Do casters rule and martials drool?

[Deathtongue]

Yes. It just seems much because this is a yearly thing, not a daily thing, and a sizeable part gets paid by the 1%.

Which is ahistorical, but whatever. D&D, yay.

(and 95K goes straight back, paying a year worth of wages of the army, administration & city guard)

This conflicts with what D&D says is a middle-class daily wage and salary and/or the population demographics of just how many people are actually in the middle-class.

Now you just fallen into the trap of circular logic.

When you prepresume that level 20 characters should be able to cast firework, any class that can't do it will not reach your benchmark.

Not at all. High-level quests involve travel to completely inhospitable environments, long-term flight travel, etc, etc. D&D posits many ways to accomplish these things. If the quest is 'travel to the sunken ship and sneak in to steal stuff', casters have a variety of ways to do this without relying on outside assistance. Martials don't.

As player of a martial class, I for one don't care that I need to buy a cap of water, or buy a wizard to cast it on me, or that a partymember to do so ...

A lot of people do mind. They complain bitterly that the casters continually steal the spotlight by being necessary for the completion of the adventure in a way that the martials aren't. They compare, quite rightly, the role of martials who do none of the magical item creation or getting people to breathe underwater or wrangling pixies to change people into giant eagles or whatever to that of a sidekick. Robin often helps Batman complete his adventures, too, but since his role in actually progressing with the adventure pales in comparison to Batman's, we'd still call him a sidekick.

The only time they can't skip this phase, is when the DM creates a quest for them they don't have the starting resource with.

... but guess what? That's no different for spellcasters.

At low levels, D&D posits quests that martials can complete without outside help. Stuff like defending caravans, sneaking into fortresses, and rescuing hostages. Sure, even from the get-go D&D introduces quests where martials and even casters need magical assistance to do things. That's fine, but for the lion's share of low-level adventures martials don't need no handholding.

At higher levels, martials need more-and-more help just to get the adventure started. Adventures like 'defend the caravan' or 'storm this outpost' become less frequent, being replaced by adventures like 'sneak into this castle where things are constantly on fire' or 'investigate these series of flying castles protected by hurricane-force winds'. Critically, while casters can still often handle these adventures without outside assistance, martials increasingly can't. It has the effect of making martials more dependent on outside assistance and more like sidekicks as time goes on.

[Deathtongue]

Or they travel by portal. Or a magic airship that transcends planes, or they ride phase spiders across, or a myriad of other ways that would make for a cool story and still facilitate an all martial party to accomplish the goals.

Spells aren't the be-all-end-all of accomplishing all challenging goals that could be solved by a mage.

Spells ARE the gold standard, however, of talking about how PCs can accomplish high-level goals without relying on NPC/DM assistance. It's always been like that.

This doesn't have to be the case. Martials could just HAVE a class feature where they automatically get access to a rack of common utility magical items. Or they automatically get access to an airship with a lot of magical components to it. Or they get access to a loyal ranch of critters that only they can use. 'How do we travel to and survive in the flying, flaming Fire Elemental Fortress' can totally be 'I head to my arsenal I got for getting to level 12 in Barbarian, put on my Red Dragon Armor, and fly up to there.' But 5E D&D pointedly does not do this. If you want any of that, you have to ask your caster buddy to arrange it for you or ask the DM if these things are available somehow in your gaming world.

[MadBear]

A lot of people do mind. They complain bitterly that the casters continually steal the spotlight by being necessary for the completion of the adventure in a way that the martials aren't. They compare, quite rightly, the role of martials who do none of the magical item creation or getting people to breathe underwater or wrangling pixies to change people into giant eagles or whatever to that of a sidekick. Robin often helps Batman complete his adventures, too, but since his role in actually progressing with the adventure pales in comparison to Batman's, we'd still call him a sidekick.

To me the difference is that this isn't a Batman/Robin scenario, it's a James Bond/Q scenario.

In stories with just martials Q is the person who gets Bond what he needs to complete his mission.

When magic users are involved, all that's happened is you've shifted the role of Q from a side actor to one of the main actors.

If we're talking from a narrative perspective, then whether Q is a main actor or side actor, it's irrelevant to the story that's happening (Bond will get the tools he needs at the moment he needs them). Making that take front stage through a wizard isn't really special. Unless you're suggesting that Q is the real lady killer, cool guy, in the Bond movies. I mean, Bond can't put together all that special gear. He needs a ton of help from his allies to do any of that stuff, and yet in the end, none of us care about that, and acknowledge he's the badass who wins the day.

From a mechanics perspective, anything that a spellcaster can do to get you to the front door of the adventure, there is other ways of accomplishing that as well, through portals, magic items, etc. etc.

I'll I'm really seeing in this thread seems to boil down to "Spellcasters can do X number of things that martials can't do without outside assistance, and therefore martials drool as a result".

[Deathtongue]

To me the difference is that this isn't a Batman/Robin scenario, it's a James Bond/Q scenario.

