add a feature.
The "feature" I refer to includes things like this from Outlander:
In other words, no survival check needed in most wilderness areas. :smallwink:
I don't disagree with you that 'has a light crossbow' is a feature that any character might have in a custom background: work with your DM on the Feature aspect of that custom background.

Not really cherry picking, more so that those weren't relevant to the point, obviously your going to have those things as well. But we're talking about the specific circ*mstance of having mundane gear you might not be able to start with but will very easily be able to get after like, 1 in game encounter.

diplomancer

2024-07-24, 09:09 AM

Note that you don't need to get anywhere near the best equipment package in order to have more than enough. Like, a Folk Hero can afford it no problem.

For me this is very much a minor point, as the most relevant ruling the DM will have to do is whether to allow you to sell your starting equipment. Which background gives you enough money or not, I really don't care at all. I don't like allowing to sell starting equipment, because it just encourages players to get the most expensive equipment, and I don't want my players to go in that direction, I want them to choose the starting equipment that fits their vision of their character best. I want my wizard to choose the Scholar's Pack instead of the Explorer's Pack because he sees his character as more of an academic wizard than an adventuring, outdoorsy one, not because he can sell it for more gold (and even more if he sells stuff in it individually, way profit!). But I don't care about it enough to just say no, either. For me, the most interesting is the info it gives me on the player's style.

In which case we are, in fact, getting it from our class.

The spells, yes, and I've never said otherwise, though you have tried to argue that a wizard that uses their starting gold to buy their spellbook would have to pay for inscribing his spells, even though there are simply NO rules in the books that say this is necessary. The spellbook, from your class equipment package or from your starting gold. As Jeremy Crawford has very clearly stated.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-24, 09:10 AM

It's a dangerous road to use assumptions from previous editions for 5e. And I guess a lot of these "wizards get a spellbook for free" arguments come from precisely this assumption (though I started playing with BECMI, I'd stopped playing for 15 years when I came back with 5e, so I was mostly "fresh"). An assumption several times denied by Jereremy Crawford.

I mean, I'm definitely not arguing that they get a spellbook for free. I'm saying that, like many things in 5E, the starting gold variant is badly balanced. In this case I think it's because it's a carryover format from older editions. Wizards rolling d4s x 10 for starting gold has been around for a while; it was 2d4 x10 in AD&D, (d4+1) x 10 in 2e, and 3d4 x 10 in 3E. In all of those, it's part of the description that the wizard begins play with a spellbook independent of their starting equipment. 5E changes that and makes the spellbook part of the equipment package, which means it's possible to not start with one. That's the rule (in my view, as I've argued at length here), but that doesn't make it good and at my table, I wouldn't punish the player for the developers' failure to consider the downstream effects of their work.

While I generally find that a reasonable position, JC has contradicted himself so frequently (see his {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} SA change for the Shield Master feat as but one example) that citations of his become less reliable.

Yeah, I mean, personally I don't care at all about his rulings unless they appear in WotC-published errata. I'm not sure which I found more annoying: drow druids losing darkvision when wildshaped but retaining sunlight sensitivity, or monkadins not being able to divine smite with fists because fists aren't weapons but tabaxi paladins being able to smite with claws because claws are weapons.

diplomancer

2024-07-24, 09:13 AM

Agreed. Which is why I did not quote him until it was claimed in this thread, without any citation, that the devs have a position that they have actually ruled against. I then thought it necessary to clear up misconceptions by pointing out what Jeremy Crawford has actually said about it.

Just to make clear, Jeremy Crawford's rulings are:

When creating a character: Wizard either gets his spellbook from his Starting Equipment package, or buys it with his starting gold. He also clarifies, by the way, that the spellbook mentioned in the class feature, the one with six spells in it, is the very one you start with from your equipment package or by buying it for 50gp).

He has never ruled, nor was he asked about, what would happen on the corner case of someone who rolled 40gp, or even 50gp, for starting gold. Different DMs would rule differently. Some might even give it for free (the unlucky player is still 10gp short from an average roll, after alll), but this is not assured, and if you rolled, say, 70gp, yes I'd expect you to buy your book for 50gp and everything else with your meager 20 gold. It's the cost of gambling.

When multiclassing. Player and DM have to work together the details on how the Wizard acquired his spellbook.

What he has never ruled, be it when multiclassing or making a new character: "it's your class feature, you get it for free".

Clear, simple, not contradictory, and in line with RAW. Crawford may definitely have his bad rulings and flip-flops, but this is not one of them.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-24, 09:34 AM

For me, citing JC in this case is less about smacking someone down with an authority and more about demonstrating what most people's intuitive understanding will be when they read the PHB. I've never played with someone that has asked anything about this spellbook topic. The only time I've seen it come up is exactly in these threads where wizards need cash on hand asap at level 1 to purchase a crossbow. That's it.

I think common sense would tell us that it's not meant to be a source of income, it's meant to be your spellbook with your spells in it. And JC's reply would indicate to me that most people that are reading it that way are reading it correctly.

diplomancer

2024-07-24, 09:46 AM

100%. It never occured to me that the spellbook mentioned in the class feature is anything BUT the spellbok mentioned in the starting package (I very rarely see someone roll for gold. My brother did in a game we started recently, but it was his first time playing 5e coming straight from 2nd Edition. He rolled 140gp for his Ranger before I could say anything about it and I let him keep it).

LudicSavant

2024-07-24, 09:58 AM

It's all well and good if one prefers to play that way, but one shouldn't act like it's some sort of bizarre shenanigans to mention that people having light crossbows is a thing that exists.

This could be because they rolled for gold, it could be because they went to a merchant and sold or traded something they started with, it could be because they picked a background that had enough right out of the box, it could be because they borrowed it from the player who got a free one from their starting package but their hands are full of sword and board and they'd really rather have a thrown weapon, it could be because it was requisitioned, it could be that they looted it, it could be that they earned some money, it could even be that they crafted it. And yes, all of the above is assuming you pay 50gp for the book (which is what I've been going with this whole time, per my understanding of RAI).

I have literally seen all of these and more in so many real games that I could not possibly recall them all. Yet pages of discussion have been wasted on whether such an simple occurrence is possible at all (or worse, casting aspersions on whether a player with a crossbow cares about roleplaying, etc).

I for one intend to spend no more time on it. Suffice to say, it is possible for a wizard to have a crossbow. It happens in many real games, and yes, including AL. And if you do have starting equipment issues, then don't worry about it; starting equipment issues are by their nature short-lived, and the cheaper alternatives work fine.

The only time I've seen it come up is exactly in these threads where wizards need cash on hand asap at level 1 to purchase a crossbow. That's it.

Could that be because you yourself are the one who brings it up, as appears to be the case in this very thread, in post #62?

diplomancer

2024-07-24, 10:09 AM

It's all well and good if one prefers to play that way, but one shouldn't act like it's some sort of bizarre shenanigans to mention that people having light crossbows is a thing that exists.

This could be because they rolled for gold, it could be because they picked a background that had enough right out of the box, it could be because they borrowed it from the player who got a free one from their starting package but their hands are full of sword and board and they'd really rather have a thrown weapon, it could be because a soldier requisitioned it, it could be because they went to a merchant and sold or traded something they started with, it could be that they looted it, it could be that they earned some money, it could even be that they crafted it. And yes, all of the above is assuming you pay 50gp for the book.

I actually agree with all of this. Which is why I have been focusing more in this discussion on the false claim that Wizards get spellbooks for free "because it's their class feature".

Regarding crossbows, all I'll say is that it's not a given that Wizards will have one, even if they likely will if they want to (and this falls on Dark Forge's point bout the "accumulation of assumptions").

And just to make it absolutely clear: I have NEVER said or implied that "a player with a crossbow does not care about roleplaying". I'm not a binary thinker. I accumulate data points. A player who sells his starting equipment (mostly mechanically useless, but rounding out a character) to buy a Light Crossbow is such a data point, and, as such, interesting to me when I DM.

Could that be because you yourself are the one who brings it up, as appears to be the case in this very thread, in post #62?

In post #62, Dr. Samurai predicted the argument would appear in the thread. Like clockwork, it appeared, 20 posts later, in Blatant Beast's post #82. There was no connection between posts 62 and 82, 82 was a fresh start of the argument, answering a point from another post.

Amazing powers of prediction, Dr. Samurai!

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-24, 10:18 AM

I'm currently a wilderness guide in a homebrew hexcrawl. Orc totem barbarian with Outlander background. Idea is he was raised by wolves, and very good in the wilderness, but not quite a ranger.

The Wanderer feature helps him recall terrain and allows him to provide for the party he's guiding through the woods. Elk Aspect doubles our travel pace. Cartographer's Tools grant Advantage on certain Nature/Survival checks, and lets me draw a map while I'm navigating. Speak With Animals lets him get some limited intel from local beasts. Finally, we were allowed one minor magic item at character creation; a common sort of trinket. I chose the Traveler's Cloak; my vision can't be obscured by natural phenomenon.

Makes for a neat package that does well in the wilds. If I had to roll Survival to find food/water, my chances/yield wouldn't be great. But with Wanderer, I can do it, so long as the land provides :smallcool:.

LudicSavant

2024-07-24, 10:40 AM

I actually agree with all of this (*snip*)

Regarding crossbows, all I'll say is that it's not a given that Wizards will have one

Agreed; it is not a given.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-24, 11:05 AM

Similarly, all I'll say is that when having discussions about class capability in a vacuum, the discussion needs to rely as much on the rules on the page as possible. While there are several ways a character could get a crossbow, most of them require something happening after character creation or with the active assistance of the DM or another player. That makes them less useful for level 1 discussions absent the context of encounters and game state. While using a particular background is a perfectly fine solution, there is an often unacknowledged opportunity cost there. I don't think it's acceptable to simply handwave the situation away.

diplomancer

2024-07-24, 11:32 AM

I do agree with this as well. "White room discussions" should assume a wizard doesn't have a crossbow. In practice, pretty much all wizards who do want to get a crossbow, will get one. Also in practice, few wizard players DO want to get one (meaning, they are not going to go out of their way to get it, even if the more mechanicalliy inclined will use one if it falls in their hands).

