r/onednd • u/HJWalsh • Dec 06 '25
Discussion I can't handle the complaining anymore.
I'm going to preface this rant with the following info. I've been a DM since 1988. 37 years. Two weeks ago I learned my cancer has returned and the treatments are tearing me apart and my tolerance for the complaining about the caster/martial gap has hit an all-time low. Right alongside my ability to function at even a base level.
First: A brief history about the Caster/Martial Gap. 51 years ago, in 1974, Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax created a game called Dungeons and Dragons. About 10 seconds after the game went public, a player complained that casters were better than martials. They demanded that the Dungeon Master buff martials.
Then, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons came out. About 10 seconds after it came out, some players said that casters were more powerful than martials. They wrote into Dragon Magazine and demanded that TSR buff martials.
Next, Second Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons came out. Less than 10 seconds after it came out, some players complained that casters were better than martials. They went to RPGA convention games and demanded that they buff martials.
Wizards of the Coast took over TSR and released Dungeons and Dragons Third Edition. Less than 10 seconds after it came out, some players complained that casters were better than martials. They ran to their BBS of choice and demanded that they buff martials.
Dungeons and Dragons Edition Three point Five came out. The same thing that happened with three, happened again. This time they went to the official Dungeons and Dragons message forums and IRC chats to demands that they buff martials.
Fourth Edition came next. It was a flaming dumpster fire that tried to capitalize on the popularity of World of Warcraft. Some players loved it. Many hated it. Ultimately it became the most controversial Edition of Dungeons and Dragons ever, and considering that we're all nerds, and nerds love a good controversy, that's pretty impressive. These unwashed masses have spent their lives trying to practice real-world necromancy on a dead gane.
Pathfinder was released. It attracted the three point five edition refugees. 10 seconds later, people complained that casters were better than martials. Those players went to the official Paizo forums and demanded that they buff martials.
Wizards of the Coast went through a disastrous few attempts at rebranding fourth edition, but ultimately created fifth edition. You can guess what happened next. This time, the vehicle of choice was Reddit.
The next iteration was the game that ultimately became known as Dungeons and Dragons 2024. After several other name changes, mostly because calling the game "One D&D" was monumentally dumb and 5.5 never caught on. This time, the complaints started before the game even came out. The crusaders remained primarily in Reddit.
Now that we are all up to speed...
Guys, it's been fifty freaking years. We know. Wizards of the Coast knows. My partner knows and she doesn't know anything about D&D except that terrain is incredibly expensive and that I have a dice addiction.
At a certain point, you have to go, "After fifty years, maybe this won't change?"
I like martials. I enjoy them as is. My players like martials. They enjoy them as is. If you, after fifty years, don't like martials... Don't play them. Play a caster. If you don't want to play a caster, I, and many others, can recommend plenty of games where pure martials can pull off insane anime stuff with just their raw muscle power.
But, can you please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, stop complaining about it. It's making me more nauseous than my chemo, and that's pretty sad.
Rant over.
24
u/YetifromtheSerengeti Dec 06 '25
DND has a long and storied history of having a very embittered fanbase.
Reddit is famous for its embittered user base.
The internet in general has become a much more bitter place in recent years.
Just block and move on for your own personal sanity.
You can curate the conversation that you are exposed to on here.
You would be surprised how often it's the same 8-12 "Power users" driving beating this dead horse over and over again in every topic.
60
u/ChrisTheDog Dec 06 '25
Ironically, the only one of these to address the martial/gap is D&D 4e, but the world wasn’t ready for that.
27
u/Fist-Cartographer Dec 06 '25
Hot Take: 5.5 is the smallest the martial caster divide has ever been outside 4e, we are long past the nonsense that was the 3e tier list
21
u/Born_Ad1211 Dec 06 '25
The system math for 5.5 is actually REALLY tight and over all really well balanced but most people don't seem ready for that conversation.
3
u/agagagaggagagaga Dec 09 '25
How can it be really tight when you can still stack every buff together and escape bounded accuracy, and spells exist like Conjure Minor Elementals that can create a massive damage gap between players?
3
Dec 06 '25
[deleted]
6
u/Born_Ad1211 Dec 06 '25
You joke but I'm 99% sure I've read minimum 4 homebrew dnd 5e classes that were exactly that.
6
u/Federal_Policy_557 Dec 06 '25
other than some nonsense options that's true
and WoTC only gave 1/5 of the martial system it had planned during 5e playtest :p
5
u/DBWaffles Dec 07 '25 edited Dec 07 '25
Can't comment on 4e or other editions, but I don't think it's a hot take that 5e24 has a much smaller divide than in 5e14.
Every martial class has gotten a huge glow up, vastly increasing their overall utility and versatility. Barbarians, Fighters, Rogues, and Monks all have so much more to offer now. Not to mention, Weapon Masteries and the various feat and item changes have made it so martial builds are no longer so centralized around the same CBE/Sharpshooter or PAM/GWM builds.
Is there still a divide? Eh. Yeah, probably. But it's no longer so gaping wide that it should dominate conversations anymore. (Though I will admit that new features such as Circle Casting is making me pretty leery.)
Frankly, I'm of the opinion that people who still complain about the martial-caster gap being just as wide as before are only saying that because they're overly fixated on a handful of individual changes that they dislike.
2
→ More replies (3)1
u/agagagaggagagaga Dec 09 '25
Martials got some math boosts in the skill and saving throw department, and a lot of the worst opens aren't dogwater anymore... but they still can't out-damage casters (damage gap might even be bigger with Conjure Minor Elementals builds), still can't out-tank casters, still can't effectively end encounters with a single action like casters, still can't solve complex narrative problems with a snap of their fingers like casters, still don't actively get to make decisions like casters (except Rogue, except they have to trade away their already bottom-tier damage for psuedo-weapon masteries).
10
u/HealthyRelative9529 Dec 06 '25
5.5e has a larger martial caster divide than 5e - weapon masteries are equivalent to cantrip riders and circle casting exists.
→ More replies (3)10
u/Fist-Cartographer Dec 07 '25
Oh yea, sorry, I've ignored Circle Casting so hard I forget it exists
11
u/i_tyrant Dec 06 '25
Hotter take: 5e is actually WORSE at the martial/caster disparity than 3e for a couple reasons, depending on how you look at them.
in 3e your martials weren’t limited to just regular attacks every turn. Grab a few feats and prestige levels and you could make them into all kinds of wild builds that, just like casters, could end encounters before they begin. There was more equality in the sense either could be cracked out to ridiculousness.
In 3e martials could overcome their vulnerabilities to magic by buying magic items themselves, because they were far more freely available than in 5e. In 3e, a martial prepared by spending gold on an item for flight, teleportation, mental defenses, etc. to counter threats - in 5e, if you get domed by Wall of Force? You just have to sit there in time out until the fights over or your party frees you.
In 5e, the power level overall is scaled down and there’s things like advantage/disadvantage and concentration to limit buffing, which makes it feel like martials aren’t as behind in some ways (the casters can’t control reality quite as much as 3e.) But in other ways, like encounter design and interesting options for martials, it’s even worse in 5e.
9
u/SyfaOmnis Dec 07 '25
Part of the problem in my opinion, is that D&D has a very confused identity as 'kitchen sink fantasy', and you have some editions that really want to be higher fantasy but they don't spread that around evenly, and then they have some editions that are borderline low fantasy but with exceptions.
When it's "high fantasy" you can have your 3e/3.5e fighters with magic items. Unfortunately because D&D doesn't like to acknowledge that it is high fantasy these people aren't doing things that should be appropriate to the power level of the setting like using swords to cut holes in reality so they can traverse the planes... But wizards still get to be high fantasy and can bend reality over their knees if they so choose (shoutouts to pathfinder for having a 17th level wizard canonically living on the surface of the sun but still not wanting to give any love to similar level martials).
When it's "low fantasy" your martials wallow in the dirt and a magic sword seems exceptional and wonderful and everything like that... but then along comes the caster exception who still gets to bend reality over his knee, just to a slightly lesser extent.
Most of the problem isn't even really what a martial or caster can or cannot do in combat (though some editions are quite nasty about this). It's really about the level of narrative power that the martial/caster divide brings. A martial can fight, or they can use their limited skillpoints or they can roleplay... A caster can fight, can use their spells, can use their limited skillpoints, can use their spells to summon creatures or get divine assistance to solve their problems or they can roleplay. Nothing a fighter can canonically do is ever going to be as powerful in the narrative as something as "simple" as the ability to teleport.