If we're talking from a narrative perspective, then whether Q is a main actor or side actor, it's irrelevant to the story that's happening (Bond will get the tools he needs at the moment he needs them). Making that take front stage through a wizard isn't really special. Unless you're suggesting that Q is the real lady killer, cool guy, in the Bond movies.

In the context of D&D? Yes. Extending this analogy to the caster/martial relationship, Q not only provides all of the gadgets, but Q's the one who has all of the information on SPECTRE (knowledge checks and information spells), Q's the one who charms the pants off of the evil secretary after Bond's faux pas (see the huge arsenal of caster social boosters), Q's the one who bypasses all of the guards through clever stealth (invis, polymorph, teleportation), and Q's the one who throws a monkey-wrench in the BBEG's doomsday machine (dispel magic, counterspell, Arcana/Investigation checks, remove curse, etc.).

The idea that the caster is the one who assists the martial do their job, or even assists as coequal participants on an adventure, doesn't reflect what actually happens in D&D at all. The martials handle some non-mental stat skill checks, meat shielding, and DPR. The casters do everything else.

[mgshamster]

Spells ARE the gold standard, however, of talking about how PCs can accomplish high-level goals without relying on NPC/DM assistance. It's always been like that.

This doesn't have to be the case. Martials could just HAVE a class feature where they automatically get access to a rack of common utility magical items. Or they automatically get access to an airship with a lot of magical components to it. Or they get access to a loyal ranch of critters that only they can use. 'How do we travel to and survive in the flying, flaming Fire Elemental Fortress' can totally be 'I head to my arsenal I got for getting to level 12 in Barbarian, put on my Red Dragon Armor, and fly up to there.' But 5E D&D pointedly does not do this. If you want any of that, you have to ask your caster buddy to arrange it for you or ask the DM if these things are available somehow in your gaming world.

That's a misconception from the start. Of course you have to ask the DM to make an adventure that caters to the party. That's what they do. The whole point of the DM is to make an adventure that caters to the party.

We need to accept that it's the DM'S *JOB* to write an adventure that's playable for the party. You wouldn't write a world for a group of Wizards where spellbooks couldn't exist and then say Wizards are terrible (which, btw, is exactly what happens in Out of the Abyss; you lose all equipment from the start and people claim wizards are terrible; or hell, Dark Sun where wizards literally kill the world around then and are hunted by everyone). You wouldn't kill all of the gods off in a game where all of your players are clerics and then say clerics are terrible. You don't write an adventure that requires magic and then say fighters are terrible because you didn't provide it for them.

So we need to change our mentality and stop blaming fighters for something a decent human being would make enjoyable for the group.

From here, I predict people are going to argue that this isn't about changing mentalities, but actually about comparing one class to another while pretending we're making the game better. But that's wrong. Flat out wrong. This is about changing mentalities and it's been about that the entire time.

This ain't about class comparison, it's about writing adventures. If you're writing adventures that your players can't accomplish, then you're writing bad adventures. End of story.

[qube]

Which is ahistorical, but whatever. D&D, yay

Actually, it isn't. with the 1% I meant the people who earn the most (of the people who still pay taxes). They pay, in comparison, a lot, because, just like historical times, there' a big gap between low incomes and high incomes.

If the quest is 'travel to the sunken ship and sneak in to steal stuff', casters have a variety of ways to do this without relying on outside assistance. Martials don't.

Cool, lets take that example shall we. What if the spellcaster doesn't know the waterbreathing spell?

It is the DM who decides the adventure - It is the DM who decides what the requirements are for the adventure, and so, it boils down to it being his choice to how much the caster contributes.

... but guess what? Then people, the same people who say casters >>> martials, start to claim DMs shouldn't give demon lords teleportation protection. And they start to assert that value of the party member is measured in how much it can assist going though hostile terrain.

Sorry, but those are all holes you dig for yourself.

• when your DM gives your caster too much spotlight (even complain when he tries to take some away), your caster is gonna get too much spotlight
• when you measure the value of a partymember on his utility, high utility classes will end up ranking higher
• ...

It can all be reduced to this simple advice

Pro tip: Don't play a martial class if you want to cast spells (or if you want to cast them yourself, opposite to being satisfied when someone casts it on you, or with an item or potion)

[Deathtongue]

That's a misconception from the start. Of course you have to ask the DM to make an adventure that caters to the party. That's what they do. The whole point of the DM is to make an adventure that caters to the party.

And in order to do this, you have do one of two things:

• Scale down the adventure. At level 15, your adventures are still mostly the stuff you did at level 3. You can't under your own power travel to interdimensional dungeons or anything like that, but you CAN still defend bridges and serve as bodyguards.
• Introduce more plot coupons. If you need to go to the interdimensional dungeon, your DM introduces disgruntled seneschals and portal keys and secret Alchemist Guild projects for your party to exploit.

However, please note that option number two is identical in the long run to option number one. Why? Because 'plot coupons' can be used to paper over any mismatch between the party's abilities and demands of the adventure. Atalanta can bless your party to breathe underwater so you can go to the sunken ghost ship and steal a lost artifact, but she could also bless a crew of newbie Fighter College graduates to do so, too. Or for that matter, a group farmhands.