Even then, it's also not very relevant. 1d8+2 with a +4 to hit simply does not compare to 1d10+3 with a plus 7 to hit (or, if you want to REALLY out-damage a wizard, 1d12+4 with a +8 to hit; or 1d12+3 + 1d12+3 with a +5 to hit. Yes, those take feats. But they are good feats for Martials to take, and no Wizard would take them, and there is no equivalent feat for casters that a Wizard could take at level 1 to increase his damage).

Hael

2024-07-24, 11:53 AM

Didnt we already have a thread about lvl1 wizard damage a few months ago?

The right way to look at it, is to ask how much added damage does a wizard contribute to a large party relative to some other primary damage dealer (say a barbarian) if they were replaced by him.

The answer is that they are quite competitive, indeed will outperform them in most monster and party combat distributions (especially true as the party size gets big). An owl familiar adds about ~50% dpr to the parties rogue alpha strike every turn. Their 3 shots of sleep adds an enormous amount of damage to the party (you can either think about that damage as a pure value added, or at the very least you can attribute 40-50% damage due to the advantage rolls). And even that is discounting a wizards role, as sleep essentially removes a probability of death for each character per round, and dead players do no damage. Their primary attacks are all ranged of course (so in practice a lower dpr ranged weapon or cantrip will catch up to a heavy melee range weapon over the course of a day).

You might say that this is mixing up support and damage. But thats a bit of a false dichotomy, you cannot really separate them so cleanly.

diplomancer

2024-07-24, 12:16 PM

Didnt we already have a thread about lvl1 wizard damage a few months ago?

The right way to look at it, is to ask how much added damage does a wizard contribute to a large party relative to some other primary damage dealer (say a barbarian) if they were replaced by him.

You might say that this is mixing up support and damage. But thats a bit of a false dichotomy, you cannot really separate them so cleanly.

What you're saying is true, but it also makes the discussion impossible. After all, if we're going to factor that, we also have to factor in the ammount of hits the frontliners will tank with their better AC and hit points, for instance. It's better to keep damage estimates separately, even though we recognize that it's ultimately an abstraction from table play.

LudicSavant

2024-07-24, 01:11 PM

In practice, pretty much all wizards who do want to get a crossbow, will get one. But Lolth forbid we ever mention even off-handedly that this is one of the options that exist. I am moving on from this tangent.

So, to the general topic: Who's stronger at low levels? Martials or casters?

As I said before, the answer is neither, (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=26047060&postcount=68) there are strong and weak low level builds in both categories, and among the strong ones, everything has their good and bad matchups.

9/13 classes are some variety of casters, and they can be built in so many different ways that it's not particularly useful to make generalizations about their role. One caster might be a squishy who can't figure out anything useful to do with their spells, another might be a utility monkey who doesn't give a toss about direct damage, another might be a War Cleric with Sharpshooter who has spells boosting the party on top of kicking teeth in with up to 2 attacks, and then getting a +10 channel divinity the very next level, and another still might decide they'd rather be a superior horde clearer by being a Light Cleric throwing out fat radius sculpted AoEs (in addition to spells) from level 2. And hordes are serious business; they're some of the most likely to actually have the action economy to finish off PCs.

diplomancer

2024-07-24, 01:37 PM

But Lolth forbid we ever mention even off-handedly that this is one of the options that exist. I am moving on from this tangent.

So, to the general topic: Who's stronger at low levels? Martials or casters?

In the end, it's a problem of the parameters of the discussion. You correctly point out that "martials" and "casters" vary too widely to make such a comparison. Acknowledging this truth, we have a few options.

1- throw our hands up and say "this argument is pointless": probably the wisest and most accurate attitude, but we come here to discuss these points. A variant of 1, that at least allows us to talk about the subject, is the sharing of our table's experiences. Which is alright as long as it's recognized that we are not trying to convince each other, but just to share experiences. In that spirit, as someone who enjoys playing both martials and casters, I do say I feel weaker in Tier 1 as a Caster than as a Martial, and that it's around level 6 or 7 that I feel we're about even; but I don't think my own experience proves anything.
2- confining ourselves to generalities, aware of the limitations of the generalities (and then we have to discuss the parameters of the generalities. "Are we considering Wizards with crossbows?", "are we considering dual wielding small Custom Lineage riding a mule and fighting with two lances?", etc) Whether something useful can be gleaned from these generic discussions, different people will have different opinions.
3- throwing up the generalities and going to the specifics. But this is, in my opinion at least, impossible. There are too many variables, too many different builds, too many different enemies (and different builds will perform better with different enemies).

I feel that you believe path number 3 would be the most useful, but I confess the enormity of the task daunts me.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-24, 01:51 PM

The right way to look at it, is to ask how much added damage does a wizard contribute to a large party relative to some other primary damage dealer (say a barbarian) if they were replaced by him.
Why is this the right way to look at it?

The answer is that they are quite competitive, indeed will outperform them in most monster and party combat distributions (especially true as the party size gets big).
What combat distributions are you imagining?

An owl familiar adds about ~50% dpr to the parties rogue alpha strike every turn.
But what if it was the rogue that was replaced by a wizard?

Their 3 shots of sleep adds an enormous amount of damage to the party (you can either think about that damage as a pure value added, or at the very least you can attribute 40-50% damage due to the advantage rolls). And even that is discounting a wizards role, as sleep essentially removes a probability of death for each character per round, and dead players do no damage. Their primary attacks are all ranged of course (so in practice a lower dpr ranged weapon or cantrip will catch up to a heavy melee range weapon over the course of a day).
But what if it's a group of goblins that are all spread out in ducking into and out of tunnels like was posited earlier? How do you take out a group with Sleep like that?

You might say that this is mixing up support and damage. But thats a bit of a false dichotomy, you cannot really separate them so cleanly.
I would say that the contributions of someone that can take more hits and kill things in 1-2 strikes is being severely underplayed, and the contribution of a 1hp owl is being greatly overplayed. Sleep also is a dice roll, and 1 of 6 spells that can be used. And while here on the forums it's easy to assume that a caster will refrain from using any 1st level spells until it's exactly the right time, and then that spell will for sure be Sleep, in actual play wizards use other spells too.

In the end, it's a problem of the parameters of the discussion. You correctly point out that "martials" and "casters" vary too widely to make such a comparison.
Eh... the parameters are never too general for caster supremacy discussions right? Over and over and over again. To make the same tired caster supremacy points.

Here... we can't even agree that martials use weapons better than casters at low levels lol. I daresay the issue isn't with the parameters.

LudicSavant

2024-07-24, 02:17 PM

I feel that you believe path number 3 would be the most useful, but I confess the enormity of the task daunts me.

I do not think #3 is impossible, but putting that aside for a moment:

I think the most useful and constructive path is to explain strategies and tools that the OP might be able to use in order to have a better experience with casters than they have described having, which is why that's what I was attempting to do on page 1.

There has been some discussion about what (insert completely made up percentage) of players do, or what a "typical" player would do. I do not consider measuring the power of this to be particularly helpful; if someone is not playing near the skill ceiling (and most players aren't), then balance is not the principle concern, even a small improvement in piloting skill will often make a larger difference than class choice.

diplomancer

2024-07-24, 02:48 PM

I do not think #3 is impossible, but putting that aside for a moment:

And while I commend you for it, I also point out that many of the tactics you've suggested on page 1 have been simply "nope'd" by different DMs when I've tried to use them. The most recent one was using Shape Water to break a lock and get to the other side. Creative use of cantrips is a particular point where DMs rulings vary widely. (Which is another variable that complicates #3 even further). I guess I could have stopped the game and tried to browbeat the DM into accepting my idea (he knows, and is grateful for it, that I know the rules better than he does, allows him to focus on the story and roleplaying), but I'm not that sort of player.

Maybe you don't mean it, but it's very hard to not read you say "playing near the skill ceiling" to mean "playing with all caster shenanigans implemented (fully accepted by the DM, naturally, it's casters and we're top D&D players after all, he should accept our readings)".

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-24, 02:58 PM

Yeah I don't accept the notion that if you're not playing at the "skill ceiling" then balance is not a question. Just seems to me to try and frame this around optimizer thinking. Also, it doesn't preclude people from making observations.

And if we're accepting that most tables are not playing the skill ceiling, then I'm not sure why we'd just dismiss those observations.

LudicSavant

2024-07-24, 03:35 PM

Don't browbeat your DM. Do keep being creative. If one plan doesn't work, adapt.

Blatant Beast

2024-07-24, 05:12 PM

1-"On page 114 of the PHB, under wizard's abilities, it states a wizard has a spellbook. Would that mean it is free then?"

JC's answer:

2- "so if you opt for the starting gold, you have to pay the 50 gold for the spellbook?"

JC's answer:

It really doesn't get clearer tham this.

Twitter responses...really? Firstly, JC's Twitter responses are pretty horrible. Secondly, I couldn't give a flying fig what Jeremey rules.. there is ample evidence that JC losses the plot, especially in Twitter/Live responses. Just, Get that pachouli stink, out of my store.

The Spellbook feature is part of a class abillity called Spellcasting. The Wizard, also technically would get a Spellbook from starting equipment, if that is the equipment generation method one is using. We are not talking some obscure interaction...it is written in black and white ink, and seems pretty clear to me.

Call me an old school DM, I think and make my own decisions.
You, are of course free to run, and rule your game however you would like. If you want to base your game off JC tweets while sitting on the porcelain throne...good luck!

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-24, 05:36 PM

Everyone is thinking and making their own decisions.

Everyone is reading the same text and drawing their own conclusions.

It just so happens that a developer from WotC also happens to be reading that text in the same common sense way that other people are reading it. Worth noting.

Evaar

2024-07-24, 05:58 PM

I would instead read that to point towards awareness of facts like a level 1 wizard using a dagger in each hand is very capable of killing a goblin in melee combat without dismissing it as something no one would do because ????

Like, this is a thread where the original post makes the case that martials are stronger than casters and cites as evidence the idea that level 4 and 5 spells arent very good. One way to help a person understand they are undervaluing something is to explain the various ways that thing can be used that they hadnt considered. In this case, the thing is a spellcaster.