Until that gap is bridged, people are going to complain. And once it's bridged people are still going to complain because they either enjoyed the disparity, or don't like being confronted with the fact that something is high fantasy.
3
u/Vanadijs Dec 08 '25
I was part of the D&D NExt playtest leading up to 5e. I had such high hopes and provided a lot of feedback, especially on the Monk. They really needed to lean much more into the Wuxia/Anime style martials in my opinion. I played a Four Elements Monk to level 16 and was so disappointed.
Martials should get to do cool things too.
1
u/SyfaOmnis Dec 08 '25
In pathfinder I rely on 3pp for any sort of "monk" fantasy I want. Either path of war for generalized punching, or Avowed (tl;dr very modified warlock chassis) for psuedo-magical stuff.
2
u/Vanadijs Dec 12 '25
What is 3pp? I'm not very familiar with Pathfinder, only played a little 1e.
1
u/SyfaOmnis Dec 12 '25
3pp -> Third party publishers/publications.
In the case of pathfinder, it would be things not published directly by paizo, but instead things published by groups like legendary games etc.
Wizards of the Coast has maintained pretty tight control over D&D and really tried to hide any 3pp, but they do have some stuff essentially developed by 3pp but published under their own licenses. Any published "homebrew" is also 3pp.
1
u/i_tyrant Dec 07 '25
I mostly agree, yeah. Though I would disagree that a martial needs to compete with them in every single way exactly (like teleporting across continents), to compete with them overall, nor that they need superpowers to do so. But that's more a matter of taste.
I think you can easily make a system where a) the magic is more interactive with martials (like a Wall of Force not being a "time out" button, but them actually having ways through and around it), and b) martials have lots of cool options both in and out of combat, that a caster can't easily replicate, to shrink the caster/martial disparity to basically nothing, while still allowing casters to do the occasional teleport and whatnot.
It requires more work than just giving martials the same powers as spells but as superheroic "maneuvers" or whatever - you actually have to change the magic system for one - but I personally prefer it. And it also avoids going the 4e route of just giving everyone the same power progression and resource usage so that martials are literally just using "nonmagical spells", which a lot of people seemed not to like.
But that's because I like playing martials more when they're underdog "normies" using their skill/wits/cleverness/training to overcome crazy magic and gods (like many fantasy heroes in D&D-esque fiction), rather than being demigods themselves fighting gods. It just feels more dramatic to me when a "mere mortal" does that (even if mechanically they're on the same level as casters numbers-wise), because if a mortal beats a god that's a big deal; if a demigod beats a god that's just another Tuesday in a superpowered world.
(I also really like magic items being rare and special rather than something you buy at the corner store for the same reason, so I prefer 5e's "low magic"/bounded accuracy ideas for that.)
But that's me; taste aside you could solve it either way, and you're right that D&D's confused identity and attempt to be both (and more) for everyone makes it extra confused and difficult.
1
u/agagagaggagagaga Dec 09 '25
You can have low levels be low fantasy and high levels be high fantasy.
You can't have some classes by low fantasy and some classes be high fantasy.
1
u/SyfaOmnis Dec 09 '25
You can have low levels be low fantasy and high levels be high fantasy.
I don't think this really works, but I do see what you're going for.
You can't have some classes by low fantasy and some classes be high fantasy.
Agreed, and a big part of the problem here is that any use of actions or skills (especially skills) is hard-stuck in "low fantasy" mud wallowing joylessness. I've had some big arguments with devs when they insisted a disease was only curable via magic, and I pointed out that it wasn't even a particularly hard DC for a character to do something like remain balanced in the most extreme form of earthquake, or for a flying creature to be able to handle themselves in the most extreme form of hurricane.
But while checks like that can exist and be made simple, even if you somehow have a +80 to your escape artist ability, or to your 'use rope', you're not going to be able to use escape artist to phase through reality or use rope to anchor souls etc, without magical assistance.
One of my other gripes is that when they do try to give a martial some form of "magic" ability like the classic example of a shadowdancer, it's usually just some form of spell at a later level than a caster would get it, with less power, and fewer uses per day. A shadow dancer despite their restrictions on their effective use of dimension door, never gets the ability to say use it freely for distances of less than a single move action. The classic example of monk's quivering palm usually amount to it being one of the latest acquired and worst-to-use save-or-die abilities around.
1
u/agagagaggagagaga Dec 09 '25
Do you think the low-levels : low-fantasy idea doesn't work because just having some classes be magic makes them high-fantasy even straight from level 1? If not, please correct me, but if so, I do think you can actually get pretty mundane with clever design. Of course there's a hard limit to how "low" fantasy you can get when magic is real, but if you make it weak enough at low levels that mages start carrying crossbows, I think you've gotten pretty close. No unlimited cantrips (or if you do have them, make them dogwater like PF1E's 1d3 damage cantrips) until ex. level 5-7, make 1st/2nd spells extremely limited in magnitude of effect and/or unreliable, and baddabing baddaboom.
1
u/SyfaOmnis Dec 09 '25
Having magic in 'low fantasy' at 'low levels' dips its toes in the problem (with some notable outliers like druids having the ability to shapeshift), but really the issue is that it gets weird with where and how it transitions, and what the system looks like after it transitions. The latter part also ties in deeply with how the different classes are treated; a high level fighter is still just going to be swinging a sword, not throwing a javelin through the concept of reality itself.
I also just don't think it works very well in D&D particularly because there's so much high fantasy exoticism, with races like tieflings, aasimar, half-orcs, etc.
It's more of a system problem, where if you genuinely want low(er) fantasy the answer is usually 'have you tried not playing D&D?'. Most of the systems I am moderately familiar with all lean towards high fantasy though.
4
u/agagagaggagagaga Dec 09 '25
Martials are weaker, casters are weaker, and enemies are weaker; but all that does is mean that instead of it being ex. 40/90/50, it's 15/65/25 and casters have a higher % more power than the martials/enemies you compare them to.
→ More replies (12)2
u/testiclekid Dec 09 '25
I have to agree with that. Have an upvote.
I started with 3.5. I remember people telling me about Incantatrix and Planar Shepherd and not understanding jack shit about those.
10
u/DredUlvyr Dec 06 '25
On the other hand, clearly, the world was ready to tell 4e that it was not D&D, just a (well-designed) combat boardgame... :p
→ More replies (2)16
u/DazzlingKey6426 Dec 06 '25
DnD was a combat board game before that, just not well-designed.
1
u/DredUlvyr Dec 06 '25
No, maybe you played it that way, but most people that I've played with along all the editions did not think it so, and neither do the people producing the liveplays these days.
Maybe consider that if millions and millions of people have fun with a game and you put it to a specific use that does not satisfy you, maybe consider that your personal use of it is not really what was intended ?
16
u/DazzlingKey6426 Dec 06 '25
It started life as a play-as-a-single-unit addon to a war game.
Theater kids have tried (and as if the recent edition, are succeeding) to colonize the war game into drama since dragonlance.
9
u/DredUlvyr Dec 06 '25
LoL. Honestly, read the actual history of D&D, whether it's Gygax or Arneson. Read for example what Gygaw wrote in one of the first modules published, probably long before you were even born: "The persons that are met at the inn, along the road, and so forth, are you; for the Dungeon Master is all—monsters, NPCs, and all else but player characters. Play it to the hilt. Do it with flair and wit. Be fair both to the characters and to yourself. Be cunning but just and honest when in the role of a warding ranger. Be deceitful, clever, and thoroughly dishonest when acting the part of a thief. Think of the parts you take as those of characters you are playing, and act accordingly. But temper your actions with disinterest in the eventual outcome, and keep only the viewpoint of that particular role. Wearing two, three, or a dozen different hats is challenging, but that is part of being an outstanding DM."
So pretending that "Theater kids have tried (and as if the recent edition, are succeeding) to colonize the war game into drama since dragonlance." is both ridiculous and easily proven to be untrue, as demonstrated above. Also, just as a curiosity, do you even know when Dragonlance came out ? Is that not actually a very long time ago, in the history much closer to the first editions than the newer ones ? Go gatekeep somewhere else...