[Deathtongue]

Cool, lets take that example shall we. What if the spellcaster doesn't know the waterbreathing spell?

Then the caster has to go search for someone who can provide the effect, same as the martial, or they can do some other adventure. A party of a cleric, bard, and druid doesn't really have an easy way to teleport either. But, and this is crucial to note, they can do OTHER fantastical stuff with their pooled ability set. Martials pretty much never have anything to contribute towards the solving of a high-level adventure under their own power.

It is the DM who decides the adventure - It is the DM who decides what the requirements are for the adventure, and so, it boils down to it being his choice to how much the caster contributes.

The DM can provide a larger range of choices that don't require an Act One subsquest if casters are in the party.

... but guess what? Then people, the same people who say casters >>> martials, start to claim DMs shouldn't give demon lords teleportation protection.

I think you misunderstand. People, or at least people like me, don't like it when DMs introduce heretofore new mechanics to justify spot nerfs. Forbiddance, however, is an example of a fairly accessible effect that does an anti-high level dungeon pass effect rather well. I have less of a problem with a DM going 'your teleport spell doesn't work because of Forbiddance' for the fifth time in a row as opposed to 'your teleport spell doesn't work because of the Orb of Dissonance I introduced just for this adventure is now a thing'. The former is a sensible and agreed-upon complication, the latter smacks more of stealth nerfs and railroading.

[JNAProductions]

Then the caster has to go search for someone who can provide the effect, same as the martial, or they can do some other adventure. A party of a cleric, bard, and druid doesn't really have an easy way to teleport either. But, and this is crucial to note, they can do OTHER fantastical stuff with their pooled ability set. Martials pretty much never have anything to contribute towards the solving of a high-level adventure under their own power.

The DM can provide a larger range of choices that don't require an Act One subsquest if casters are in the party.

I think you misunderstand. People, or at least people like me, don't like it when DMs introduce heretofore new mechanics to justify spot nerfs. Forbiddance, however, is an example of a fairly accessible effect that does an anti-high level dungeon pass effect rather well. I have less of a problem with a DM going 'your teleport spell doesn't work because of Forbiddance' for the fifth time in a row as opposed to 'your teleport spell doesn't work because of the Orb of Dissonance I introduced just for this adventure is now a thing'. The former is a sensible and agreed-upon complication, the latter smacks more of stealth nerfs and railroading.

So wait-a spell that exists, but can't really be dealt with other than dispelling every room, is fine, but a new wrinkle that can be dealt with in another way, possibly leading to a climactic scene where you desperately try to smash the orb to teleport away in time, is bad?

[qube]

Then the caster has to go search for someone who can provide the effect, same as the martial, or they can do some other adventure. A party of a cleric, bard, and druid doesn't really have an easy way to teleport either. But, and this is crucial to note, they can do OTHER fantastical stuff with their pooled ability set.

How fantastical is your spellcaster if all he takes is attack spells?
How fantastical is your spellcaster if all utility spells he knows have no use (like waterbreathing in a 'dry' campaign)?

I think you misunderstand. People, or at least people like me, don't like it when DMs introduce heretofore new mechanics to justify spot nerfs.

The former is a sensible and agreed-upon complication, the latter smacks more of stealth nerfs and railroading.

Wait, what? Sensible? Don't you realise that the only reason we have walls is because they have swords. That we have merlons because they have archers. That we have a mote, because they have ladders.

In a world where teleporting is a thing ... how do you think it is sensible there wouldn't be teleportation countermeasures? From the moment Merlin learns that Gandalf could teleport, you can bet your *** he'll devise a means to prevent the Gandalf from teleporting into Athur's castle, or worse, the vault.
(Vaults wouldn't even be a thing if teleportation had no countermeasures)

[Unoriginal]

Yes? Rich Burlew is writing the comic completely unburdened by outside input or game rules. Everything that happens in the comic is ultimately a coincidence. I don't see how it could be otherwise. It's just especially noticeable when the coincidence is well-timed and/or effortless. You can get away with it once or twice, but do that one too many times in a story (either in the comic or in an actual TTRPG) and see where it'll get you.

That said, I didn't find such instances particularly jarring because the fiends extracted more than their pound of flesh for the convenience of teleporting and the Azure Teleport Wizard Guy's teleporting really didn't have an overall effect on the main quest. The comic is generally good about making the Order of the Stick pay dearly for not having the tools expected of characters of their level.

...

Alrigth, let me re-ask the question:

Do you think that the Mechane was here because the author went "let's roll on this table what random event will happen" when Elan was separated from the Order and he got "friendly airship captain", or did he decide that for narrative reason, there needed to be someone to let Elan travel in a hurry and teach him how to be a badass, and so introduced someone in the story that would fit that role?

[Naanomi]

I understand the idea of tailoring adventures to the characters, but in general I don't like to go too far that way. There is something more satisfying, to me, to make a set of challenges and they use their tools to solve them, regardless of what those tools might be. I grew up on classic modules and adventure/rpg video games... my most successful game for younger players was a reskin of the Quest for Glory series. Of course those games generally omit teleportation, scrying, etc even when based on DnD rules.

