Which demographic hates casters most?

[HockeyPokeyBard]

There are a lot of threads about nerfing spells and why casting is overpowered. So I want to know who hates it more, the players or the DM?

I personally am fine with full casting because I play with a group where we prefer to work together to tell a story and don't just want to destroy every challenge we come across. But that's just my amazing luck. I want to hear your thoughts

[HockeyPokeyBard]

Who and why please. Simple terms are best

[Giant2005]

I am primarily a player and I think casters are fine. Although I have played in games where I could see the casters being an issue but that was more because the people that were playing casters were trying to get away with more than they should have and the DMs were allowing it.
Basically, casters are fine unless you have the unfortunate combination of abusive players and lenient/inexperienced/ignorant DMs.

[ThermalSlapShot]

It isn't that we hate casters, its that they don't fit in with the rest of the game or the world of D&D.

And most people I know don't want to nerf casters but to boost martials. However it is easier under the current system to do something like "E6" and make the game more balanced.

[HockeyPokeyBard]

It isn't that we hate casters, its that they don't fit in with the rest of the game or the world of D&D.

And most people I know don't want to nerf casters but to boost martials. However it is easier under the current system to do something like "E6" and make the game more balanced.

In your opinion, why do they not fit? And in what way would you boost martials?

[MrStabby]

It isn't that we hate casters, its that they don't fit in with the rest of the game or the world of D&D.



This is pretty much it. There is no place for casters in a magic fantasy world of dragons, vampires, beholders and similar. They just don't fit.

[Kryx]

This is pretty much it. There is no place for casters in a magic fantasy world of dragons, vampires, beholders and similar. They just don't fit.
Don't forget Space Orcs.

[FatherLiir]

Don't forget Space Orcs.

Don't like space. Home. Home. Wanna go home. Space is boring.

[KorvinStarmast]

It isn't that we hate casters, its that they don't fit in with the rest of the game or the world of D&D. UH, the world has magic. Of course they fit in.
The question is, where's the balance point?
The original application of the Vancian magic system, and the limitations inherent in that mechanic, were one step in the balance effort. Magic Users need to be protected due to being squishy. What has happened over time is that requirement has been diluted.

From initial conception, as a war game, and as a campaign, there was an obvious analogue to tactical fighting. Artillery is very powerful, but it can't take the field by itself. It's part of a combined arms fight.
Magic (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/aa/89/e4/aa89e41724d285f2f03b7a5c1119794d.jpg)= artillery (http://www.medalsofamerica.com/Galleria/2/T659bk-Large.jpg)
Fighting men = infantry/armor
Clerics = combat support/medics

Magic isn't as easy to model as fighting, due to real world versus secondary world relationships. Magic references are all over the map, and are based in the imagination.
In myth and legend, the most famous sorcerers and wizards were to be feared and were immensely powerful, but there were darned few of them. Why? Magic is dangerous stuff. In D & D magic and magic users are far too common. It isn't that they don't fit, it's that people in a game of exercising the imagination want to do imaginary things. So, the proliferation of various magic skills and classes and spells is a response to consumer demand.

Casters fit. The question is, where is the balance point? It's been pursued for over 40 years, and may still be the object of pursuit 40 years from now.

[ThermalSlapShot]

In your opinion, why do they not fit? And in what way would you boost martials?


This is pretty much it. There is no place for casters in a magic fantasy world of dragons, vampires, beholders and similar. They just don't fit.
Sarcasm aside...

It isn't that wizards/clerics don't fit fluff wise.

The problem is that you have this low fantasy world where the general populace and some PCs don't have abilities that match up.

It is like bringing our current weapons/machinery (with the ability to restock the fuel and ammo) to a fight in 1776, it just doesn't fit.

The world hasn't adapted to how powerful the casters are. One caster can still take out scores of non-casters and do it without direct confrontation.

Wizards and Clerics fit, just not the current adaptation of them.

[FatherLiir]

as a side note, we do see powerful creatures with very strong magic resistances, like being immune to low level spells or legendary resistances or advantage on all magical effects.


Perhaps the problem is these just aren't expressed as often as people who don't like the power level of casters like.

On that note is this a problem of the game itself or of DMs who don't use this enough.