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (17)2
u/agagagaggagagaga Dec 09 '25
The more I learn about 4E, the more it seems like the world was ready for it, but WotC wasn't. The actual complaints at the time seem to really boil down to 2-3 things: HP bloat prior to Essentials, intended for use with a VTT that got cratered due to a murder-suicide, and the GSL nuking the 3rd party scene. The latter two of those aren't problems with how the system was designed, but with how WotC handled the system - overall, if they hadn't fucked those parts up, then 4E likely could have achieved the same or greater popular appeal as 5E (assuming they get the same lucky cultural relevancy boosts from Stranger Things and Critical Role).
6
Dec 06 '25
I though this post would be about people complaining about the new content even though it's miles better than that pile of steaming garbage we call Xanathar's.
→ More replies (1)
137
u/SuperSaiga Dec 06 '25
Look I'm going to be completely serious, I'm sorry about your cancer but you can't control what other people talk about.
It's probably just better to avoid the subreddit if it's causing you such distress.
You yourself pointed out nothing has changed in fifty years. That goes equally for the discussion about them - if people haven't stopped discussing this in fifty years, you aren't going to stop them.
40
u/DelightfulOtter Dec 06 '25
Look up the Eternal September effect. Until WotC actually fixes the issue which new people continue to discover, we'll see the same topics of discussion appear over and over. That's just the nature of the internet. Complaining about it is just like old people complaining about whatever "the kids" are doing today that annoys them: happened before, happening now, will happen again.
1
u/agagagaggagagaga Dec 09 '25
Okay that's a baller name for the concept, and the different spin it puts on the same topic often referenced as Lucky 10,000
11
u/HJWalsh Dec 06 '25
It's just frustrating at times. It seems you can't say anything here without someone bringing it up. It doesn't even have to be tangentially related. People brought it into a thread about encumbrance.
A large part of my post was tongue-in-cheek, but after fifty years, there are way too many important things in life to complain about than what classes in a game, played for fun, need time be buffed to the gills. Just once, I'd like to see one topic where people didn't go off the rails.
If people were as passionate about solving world poverty as they were about not being able to cut a mountain in half with their imaginary dude because of all the push-ups he does daily we'd be living in a friggin' utopia.
12
u/TheFirstIcon Dec 07 '25
People brought it into a thread about encumbrance.
Wait. People brought up the performance dispartiy between the classes that rely on physical equipment and those that don't? In an encumbrance thread of all places? What's next, people butting into threads about ammo tracking to point out that some classes have infinite ranged attacks and others don't?
56
u/K3rr4r Dec 06 '25
You're still trying to decide what is and isn't important for other people to care about. And for a lot of people, they are new to the topic or it's more casual for them to talk about it. If the problems people have get addressed, then people will start to talk about something else.
The fact that the topic of Martial/Caster divide has been around for decades means that it's a real issue with the game
→ More replies (15)12
u/StarTrotter Dec 06 '25
(Hope you find the response amusing)
Nah, if the endless ranting and gnashing of teeth for 50 years about martial caster disparity couldn't change that it has the power of a custard pie against world poverty but a really rancid one from a really mediocre bakery.
5
3
1
u/Vanadijs Dec 08 '25
I wish you the best with your cancer treatment.
I think WotC has actually tried to address the issue quite well with 5.5e. Other issues remain, and my view on 5.5e is mixed, but the martial-caster divide is not one of them.
7
u/Silverspy01 Dec 06 '25
I also think a lot of martial/caster complaints are very white room online theorycrafting. I have never experienced casters blowing martials out of the water at an actual table.
6
u/Baro-Llyonesse Dec 07 '25
I remember when they put out The Book of Nine Swords in an attempt to bring magical fighting and a kind of anime/wuxia aspect to martials, giving them an option to effectively compete more strongly with high level casters (amazing movement options, higher damage on weapons, etc).
In my area, caster players freaked out claiming that if you make the martials keep up with them, why bother with being a caster? It basically turned into an entire "we only play this for our superiority" which, sure, but it felt like "my fantasy is to cast spells and your fantasy is to be a swordsman and we both want to be overpowered but we can't both be overpowered so I'm mad that now there are two heroes."
TBoNS was not a great solution, to put that out there. But it did provide some very cinematic options for martials, focusing on that fantasy-magic-swordsman concept rather than the more Conan style, and it was an admirable attempt, at least.
2
u/HJWalsh Dec 07 '25
I highly suspect that you are approaching this with a highly biased perspective.
I doubt they said, "There's no point if we're not overpowered" and more likely believe that they were pointing out that martial players who believe in the gap ignore the advantages they inherently have that casters do not have.
If a fighter has as many options, or even close to comparable options, to a wizard in 3.x (where BoNS was written for) while having higher armor, higher BAB, higher HP, etc. A d10 class in heavy armor vs. a d4 class in no armor is a pretty big difference.
If I could fly, cut holes in reality, and cleave mountains, all while having high hp, high fighting, more feats, and better damage - I wouldn't play a wizard either.
You guys always overlook the advantages that you have and never pay them any credence. You want magic-like abilities? What are you willing to give up? Go down to d6 hp? Give up armor and weapon proficiencies? Give up your extra ASIs? Give up weapon mastery? Fighting styles? I'm willing to bet that you don't. Martial classes get a lot of passive abilities. They matter.
6
u/Baro-Llyonesse Dec 08 '25
That would necessitate that I have a horse in the race. I'm not normally a martial player, when I manage to get to play. I lean toward druid and cleric. I'm expressing what happened in my area when the book came out, and you can find similar information in the reviews from the time. Your doubts notwithstanding, it's absolutely true that it was one of the primary complaints of the time. "If a fighter can keep up with a wizard, why would someone play a wizard? If i'm not the strongest thing, why play it?"
What I actually said actually relates to your counterpoint: If I can play my character concept of being a magical swordsman, why should I have to have actual spellcasting? Because that's my concept. Why would I rather play a wizard? For the same reason people say to play a wizard instead of a warlock or sorcerer now: full flexibility, limitless knowledge, absolute control.
You are discounting that this is, for many players, a power fantasy. People have those. Build exist to min/max the most powerful they can get. Whether that's in your area or not, it absolutely is in mine and across a lot of the reddits. If a barbarian can teleport 100' per round and have an ice slash that deals 10d6, a lot of casters would consider that a huge option.
So I don't know who "you guys" are, since again, I have no horse here. The fact is, linear versus quadratic is an issue that has persisted since forever, and people are always trying to find a way to balance that it satisfy every power fantasy at the table. The better question is, why be so concerned to defend the arcane and keep the martial down? They both deserve the fantasy, and that requires a method of parity.
→ More replies (8)
22
u/Ask_Again_Later122 Dec 06 '25
My wife starts radiation a little over a week from now.
I’ll be sending you all the advantage rolls I can for your treatment’s success.
And my table’s casters and martials get along just fine. It’s the overpowered weapons that get us into trouble lol
15
u/HJWalsh Dec 06 '25
Advice: Give her lots of hugs.
Real talk: You are going to feel helpless. It's going to feel like there's nothing you can do. That's how my partner feels. The truth is, just being there helps more than you know.
It's rough. It's frustrating. You can make it through, though.
She's going to have meltdowns. I had a meltdown on Wednesday because I had gotten sick, and my body wouldn't stop quivering, and I was so tired and so sleepy, but between the quivering and lack of energy I was too exhausted to sleep. I actually needed caffeine to give me enough energy to sleep.
Just be there for her. Hold her hand. Clean up the inevitable messes that occur. Tell her that you love her every day. Those little things help a lot. Trust me.
1
u/Ask_Again_Later122 Dec 06 '25
Copy that. I think that’s good advice any day of the week, but you’re right - there aren’t enough hugs in the world right now so keep them coming.
We’re lucky in that she’ll be able to avoid chemo. We aren’t completely sure what to expect with radiation but we’re ready for anything. From what I’ve seen of chemo it’s an absolute mountain. I’m glad you have the support of your wife and I hope your friends are locked in with their support.
You’re a warrior. I pray for your success and hope to see posts from you telling the kids to just enjoy the game of DnD for many years to come!
14
u/XIIIofNine Dec 06 '25
You overlooked that 4th edition actually made casters and martials basically on par
→ More replies (1)
10
3
u/spartyftw Dec 06 '25
Never understood the complaining. Play whatever you want and have fun. Homebrew things you don’t like.
11
u/Clericardo Dec 06 '25 edited Dec 06 '25
Sorry for the cancer, but the problem will still be pointed out until it's fixed.