As an aside, if you are in a world where magic countermeasures are such a common investment; an adventuring party explicitly devoid of magic would be an interesting idea to 'bypass' such things... a Battlemaster/Frenzy Barb/Assassin/?Monk? crew bypassing all the detect magic and anti magic fields that everyone has in place as a specialty team would be fun

[Deathtongue]

So wait-a spell that exists, but can't really be dealt with other than dispelling every room, is fine, but a new wrinkle that can be dealt with in another way, possibly leading to a climactic scene where you desperately try to smash the orb to teleport away in time, is bad?

It might be. When a DM has a high-level, reasonably well-prepared foe lock out easy Teleportation with Forbiddance they're just using a setting element. Teleportation lockout isn't exactly something you can do willy-nilly, but it's as basic of a precaution for high-level vaults like high quality locks and an armament for the guards.

The latter, you have to be a lot more careful about. If the DM keeps coming up with reasons (or, more to the point, excuses) why your tools won't work, them hiding behind the logic of genre tropes or in-setting logic is going to fall flat. It's going to feel more like the DM is trying to screw with you, much like if you were playing a rogue that invested a lot in poisons and sneak attack and the next few adventures had the hardcover alteration of having the main antagonists being sentient constructs and undead instead of the humanoids that were originally planned.

How fantastical is your spellcaster if all he takes is attack spells?
How fantastical is your spellcaster if all utility spells he knows have no use (like waterbreathing in a 'dry' campaign)?

You tell me. There are plenty of ways to sandbag your character. There are plenty of ways to build your character in such a way to make you specialized in certain areas (such as social campaigns or blasting) that will close off certain adventuring avenues. So on.

It's a choice casters have to make. Some can recover easily from their choices (clerics) others can't (sorcerers). But note that martials never get to make a choice in the first place. Barbarians don't get to decide whether they want to use their free level-up spells on Demiplane and Teleport instead of something more suited for blasting or diplomacy.

In a world where teleporting is a thing ... how do you think it is sensible there wouldn't be teleportation countermeasures?

Depends on the context and depends on the teleportation countermeasure. Even if Forbiddance wasn't in the 5E D&D, there are still easy ways to deal with people who try to teleport into secure areas; A glyphs of warding or a Symbol tucked away in the vault will pretty much screw over any kind of teleportation.

However, when a DM regularly invents or introduces heretofore-unseen-by-the-rules reasons to screw over teleportation or any kind of player tool, you should start looking for railroad tracks.

Do you think that the Mechane was here because the author went "let's roll on this table what random event will happen" when Elan was separated from the Order and he got "friendly airship captain", or did he decide that for narrative reason, there needed to be someone to let Elan travel in a hurry and teach him how to be a badass, and so introduced someone in the story that would fit that role?

Reductively, the answer to that question is going to be the latter. Because OotS is a comic and not a TTRPG. Even if Burlew was generating his plots with a random number generator, it's still his choice to go through with generated results or not. Not so for a TTRPG, which puts a lot more limits on both players and DMs on ignoring the results of random number generators.

That said, I think my comparison is still valid. Order of the Stick, both in parody and in seriousness, also tries to emulate the tropes of TTRPGs if not D&D. Things happen in the comic in such a way to (usually) have a D&D session analogue, as if you could recreate what happened in the strip with minimal fudging. I'm aware that comparisons of D&D to Order of the Stick are limited by the natures of the mediums, but Burlew does makes a strong effort to make his comic reasonably transparent. And one of the tropes that the comic is built around, which is a trope gaming sessions must IMO be built around is that not having the tools expected of you are going to limit the scopes of your adventures. And the adventures that you still can go on are going to be uniformly harder with no compensation or silver lining. OotS does introduce some ways for the PCs to get around obstacles caused by their poor party build, but it also continually extracts its pound of flesh. And more importantly, the comic also does try to make the alternative paths plausible or at least appropriately foreshadowed.

[SharkForce]

True. But there's a catch-22: the McGuffins a party of high level PCs are interested in, are also pretty rare.

A DM (nomally) won't ask a low level party to break into the kings castle (as that would be a suicide mission), nor will he write a storyline where the main objective is to steal the treasured +1 sword of the Mayer of Pallet Town (not only would it be too easy, it's also non sensical as the party probbably has more gear).

Low level party (access no teleport) --> break into townhall (common) {common = no teleport protection}
High level party (access teleport) --> break into the kings castle (rare) {rare = teleport protection}

I think you underestimate the requirement of common. Sieges aren't common either, but castles are still build to withstand them - in case of.

Missing the point completely: Just like thief tools, teleport has sub-par alternatives. It is not necessary.

I really hope you understand the DM isn't going to prepare an entire campaign around a 30day siege you need to prevent; if the party has no access to teleport and takes 35 days to get there ...