[ThermalSlapShot]

as a side note, we do see powerful creatures with very strong magic resistances, like being immune to low level spells or legendary resistances or advantage on all magical effects.


Perhaps the problem is these just aren't expressed as often as people who don't like the power level of casters like.

On that note is this a problem of the game itself or of DMs who don't use this enough.

That's another issue. With how the game works there really wouldn't be that many settlements. With all the really strong magical creatures... Any of them could/would wipe out civilization if high level casters/martials are as rare as the settings like to say.

It wouldn't even take a particularly smart creature to wipe out a country and they don't need to only use brute force.

Things just don't fit together. Even with the factions working for the general good of the world and good/evil dragons keeping each other in check.

You can ignore the problem if you want, but for those of us that likes settings that have a bit of internal consistency it is hard to do.

[VoxRationis]

The use of strategic-level magic makes writing a campaign world's history a whole lot harder, I can tell you. You need to cross-check the spell lists to see if X person had any access to something which could shut down Y invasion before it began, but maybe Y invasion had this other spell which pre-empted that.... A huge headache.

[LordVonDerp]

In your opinion, why do they not fit? And in what way would you boost martials?
Genre consistency.

A level 20 fighter would do little to change Game of Thrones, but a level 20 wizard could destroy an army in seconds.

[KorvinStarmast]

Genre consistency.

A level 20 fighter would do little to change Game of Thrones, but a level 20 wizard could destroy an army in seconds. Artillery is the King of Battle. Mages have generally been a sort of artillery. (This goes back to TSR's Chainmail, at the
least ...)

Applying magic to non adventuring scenarios will quickly take one out of the pseudo medieval setting, just as advanced technology will.

This is one reason why it is important as a GM to keep magic rare, and unusual. It is also why a lot of the map needs to be empty space.

As a thought exercise, consider how many deer/sheep/cows per month it takes to feed a dragon? Granted, dragons sleep a lot, but when hungry ... so dragons as solitary beasts in isolated lairs surrounded by a lot of empty country (classic example, Desolation of Smaug from The Hobbit(book)) make sense from an environment/ecology standpoint.

[Knaight]

I'm also jumping on the "we don't hate casters, we consider there to be some implementation flaws" bandwagon. Martials in 5e do get really powerful, but they never turn into demigods hacking through armies. The highest level fighters feel like they're pulled from sources more like the medieval romances than Cu Chulain.

Meanwhile, the magic system isn't particularly thematic, and pulls from everywhere. Individual works routinely have magic with much more limitations in some way or other, but the combination of sources tended to erase the limitations as they weren't present somewhere else, while largely maintaining the power. Added to that, the number of spells gets really high really quickly, they have essentially no cost to the caster, and they get restored in virtually no time at all. This isn't necessarily a problem, but it doesn't fit well with how the martial characters are set up. Something there needs to change.

[Ramshack]

As a player I think magic is awesome, it allows neat effects, utility and creative solutions to problems.

As a DM I hate magic, it allows neat effects, utility, and creative solutions to problems.

The hardest thing about DMing is preparing for what players might do. You want to have contingencies set up so you don't slow the game down when playing. You want the story to flow seamlessly and the encounters to be challenging. However some magical effects can easily bypass your best laid plans if you forgot a player could do something or maybe the players decides he's tired of the plane of existence and warps the party to whole new dimension and now you have nothing prepared and you're left stumbling to decide how to handle the new situation. It's the unpredictability of magic and potential cheese that it causes that makes it hard to prepare for as a DM. Blasting Spells, AoEs, and most spells are fine. You know when building encounters the wizard has shield, or fireball etc. But its the open ended spells that really cause issues.

[LordVonDerp]

This is pretty much it. There is no place for casters in a magic fantasy world of dragons, vampires, beholders and similar. They just don't fit.

They fit fine with that, just not with a world with castles and mundane warriors.

[KorvinStarmast]

You want the story to flow seamlessly and the encounters to be challenging. However some magical effects can easily bypass your best laid plans if you forgot a player could do something or maybe the players decides he's tired of the plane of existence and warps the party to whole new dimension and now you have nothing prepared and you're left stumbling to decide how to handle the new situation.
This is where random encounters help you. Players want to go all chaotic? Fine, roll up the next random encounter, and let the chips fall where they may.