But then {Scrubbed} we got a multipage argument over whether someone said a Wizard makes martials obsolete at level 1 by using a crossbow, which no one ever said but of course that wasnt the point of having the argument.

Anyway. Ludic understands tactical gameplay very well and doesnt allow preconceived notions of what a class should do obscure what a class CAN do. Thats how one plays a game like this skillfully.

Kane0

2024-07-24, 05:58 PM

From levels 1-4 my high elf artificer was absolutely using a crossbow instead of ray of frost. Now he has extra attack and a lightning launcher though, so that dex bonus is mostly just for initiative rolls and the odd tool check.

diplomancer

2024-07-24, 05:59 PM

You were the first to bring up Jeremy Crawford in this thread, so excuse me if I find your dismissal of him now a tad too convenient; as I've already said, I only brought him up once the authority of the devs was wrongfully claimed to support your position, when it's pretty clear, from the tweets, that it is not true. I'm sure you're sorry to hear that they disagree with you, since you were the first to claim that obviously the devs intended wizards to get spellbooks for free, and I can't help but notice that you prefer to be offensive than to acknowledge that the "the devs agree with me" argument that YOU brought up is, well, FALSE.

Rule how you want in your games, sure. Give them infinite spellbooks at level 1 for all I care (it's what's logically entailed by your position, if you can't see that, then that's on you). But don't assume all DMs will rule like you, that your rulings are the only correct ones, or that your rulings can be used to justify assuming wizards will have enough gold in every table to buy a crossbow (which is what you said, and started this whole tangent).

LudicSavant

2024-07-24, 06:06 PM

Ye. I will also add that I like Ray of Frost a lot more as a low level choice than some of the other attack cantrips, there are a surprising number of monsters that a simple speed decrease wrecks havoc on.

Dork_Forge

2024-07-24, 06:58 PM

I mean, using Custom Background you can get 60gp from selling back starting equipment at half price. And that'll buy you any starting weapon aside from a Hand Crossbow or a Double Bladed Scimitar

Sure, with the caveat that the DM let's you do that before the adventure starts and let's you do it at all. Some DMs won't be into selling starting equipment before you've even started and the rules on selling treasure have clauses like 'as a general rule' 'Normally you can sell' and 'provided that you can find buyers and merchants.'

Typically a merchant who sells adventuring gear will also buy the same gear from you at half the price since that's simply great business for them - make 50% profit with very little effort.

This is really not based in anything but you saying it?

The rules don't seem to say that, and the logic you're seeming basing this on is heavily flawed. You're saying they would of course deal in second hand gear from individual sellers and that they would then turn around and sell them at the full price of a new item. The latter half in particular seems more like video game trader logic than anything else.

Yes. It's an edge case, see my Warlock examples. :smallsmile: (Also, it's great to see you posting here again! :smallsmile: )

Heya Korvin, good to see ya. :) It's good to be back! Just been busy with work and other endeavors, but you know I can't resist a good ol' caster vs martial thread ;)

I like the idea of a reaction that would reduce damage to the fighter, like brace or block or something, but would also allow a Fighter to take a hit for a nearby ally. Useful for themselves and their teammates, but with inherent trade offs.

100%. It never occured to me that the spellbook mentioned in the class feature is anything BUT the spellbok mentioned in the starting package (I very rarely see someone roll for gold.

Very much agree with both of these ^

And this, the handwaving adds up quickly. It's also these kind of handwaves that lead to, imo, part of the 'nothing to spend all this gold on' problem some tables face as levels increase. The party wealth swells quickly because expenses are dismissed here and there again and again.

I agree with this tack too, especially since it quickly becomes about niche or not representative things. This goes for martials too, in an argument a martial certainly could have Misty Step and Find Familiar etc. but most won't, so it's not best to handwave they will for the sake of your side winning. They can, and a Wizard can have a crossbow, but they most likely won't.

Didnt we already have a thread about lvl1 wizard damage a few months ago?

Threads are very cyclical.

The right way to look at it, is to ask how much added damage does a wizard contribute to a large party relative to some other primary damage dealer (say a barbarian) if they were replaced by him.

If the question is only about the damage comparison, then yes this is how to do it.

You might say that this is mixing up support and damage. But thats a bit of a false dichotomy, you cannot really separate them so cleanly.

But this, this is not how to do it. If you're going to compare damage, then compare damage. You're attributing a 50% Rogue damage increase to a familiar, but said Barbarian could shove a creature prone and increase a bunch of people's damage by the same metric. But that Barbarian isn't doing damage. The same way a Cleric isn't doing damage by casting Bless.

But I can't really take any of this seriously because it's steeped so deeply in white room assumptions:

- 3 castings of Sleep? So that Wizard is not casting Mage Armor then, or Shield, or any other leveled spell for combat or utility. Nevermind the assumption that Sleep will always be relevant. Plenty of monsters that it won't work on, plenty of times that the formation of everyone + initiative makes it a terrible idea.

- The Find Familiar on the Rogue is also over the top. It's assuming the Rogue wasn't already getting advantage from Hiding or something else like a distracting strike. Also assumes that familiar isn't dying with a quickness, either from combat or scouting, and that initiative is favourable so that boosting the Rogue even works at all. Oh yeah, and if the Rogue would have hit without advantage and doesn't crit on the second die, it's not actually a damage boost at all, is it? Impressive claim, foundations of paper mache.

- You also make the claim that a ranged attack will catch up to harder hitting melee attacks over the course of the day. Whilst also proclaiming how amazing Sleep is, which would prone the monsters you're shooting at. Making melee the better choice by far. Oh, and monsters getting into melee, what with their frequently higher movement speeds.

This post is basically saying that the Wizard will raise everyone's damage whilst simultaneously keeping them alive, a claim I don't find compelling from the skinny guy in a robe with an AC of 12.

Twitter responses...really? Firstly, JC's Twitter responses are pretty horrible.

I agree that JC's tweets are often really stupid and make him look bad.

However, when people start using 'what the devs have said' to back what they're saying, without any evidence, then pointing to what the dev actually said seems very relevant to the discussion.

Edit for the posts added since I was writing:

Some would do it, intentionally going into melee as a d6 caster with low to mid AC is generally not a good idea and many if not most Wizards won't even have a +3 Dex.

But then {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} we got a multipage argument over whether someone said a Wizard makes martials obsolete at level 1 by using a crossbow, which no one ever said but of course that wasnt the point of having the argument.

Bolded for emphasis. All I've seen to the contrary is attempts at discussion, saying people are acting in bad faith simply because you don't like what they're saying ain't great.

Anyway. Ludic understands tactical gameplay very well and doesnt allow preconceived notions of what a class should do obscure what a class CAN do. Thats how one plays a game like this skillfully.

I'm going to pass on the appeal to authority to random guy on internet. This kind of stuff is how you stop thinking for yourself, just because you like how a particular poster thinks and works does not mean that others will, and it does not mean that their suggestions apply to other tables.

To be fair, what bucket the Artificer falls in varies pretty heavily on their subclass and choice of play. They aren't a 'caster' by default by how I split it, that's for sure.

diplomancer

2024-07-24, 07:22 PM

Anyway. Ludic understands tactical gameplay very well and doesnt allow preconceived notions of what a class should do obscure what a class CAN do. Thats how one plays a game like this skillfully.

1-Ludic doesn't need you to defend them.

2- I don't dispute Ludic's mastery of the game nor their optimization skills, and have in fact learned a lot from their posts, specially on the builds threads, which I have acknowledged several times.

3- on the other hand, I don't see them as an authority of the rules of the game, and am of the opinion that, when it comes to rules and their interpretation, Ludic tends to make very positive statements but then fails to back them up (twice so far in this very thread, I believe). I'm a lawyer by training, so I'll go with my own intepretation skills of different rules, thank you very much.

{Scrubbed}

LudicSavant

2024-07-24, 07:30 PM

Mimics, basilisks, awakened trees, gelatinous cubes, gibbering mouthers, animated armors... there are just so many monsters that slow down to next to nothing when hit by a plain ol' Ray of Frost, especially at low level.

Edit: @Diplomancer, I am happy to back up any statement I have made (provided it is, in fact, a statement I have made and not something stripped of all nuance and paraphrased beyond recognition); is there something you want a response on?

Witty Username

2024-07-24, 08:01 PM

I second that,
had a fun fight awhile back where we used death lasers* on three cubes too death, we got surrounded but with a mix of Eldritch blast warlock and the most useless of all wizard's but had ray of frost (me) we got out with minimal damage.

*Eldritch blasts, Ray of Frost, sacred flame I think, and a homebrew monk but was pretty similar to sun soul for this particular fight

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-24, 08:06 PM

I mentioned that in my experience barbarians are gods and casters... well they die easily and aren't really killing things very easily. That's my experience. This is rebutted with some scenario about goblins using shortbows, and then a claim that wizards can kill goblins in melee just fine.

The thing is... that's not actually the point, even if it seems like it is. Because as a general playstyle, you're not going to see most wizards wading into melee to fight goblins (or any other monsters for that matter) with a dagger.

The point is ***technically*** true, and at the same time wholly irrelevant. If a goblin makes it to a wizard and the wizard chooses to attack it with a dagger, that's fine. But if the entire rest of the time the wizard is using cantrips until the goblin closes in, that is the actual point that's relevant. Ludic himself said only one the last wizard he played did and only did occasionally, so when we're making general observations, these types of comments are not really relevant. It is very easy to see that 1d4+2+1d4 will kill a goblin on average. But unless the wizard is primarily doing that, it doesn't really matter. I'm not assuming a barbarian in melee because occasionally, one barbarian I played happened to dabble in melee combat. That's what barbarians do, so that's what we're talking about.

Anyway. Ludic understands tactical gameplay very well and doesnt allow preconceived notions of what a class should do obscure what a class CAN do. Thats how one plays a game like this skillfully.
We all understand tactical gameplay. It's the table/game assumptions where there is disagreement.

diplomancer

2024-07-24, 08:12 PM

If you insist...

Obviously, this is not intended, and we know that because the devs have straight up told us that the intent is that you start with a spellbook whether you can afford it or not

The devs have never said that, and in fact the one dev that was asked about it specifically said otherwise.

Keep in mind that he corrects himself on this very point in a later tweet.