Missing the point. We're not talking about

a situation where teleport accomplishes something powerful

but

a situation where teleport breaks the game

and

a situation where teleport is the only way to solve something

If you think that teleport is garbage, unless it has those effects ... well ... I'm sorry, but you're wrong. If DnD was designed like that, half the monster manual would consist out of monster that are imune to magic. (physical weapons are garbage if there are no situations that can only be solved by physical weapons)

sieges aren't that rare. the capacity to siege something is even less rare. if you have a corps of mages in every army, then yeah, it makes sense to have teleportation protection all over the place. perhaps that is what the settings you play in look like. i don't think it's at all the default. i mean, it is in forgotten realms (and yet somehow they act like that wouldn't have any significant impact on how things are done). it sure isn't the case in every setting, and it especially isn't true that mages are likely to be volunteering to teleport themselves into an enemy castle any time soon.

and yes, teleport is in fact a useless spell if the DM is always going to make sure it isn't needed unless you have it, because by not having it you are gaining the full benefits (making it to where you need to be on time) without expending resources to do so, while with it you are still only gaining the exact same benefits (making it to where you need to be on time) if you do expend resources to do so. teleport still has a cost, but there is no benefit. that makes teleport a trap option.

you might want to read up on the Forbiddance spell, which, when casting it 30, makes it permanent until dispelled.

Lvl 6 spell - the same as a teleport FYI; giving it the same rarity as teleport (in note of SharkForce's argument how high level magic is rare).

Total Cost: 1,000 gp.



To put this in perspective: recently I crafted a economically sound city in D&D 5E of 8,000 people, with two taxbrackets: 10% of income for land owners, and 5% for others; This gave the city a yearly tax income of 175,000 gp, of which it set 15,000 gp for city walls, streets, and government buildings, and had a 9,000 gp buffer.

It's enough to protect all the keep (including the vault), the inner bailey, and the outer bailey.

yes, you *can* protect against teleportation.

no, your 8,000 person city does not have 175,000 gp of income. and they certainly aren't going to spend the income that they actually do have on protection from teleportation unless there is a genuine need. forbiddance doesn't protect that large of an area. an 8,000 person city does not have the income to spare to just build 2-3 castles per year if it feels like it. honestly, a decent-sized city might not even have walls or a keep at all. even most walled cities irl only had walls around *part* of the city.


and in addition to the components cost, you need to pay someone to spend 30 days per area that you're protecting, and since that person possess rather rare skills and is going to need to exclusively cater to your needs for the entire time... that isn't going to come cheap. i mean, if the adventuring party wanted to hire a level 11 wizard (or equivalent) for a month, is that wizard going to decide to work for only the cost of whatever spell components are consumed? you want that level 11 NPC to just park their butt in your castle for a decade doing nothing but spamming forbiddance the entire time, you better believe that's gonna cost you, just like you could expect the PCs to walk away laughing if someone offered them a couple gold per day (plus component-based expenses) to do something like that.

so sure, the king's bedchambers, the royal treasury, probably the vault of anything like a bank? that might have forbiddance on it. you're talking about hiring someone for a month for each of those things, and yeah, that person is still fairly rare (except in the forgotten realms), but as a one-time thing, maybe.

but just spamming it all over the place? that's just silly.

not to mention it's so much easier to remove than it is to emplace it isn't even funny. it takes 30 days, 1000 gp in components, an unspecified (but probably significant) cost in labour, and level 11+ spellcasting in a specific class to set up this defence. it takes 6 seconds, no gold, and only level 5+ to remove it. from range. not at 100% success rate, but then again, it's far easier to hire someone with multiple level 3 spell slots to have a go at dispelling the castle walls than it is to hire someone to place forbiddance on them, which means it's far easier to attack it than it is to set it up in the first place... that's the kind of defence that frankly isn't worth building.

if the defensive measure is *that* ineffective, nobody is going to use it. you literally need to put your forbiddance spell someplace where it can be detected from an enemy wizard just dispelling it, or the spell is completely useless.

[qube]

In a world where teleporting is a thing ... how do you think it is sensible there wouldn't be teleportation countermeasures?

Depends on the context and depends on the teleportation countermeasure. Even if Forbiddance wasn't in the 5E D&D, there are still easy ways to deal with people who try to teleport into secure areas; A glyphs of warding or a Symbol tucked away in the vault will pretty much screw over any kind of teleportation.

However, when a DM regularly invents or introduces heretofore-unseen-by-the-rules reasons to screw over teleportation or any kind of player tool, you should start looking for railroad tracks.

I can only note that this does not answer the question.

Context? OK. Consider two worlds. exactly 100% the same. However, one is made with a player handbook that contained a missprint - the page of the forbiddance spell was accidently left out, but the DM added his own heretofore-unseen-by-the-rules spell, which ... coïncidently does exactly the same as the forbiddance spell he was missing.

Why do you consider that one of those worlds makes less sense then the other?


Or, even better: a DM uses a heretofore-unseen-by-the-rules spell, WotC sees it and publishes it. How does the publishing of a new book alter how much sense the world made?

[mgshamster]

Just because something isn't in the PHB doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the game.