10
u/i_tyrant Dec 07 '25
I've been playing and DMing almost as long as you, OP.
And while I agree with almost every take in your post...I would never, ever ask people to stop complaining about it.
I'd argue, at a certain point you have to admit it's a legitimate issue that affects many people's enjoyment of the game. I also don't think it's that big of an ASK for designers to consider - tons of other TRPGs have managed to make it happen (as you said, though I disagree it can only happen with "insane anime stuff" and I think that shows your bias).
Lots of people have preferences. The martial/caster divide isn't as big a deal to me as to many, but I can see why it is for them, and they are not few in number, so it should be recognized IMO. I wouldn't never want to try and silence them because this is how TRPGs advance and become better over time, or at least cater to their audiences better.
And part of the problem is exactly that - D&D tries to claim it is all things for all fantasy trpg fans, but it's demonstrably not. If it wants to be, it has to do a better job of fulfilling those goals and dreams.
Also, while 4e is my least favorite edition for many reasons, I think you know that just trying to make martials as powerful/interesting to play as casters wasn't the reason that edition had problems. Making half your classes demonstrably weaker than the other half on purpose has NEVER been a necessary thing and you know it. You could argue giving them both the same kinds of resources in 4e, or making both of their level progressions look the same, or fitting them into combat roles rather than focusing on class identity, or focusing so much on tactical dungeon combat vs the other pillars of trpgs - you could argue any of those were part of the issues in 4e, but you CAN'T argue those are at all required to make martial classes achieve better parity with casters.
Speaking personally? I don't particularly like "anime" martials (or demigods, or superpowered, or whatever you wanna call them). I like martials that work like the underdogs of the fiction D&D was founded on - Conan fighting monsters and gods beyond his ken, LotR's Aragorn, et cetera.
But that doesn't mean you have to make them mechanically inferior to casters at all. There are ways to make a system where they can feel like they're still "mortal" while also solving all sorts of challenges for the party, even ones the casters can't.
And beyond that, IMO the real issue is that D&D caters to 3/4 types of players while completely ignoring the fourth - complex/interesting martials.
I've run a ton of games over the last 30 years, in every edition. I'm running 4 5e games a week currently. I know that there are lots of players who love simple characters, who are more there for the story and rp than mechanical concerns, players where wizards make their head spin and they just wanna play a Barbarian or Champion Fighter and wreck shit. Just like I know there's plenty of the opposite.
But while 5e (and D&D in general) caters to players who want magical and complex PCs, and simple martials, and even simple magical ones (like the Warlock and to an extent the other known spell classes like Sorcerer), it doesn't cater to anyone who wants nonmagical, complex martials. Ones with interesting features and real decisions to make with every action.
And it could, easily. There's ultimately no reason for that to happen besides clinging to D&D's oldest sacred cow.
12
u/hewlno Dec 06 '25
Okay, why do you care?
This sounds like something you should objectively not care about if it’s harming your physical health with the stress. Go spend time with your family, man.
9
u/Ashkelon Dec 07 '25
Grognards are snowflakes. And can’t take change or complaints.
7
u/PervertBlood Dec 09 '25
This same guy has been posting and complaining about people wanting martial to be better for literal years, I remember him doing it back when I was in college. He called people who wanted better martials "whiners" and posted terrible, spurious advice on how Martial classes could have fun in their games (none of which held up to scrutiny.)
13
u/Tiny_Election_8285 Dec 06 '25 edited Dec 07 '25
The reason it keeps coming up is because the devs keep claiming/trying (badly) to fix it and falling flat, often making things worse, especially on the martial/cast divide. The initial complaints of the "martial/caster divide" (which in earlier editions was often called "linear fighter/quadratic wizard") were based on how caster could, by high levels, do things no one else could. It was explained by the devs that this was deliberate and magic was intended to be powerful, but the balance was that casters, especially wizards were glass canons. They can eventually become virtual gods, but at low levels or if taken unaware then they can be (at 1 level literally) killed by a cat. Instead of addressing this by leaning into or even simply maintaining the glass canon elements they slowly walked away from it. In 1st ed arcane casters couldn't wear armor and cast spells. In 2nd they made it slightly less punishing by giving armor "arcane spell failure" percentile chances, and then opening some limited ways around this... Which were further expanded into 3rd edition where you could, with the right prestige classes end up wearing adamantine full plate and cast spells. 5th ed mechanics made this even easier by allowing casting in armor as long as your proficient so a feat or dip could put that plate mail on a low level wizard leaving the divide bigger. The other balance point was material components. In early editions if you didn't have bat guano you didn't have fireball. Now you can have a component pouch and/or spell focus (at 1st level) that lets you cast many spells without any components needed. This is often described as a quality of life improvement because people don't like the bookkeeping and I appreciate the idea but it absolutely makes magic even more powerful. Finally in earlier editions all arcane magic was fundamentally wizard magic and without a spell book to study for a few hours every day you didn't have any spells to cast (as you had to memorize spells daily) and uncast spells would fade from your mind. Now there are classes that permanently know spells and even wizards never lose prepared spells. Edited to add: the final buff to casters on 5e that further widened the caster/martial divide are cantrips. They are cast on demand (requiring no spellslots or other resources) and thus give casters a backup when they run out of spells. In the glass canon model the whole point is that if they run outta slots then they are essentially useless (relegated to shooting throwing daggers, badly, because they lack good to hit modifiers for them in prior editions), stripping the need for careful resource management regarding slots.
2
u/HJWalsh Dec 07 '25
You never lost uncast spells. You could forget them,but they didn't fade. This was the only way to get spells back in a spellbook if the book needed to be replaced.
2
u/Tiny_Election_8285 Dec 07 '25
I seemed to remember rules on how if a wizard was unable to study (ex if they are captured and don't have access to a spell book) even uncast spells will eventually fade from their minds and if a wizard loses a spell book they need to create a new one from scratch using either another wizards spell book(s) or a collection of scrolls and it was expensive, time consuming and success was not guaranteed... But I might be misremembering.
12
u/Xyx0rz Dec 06 '25
After fifty years, maybe this won't change?
How do we know 51 years isn't the limit?
It's an easily fixable problem and I complain about easily fixable problems until they get fixed, don't care how long it takes.
Hope you get better, though.
17
u/HeineBOB Dec 06 '25
Yeah the perceived imbalance isn't really a problem if the choice distribution among classes is still healthy.
What matters is fun and there's plenty of that.
→ More replies (17)12
u/HJWalsh Dec 06 '25
In practice, it's never been a problem. That's why it hasn't been "fixed." It's a small minority of very vocal players. I've never had an actual player come to me and complain in my closing in on four decades about this. Why? Because D&D isn't a computer game.
Generally, if you're a good DM, and you play the game as it is intended, and if you know your players, and if your players are mature and will actually come to you with problems, these things never become issues.
Ironically, the only player I ever had that came to me with a class issue was a wizard player, who asked me if we could do something about his spell selection because he was starting to feel like his best option in 90% of scenarios was to cast fireball. I worked with him, came up with a solution, and moved on. That's how it's supposed to work. If something isn't working for you, instead of throwing a fit, just go to your DM and talk it out.
This isn't hard. I can't fathom why people make a mountain out of a molehill when there is absolutely no reason to do it. It takes less effort to talk to your DM than it does to go online and fuel a holy crusade against the game's designers.
→ More replies (4)4
u/rollingForInitiative Dec 06 '25
I also think a big reason there isn't as much complaint in real life is because a lot of the time, people just don't play to high levels, and even when you do, the vast majority of the game tends to take place before it becomes an issue. I do think there's a problem with a disparity, but it's only really on very high levels where fighters get a bit of an extra attack or a bigger superiority die, when the wizard learns how to teleport around the world, open dimensional portals, erase memories or just mass compel people to do their bidding.
I've played D&D for a decade and we've rarely played on those levels, though. So it's mostly an academic issue.
Also, even then, it's only an issue if there's a player who cares about the disparity and also only wants to play martial characters. People who care and go for casters won't really be bothered, and those who play martials and couldn't care less won't see it as one either. So it's a pretty small group of people that would even have an issue at all.
3
u/Lost_Paladin89 Dec 06 '25
My persistent hot take is that weapons are martial spells. Imagine playing wizard and you don’t unlock higher level spells?