Now, I'm aware that your interpretation of those tweets differs from mine, and ascribes to Jeremy Crawford the conclusion that wizard's spellbooks exist in quantum states. I believe your interpretation is wrong, and that my interpretation (given in post 176, if you're interested), which does not involve quantum states, is correct, but I'm pretty sure I won't convince you otherwise, and so won't try to convince you otherwise. But that's not my point. My point is that your posts were far more positive than what's entailed by what Jeremy Crawford actually wrote. Someone who, believing you to be a good rules authority, read them, and did not read the tweets, would assume that the ruling Crawford gave was far clearer than your interpretation of them.

LudicSavant

2024-07-24, 08:23 PM

Ludic himself said only one wizard he played did
This is of course not what I actually said. You twisted "the last one I played" to "the only one I played."

This seems to be an ever-present pattern for you. I request that you please quote me, as you, spefically, seem to never paraphrase me accurately.

The devs have never said that, and in fact the one dev that was asked about it specifically said you don't.

He specifically said that you *do not have a spellbook if you cannot afford the typical 50gp price?*

Please back this claim up.

In his tweets, he continually reiterates that a wizard has a spellbook, period. Including in the sentences you opted not to quote.

diplomancer

2024-07-24, 08:34 PM

He specifically said that you *do not have a spellbook if you cannot afford the typical 50gp price?*

Please back this claim up.

No. You back up your own claim first. Show when Jeremy Crawford said that a level 1 Wizard gets a spellbook for free if he can't afford it. Once you've backed up your claim, I will back up mine. But I am nothing if not generous, I'll give you a hint. The backup for my claim Is on my post 125.

And again, I have no interest in changing your mind. Just demonstrating that your claims, based on your quantum interpretation, were far more positive than what the actual tweets entailed. This can be done, by anyone interested in the matter, by looking up posts 115, 121, 124, 125, and 127.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-24, 08:50 PM

This is of course not what I actually said. Many of my wizards have dual-wielded, including the most recent one I played at low level. You have then twisted this from "the last one I played" to "the only one I played."
I just checked, you're right. I apologize. Still, it's strange that for such a sticking point, you wouldn't have just claimed that "many" of your wizards dual-wield daggers, as opposed to the last one, adding the qualifier "occasionally".

Doesn't pass the sniff test for me, but you are right that I mischaracterized what you said. I will edit in a correction.

This seems to be an ever-present pattern for you. I request that you please quote me, as you, spefically, seem to never paraphrase me accurately.
I don't quote you because I don't want to engage with you. If we're making requests of each other, I request that you speak more clearly, not vaguely, include examples of the claims you're making, and clarify for readers whether you are trying to rebut a claim or simply just stating a technical fact of the game. Seems strange to me that there is so much back and forth about weapon using casters killing monsters with crossbows and daggers, only for the same people to turn around with their hands up saying "I'm not saying casters use weapons as well or better than martials" "I'm not saying they are more or as lethal". Ok, so you're just saying that they can use weapons? We know. We can read their proficiencies lol.

Please back this claim up.
The irony is over 9000...

Also, I missed this bit earlier but just found it when I looked for Ludic's post:

Could that be because you yourself are the one who brings it up, as appears to be the case in this very thread, in post #62?
I love the suggestion that I'm secretly implanting this idea into the minds of the people that disagree with me. I suppose one way to win an argument is to get people to die on the hill of your choosing lol.

Amazing powers of prediction, Dr. Samurai!
Lol, many thanks :smallbiggrin:

But you know as well as I do that the foundations for a lot of these caster claims are based on people shrugging their shoulders and making it so. "Hey... if I read this spellbook text a certain way..."

LudicSavant

2024-07-24, 09:07 PM

Forgive me if I have missed it, but I do not see anything in post 125 that indicates that he specifically acknowledged any circ*mstance where a wizard does not have a spellbook, despite being asked about such possibilities many, many times. Instead, he repeatedly emphasizes that they have one, including in the sentence you chose to omit. He says that the spellcasting feature means that they have a spellbook. He then talks about the ways this could come about. "You don't get one" does not appear to be on the list of options.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-24, 09:11 PM

In his tweets, he continually reiterates that a wizard has a spellbook, period. Including in the sentences you opted not to quote.

To be clear, I was the one who incorrectly omitted that sentence from the quote. It's also important to note the context that you're leaving out: a character multiclassing into wizard has a spellbook, which they have to acquire in some way, and they should work with their DM to determine how they acquired it. (It's a completely valid read, based on those tweets, that you can't multiclass into wizard without one, but that'd be a classic nutty JC ruling.) His tweets about the character creation process and first level, which you're ignoring for some reason, do not leave a lot of room for interpretation: you either get the book from your starting equipment package or you buy it with your starting gold.

Are you serious? He specifically says that you either get the one from the starting equipment package or you buy one with your starting gold. He's literally directly asked if you have to buy one with your starting gold, and says yes. If you're reading this in any other way than 'yes, you have to buy one with your starting gold if you elect not to use the equipment plus background package', you're wrong, the end.

diplomancer

2024-07-24, 09:17 PM

I did not omit any sentence, and quoted, verbatim, on post 125, everything he ever ruled on a 1st level wizard and his spellbook. More relevantly, I quoted the specific questions he's anwswering. But before going into my post 125, will you please back up your own claim, that he anywhere has stated that a 1st level wizard starts with a spellbook even if he can't afford one?

Not holding my breath, but I WILL remind you and everyone else that you've said you'd be "happy to back up" any statemnents you've made, and, instead of doing just that, you prefer to attack my claims. I will get to my claims, in due course of time (the hint is still there, but you've missed it. I'm sure you're smart enough to find it) after you've defended yours.

LudicSavant

2024-07-24, 09:20 PM

I just checked, you're right. I apologize. Thank you, this means a lot to me. I do not mind at all how much you disagree with me, I only request that my claims are actually, you know, mine.

doesn't pass a sniff test {Scrubbed}

But sure, if you want proof, you can search the forum history and seen that I've talked about said wizards before.

LudicSavant

2024-07-24, 09:47 PM

To be clear, I was the one who incorrectly omitted that sentence from the quote. My bad. I'm currently checking here from my phone cuz I'm headed to a convention so scrolling around for stuff's a pain (and I am not sure where post numbers are on the mobile version of the site). Sorry Diplomancer!

I am aware that he is replying to a question about multiclassing. I read his intent as being that you are meant to work out with your DM how you acquire the spellbook should exigent circ*mstances, such as multiclassing, somehow prevent you from the typical methods of obtaining one.

Incidentally, I see a lot of people on both sides claiming in various levels of intensity that it clearly says (their interpretation). I am thus inclined to agree with Diplomancer that said tweet's intention is, perhaps, less clear than I gave it credit for.

Are you serious? He specifically says that you either get the one from the starting equipment package or you buy one with your starting gold.

He says the spellcasting feature means a wizard has the spellbook. I take that at face value to mean all wizards, not just multiclass ones, level 1 or otherwise. Typically you get it from starting package or spending 50gp, but when questioned about exigent circ*mstances that could call into question how you get the book, he continuously reiterates that you have a spellbook, lists ways that can happen, and does not appear to acknowledge "they don't have one" as an option despite this being a common question he's asked about.

If there is somewhere that he acknowledges they might not have one, I would genuinely like to see it, because I missed it, and will be the first to admit that I was wrong if so.

I will also reiterate again that I believe the intent is that you pay the 50gp in basically all rolling circ*mstances except rolling quadruple 1s on your gold roll (in which case paying 50gp is impossible)

For now, gotta go! Convention time :)

Not holding my breath, but I WILL remind you and everyone else that you've said you'd be "happy to back up" any statemnents you've made

I thought I just did, but I will briefly reiterate (because I really do need to go): he says in the tweets quoted that the spellcasting feature means a wizard has a spellbook. I feel that this is pretty straightforward, you obviously disagree.

If you disagree with my reasoning that's fine, but I am not sure why you are acting as if I haven't already spent well over an hour providing you explanation of my position, that several other posters seemed to follow.
Now I really do have to go!

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-24, 09:55 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
{Scrubbed} I just don't like having these conversations, where the information that is relevant to the claim you are making comes out extremely piecemeal over many back and forths across a bunch of posts. It's frustrating and exhausting. If you play many wizards that dual wield daggers as you say, then say it. Obviously a bunch of us are claiming that people don't do this because they die. If you're going to rebut that, then give us the examples. How do you survive?

Instead, your posts are like "well wizards can do this", and then after a bunch of push back "well my last wizard did it occasionally" and then after a mischaracterization "many of my wizards do it". A lot of time can be saved if you don't stretch this painfully out over a bunch of pages. The premise is low level wizards are not going to go around dual wielding because melee will be very dangerous for them. If you think this is not true and also you've played many low level wizards that do this, then go ahead and explain. It will go along way to clearing everything up.

The fact that it takes until page 7 to just come out and say "Yeah, I've played many of these types of wizards" strikes me as being very coy for some reason. And obviously the next question is going to be "how does your low level wizard not die in melee while dual wielding". Maybe you're used to people just taking your word as authority, I don't know, but in conversations like these, where you're going to dispute claims with your own claims, people expect some form of explanation.

Tanarii

2024-07-24, 10:12 PM

Add Long Rest instead of short rest resources on top of that for Wiz/Sorc/Bard, and they're not only going to be in more danger throughout the adventuring day, they're also going to gas out when they push past it. And IMX players will pretty much always push past the adventuring day.

Ignimortis

2024-07-24, 10:34 PM

Six AC difference? A typical "squishy" caster is sitting at 15 to 16 AC (no shield,.Mage Armor+DEX). A typical "non-squishy" caster is sitting at the same AC as a martial with a shield on - 18 AC, both Cleric and Fighter start with a Chain Mail if they can, the worst a Cleric could be is 14 AC if they're somehow DEX-based and take Leather Armor instead of Scale Mail. In fact, the worst off is the Druid which starts with Leather Armor, mandatorily, which means they may start with 15 AC while using a Shield. Edit: No wait, that would be Bard at 13 AC (leather+14 DEX). That's the worst AC I could possibly see being played as a caster. Still only 3 AC behind a typical 2H Fighter, though. Can get to 6 in extreme cases where you both have a Bard and a shield Fighter with Defense style, I suppose?