This isn't 3.X. There's no encouragement to play by strict RAW with minimal adjustment. Not is there the idea that a player should have access to every ability in the game or know every rule in the game

5e is not only modular, but highly encourage DMs to change things up to best suit their group, their game, and their story.

This is seen all over the place in 5e. Even OotA introduces a spell the PCs will never be able to cast, because it's not on any PC spell list and doesn't exist in the books. It's a spell for an NPC. The PCs job is to get the spell components so the npc can cast it. Doesn't matter if you're a 15th level wizard or not - you simply don't have access to the spell.

This idea that if the DM introduces something to complicate the players solutions that exists outside the books is "railroading" is so far from the entire design philosophy of 5e that is can simply be declared wrong prima facie.

[KorvinStarmast]

This isn't 3.X. {snip} This idea that if the DM introduces something to complicate the players solutions that exists outside the books is "railroading" is so far from the entire design philosophy of 5e that is can simply be declared wrong prima facie.

Yeah, DM's get to be DM's again.

[MadBear]

Yeah, DM's get to be DM's again.

I know in my group, if we come up with a novel way to use an ability or spell that seems overly broken, we generally follow this rough outline:

1. Let it work 1-3 times, depending on how broken it was

from there, depending on what it was we either

2a. Erratta it ourselves. For example, before there was clarity on if the rerolling 1/2's for the GW fighting style our DM let my paladin reroll all of the attack dice, Needless to say being able to reroll 1/2's when you roll 6d6 (3 greatsword attacks) + 3d8 (improved smite) + 9d6 (smite) + 9d6 (3d6 magic sword that was it's own problem)= very dead creature every time.

When we realized it was broke, I got to use it one last time against a mini-boss and then we forever changed it to just be the dice of the weapon (which was later clarified to be the correct interpretation anyway).

2b. Allow enemies to use counter measures to counter our new power.

Otherwise the game is stupid boring, if you just let a OP move always work just because.

[Pex]

That's a misconception from the start. Of course you have to ask the DM to make an adventure that caters to the party. That's what they do. The whole point of the DM is to make an adventure that caters to the party.

We need to accept that it's the DM'S *JOB* to write an adventure that's playable for the party. You wouldn't write a world for a group of Wizards where spellbooks couldn't exist and then say Wizards are terrible (which, btw, is exactly what happens in Out of the Abyss; you lose all equipment from the start and people claim wizards are terrible; or hell, Dark Sun where wizards literally kill the world around then and are hunted by everyone). You wouldn't kill all of the gods off in a game where all of your players are clerics and then say clerics are terrible. You don't write an adventure that requires magic and then say fighters are terrible because you didn't provide it for them.

So we need to change our mentality and stop blaming fighters for something a decent human being would make enjoyable for the group.

From here, I predict people are going to argue that this isn't about changing mentalities, but actually about comparing one class to another while pretending we're making the game better. But that's wrong. Flat out wrong. This is about changing mentalities and it's been about that the entire time.

This ain't about class comparison, it's about writing adventures. If you're writing adventures that your players can't accomplish, then you're writing bad adventures. End of story.

Actually, it isn't. with the 1% I meant the people who earn the most (of the people who still pay taxes). They pay, in comparison, a lot, because, just like historical times, there' a big gap between low incomes and high incomes.

Cool, lets take that example shall we. What if the spellcaster doesn't know the waterbreathing spell?

It is the DM who decides the adventure - It is the DM who decides what the requirements are for the adventure, and so, it boils down to it being his choice to how much the caster contributes.

... but guess what? Then people, the same people who say casters >>> martials, start to claim DMs shouldn't give demon lords teleportation protection. And they start to assert that value of the party member is measured in how much it can assist going though hostile terrain.

Sorry, but those are all holes you dig for yourself.

• when your DM gives your caster too much spotlight (even complain when he tries to take some away), your caster is gonna get too much spotlight
• when you measure the value of a partymember on his utility, high utility classes will end up ranking higher
• ...

It can all be reduced to this simple advice

Pro tip: Don't play a martial class if you want to cast spells (or if you want to cast them yourself, opposite to being satisfied when someone casts it on you, or with an item or potion)

Where were you people during all the Tier System Cult hate against 3E all these years? The same thing applies there.

/rant

[Tanarii]

To put this in perspective: recently I crafted a economically sound city in D&D 5E of 8,000 people, with two taxbrackets: 10% of income for land owners, and 5% for others; This gave the city a yearly tax income of 175,000 gp

X*1gp*365*.10 + Y*2sp*365*.05 = 175,000gp
X + Y = 8000 people
35.6X+3.65Y = 35.6X + 3.65*(8000 - X) = 31.95X = (175000 - 3.65*8000) = 124200
x = 3887 people making 1gp per day
y = 4113 people making 2sp per day

Sounds economically feasible to me, based on the PHB lifestyle expenses. Since I'm ignoring everyone with 2gp, 4gp and 10gp lifestyles.
Edit: I'm trying to show that the 175,000 gp in taxes per year isn't something totally absurd. Exact breakdown of your particular community doesn't matter. This shows it's in an acceptable ballpark.