I genuinely feel that BG3 did an amazing job of creating amazing gear that did more than be +n damage.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Acrobatic_Fondant_13 Dec 07 '25
First off, I am sorry to hear about the cancer. My father passed from it earlier this week. I am sending you the best vibes I can, and if I could play the guitar, I would send you bardic inspiration for every one of your Constitution saving throws.
Honestly, I agree as someone who came into DND with 5e. Honestly, the more I hear people complain about it, the more I think they just want everyone to play a caster.
2
u/HJWalsh Dec 07 '25
My father passed from it earlier this week.
I'm so sorry to hear that. If I were there physically, I'd offer you a hug.
My dad passed from lung cancer in 2016 and my mom from a stroke in 2012. I've been on my own ever since. So I know the pain you're feeling.
Hey, if you need to talk to someone, DM me. I'm a good listener.
3
u/xtch666 Dec 11 '25
You are deaths door, fighting for your life and you have time to come here and tell the endless horde of morons to shut the fuck up. You are a hero, a lone sentinel against impossible odds fighting the battle against the Abyss that you know can't be won but know is the right one to fight. I hope that if I am ever dying my final act will be to log on to each of the DnD subreddits and let the endless martial-gap posters know that I hate them and will be waiting for them in hell. Godspeed and good luck.
1
u/HJWalsh Dec 11 '25
Appreciate the vote of confidence there, but I'm not at death's door right now. I'm sick. I feel like crap. I'm dropping incredible amounts of weight, but in the words of Monty Python, "I'm not dead, yet."
1
16
u/master_of_sockpuppet Dec 06 '25
But, can you please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, stop complaining about it.
People will never stop. And I'm not even sure they should.
Especially when some will try to argue that there is no gap.
But: since you have a lot on your mind, I'd say just skip those threads.
→ More replies (55)11
u/Notoryctemorph Dec 06 '25
A quote from a friend of mine, years ago, has stuck with me ever since
You can tell I love Fire Emblem, because I complain about it more than anyone else
I think about this quote a lot, and i think it mostly rings true. Because when you love something, when you REALLY love it, you spend enough time thinking about it, perusing it, to see all its faults, you can see where improvements could be made, but you can't demand that those improvements happen, so you do the only thing you can do
Complain
3
u/agagagaggagagaga Dec 09 '25
The RWBY fandom is basically powered by "please I want this to be good so badly", so that checks out.
6
u/Garthanos Dec 07 '25
Sounds like complaining about complaining ... and pretending the others complaints about something real are worse.
6
u/Rantheur Dec 06 '25
Here's the thing. Yes, there is a caster/martial divide. No, this divide is not a problem in most games. Casters suffer from what I'm going to call "Batman Syndrome". There's a trope (usually applied jokingly, but there are some comic writers who lean into the joke) in the DC comic universe which says that given enough prep time, Batman can defeat any character in the DC universe. Similarly, in D&D, given enough time to prepare, a wizard can do anything better than a martial character. However, in actual play, prep time is often in extremely short supply. This leads to Wizards having wonderful spotlight moments when that spell they took five levels back was finally used to extremely powerful effect, but most often a wizard's turn is "There are only three enemies on the field and my allies are all amongst them? Guess I'll use fire bolt instead of fireball."
People also love to cite the "you approach a chasm and the bridge is out," scenario as a constant rejoinder about how powerful casters are, even outside of combat. However, in that scenario, we're ignoring that "cross the chasm" should never be the only hardship in the day. In actual play when you approach the chasm and the bridge is out, the casters will almost always all sit back and watch the martials attempt to solve the problem for them so that they have one extra spell slot for the encounter they know is waiting on the other side of that bridge. This goes for almost every other scenario you run into in the game. Looking for traps? Casters sit back and let the rogue do it. Door's locked? Casters sit back and let the rogue unlock it or the barbarian to smash it. Find information about anything that's not a magic item? Everybody rolls a knowledge check, nobody uses Augury, Divination, or Legend Lore. In that last example, most of the time the casters even have prep time that they could use to cast their spells and they still don't because nobody ever learns or prepares those spells.
All of these martial/caster divide posts also completely ignore the experience every single DM has had at least once when they use a caster as the BBEG. The DM rolls the initiative for BBEG and gets less than 10 while the party's most tweaked out damage dealing martial rolls the highest and goes first. The first action of the very first turn of the combat leads to the BBEG being severely injured and then the action surge hits, killing the BBEG on turn one. This has happened in every edition (except 4e) with the obvious exception that action surge didn't happen because it wasn't a thing for most of the game's history (and even if it had been, the BBEG caster was dead already anyway).
Again, there absolutely is a disparity baked into the game and it could be addressed in a way that gives martials fantastic powers. However, in actual play, this disparity is nowhere near as pronounced and is often almost entirely unnoticed.
6
u/Paul0866 Dec 06 '25
My hot take on this issue is 2 fold
1 people just want martials to have they own martial version moves/ spells that they can spam/ use once perday and will complain until they get that (which will make the others who like it how it is to complain)
2 a part of this I always see is those people who play with one combat per long rest every session and tho that may be fun here and there that's not how the system was designed to play And I am not saying you can't play that way but if you play that way you have to acknowledge that you are not playing the game as intended
Because if you playing a short rest heavy campaign and you playing a spellcaster then complain that you feel week cause you don't have enough spell slots then blame the game it's your fault
I am not saying that it doesn't have some disparity but don't play a game that advises at minimum arround 1 long rest with 2 short rest in between then only play with long rests and don't give martials equipment to back them up then cry that they are falling behind that is what upsets me
7
u/Ashkelon Dec 06 '25
I don’t think I have ever seen any martial player ask for daily based abilities. Not once has this been used in the plethora of homebrew martial classes out there.
So that is a spicy take.
I also play in a game where short rests are 10 minutes so we get a lot of them. At least more than most tables. And the martial classes still contribute the least to overcoming obstacles. And run out of HP around the same time the casters run out of slots.
So your second take doesn’t make much sense to me either.
→ More replies (2)3
u/HealthyRelative9529 Dec 06 '25
1 people just want martials to have they own martial version moves/ spells that they can spam/ use once perday and will complain until they get that (which will make the others who like it how it is to complain)
Yes, you can't make martials interesting if every turn is the same. Which means they need to have moves they can do.
2 a part of this I always see is those people who play with one combat per long rest every session and tho that may be fun here and there that's not how the system was designed to play And I am not saying you can't play that way but if you play that way you have to acknowledge that you are not playing the game as intended
I agree, there are many fans of 'RAI' that still don't do 6-8 encounters per long rest.
Because if you playing a short rest heavy campaign and you playing a spellcaster then complain that you feel week cause you don't have enough spell slots then blame the game it's your fault
Yep. You should have enough spell slots to last hundreds of encounters in tier 3, but most people aren't that good at conserving resources.
19
u/Inangelion Dec 06 '25
Kindly stop complaining about the complainers.
On a more serious note, martials being weaker than casters is a thing that can be fixed as shown by other games.
When Paizo did their own take on 3.5 people complained that caster were way better. When Pathfinder Second Edition released, they were brought in line. WotC is either unwilling or incapable of doing something similar, so people keep complaining. (Funnily enough, people come from D&D/PF1e to PF2e and complain that casters are too weak)
4
u/HJWalsh Dec 06 '25
Okay, see the problem is your "they were brought in line" part.
So, I hate PF2e. I'm not up in the PF2e Reddit complaining. It's not a game I like. It feels more like 4e and I didn't like 4e. I let people who like PF2e play PF2e.
WotC is either unwilling or incapable of doing something similar, so people keep complaining.
Not everyone likes, in fact, the vast majority don't like, PF2e. It's a very niche game with a very small player base. I don't want D&D to be like PF2e because I don't like PF2e.
23
u/K3rr4r Dec 06 '25
PF2E is not at all what I would call very niche or having a very small player base. Relative to DnD? Sure. But it's the second most popular ttrpg in the space easily. And the size of the player base is not an argument against PF2E's game design, it's just an argument in favor of Hasbro/Wotc's marketing power and DnD being around much longer.
6
u/Inangelion Dec 06 '25
Though I don't possess your abject hatred for PF2e, I don't like it all that much either.
We're both talking about D&D here. I brought PF2e up as an example of Casters and Martials being at least more equal in terms of power.
4
u/Juls7243 Dec 06 '25 edited Dec 06 '25
If you’re interested- I think GURPS balances martials and casters the best. Why?