However, a Rogue also starts with Leather Armor and 16 dex, so they would have 14 AC. A Fighter starts with Scale Mail and possibly a Shield (except using a shield is much less conducive to many Fighter concepts than it is to many caster concepts), for 16 to 18 AC. A Monk, in the best situation possible barring sky-high rolled stats, starts at 15-16 AC with maybe another +2 from Kensai's parry.

In short, the difference is usually...maybe 3 AC for the best martial defense (shield+defense style vs squishy caster AC) and average caster AC. Sometimes it's zero. To get to 6 AC difference at tier 1, you'd need to furnish the martial with a full plate ASAP (in any game I've been in, a full suit of plate is considered at least a level 5 to 6 item, you get it around the point you would also get Extra Attack and Fireball), with a shield, and somehow avoid giving a druid with 12 DEX any upgrades or have a non-DEX-focused Bard in the same party.

Now, HP difference is real. Starting with 8 and another party member being at 12 or even 14 matters a lot. But it evens out somewhat (32 vs ~42 is a much lesser gap) by level 5 already, so it's only a Tier 1 concern.

RSP

2024-07-24, 11:05 PM

He says the spellcasting feature means a wizard has the spellbook. I take that at face value to mean all wizards, not just multiclass ones, level 1 or otherwise.

This reading is interesting in that it assumes a Wizard can never not have a spellbook; which appears contradictory to the sidebar which specifically discusses replacing a lost spellbook. So, either a) As a student of arcane magic, you have a spellbook containing spells that show the first glimmerings of your true power is false, and not a part of the ability; or If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place is meaningless, as Wizards cannot lose their spellbook, as its part of their Spellcasting ability.

Personally, I find it difficult to believe the designers intent here was Wizards can never not have a spellbook, and they just did a poor job of writing the ability. I also believe the intent is multiclassing into the class essentially has the additional prerequisite (in addition to Int 13) of owns a spellbook.

Witty Username

2024-07-24, 11:22 PM

This reading is interesting in that it assumes a Wizard can never not have a spellbook
Not necessarily, a warlock can lose a pact weapon, tome or familiar. but is assumed to gain one when they gain the feature associated. And they also have information on how to replace such things.

Ok, so you're just saying that they can use weapons? We know. We can read their proficiencies lol.

I mean, you make the argument that martials are better than casters because weapon damage is better than cantrip damage. And then argue against casters using weapons because most people don't actually use them that way. Along with people getting all mad because a wizard having a crossbow offends holy writ or whatever. It leaves an impression.

Also the gap will be different from martial to martial. Like say a fighter with dueling will compare more favorably than say a barbarian, assuming similar loadouts.
And notably crossbow will match a one-handed weapon if one is hanging their hat on that shield proficiency.
--
Mage armor is a pretty tall order at 1, at that level a wizard is a double barreled shotgun with legs. Emptying a barrel into the wall before the fighting has even started needs a real good reason:
That could be a sleep that clears a firing squad of kobolds.
A burning hands that breaches a hobgoblin testudo.
A magic missile to save the barbarian from sucking his lunch through a straw all day because the DM thought a shadow was a fair level 1 encounter.

RSP

2024-07-24, 11:52 PM

Not necessarily, a warlock can lose a pact weapon, tome or familiar. but is assumed to gain one when they gain the feature associated. And they also have information on how to replace such things.

Warlock is worded differently: their Patron gifts them something. Nothing inherent in that wording means its always present: just that at level three theyre given a something.

The wording in question for Spellbooks is that you actively have it. Whether youre just getting out of the shower, or in prison, level 1 or level 20, by virtue of having the Wizard Spellcasting ability, you have a Spellbook, because thats what the feature says you have (like an Elf has Darkvision because their feature says they have it).

Witty Username

2024-07-24, 11:59 PM

like an Elf has Darkvision because their feature says they have it.

Just because a feature says they have it doesn't mean they cannot lose it.

Unless you mean a elf that as lost their eyes would still have darkvision. In which case I think our disagreements are too fundamental to be understood in English.

Blatant Beast

2024-07-25, 02:42 AM

You were the first to bring up Jeremy Crawford in this thread, so excuse me if I find your dismissal of him now a tad too convenient.

Please notice, I am disparaging JCs Twitter responses, (and their D&D Celebration live rules failure on Conditions from a few years ago), only.

I am not disparaging official press releases or Todd Kendrick/JC product interviews, (but gadsthose are usually overly long).

Even JC himself has disavowed his Twitter and Sage Advice responses in a Todd Kendrick interview saying, (approximately), my words are not meant as weaponsbecause as we can see in internet discussions, and presumably in gamessome segment of the player base scours his non consistent posts and cherry picks the bits to use as the basis for rules arguments.

Apparently this happens so much, JC had to make a video disavowing the practice.

So my disdain for JC tweets is anything but convenient.indeed I would love for the lead designer to be a reliable source of judgement on rulings, but alas, in terms of his Twitter responses.he has not been.

Now, to those now claiming that by RAW, this means a Wizard can never be without a spellbookI find that interpretation to be incorrect, and to be honest a little silly.
The Spellbook section of the Wizards spellcasting delineates At 1st level, which I interpret to mean a new Wizard receives one spellbook for free, once.

After that, any subsequent blank spellbooks have to be purchased.

rel

2024-07-25, 02:47 AM

OP's argument doesn't ring true to me.

Two of the 3 pillars that make up the default game are not combat. In other words, challenges that cannot be solved by dealing X HP of damage to thing Y.

For dealing with such challenges, muggles get skills, which are unreliable and limited in scope. I have yet to see a skill allow someone to bring back the dead, predict the future, travel to heaven, or cross a continent in a single stride.

Meanwhile spellcasters get their long laundry list of cosmic power, but they also get skills. In fact, since spells can buff skills, they might even be better than the muggles at making a skill check when one is required.

When the party come across something unexpected, say a crashed airship in a desolate wasteland, the spellcasting characters can pour over their spell lists and try and find interesting effects to apply to the situation.
They might talk to the dead crew to get insight, or use terrain shaping spells to uncover buried parts of the ship, or conjure food so they can spend more time investigating. Plenty of interesting tools to fuel emergent gameplay.

The players who rolled muggles have no unique build specific powers to help solve the situation. They can roleplay, use gear and make skill checks, but all characters can do that and the spellcasters might even be better at it than the muggles.
They may as well go get the the pizza and skip the next few hours of gameplay for all the contribution they're going to be making until the next fight starts.

Waazraath

2024-07-25, 05:21 AM

Oh how the mighty have fallen...

I remember the 3.x days, CoDzilla, casters with layer upon layer of persistant buffs (fly, invisibility, attack bonussen, freedom of movement, extra hp, enlargement, you named it), the ability to do in the 1000nds of points of damage with only moderate optimization and no crazy stuff.

And here we are, bickering about how casters really do not fall behind martials that much at the lower levels cause they can sell their gear and really get a spellbook for free, so they can buy a light crossbow, or maybe they can double wield daggers! Damn...

My point in this types of discussions has always be the samen: over all, in 5e, over the levels and the classes, the balance is pretty damn good, as long as you more or less follow guidelines on recommended encounters/rests per day, usually in a dungeon crawl. I gave a details example of this years ago from my own table here, for those interested: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?637157-Experiences-from-late-tier-2-early-tier-3

So no, martials are generally not stronger than casters, just as casters are not generally stronger than martials. Type of encounters, number of encounters, play style, the build - all are much more relevant to the power of a character than whether it is a martial or not.

Of the 7 pages, I mostly recognize my own experiences and opinions in the arguments made by diplomacer, dr. samurai and dork forge, which I will not repeat. And on one hand I also do recognize tanarii's remark that in tier 1/2 martials tend to have the advantage, at the very least in survivability. On the other hand, in my current campaign we now sometimes have obvious 1 encounter/day sessions where casters can blow through all their resrouces, and yes, in that case they are stronger (last week had a lvl 9 tempest cleric doing over 200 damage in 2 turns with spirit guardians and a maxized destructive wave - and team monster was damn lucky with saving throws. It was almost as if CoDzilla was back. But of course, this is 'play style' and not 'casters are better' - while I can imagine somebody might think so if you play like this all the time.

Having said that, kudo's to the OP cause while my view stays the say, the opposite take from the boring one which has been done over 100 of times is refreshing.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-25, 07:28 AM

Damage output is the wrong thing to be looking at. The typical arcane caster squishy in Tier1 is 3-6 AC behind a Martial (other than Rogue). Wizards and Sorcs anre also typically 1-2 HP/level behind. That's what makes the difference in power. Defense, not offense.
At these lower levels though a good offense is essentially a good defense. Characters are so frail that being able to remove an enemy from the board in 1 attack is valuable. This is how tier 1 is rather unique compared to the rest of the game (the same principle always holds true, but at low levels the lethality is easier to achieve in both directions).

I don't agree that whatever out of the box thinking, generous interpretation, creative application someone is capable of thinking of should be the basis for these conversations, if it's only used by some smaller portion of players/tables/DMs. I base how common it is on my own intuition, itself based on my table experiences in live games, and many pbp games, as well as general conversation online. If I don't see something mentioned throughout a bunch of conversations where it would be relevant, over the many years of 5e, I tend to assume that most people are not playing that way.

The OP is granting that at higher levels casters can be assumed to be crazy powerful. But at lower levels, that's not the case. I happen to agree and that matches my experience. I don't accept the crossbow consideration or dual wield daggers consideration because I don't think it's that common. I accept it as a technical point that the gap can be lessened, but I don't think it really rebuts the overall point. As Tanarii mentioned, defense is also a major consideration. And my point in bringing up something like the barbarian is that you can often kill creatures in one hit, which is very valuable at these levels. That is harder to do with a cantrip, and even with a light crossbow.

Further, I see it as a double standard, not actually some sort of gaming principle, and that is also why I don't accept it. The barbarian was said to be a low threat and ignorable because they can't deal with goblins with shortbows (remember what we've heard over and over again, "anyone can kill a goblin in melee, including dual-wielding wizards, that's easy"). The problem is the barbarian is proficient with longbows and light crossbows as well. For wizards, we're assuming requisitions and generous teammates and looting a crossbow right out the gate, double spellbooks, etc. just to make sure we can say they're using a light crossbow instead of their native cantrips.