Also, I blame you for making my mind go here.

[Psikerlord]

Rather then derail the "is 5e balanced", I thought this might be a better place to hash out the complex and convoluted topic of "are casters strictly superior to martials"

This thread came about from these statements.





I personally fall in the "5e has ramped down casters while ramping up martials camp". I don't necessarily think their equals, but gone are the days were a fighter was a 2-level dip class only just to pick up some feats.

Definitely not. If anything it's the other way around, esp if you use the -5/+10 damage feats, for example.

[druid91]

I'm going to disagree strongly with the "High Level Adventures Demand Extraplanar or Hostile Environmental Travel." Barring a setting like planescape, in which portals are literally everywhere and you can't eat a pie for tripping over a portal to hell, there is no real reason to require extraplanar travel in your campaign. Dragons are a thing that can challenge a party well into 20th level. Armies, also a thing that can challenge a party well into twentieth level. It's entirely possible to have an epic campaign that spans the entirety of the prime material plane without ever once needing to create a pathway to another world entirely.

Do CERTAIN CAMPAIGNS require it? Yes. Yes they do.

EDIT: On the other hand, I'm also going to state that the fact that Casters CAN do these things certainly does strongly weight the board in their favor.

[Vogonjeltz]

I don't play AL or Modules so I'm not sure what items a 20 lvl character should have. But in any case, the tarrasque is really weak by itself. There are builds that can cheese it, others that can actually go toe to toe with it. But when it comes along with a couple pitfiends and some casters buffing and healing it, it's a whole other story, no matter your magic items.

Those are the rules from the DMG. The reference to modules is because they usually have more than a couple magic items, and (in some cases) multiple legendary items.

I wasn't referring to AL.

So attacking 2 times more per turn is equal to casting a spell that doubles your spell list and your dpr, allows you to somewhat break concentration economy and can possibly last the whole day? Also I seriously fail to see how simulacrum is weaker than foresight.

And all this conversation about fighter dealing about the same dpr as a cleric against the tarrasque without resources doesnt seem to affect anyone for some reason.

No, getting 4x the action economy for every combat round all day is probably better. Simulacrum comes with no equipment, has next to no hit points, and costs a significant amount of resources (either the 8th level slot + money OR the only 9th level spell slot), nor can it regain any resources. Simulacrum's life expectancy is not significantly different than that of a skeleton at the levels for which it exists.

Youve never seen the invisible, shape changing, flying Imp in play I take it?

I've never seen anyone take that particular pact boon, so, no. A single optional feature isn't significant.

If we're talking about a high-level adventure, though, one that involves kicking in the door of a flying fortress

Air ships and more than a couple of flying mounts are a well known quantity. I'd hazard a guess that water-based counterparts exist. If the characters want to do x, a way exists.

[SharkForce]

X*1gp*365*.10 + Y*2sp*365*.05 = 175,000gp
X + Y = 8000 people
35.6X+3.65Y = 35.6X + 3.65*(8000 - X) = 31.95X = (175000 - 3.65*8000) = 124200
x = 3887 people making 1gp per day
y = 4113 people making 2sp per day

Sounds economically feasible to me, based on the PHB lifestyle expenses. Since I'm ignoring everyone with 2gp, 4gp and 10gp lifestyles.
Edit: I'm trying to show that the 175,000 gp in taxes per year isn't something totally absurd. Exact breakdown of your particular community doesn't matter. This shows it's in an acceptable ballpark.

Also, I blame you for making my mind go here.

only if you presume that the cost of something to the PCs, which primarily exists as a means of draining the largely worthless gold that PCs are going to end up with, is supposed to represent the costs for an NPC who lives in the area. heck, even realistically, if you were to travel regularly, pay for motel stays each night, and eat out for most meals, you'd find your living expenses while traveling would be much higher than they would be if you were to stay put and eat mostly food from grocery stores and live in an apartment or home or whatever.

add on that you'll probably get charged more for looking (comparatively) rich and for not being from nearby in many cases as an adventurer, and i'd say you're looking at a pretty unreasonable expectation.

also presumes that none of the NPCs are at squalid or wretched lifestyle. the time period D&D is depicting doesn't exactly feature a lot of middle-class people... you're probably looking at a major portion of the population having basically 0 taxable income, and even those who can manage squalid instead of wretched probably aren't consistently enjoying squalid conditions. that modest lifestyle you're presuming nearly half of the population are making? those people are actually working unusually high-paying jobs. soldiers, priests, students (anyone with enough money to go to school for years is unusually wealthy in this kind of society) etc... and you probably don't tax your soldiers (and they probably don't have that much in actual income either since a large portion of their "pay" is in food and shelter, so even if you did tax 10% of their income, their actual gp income would be considerably lower). students and priests quite probably don't even have an actual income either, for that matter.

also, factor in that those richer people living wealthy and especially aristocratic lifestyles are more probably *spending* taxes than they are to be generating them. i mean, where exactly do you think the nobility get the money to afford to live an aristocratic lifestyle? the highly successful merchant or the person who owns multiple businesses might be generating income, but the servants of the extremely wealthy, and military officers? probably not generating taxable income, practically speaking.