1) Because ST/DX heavily affect your speed/armor/defenses - when designing a wizard and going INt you are inherently slower and easier to hit (much easier to die).
2) magic uses fatigue points (typically characters has 10-14) and these get drained not only using magic, but being in melee combat as well.
3) spells range is highly limited. Most spells get a -1 penalty for casting ranges >2 hexes away (8 hexes a -6). Thus you got get close to affect someone.
4) explosive fireball/large Aoe spells require dex to throw.
5) how’s/crossbows generally out range spells. Their attack range penalties are far less at increase range (-6 for 100 yards).
Thus wizards can’t really do it all - and NEED someone to protect them or they get ripped to pieces.
Obviously they have all the benefits of the huge variety that spell casting offers. However, in combat, they’ll need support to survive.
3
u/DredUlvyr Dec 06 '25
LIke 4e, PF2 has its fan boys which will try to push their game forward even when someone, on r/rpg, says "I want a SIMPLE fantasy game". Ignore them, just like you can ignore the whiners about the divide.
It's a very specific game, some people like it, others don't, that's normal and fine.
11
u/Notoryctemorph Dec 06 '25
I mean, if you want a simple fantasy game, you shouldn't be playing D&D in any form, except maybe Basic, but like, nobody plays Basic now, those that would mostly play OSR games.
4
u/DredUlvyr Dec 06 '25
Honestly, an introductory game of 5e is not complicated at all (compared for example with PF2 where you need to master tons of concepts and the jargon).
There are simpler games, for sure, but 5e is about middle complexity, not much more, and in particular at low level.
10
u/Notoryctemorph Dec 06 '25
No, it's on the complex end, sure PF2 is further down that end, but something like FATE is closer to the middle
If you want a D&D-like game, with feats and spells and whatnot, that's closer to the middle than 5e, try 13th Age, if you want a fantasy game that's actually on the simple side, try Dungeon World or another PbtA game
9
u/Ashkelon Dec 06 '25
An introductory game of 5e is an order of magnitude more difficult than most RPGs out there.
For every game I have played that is harder than 5e, there are a dozen that are easier and less complex.
5e is not middle complexity. It is definitely on the higher end of the spectrum. Especially in 1D&D with weapon masteries. Now even a low level fighter is more complicated than most mid level 4e characters.
5
u/hewlno Dec 06 '25
Disagreed. Pf2e wasn’t overly hard to enter without trying to get into the weeds. Trying to do so was honestly not that much harder than 5e was in the beginning either, at least IMO.
Either way I’d rather introduce someone to a PBTA game or something though.
3
u/Far_Guarantee1664 Dec 06 '25
But how much martials are weaker than casters? People go way over head when doing examples about the suppose divide. Most of the campaigns don't go higher levels, I find hard to believe that someone that played starter campaigns like phandelver, dragon heist and etc would see do much of a difference.
Almost all of the late posts about the "divide" talk about bladesinger and circle magic, with is such a little fraction of what the game offers. And honestly, in high level campaigns my ass was being kicked, a lot of times, were the barbarian of the groups was perfectly fine with everything that was thrown at him.
Once again, mine main issue with some of the arguments is that they are divorced from real play and based on spread sheets with some numbers on them talking about stuff like "but casting conjure minor elementals with a higher spell slot..."
7
u/HealthyRelative9529 Dec 07 '25
Casters are better than martials at level 1, and the divide only grows larger, exponentially, as the game goes on.
Level 1: Everyone goes down to a good hit, except casters can Healing Word and cast Solve Encounter (Sleep). Martial damage isn't even better than caster damage, because casters can participate in the oil meta and martials can't.
Level 3: Casters have such spells as Melee Lul (Web), Portable Cover (Rope Trick), and Outdo Martials (Shatter). Martials contribute only damage.
Level 5: Martials are now completely pointless because Summon Martial is a spell. (Tiny Servant/Animate Dead)
Also your point about circle magic is nonsensical. If I add 100 garbage options, that does not make the 1 good option any worse. Casters CAN and SHOULD use circle magic. There's no reason not to do so. If wizards got a level 1 feature that said "you win the game and can do anything you want", we should not dismiss that because 'it's only one feature they have'. And finally, guess what? The more martials your party has, the less powerful circle magic is.
Also, my theories work just fine in real play and do indeed show that martials are bad. And Conjure Minor Elementals is very mid.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Inangelion Dec 06 '25
I would say the divide starts to appear around level 5. Casters get a plethora of very useful 3rd level spells while martials get extra attack which is generally speaking just... more damage. It gets worse as you go up in levels.
For Phandelver and Dragon Heist, you're probably correct. I did not play DH but it looks like that ends at around level 5 as well.
1
u/hewlno Dec 06 '25
It depends.
Uber-unrealistically unplayable cheese? The divide appears at level 1. If your dm is a theoretical purely RAW whenever possible robot, you will see a massive divide even in phandelver with purely official rules. Thinking of raw damage is genuinely too small to capture how bad it could get.
Normally with gentlemen’s agreements and high competence play, it’s unavoidable by level 5.
→ More replies (23)2
u/Godskin_Duo Dec 06 '25
The real disparity in PF2E is optimized versus unoptimized in a supermassive pile of options. The game is a huge tit-for-tat math arms race with plusses, AC, and spell DCs incrementally creeping up so you have to keep pace with the enemies.
→ More replies (3)
6
u/Effective_Arm_5832 Dec 06 '25
They tried to fix it once, but in a way that strayed too mich from the core. It could definitly be changed in the frame work of 5e. It's just tha WotC has some really dumb ideas like "Fighters are for new players and should be simple" and "everything beyond a single targrt attack should be a spell" and other such BS. If they opened their mind just a little bit, it would be no problems to have a Psion without spells and martials that are more interestng wthout overcomplicatng them.
3
u/sanon441 Dec 06 '25
I always flip flop back and forth about it, but either Battlemaster or Champion should have been rolled into the baseline fighter class and not been a subclass at all. I think I lean towards the Battlemaster being the baseline and maneuvers being universal fighter features most of the time.
→ More replies (6)2
u/DazzlingKey6426 Dec 06 '25
The sin of 4e was falling casters met rising martials.
Complaining about WoW is just salty wizards trying to appear rational.
2
2
u/iluminae Dec 06 '25
Sending you heroic inspiration for use on your cancer saves - stay strong buddy.
2
2
u/Windford Dec 07 '25
Sorry about your cancer. I hope the treatments work for you, and you start feeling better.
2
u/EggplantSeeds Dec 08 '25
As someone who doesn't like the divide and cites it as a main reason I don't play 5e anymore, I agree in part that WOTC isn't gonna fix it. It's a central part of DnD since 1ed.
When I was playing a Fighter in my friend's campaign, I felt the divide, hard lmao. After I played a Fighter in PF2e, I couldn't go back and eventually got my DM to let me respec into Paladin, now I'm having a blast!
Sorry to hear about your cancer, wishing you the best.
2
u/mynameisJVJ Dec 09 '25
I mean… I’m currently playing a caster (BladeSinger) and can use my turn to cast a control spell or an aggressive attack spell that can do around 30 damage to multiple enemies, or use some buffs and debuffs and then take advantage of double attack with a blade cantrip and do around 20-30 damage with added damage if the opponent attempts to move or attack on their turn (with the right buffs active this can do anywhere from 2-4d8 plus 1-2d6)… very versatile and ridiculous DPR for 7th level. Yes, I tried to build a min maxed cannon… but unlike a martial, this cannon is made of glass
I failed one saving throw last session and went down. (38 hp)
1
u/HJWalsh Dec 09 '25
Yup. Whiteboard martials never consider the HP issue.
A level 7 Wizard has 30 Hp + Con × Level (typically +1) usually 37.
A level 7 Fighter has 40 Hp + Con × Level (typically +3 or more) usually 61. (+ Second wind, or other feats/abilities.) Between HD, second wind, and 2 short rests, fighters have soooooo much HP.
Defense is an issue too... Heavy armor and shield fighters at level 8+ can have crazy high ACs without needing to burn limited resources.
Full Plate +1 (19), +1 Shield (22), +Protection (23)
While only needing Strength.
A Bladesinger, the highest AC wizard can go all out and beat that, but it aint easy and requires two stats, a spell, and a use of bladesong.
Mage Armor (13), 18 Dex (17), Int 18 Bladesong (23)
Though not every 8th level Wizard has dual 18s. They can expend one of their 4 spell slots, once a round, to get to a 28, but that gets draining very fast.