For the barbarian... we're assuming they are no threat at distance and can be safely ignored because they're just trying to run at an enemy that's kiting them. Even though they can literally start the game as part of their normal starting equipment with a light crossbow, the same light crossbow that is supposedly keeping the wizard relevant.

It's standard pro-caster discussion framing. The sky's the limit for wizards, and then here's a bunch of generalizations to knock martials down a peg.

Mage armor is a pretty tall order at 1, at that level a wizard is a double barreled shotgun with legs. Emptying a barrel into the wall before the fighting has even started needs a real good reason:
That could be a sleep that clears a firing squad of kobolds.
A burning hands that breaches a hobgoblin testudo.
A magic missile to save the barbarian from sucking his lunch through a straw all day because the DM thought a shadow was a fair level 1 encounter.
Indeed, a great point. Does the wizard spend 1 spell slot on Mage Armor at this level?

They might talk to the dead crew to get insight, or use terrain shaping spells to uncover buried parts of the ship, or conjure food so they can spend more time investigating. Plenty of interesting tools to fuel emergent gameplay.

The players who rolled muggles have no unique build specific powers to help solve the situation.
So no one can dig up loose earth? No one can forage for food? Um... sure.

They can roleplay, use gear and make skill checks, but all characters can do that and the spellcasters might even be better at it than the muggles.
They may as well go get the the pizza and skip the next few hours of gameplay for all the contribution they're going to be making until the next fight starts.
Lol. Yeah, I'm at the table when the caster players are leveling up and choosing their spells.

Sorry but... they're not gods on earth with the ability to do anything whenever the scene calls for it. It's a nice fantasy though.

Oh how the mighty have fallen...

KorvinStarmast

2024-07-25, 08:02 AM

No, he didn't. When asked about it, he explained how the two rulings, the first about starting equipment, the second about multiclass wizards, are independent of each other, and that one tweet does not supercede the other. Given that multiclassing is an optional rule, I don't see how it's relevant to the spellbook as a class feature. (But as this conversation has run so far down the rabbit hole that the rabbit's watch spring broke, I'll stop there)...although I'll note a turn of phrase that you used

wizard's spellbooks exist in quantum states.
reductio ad absurdum?

I have rarely seen level 1 wizards use Mage Armor. I have seen that start at level 2, though.

my words are not meant as weapons He has only himself to blame for that. His inability to not post a response quickly for about 5 years led to the root of this problem. Think, then Tweet. He did not use that method.
The first few Sage Advice documents were, on the other hand, generally helpful in clarifying a few things.

The OP is granting that at higher levels casters can be assumed to be crazy powerful. But at lower levels, that's not the case. I happen to agree and that matches my experience. A wizard using shield to burn a spell slot to aid and abet the melee engagement with two dagger attacks (and one will not have the dex mod added to damage if it hits) is an edge case at level 1. Yes, it can be done, but it eats a party resource that could be used for crowd control (color spray or sleep) or AoE (burning hands or thunderwave).

RSP

2024-07-25, 08:05 AM

Just because a feature says they have it doesn't mean they cannot lose it.

Unless you mean a elf that as lost their eyes would still have darkvision. In which case I think our disagreements are too fundamental to be understood in English.

Mechanically, they do still have Darkvision, they just have the Blinded condition due to an injury (or whatever caused the loss of their eyes): which fits the rules as Specific vs General.

A DM can also just go with whatever ruling they want, and not the RAW, to decide what happens with Darkvision, just like they can decide something different for the Wizards Spellcasting ability.

But the feature for the Wizards Spellcasting is written as such that they have it: whether thats read at level 1; or level 4 when the character is in prison, stripped of all belongings; or level 20.

When you read the Warlocks feature at level 20 it doesnt say you have your Tome, it says at level 3 you were gifted a Tome. Those are different wordings.

Now, as I said in my original post, thats exactly the issue that comes up with reading the ability that way. I think it behooves readers not to take it that way, but take it with the intent that they can lose it, per the Spellbook side bar, and see it more as a necessity to multiclass into Wizard: you need to have a Spellbook before going into the abilities of this class.

Similarly, if a Wizard PC levels up while their Spellbook is lost: do the two new spells magically appear in the spellbook, wherever it is? Do they magically appear in a new spellbook, whenever the PC gets one? Do they not get the spells at all at that level up as punishment for losing their spellbook?

The RAW in this case (Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free.) uses the word can, which isnt the same as the Spellcasting ability: can assumes the option of not doing it in addition to do it.

Id suggest if it comes up in play, though, (leveling up in Wizard without a Spellbook, that is) ask your DM how they want to resolve the added spells known.

Just to clarify, youre adding words to the ability that arent part of what Im referring to:

As a student of arcane magic, you have a spellbook containing spells that show the first glimmerings of your true power.

Yes, if you add in words (or change them) to a sentence, it will probably change the meaning of the sentence.

But as written, it does seem to say the Wizard has the spellbook as part of the ability.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-25, 08:07 AM

My bad. I'm currently checking here from my phone cuz I'm headed to a convention so scrolling around for stuff's a pain (and I am not sure where post numbers are on the mobile version of the site). Sorry Diplomancer!

...

I hope you enjoyed the convention!

The reason I'm vehement about this is that your reasoning relies on an assumption that doesn't appear anywhere in text -- that you get the spellbook in any circ*mstance where you're otherwise unable to obtain one. JC doesn't say that, and it's not in the PHB (and, uh, obviously the second of those is the important one). So it's not that I'm not following your reasoning, it's that your reasoning is like a house without a foundation. There are two ways wizards get spellbooks at character creation: equipment package or by spending starting gold. There is no special third way that appears in exigent circ*mstances, except if you deliberately strip away the context of multiclassing -- where your character is suddenly developing abilities that have required a lifetime of study on the fly, somehow (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html) -- and the DM-approval requirement to invent a universal principle.

Assumptions and handwaving and this sort of quantum-wizard thing are rife throughout all discussions of level 1 casters, though it's at its worst with wizards. The things that come up regularly are crossbows, extra weapons and find familiar, and the common element is that they require money. Money is not abundant at first level, and especially not when using the 2014 PHB. Acolytes, charlatans, criminals, entertainers and guild artisans start with 15 gp; folk heroes, outlanders, sages, sailors, soldiers and urchins start with 10; hermits start with 5 and nobles start with 25. Casting find familiar costs 10 gp. One background can't cast it at game start, and only one can cast it more than once. Yet here it is, swooping around in the discussion as if it's a rock-solid guarantee that it'll always be available, just like it's always somehow assumed that mage armor is up and sleep is available. Because no monster is ever going to target the 11 AC, 1hp owl, and it's never going to be caught in the blast from a vial of alchemist's fire or burning hands.

Shields? Is the caster going weaponless? Using a shield occupies a hand. If they have a shield and a weapon, they have to drop or sheath the weapon and draw out the Material components or spellcasting focus. You can only interact with one object as part of a move or action freely; interacting with a second one requires using your full action. I guess we could handwave that away too, or we could have the wizard move into melee with a shield and weapon; drop the weapon to draw its focus then cast a spell; the drop the focus to pick up the weapon; and the weapon or focus never get kicked away or interfered with in any way. Maybe they're not moving into melee and using cantrips, in which case their damage isn't competitive. Or they just don't cast at all. I'm not sure 'casters doing martial tactics worse than the martials can' is a good argument in favor of caster power. The easiest thing to do, I suppose, is assume that the caster has infinite hands to manage spellcasting focus, shield, dual wielding, ranged weapon and throwables.

You can see it in rel's post too. 'Casters have skills too.' Yeah, they have two from a small list from their class and two from their background (obviously bards are better at this). Rogues have four and two from a much broader list, and get class features to support that. Casters can cast spells to make checks easier, but that doesn't mean the non-casters should get up and get pizza and check out until the next combat, it means the casters should cast the spells on the rogue, or on the monk, or the ranger, who have skill lists that actually support doing tasks, not just identifying things.

diplomancer

2024-07-25, 08:08 AM

Please notice, I am disparaging JCs Twitter responses, (and their D&D Celebration live rules failure on Conditions from a few years ago), only.

I am not disparaging official press releases or Todd Kendrick/JC product interviews, (but gadsthose are usually overly long).

Apparently this happens so much, JC had to make a video disavowing the practice.

Please note you're dismissing not just JC's tweets, but the chpater 5 rule on starting equipment (on which clear statements JC's tweets are based). And you can dismiss the ruling (naturally), but not the evidence of intent. If the intent was that the spellcasting feature gave you a second book, Crawford would have said so when he was asked specifically about it (incidentally, Ludic Savant, the "specifically" in my post referred to the question, not to his answer, but I can see how that might have been ambiguous and apologize for the confusion).

After that, any subsequent blank spellbooks have to be purchased.
You can rule it in your games as you like, I'll rule on my games as I like... but the very fact that people rule it differently from you means you can't assume "a Wizard can always roll for gold and even with minimum gold he can buy a Crossbow". This is true at your table, but not on many others, and cannot be assumed in a white room discussion.

My point precisely. You tend to make too positive statements based not on what's been said, but on your readings/conclusions ofwhat's been said, and are, thus, an unreliable authority when it comes to the game rules. Still appreciate your builds and optimization content, though.

And, incidentally, this shows you've failed to backup your claim that "the devs have straight up told us that the intent is that you start with a spellbook whether you can afford it or not, admitting it was not what they "straight up told us", just your conclusion from what he said when he was making a different ruling about multiclassing.

Thank you. That was my point in the first place.

He says the spellcasting feature means a wizard has the spellbook. I take that at face value to mean all wizards, not just multiclass ones, level 1 or otherwise.