[GPS]

Two words (please tell me it's not actually one word): Force Cage

[Deathtongue]

Why do you consider that one of those worlds makes less sense then the other?

Or, even better: a DM uses a heretofore-unseen-by-the-rules spell, WotC sees it and publishes it. How does the publishing of a new book alter how much sense the world made?

Who gives a care about how much internal or external consistency your rules decision has? It seriously doesn't matter in this instance. Railroading isn't bad because of the intended destination, it's bad because of the tracks.

Air ships and more than a couple of flying mounts are a well known quantity. I'd hazard a guess that water-based counterparts exist. If the characters want to do x, a way exists.

Casters aren't 100% of the time forced to ask the DM for them to insert a griffon ranch or an airship port. Martials are. If it was just this one instance, we'd just accept it as a limitation of the game; you can't really teleport conveniently in Exalted or Shadowrun either. But this is endemic to martials, who don't and never have any way to access quest sites that couldn't also be accessed by Conan the Barbarian on his lonesome.

[Deathtongue]

Only tangentially related: I've played in about six separate 5E D&D campaigns so far that got past level 5 and I'm at level 11 in Adventurer's League. Multiple magical items per character were a thing in all of the campaigns. My level 11 character in AL right now has a rare item, two uncommon items, and a common item and he's considered on the low end of magical item acquisition. The assumption that they're not expected features of actual 5E D&D campaigns such that you can go 20 levels without them is probably the second-most naive assumptions of the game designers, closely behind 'the feat system is optional'.

[mgshamster]

Only tangentially related: I've played in about six separate 5E D&D campaigns so far that got past level 5 and I'm at level 11 in Adventurer's League. Multiple magical items per character were a thing in all of the campaigns. My level 11 character in AL right now has a rare item, two uncommon items, and a common item and he's considered on the low end of magical item acquisition. The assumption that they're not expected features of actual 5E D&D campaigns such that you can go 20 levels without them is probably the second-most naive assumptions of the game designers, closely behind 'the feat system is optional'.

You can go without them. That statement is based on the fact that magic items aren't​ necessary to compete with higher CR monsters.

The happenstance that all the campaign​s you've happened to join all use magic items has nothing to do with whether it's mechanically necessary to compete.

Compare that to 3.X, where it was required to have magic items to keep up with the CR. So required that it was specifically built into the system.

And not only have I played in featless games, I know several people who run featless games. Heck, I've even had featless characters in feat games with no issues, because feats aren't necessary.

[MeeposFire]

Sometimes people forget that making the game not require magic items does not mean that the game avoids giving you magic items. Magic items are fun for most people so they tend to get handed out.

[qube]

Where were you people during all the Tier System Cult hate against 3E all these years? The same thing applies there.

Oh, I was there. I was one of those who noted that if a wizard can do amost litterely do anything, (including infinite loops, doing what other spellcasters can do, etc ...), but any character can just take a rank in Use Magic Device, a +30 item, and do anything a wizard can ... becomming an irrelevant distinction. (it's not a class that is OP - it's a character that is OP because he uses OP tricks (be it tricks of his class, or tricks of items).

And while it was true, that without cheese, martial classes in 3E gipped behind (too little players figured out they could just pay less then 2K for a wizard to cast a permanent polymorph on them, (high strength monster races, here we come!)), this is far from true in 5E.

taxes

175K seems a lot, but note that the city-state has a lot of expenses: The city has a standing army of 300 men (5sp/day) , 60 guards (1gp/day) , and 100 administrators (2gp or 2sp per day, dependant on skill) - amounting to a drain of about 100K on that alone. Believe you me, after all is said and done, it's not like the rulers of the city get rich of taxes ...

Who gives a care about how much internal or external consistency your rules decision has? It seriously doesn't matter in this instance. Railroading isn't bad because of the intended destination, it's bad because of the tracks.

err ... and yet, you STILL don't answer the question. But OK, if you want to be pedantic:

OK. Consider two worlds. exactly 100% the same. However, one is made with a player handbook that contained a missprint - the page of the forbiddance spell was accidently left out, but the DM added his own heretofore-unseen-by-the-rules spell, which ... coïncidently does exactly the same as the forbiddance spell he was missing.

Why do you consider that one of those worlds more Railroading then the other?

In the end, they are the same world, the same campaign, the same story, the same effect, etc ...

And a player who hasn't memorized the PHB, and didn't know about the Forbiddance spell (like you, yesterday), would unable to spot the difference. Yet somehow, you claim you don't like one of those two worlds/campaigns/... ? Dispite being indistinguisable? I'm sorry, but that's beyond me.

Casters aren't 100% of the time forced to ask the DM for them to insert a griffon ranch or an airship port. Martials are.

Again, no they are not. A martial class, like a caster who doesn't know every darn spell in the PHB, can reach any destination his items and abilities allow him too.

Heck, if it's that common, why in heavens blazes hasn't the martial class bought a hypogriff mount !?

#RocketSience