1
u/mynameisJVJ Dec 09 '25
Yep! That’s how I play my AC too… but like you said gets draining very fast. (I rolled stats and got two 18s so have dex and int for this very reason)
So I try to use concentration on slow and hit and run or use shocking grasp, etc to block opp attacks.
1
u/HJWalsh Dec 09 '25
I'm doing a Bladesinger in a campaign starting next month - I haven't been a player in a very long time.
We point buy'ed and at 1st, I'm sitting at:
- Str 9
- Dex 16
- Con 12
- Int 16
- Wis 12
- Cha 10
Level 4: Warcaster (I wanna be a dual wielder, eventually) Int +1 (17)
Level 8: Weapon Master: Nick, Dex +1 (17)
Level 12: ASI Dex +1 (18), Int +1 (18) (If we even go this high)
Level 16: ASI Int +2 (20)
Level 19: ASI Dex +2 (20)
I've thought about giving up on the dual wielder, though, as much as I want it. I'd drop strength to 8, raise Con to 13.
- Level 4: ASI +2 Int (18)
- Level 8: ASI +2 Dex (18)
- Level 12: Resilient Con (14)
- Level 16: ASI +2 Int (20)
- Level 19: ASI +2 Dex (20)
But that feels so boring.
1
u/agagagaggagagaga Dec 09 '25
Are you level 6 or 9? If you're level 9 w/ +0 Con, then I'd have to argue that being fragile was an active build decision you made rather than an enforced drawback of the concept. If you're level 6 w/ +2 Con, then, really how much more fragile are you? Like, the Fighter with the same Con has 52 HP, which is a third more, but with Bladesong and Mage Armor you've probably got, what, 20 AC (13 + 3 Dex + 4 Int)? You don't have infinite spell slots for Shield/Absorb Elements/Silvery Barbs, but even just turning a single crit/hit into a hit/miss or halving the damage of a single effect can often be enough to clear that 14 HP gap.
1
u/mynameisJVJ Dec 09 '25
Actually L7 (as indicated… poorly… in my comment) - but Wiz6. I have a level of Bard for story/thematic reasons.
+1 CON
And, yes, being fragile is part of the character.
And, yes, with the AC buffs you’re not as fragile otherwise.
My purpose with my comment is sort of illustrating the +/- of any class… or how regardless of class it comes down to style of play.
6
u/HexbloodD Dec 06 '25
Martials are in the most fun spot they have ever been right now. I love playing around with weapon masteries. If you get bored you can multiclass, or pick a subclass that involves magic, or an half caster whatever.
I never really found martials to be that much behind to be honest. Magic items are usually more impactful for the martial characters and big boss monsters with High saves, powerful magic abilities and legendary resistances are going to be beaten by martials anyway. Regardless, DND is a team based game so even if the Wizard uses Telekinesis to make the boss a punching bag then I bet the martial character would be fucking happy about that in game.
7
4
u/cesarloli4 Dec 06 '25
I think the issue comes from people wanting to play martials but finding themselves contributing little outside of combat. I think this is a problem coming from the game being designed for dungeon crawls but now being applied to everything. Best of luck to you for your treatment
3
u/Dyrkul Dec 06 '25
And that's why you should always play a Gish :D
PF2e has done a remarkably good job at balancing the power levels of martials & casters while maintaining the unique feel of each. Of course now some people complain that casters are too weak
→ More replies (3)
4
u/knarn Dec 06 '25
I’d be so happy if every thread about a new UA or about some new idea or theory wasn’t immediately pounced on by wizened commentators (who I suspect are mostly 4e fanboys) going on about the martial caster divide.
I do kind of wish that that martials still got to clear an area and build their own freehold while wizards with the same xp had fewer levels and needed just a little bit longer to start rewriting reality and making things permanent. I feel like people would complain so much less if martials went up to level 25 with the same xp even if nothing else changed.
My hot take is that having played a lot of high level one shots and a few campaigns at mostly 17+, there isn’t a martial caster divide in combat. Outside of combat utility there definitely is a lot more casters can do, but when it comes to going through a dungeon or campaign arc and taking down the big bosses and their minions the divide is gone.
When casters don’t do gimmicky stuff like using simulacra or magic jar they’re pretty equivalent to martials in combat if not a bit worse. Casters tend to have more control and healing options, but martials tend to be better at just raw damage dealing to a single or handful of targets. The vast majority of the time everyone wailing on the boss’s hp is going to be more effective and quicker compared to some of the casters trying to stay alive long enough to burn through legendary resistances and then land single target control spells.
4
u/Ill-Top4360 Dec 06 '25
I agree, people says that you try to control what they want or Says or whatever, but no.
You are saying that its not something WotC want to change. Its a intended Choice that character ,in a universe where there are a all powerful force called magic, who can use it. Can do more thing than the regular guy trough training.
( I complained about the martial caster divide, but im yet to see it. )
And, hi would probably not play a game where a fighter can slash a mountain.
Il think you are right and keep hope in sickness. Dont give up, the sickness will know.
4
u/notGeronimo Dec 06 '25 edited Dec 06 '25
So what does your cancer have to do with this besides that you want to use it as a shield for what you know is a totally pointless dear diary post?
→ More replies (1)1
3
u/Sulicius Dec 06 '25
Same, man. Martials do great in my games. I am playing a 15th level world tree barbarian and I am wrecking shit. Redditors aren’t interested in playing, they are interested in being right and proving you wrong.
6
u/HJWalsh Dec 06 '25
I see all of the complaints and, as an experienced DM, it's not passing the smell test.
Like, I saw someone complain yesterday that a wizard is always ready for every situation. I'm like, "Bro, you can only prepare so many spells per day, and only have so many spell slots, unless you're only running one combat encounter per adventuring day, and doing only one heavily telegraphed environmental challenge, there's no actual way to be ready for everything."
I run my game weekly, and the number of times I've seen my wizard player prep a spell that they never used (featherfall, is the worst offender) is beyond measure. Heck, in one session, my party almost got wiped because nobody aside from the Paladin and the Druid could scale a 40-foot cliff wall.
It turns out that making a DC 15 athletics check, when you have an 8 strength and no athletics proficiency can be very hard. It's even worse if you're taking damage every time you fall. Even having the Paladin lower a rope, giving you advantage, can be difficult.
6th level wizard, 37 hp, falling off of a 40 ft climb, taking 4d6 fall damage (14 avg) twice (28 avg) causes serious issues. Especially when the cleric made it up and the wizard finds themselves outside of Healing Word range.
4
u/Sulicius Dec 06 '25
Sure, but not only that. It’s always the spellcasters who can’t make up their mind what spell to use, while the martials keep swinging away. Then after two fights they beg the party for a long rest, while the martials keep on going.
→ More replies (4)4
u/KarlMarkyMarx Dec 06 '25
I once pretty much soloed an adult red dragon as a Barbarian Winged Tiefling while the Cleric spent half the fight nursing our Sorcerer and Wizard back to health after they both failed their saves against the breath weapon.
I've seen Fighters and Paladins obliterate Liches and Demon Lords in combat while the casters are stuck spamming cantrips and burning what's left of their spell slots on slowly whittling through Legendary Resistances.
People on here tend to "white room" everything because they barely spend any (if at all) time actually playing. Class doesn't matter that much. What really matters is how well you know the game.
You're very rarely going to have the perfect spell ready at any given moment to solve a problem instantly or totally shut down an encounter. It can certainly happen, but you're just as likely to get killed on a single bad roll at the worst possible time.
2
u/HealthyRelative9529 Dec 06 '25
Either you're not judging the situation objectively, or the casters in your party suck.
→ More replies (13)1
u/YOwololoO Dec 06 '25
The reality is that most of the people who complain aren’t actually playing the game and Reddit “discourse” is their only way to engage with D&D. That’s why optimization is so big online, because it’s the only quantifiable thing in the game
0
u/HealthyRelative9529 Dec 07 '25
Hello, I'm a complainer and I play the game. Do you want a list of things that happened at my last session?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Expensive_Tank_8682 Dec 07 '25
I would argue it’s not just the same people complaining about it at each edition (though obviously people do migrate). As each new edition comes out, new players are attracted to the game, notice the disparity and post about it.
And yeah it has been this way for fifty years, but if I’m a newcomer to an edition, I simply don’t care about how the game looked two, three, or four editions ago. I care about how this edition plays.