It's the unpredictability of magic and potential cheese that it causes that makes it hard to prepare for as a DM.
I always thought it was part of the fun.

[Gurka]

Not entirely sure a thread could be named any more effectively, to bait a flame war.

That said, I know that as a DM it's a real hassle, but I'm always upfront with my players that if I see you trying to break the game, I'll put the kibosh on whatever shenanigans you're getting up to.

As a player, it just gets a bit old that once a campaign gets to high level it tends to cease being a party of equals, and instead becomes the wizard and his team of logistical support. That's really not the case this edition though, and while there is some significant disparity at higher levels if you run everything purely RAW, it doesn't take much effort for a DM to curb the ridiculous stuff, and if they allow some latitude for improvised actions and making use of downtime, the separation isn't really all that much of a rub.

[Ramshack]

This is where random encounters help you. Players want to go all chaotic? Fine, roll up the next random encounter, and let the chips fall where they may.

I always thought it was part of the fun.

Magic Can be fun and I do encourage creative solutions. But sometimes magic is so open ended you can't prepare for it at all. And as a DM I really hate having to say wait, read through a book, calculate something new design a random encounter and see how it fits into the story line or something similar all while everyone watches you. I guess I feel bad not having something ready in the story and taking my players out of it and not having anything exciting or engaging going on while I prep something on the spot.

Granted this was a much bigger problem in 3.5 and I don't have enough experience DMing high level campaigns in 5e to really say how the situation is now. Though from level 10 and under magic seems pretty manageable from a DM side.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Lemme guess this is related to that 200+ post of why casters are OP thats filled with more autism than 10 episodes of BBT with people barely understand hiw D&D works

[ThermalSlapShot]

As a person running a Water Genasi Light Cleric at an AL table with a Rogue, Fighter, and Ranger I feel bad that all they can do is damage. The rogue has some other skills but even that player boils down to "move + attack".

I'm constantly outshining my party members, all the time, and I didn't really Optimized all that much. I went with a thematically cool character (Steam Genasi) and a class I really like.

Whenever something big/iffy happens I have to pull out a spell or take charge.

My team mates are constantly jealous but they know how much I love the character that they threatened me (jokingly?) not to get rid of it (cool guys these three). Next session they are getting rid of their PCs and picking up Ancients Paladin (Ranger player), Knowledge Cleric (Fighter player), and Wizard (Urchin background, Rogue player). I hate that because the casters are, on a base level, leaps and bounds ahead of other classes that they felt the need to change characters because they felt useless outside of move + hit. And we are level 4, down in the range in which martials are susposed to be balanced with casters.

And these guys have been playing D&D longer than me and I'm no spring chicken.

They told me the reason they hated 1e/2e is because of the lack of things to do with martials and it seems 5e went back to that. One even calls the Battle Master pathetic compared to the Warblade or 4e Fighter.

And I have to agree with their sentiment. They went too far backwards with martials.

And if people think martials (Fighter) is for new players to learn the game... Well that's all nice and good but there is no rule they have to take Fighter. Many new players I've seen like having cool abilities and they pick up Ranger (Beast Master), Paladin (Veangance), or Wizard (Not evocation).

As a player an unbalanced game makes me feel like the bad guy because I chose something that works better than other players.

[KorvinStarmast]

Magic Can be fun and I do encourage creative solutions. But sometimes magic is so open ended you can't prepare for it at all.
Completely agree, though between sessions I used to roll random encounters off of the tables and just have a few sitting about on a card. Some never got used, but it was a fast roll up over a cup of coffee or while watching the evening news.

Over the course of a few raids, there'd be a dozen of them just sitting there, of varying difficulty. Players go all chaotic, pick one at random and see what happens. (And sometimes, it teaches players to FLEE FOR YOUR LIVES! That can turn into crazy, unscripted fun).

And as a DM I really hate having to say wait, read through a book, calculate something new design a random encounter and see how it fits into the story line or something similar all while everyone watches you. While true, you can also declare "good time to make a bathroom break, get more Cheetos," "beer run!" or "get up and stretch."