And here is where i believe you're wrong. A ruling on multiclass (which is where he repeats the sentence "a wizard has a spellbook") simply cannot be about starting equipment, precisely because, as Crawford points out, you do not get starting equipment when you multiclass. The 2014 and 2018 tweets simply do not interact at all, and are about different situations. Notice that in the 2014 tweets he never says "a wizard has a spellbook", and explicitly says that you either get it for free as starting equipment or buy it with starting gold, and if you opt for gold "your character doesn't get any of the free equipment listed for his or her class." -and the previous tweet has explicitly clarified that the spellbook your wizard has, mentioned in the spellcasting feature (with page number even, to dispel all doubts of what we're talking about!) IS the very same spellbook listed in the class equipment. Which your character doesn't get if you choose to roll for gold. This is all Jeremy Crawford ever publically said on this subject about level 1 Wizards. As to why that means he can't get a spellbook if he doesn't have the money for it? Why, for the same reason a Fighter doesn't get Splint Armor even though he'd rather start with one... he doesn't have the cash to buy it. Tough world, but dem's the breaks. Now, these are just the rules. Different DMs would deal differently with the situation if it ever happened (I have mentioned several possibilities over the course of the thread). But no dev has ever straight up told us you'd get it for free in this situation.

As I've explained, the problem I see is not so much your position, even though I think you're wrong, but how you confound your position with the devs actual statements. But now you've admitted that the devs have, in fact, not outright stated that you slways get a spellbook, and that was just what you read their intent as, we're good.

Given that multiclassing is an optional rule, I don't see how it's relevant to the spellbook as a class feature.

If you dismiss the multiclass ruling (the 2018 tweets),and stick only with the starting equipment ruling (the 2014 tweets), than it's even clearer. A Wizard has to either get his spellbook from his starting equipment or buy it from starting gold. It's only the multiclass, 2018, ruling that gives a sliver of possibility to the idea that wizards always have a spellbook, no matter what.

(But as this conversation has run so far down the rabbit hole that the rabbit's watch spring broke, I'll stop there)...although I'll note a turn of phrase that you used
reductio ad absurdum?

Yes. That Ludic's interpretations, according to their own words (I didn't use quantum state, they did), imputes to Crawford the idea that spellbooks are in quantum states is, in my opinion, a perfect example of reductio ad absurdum. If that's the result your interpretation got to, it's a bad interpretation, go look for a second one (I humbly suggest my own).

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-25, 08:48 AM

A wizard using shield to burn a spell slot to aid and abet the melee engagement with two dagger attacks (and one will not have the dex mod added to damage if it hits) is an edge case at level 1. Yes, it can be done, but it eats a party resource that could be used for crowd control (color spray or sleep) or AoE (burning hands or thunderwave).
Indeed. But also, I think Shield requires somatic components, so a dual-wielding wizard can't actually cast it with 2 daggers in hands. That's why I'm always asking how these types of claims work, because the more and more involved it gets, like having to drop a dagger, then pick it up, the less likely it is that this is a common practice.

With regards to crossbows, I'm playing alongside an alchemist artificer. They use Acid Splash and Create Bonfire because they like to roleplay that they're chucking potions at the enemy. The cleric in the same party uses Sacred Flame because he's a cleric of light that shouts out holy proclamations as he blasts his enemies with radiant energy.

This is not atypical to my other games. So I understand and appreciate that crossbows are an option, but I maintain that most people won't go that route for the same reason it was assumed earlier that a barbarian MUST chuck javelins.

Xervous

2024-07-25, 08:53 AM

It's standard pro-caster discussion framing. The sky's the limit for wizards, and then here's a bunch of generalizations to knock martials down a peg.

Perhaps if you actually had some experience with tactical depth you would understand the points that had been made. This is the charitable interpretation of your posts that discards the possibility of intentional strawmanning. The barbarian is not a threat and the barbarian can be safely ignored are miles apart from the barbarian is not a dominant contributor but it is the lowest priority target for these monsters who are fully expected to die to the party as one encounter among many. Its specifically the barbarians shortcomings in the examined level range, flaws not shared by the grand majority of the martial cast.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-25, 09:05 AM

Perhaps if you remembered what you wrote earlier your subsequent posts would be better.

Witty Username

2024-07-25, 09:23 AM

Components are an exception to this, as accessing components can be done with the free hand. Stow weapon cast spell is those rules. There are consequences, no reaction attacks or such. For approximately 6 whole seconds, you cannot wield a weapon.

And is this assuming cleric? The number of casters that starts with both a shield and shield proficiency is vanishingly low.

And martials have this worse, many of the weapons that put them over casters are two handed.
Barbarian goes from a fairly significant damage lead to matching if they elect to use a shield.
Ranged characters tend to lose on armor by starting equipment to get bow and shield access.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-25, 09:35 AM

And is this assuming cleric? The number of casters that starts with both a shield and shield proficiency is vanishingly low.

What free hand, though? If you have a shield in one hand and a weapon in the other, you don't have a free hand. You can only interact with one object per turn as part of a larger action. Stowing a weapon to create a free hand does that, but then you can't access the spell components as part of the same action. The sequence would have to be:

Turn 1: Attack action, stow weapon as part of action
Turn 2: Cast spell, drawing components as part of action
Turn 3: Attack action, drawing weapon as part of action

Which means you're without a weapon in hand for two rounds of enemy actions, assuming you re-arm yourself as soon as possible. Without a weapon in hand, attacks of opportunity aren't particularly threatening. Do you have a specific citation otherwise? I'm open to being wrong here.

I'm not assuming any class, though my understanding was that the non-squishy caster in the post was getting to 18 AC via Dex mod, mage armor and a shield. Again, open to being corrected on that.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-25, 09:54 AM

Perhaps if you actually had some experience with tactical depth you would understand the points that had been made.
Yes yes yes... you're all so brilliant and tactical and strategic and we should just agree with you yadda yadda yadda.

This is the charitable interpretation of your posts that discards the possibility of intentional strawmanning.
Save your charity. You literally said the words.

The barbarian is not a threat and the barbarian can be safely ignored are miles apart from the barbarian is not a dominant contributor but it is the lowest priority target for these monsters who are fully expected to die to the party as one encounter among many. Its specifically the barbarians shortcomings in the examined level range, flaws not shared by the grand majority of the martial cast.
I addressed this already though.

You are conflating "the goblins" with "the DM". Instead of behaving like living creatures of the world, you are saying the goblins understand they are going to die, and are just a speed bump with the sole purpose of reducing resources from the party in the most efficient way possible. And your opinion is that would be by ignoring a barbarian and targeting the ranged characters.

That's fine. I already said not everyone plays this way, and that's why I brought up just starting the encounter even further away and loosing arrows with Disadvantage until the party can eventually close in. Because if we're saying that the creatures are acting like they can break the 4th wall and know their role as "monsters in an RPG", why stop at shifty archers within eldritch blast range? Why not take it further? If you're going to make these types of assumptions about DM playstyle, why do they generally stop at the place where it's hard for the melee guy, but fine for the ranged guy? Why not make it hard for everyone?

I also addressed this by saying that in the end, you are agreeing with me. By your own admission the warlock (in this case) is being targeted. By your own admission they are down to 0 because the frontliner is being ignored. This is in line with my conclusion, but our reasons are different. I already told you this.

Perhaps if you remembered what you wrote earlier your subsequent posts would be better.
Indeed lol. But this is not a surprise. A lot of these claims are backed up later with "I never said that".

Barbarian goes from a fairly significant damage lead to matching if they elect to use a shield.

Matching to who?

Turn 1: Attack action, stow weapon as part of action
Turn 2: Cast spell, drawing components as part of action
Turn 3: Attack action, drawing weapon as part of action

I'm not assuming any class, though my understanding was that the non-squishy caster in the post was getting to 18 AC via Dex mod, mage armor and a shield. Again, open to being corrected on that.
I think typically they assume that you're dropping the item instead of stowing it, so it's a "free" action. But yes, it's still not clean and needs to be explained.

Xervous

2024-07-25, 10:00 AM

Perhaps if you remembered what you wrote earlier your subsequent posts would be better.

Is ignored does not equate to can safely be ignored. Low threat also does not equate to not a threat but theres a jump from the former to the latter in the quoted post. Are you meaning to imply those are each paired equivalent phrases?

Blatant Beast

2024-07-25, 10:19 AM

Please note you're dismissing not just JC's tweets, but the chpater 5 rule on starting equipment

I'm not dismissing Chapter 5, though I have no issue in not being bound by rules that do not work. This is the relevant paragraph on page 143 of the Player's Handbook:
"STARTING EQUIPMENT
When you create your character, you receive equipment
based on a combination of your class and background.
Alternatively, you can start with a number of gold pieces
based on your class and spend them on items from the
lists in this chapter. See the Starting Wealth by Class
table to determine how much gold you have to spend."

This in no way conflicts with either Equipment Determination method. If you go with the randomized GP option, you still get a Spellbook from the Spellcasting feature, as a 1st level wizard, which is separate category from character level.

The reason why, is fairly straightforward, and Ludic has, I believe, touched upon this: Multi-classing.

Not every PC that take a level in the Wizard Class will be a 1st level character. The Spellbook subsection, of the Wizard's Spellcasting feature allows a PC to multiclass into Wizard, and be able to access their spellcasting feature, no matter where they are, by handwaving into existence a spellbook for them.

Yes, if you add in words (or change them) to a sentence, it will probably change the meaning of the sentence.

What false claim are you leveling against me, dear person?

The Spellcasting section for the Wizard Class, has approximately seven subsections. I have quoted the Spellbook section, using a cut and past of my PDF version, multiple times now. I will do so again:
" SPELLBOOK
At 1 st level, you have a spellbook containing six 1st-level
wizard spells of your choice. Your spell book is the
repository of the wizard spells you know, except your
cantrips, which are fixed in your mind."

What has been altered? I will answer that for you: nothing, except whatever small formatting changes OSR and this website have done.

So please, kindly, retract your incorrect accusation and/or insinuation, and at least demonstrate some integrity.
I have no issue with having a disagreement on a point with someone, this is a D&D board we are going to disagree, but we do not need to resort to false claims. Diplomancer, has argued their points without resorting to such tactics....I imagine you can as well RSP.

Are we so bereft of topics here, that what I thought was a pretty simple comment on the Wizard's Spellcasting feature, a few pages back, has to turn into a multi-response call and answer session?
Great Googly Moogly!:sigh:

Witty Username

2024-07-25, 10:26 AM

You do realize by this ruling that spells can no longer be cast, correct?