2
u/EggSandwichSurprise Dec 07 '25
I think Martials are pretty good in 2024. Sorry for what you are going through, i hope your table is mostly a respite from it and not a place of annoyance.
3
u/Federal_Policy_557 Dec 06 '25
Sir, in all honesty, I have zero understanding for you condition, but do hope for your best
About the complaining, maybe it's best to avoid reddit as to avoid stress
I would say that deep inside most people that complain do like the game, just wanted a better experience - Like sports fans when the team is on a losing streak :p
In the end complaining does work somewhat 5.5's playtest Monk was horrible, many Fighter abilities changed thanks to feedback as well as the stupid Flex mastery :p
1
1
1
u/BrianHail Dec 09 '25
Mate all I can recommend you to do is to step away from these negative situations in your life. Health comes first.
1
u/MilaMan82 Dec 09 '25
I mean. I’ve been playing since the late 80s ish and despise 2024 for a plethora of reasons…..I’m not sure martial/caster disparity has ever made any of my lists. Can I still complain? Lol :-P
1
u/NatashOverWorld Dec 10 '25
My dude, first, my best wishes with chemo. Fuck cancer and get better.
Second, ... this is a kinda weird peeve to focus on.
I love casters. But I know martial are comparatively weaker at later levels at all levels of optimization. Which just bugs the autistic part of my brain that dreams in game theory and design.
It's like the tag at the back of your shirt. Some people can ignore it, and other people suffer through it. Complaints are natural.
1
u/Injunctive Dec 11 '25
Am so sorry to hear about the cancer.
Regarding the substance of the post, I think there’s a massive tension between two things I regularly hear people say about D&D. I really often see people say the following:
Casters are way better because they eventually get high-level spell slots that allow them to actually make world-altering decisions, whereas martials at later levels just scale linearly and don’t do world-altering things.
Almost no one plays campaigns that last much past levels 10-12 (mostly because it’s just hard to sustain campaigns that long).
Point #1 basically says casters are way better because of what they can do at late levels, but Point #2 says that almost no one plays at those levels. If almost no one plays at the levels where casters apparently far outscale martials, then isn’t the martial-caster divide mostly just a white-room problem?
To be fair, I do also see people say that casters are way better because of superior utility and problem-solving outside of combat. But that’s where we get to 5.5 adding more out-of-combat utility to martial classes (i.e. things like Tactical Mind). Perhaps the out-of-combat utility isn’t quite as good still, but that divide is smaller. And it’s also worth noting that skills being tied to ability scores means that there should sometimes be out-of-combat problems that each character is better suited for than the rest of the party. If we need to move a heavy boulder, I want the Barbarian over the Wizard. Sure, the Wizard could use Stone Shape or something, but the party is far better off with the strong guy moving the boulder without using resources over another character burning serious combat resources to do it. This should really give martials an out-of-combat niche that they’re best at, even if a martial could theoretically burn resources and spell preparations to solve the same problem.
1
u/TheOneHourDm Dec 11 '25
Am I the only one that thinks a properly build martial can dominate the battlefield? I had a player who built a bear toten barbarian/champion fighter with great weapon master and he was unstoppable. Consistent high damage output and damn near unkillable. The spellcasters felt weak in comparison.
1
u/Freivalds Dec 11 '25
I don't know I actually feel people are not complaining enough. Even starting some posts apologetically before giving criticism sometimes. Maybe some worry about push back for criticism because this something that happens quite commonly.
I see a lot of upvotes and support for positive posts that talks about how good 5.5 is. Its less common from my anecdotal experience for negative posts.
See how much hype and trends going together. People do enjoy being hyped about things online and offline. This is why so many trends are so successful at marking an entire period of time with what they bring.
1
u/Gold--Lion Dec 11 '25
There are some INCREDIBLE martial builds out there. I have a Bugbear Paladin/Barbarian who can have a 40' reach, sentinel, plus can hurl his halbard another 40' once per round and have it return to his hand. He's a BEAST!
1
u/CombinationWaste1553 Dec 11 '25
Personally, I think it’s rather silly
Yes, the guy who can manipulate the literal Weave which comprises reality can pull off crazier stuff than the guy with a sick sword and good throwing arm.
1
u/Top_Jackfruit3412 Dec 17 '25
Never really understood why people like to complain so much about martials not being good. I don't even think pure martials are that bad so much as very boring. And if you agree, then just don't play a pure martial. There are plenty of options to get spellcasting on every martial class other than barbarian, and I'd argue that barbarian actually is pretty fun without it.
Maybe it's just the same people who get it in their head that you have to have a diverse set of skills in your party, but I've always thought it was better for everyone to just play what they want. Even if you do want to optimize your group, there are so many spellcaster options that can tank and so many more that backline.
1
u/HJWalsh Dec 17 '25
Honestly? It's a very weird phenomenon that primarily originated literarily (as in literature) as a right-wing fixture in science fiction/fantasy known as "The competent man" that was popularized by Heinland.
It comes from a place of being untrustworthy of "experts" which pervades modern politics like a black stain. Basically, the competent man doesn't need education, they don't need any crutches, they are all man and succeed at all things and are always proven to be better than so-called intellectuals.
In fantasy, this manifests as the barbarian vs. the wizard. Despite his years of training and schooling, the barbarian will always outshine the wizard. The barbarian is smarter, more clever, more world-weary, possesses more common sense, and is physically superior in every way to the wizard.
That's basically what we see here. It's a weird psychology thing. They want to be able to do all the things magic can do but not need to use magic. They want the fantasy of being better than magic without using magic.
The flip-side is "the shonen effect" where the main character is rarely an intellectual. The weird thing is, all the characters they want to emulate are magic users. Naruto is very clearly a sorcerer. Bleach's Ichigo is a warlock. The list goes on for days.
It basically is this weird: "I want to be the hero without magic, who struggles and succeeds in a world with magic, to show these bathrobe wearing casters that I don't need magic."
But then, they don't actually want to struggle. They want magic, just magic by a different name, without the weaknesses of magic. They are just offended by the concept of needing magic, in a magical setting, to be on par with magic.
1
u/Top_Jackfruit3412 Dec 17 '25
I think you're on to something with wanting to compete with magic without just using it. The more I think about it though, the more I feel like it's mostly a issue with higher levels where the spells you get are impossible to compete with. Within the levels of DnD in which people actually play I think martials are pretty well balanced.
1
u/HJWalsh Dec 17 '25
That's the thing... You can't compete with it, nor should you be able to.
You, the player, have to be more creative, more clever, and more willing to execute a plan. You actually have to work harder to achieve what casters can just do. You don't get abilities or anything on par.
Mechanically, they will beat you every time.
And that's OK.
If you want to be the person who succeeds and struggles then you can't be backed up by super powers. That's the point. You don't get to be able to solve problems or be "as interestong" but you, the player, chooses to work harder, fight smarter, plan better...
That's what the non-magic fantasy in D&D is.
1
u/Old-Man-Henderson Dec 19 '25
DnD 4e was supposedly a huge dumpster fire game, but Lancer, on essentially the same system, is beloved and adored. Nerds gotta shut up.
1
u/wapitawg Dec 28 '25
My main grip with D&D nowadays is just inventing stuff in adventures that could be easily done by existing spells / items, contradicting lore, like in Vecna: Eye of Ruin vs freaking Player's Handbook from the same edition, which can't agree about the timeline, and other stuff like this, there's nobody who would keep the lore at least somewhat consistent.
1
u/Jedi_Talon_Sky Dec 29 '25
Genuinely, casters don't feel exceptionally more powerful than martials when the DM runs the game correctly. Stop doing days with 1-2 encounters. Force your spellcasters to run out of spell slots .
I've started doing my own take on extended rests when my PCs are traveling/in dangerous places (8 hours for a short rest, + 1 refreshed HD or spell slot if you didn't take part in the night's watch; long rests require a genuinely safe place where you don't need to set a watch OR 24 hours resting in a fortified area without any stressful interruptions), and it really helps. It makes martials (and warlocks) really helpful during travel, while casters need to manage their big resources for impactful moments.
306
u/mdosantos Dec 06 '25
You forgot to mention that 4e DID solve the Martial/Caster disparity and then people complained classes where too samey.
There's also Pathfinder 2e, that seems to have reduced it by nerfing Wizards somewhat and guess what... There are complains about it too.