A caster with a focus in hand and shield cannot cast spells as they don't have a free hand to cast spells with.

Requiring a caster to use an object interaction means they need two hands to cast spells, one for components the other for geatures.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-25, 10:32 AM

I think typically they assume that you're dropping the item instead of stowing it, so it's a "free" action. But yes, it's still not clean and needs to be explained.

Right, yeah. But... kicking an object away is also 'free'. Why does everyone assume that you can just drop the item and pick it up on your next turn without it being knocked away? Or picked up? If you drop your weapon at the feet of a goblin, why wouldn't it just pick it up so you don't have it anymore? I can't even imagine dropping your spellcasting focus.

You do realize by this ruling that spells can no longer be cast, correct?

A caster with a focus in hand and shield cannot cast spells as they don't have a free hand to cast spells with.

Requiring a caster to use an object interaction means they need two hands to cast spells, one for components the other for geatures.

"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components - or to hold a spellcasting focus - but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." PHB, 203. Only one hand is necessary.

@BB: If what you suggest about the Spellbook section handwaving a spellbook into existence was true, 1) it wouldn't be necessary to list one under the Equipment header; 2) it wouldn't be necessary to create duplicates; 3) the developer wouldn't have said 'you either get one from your starting equipment package or with your variant gold during character creation', 4) the developer's multiclass guidance wouldn't have been 'you have to have one, work out with your DM how you got it'. Your reading of this is in tension with every other reference to both the rules on the page and the intent of the developer that I can find. And for what?

No, I think your mouth is writing checks you can't cash, and now you're taking refuge behind little semantic dodges.

Keltest

2024-07-25, 10:35 AM

You do realize by this ruling that spells can no longer be cast, correct?

A caster with a focus in hand and shield cannot cast spells as they don't have a free hand to cast spells with.

Requiring a caster to use an object interaction means they need two hands to cast spells, one for components the other for geatures.

Incorrect. A spellcaster can always use the had theyre holding their focus with to perform somatic components.

Skrum

2024-07-25, 10:47 AM

Incorrect. A spellcaster can always use the had theyre holding their focus with to perform somatic components.

Assuming the spell ALSO has material components. Lol.

Somatic only, they need to drop/stow the focus. S and M, they're good to go. This is why, strict reading, one MUST have the war caster feat to cast shield while your hands are full of weapons/shield. Even Ruby of the War Mage doesn't help, as that merely turns your weapon into a focus.

Incidentally, it's also why I think S and M components should just be done away with (aside from expensive ones). Far from a balancing factor to spellcasting generally, they merely serve to hose very particular spells or builds. Entirely not worth it.

diplomancer

2024-07-25, 10:48 AM

I'm not dismissing Chapter 5, though I have no issue in not being bound by rules that do not work. Well, you're not bound by rules that DO work, so I'm not surprised ypu're not bound by rules you think don't work.

This is the relevant paragraph on page 143 of the Player's Handbook:
"STARTING EQUIPMENT
When you create your character, you receive equipment
based on a combination of your class and background.
Alternatively, you can start with a number of gold pieces
based on your class and spend them on items from the
lists in this chapter. See the Starting Wealth by Class
table to determine how much gold you have to spend."

Noted that you believe that the spellbook you claim is granted by the class feature is not granted by the class. Interesting, maybe it's a quantum feature, that is and is not part of the class.

The reason why, is fairly straightforward, and Ludic has, I believe, touched upon this: Multi-classing.

You can rule it like that¹. You can even avoid the unpleasant applications of your ruling, by changing the rule in the book from "you have a spellbook" to "you start with a spellbook" Others won't. The leading rules developer, for one, won't, since he's said that when you multiclass, a spellbook is NOT in fact, handwaved into existence, advising players instead to work out with their DM how they have that book.

IF the intent was that spellbooks magically appear when someone acquires Wizard 1, Jeremy Crawford had several chances to say it. He refused to say it, saying just the opposite, in fact. He said you can start with one as part of your equipment package. He said you can buy one. He said that, if you're multiclassing, you should work out with your DM on how you acquired one. He never said "it just pops up, it was there in hammerspace all the time", or anything like that.

You can dismiss him and say you understand the rules better than him. Good for you, you're the rules authority on your table Not on all tables, though, and definitely not on mine.I prefer my game to not have magically popping quantum spellbooks, thank you very much.

So let's end this argument on the agreement that IF your DM believes in magically popping spellbooks (only once, though, a wizard can't rely on spellbooks just popping up anytime he's without one, even though his class feature states he has one, right? You can ignore that once it becomes inconvenient, since, as you've correctly noted, you're not bound by the rules), a Wizard is guaranteed to buy a Light Crossbow by choosing the variable starting gold variety, but he has no such assurance with a different DM that does not believe, even just once, in magically popping spellbooks (and he can be in very dire straits if he tries!).

1- you'd be hard pressed to explain to your player, based on your reading of the rule, though, why his spellbook pops up into existence when he acquires a wizard level, but a new one does not pop up into existence if his spellbook is destroyed. Has he stopped being a Wizard and having a class feature that states he has a spellbook? Isn't this a world where spellbooks regularly pop up into existence? I'm glad I don't have that sort of problem, by keeping my worlds free of popping-up-into-existence spellbooks. After all, if a spellbook can pop-up into existence, 2 goblins can pop-up into existence right next to my level 1 Wizard, and I'll be in dire straits, even as a dual-wielding dagger fiend. Better be a Barbarian, just in case 😜

Guys, seriosly. Quantum spellbooks? Spellbooks that pop up into existence? Isn't it much simpler to just follow the rules and the rules guidance? It avoids all these problems.

Witty Username

2024-07-25, 10:53 AM

Incorrect. A spellcaster can always use the had theyre holding their focus with to perform somatic components.

The RAW only goes one direction, you can use a free hand to access components but does not include the reverse.

I bring this up to indicate no one actually plays this way and goes against how the rules are structured.
Requiring an object interaction to access components is against this as well. As you can use the free hand for geatures to access material components as part of casting.

RSP

2024-07-25, 10:56 AM

What false claim are you leveling against me, dear person?

I referenced the quote I was referring to, but will do so again for your benefit, as it seems to really have set you off:

Spellcasting
As a student of arcane magic, you have a spellbook containing spells that show the first glimmerings of your true power.

If, as you suggested in response to my post, you add in to that at 1st level, then it will, indeed, change the meaning of that sentence, which is what I said in the post you just responded to.

Why, in your opinion, is me stating that inaccurate or requiring a retraction?

Dork_Forge

2024-07-25, 11:08 AM

Spell components are easy:

If you are using a component pouch, then you can retrieve what you need from it as part of the casting. If you are using a focus, you must have the focus in hand, and if it isn't, then it requires an object interaction to pick up/draw.

You can only use a hand holding a focus for the S component if the spell also has an M component that the focus can substitute.

A caster using a shield and weapon is inherently making casting more difficult, making it impossible to cast reaction spells with S components, like Shield, unless they spend their turns dropping the weapon for free and picking it up as an interaction, meaning they don't even have the option of an opportunity attack, and someone could just take the weapon away.

Part of what makes Artificers great is that they force all spells to have an M component, meaning that their enhanced shield or weapon can act as a focus. They essentially get a free War Caster in that regard.

As for the abolishment of components:

No. It's one of the checks placed on casting and ignoring them does nothing but add to the handwaves I've mentioned previously that empower casters and lead to the distorted view of their power.

Skrum

2024-07-25, 11:32 AM

As for the abolishment of components:

No. It's one of the checks placed on casting and ignoring them does nothing but add to the handwaves I've mentioned previously that empower casters and lead to the distorted view of their power.

Is it really a check though? Does it constrain a twilight or peace cleric, or shepherd druid, or nuclear wizard, or coffeelock? Or any of the most potent, powerful builds in the game?

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-25, 11:37 AM

The RAW only goes one direction, you can use a free hand to access components but does not include the reverse.

I'm confused. You can use a free hand to access the components or the focus, then perform the S component. If there's no M component, then you use a free hand to perform the S component. You only need to use the Object Interaction Action if you're interacting with two items at once -- stowing a weapon and drawing a focus. Otherwise, the drawing of components is done as part of the action to cast a spell, exactly as if you were drawing a weapon then attacking with it.

Is it really a check though? Does it constrain a twilight or peace cleric, or shepherd druid, or nuclear wizard, or coffeelock? Or any of the most potent, powerful builds in the game?

No, largely because their class abilities are so powerful that there's very little reason for them to do things that aren't those class abilities. The people who designed twilight and peace cleric, clockwork soul sorcerer, genie warlock and shepherd druid were on cocaine when they did it, so far as I can tell. It is, however, a check in low-level situations where small but meaningful sacrifices have to be made to dual wield or use a shield.

Witty Username

2024-07-25, 11:38 AM

Given this discussion has trended low level this is a bit of a non issue, most casters won't have a shield or proficiency. A couple that do like cleric can use Shields as a focus. Reaction spells charitably exist, but tend to be too high investment to be usable.

Keltest

2024-07-25, 11:38 AM

Is it really a check though? Does it constrain a twilight or peace cleric, or shepherd druid, or nuclear wizard, or coffeelock? Or any of the most potent, powerful builds in the game?

Sure, when people actually follow it. The "most potent" builds are almost always only so potent in a white room scenario. A lot of gimmicks don't survive contact with a DM who doesn't just let them do whatever they want without obstacle.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-25, 11:50 AM

Is it really a check though? Does it constrain a twilight or peace cleric, or shepherd druid, or nuclear wizard, or coffeelock? Or any of the most potent, powerful builds in the game?
It does when they claim they can do all those things and also carry a shield in one hand and a weapon in the other.

Skrum

2024-07-25, 11:57 AM

There's nothing cheesy about anything a cleric does, or druid. And spell components do absolutely nothing to impede any of them even a little. Nuke wizard? That's just casting spells, as the book intended. Spells are broken. The action econ is broken, in favor of spells. The relative lack of good class features for martial classes after level 6, that's broken. All of that is fundamental to the game. Spell components would have to get WAY MORE STRICT to actually act as a balancing factor.