No matter what we do, we will at some point end up outside of the box. Don't kick yourself. Even though we as DM's are "god" we aren't actually a god, or God. We for sure are not omniscient.
At such times, it is OK to let the all-powerful RNG help you. You can also use your all-powerful fudge behind the DM screen skill take the rough edges off.

I guess I feel bad not having something ready in the story and taking my players out of it and not having anything exciting or engaging going on while I prep something on the spot. I hear you, loud an clear.

Though from level 10 and under magic seems pretty manageable from a DM side.Yep.

[squab]

Sarcasm aside...

It isn't that wizards/clerics don't fit fluff wise.

The problem is that you have this low fantasy world where the general populace and some PCs don't have abilities that match up.

It is like bringing our current weapons/machinery (with the ability to restock the fuel and ammo) to a fight in 1776, it just doesn't fit.

The world hasn't adapted to how powerful the casters are. One caster can still take out scores of non-casters and do it without direct confrontation.

Wizards and Clerics fit, just not the current adaptation of them.

That's a good point. They design a world based around medieval level of technology, then add magic that can do certain things that are amazing by modern standards.

The problem is the magic is added to the world when the magic does such powerful things that it would warp the way the world works. The settings need to be built around the existence of this powerful magic.

In another thread a player was talking about what a low level wizard could do with Disguise Self, Charm Person and Suggestion. Well in a world where magically disguising yourself and magically influencing someone's mind in your favor are low level spells, I would logically expect the world to compensate for that. Middle class citizens walking around wearing amulets that grant immunity to first, second and maybe third level mind altering spells. Carrying a monocle that lets them see through first, second and maybe third level illusion spells. Maybe big cities are anti-magic zones - a powerful caster could breath through this barrier, but not without being noticed. Or maybe there's a specific police force designed to deal with mages that cause problems. (This sounds like the premise for a cool anime actually.)

Magic is balanced in most stories by being rare - so rare that maybe 7th+ level spells are only seen every few generations. But in a campaign world that doesn't work.

[MadGrady]

My team mates are constantly jealous but they know how much I love the character that they threatened me (jokingly?) not to get rid of it (cool guys these three). Next session they are getting rid of their PCs and picking up Ancients Paladin (Ranger player), Knowledge Cleric (Fighter player), and Wizard (Urchin background, Rogue player). I hate that because the casters are, on a base level, leaps and bounds ahead of other classes that they felt the need to change characters because they felt useless outside of move + hit. And we are level 4, down in the range in which martials are susposed to be balanced with casters.


If everyone chose a character class based upon the sheer number of options available to them, then yes, one would always choose a caster of some sort. However, the hope is that perhaps we choose our characters based off of a concept we have for that character. Sounds to me like they weren't invested in their characters much at all. This cannot be blamed on you.

For me, I almost always play a caster because those are the character concepts I grew up on and love. The Gandalfs, the Allanons, the wizened old wizard found in a keep deep within the forests. It's when I embrace this type of character - the ones where they elect to not use magic for every single situation, only when desperately needed - that I find I am able to sync well with my non-caster companions.

***As a side note, I feel that AL games hinder this type of role-playing by boiling everything down to a 4hr combat crawl.

[KorvinStarmast]

Magic is balanced in most stories by being rare - so rare that maybe 7th+ level spells are only seen every few generations. But in a campaign world that doesn't work. It does in non-Monty Haul campaigns.
*Not gonna go full grognard here*
When it's real hard to get to high level, the amount of magic in the world becomes self limiting.

[Ashrym]

I'll toss my hat into not hating casters as a DM or player. I don't think they necessarily match all playstyles or campaign concepts, and there are some spells that require adjucation but overall not a concern.

I also have never been limited to move and attack in any edition of D&D, and have more options in 5e than previous editions because of the inclusive approach to skills and ability checks, big feats including noncombat feats, and standard actions that can include multiple permutation sequences with multiple attacks. Comments about only moving and attacking are obvious hyperbole based on caster bias.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I'll toss my hat into not hating casters as a DM or player. I don't think they necessarily match all playstyles or campaign concepts, and there are some spells that require adjucation but overall not a concern.

I also have never been limited to move and attack in any edition of D&D, and have more options in 5e than previous editions because of the inclusive approach to skills and ability checks, big feats including noncombat feats, and standard actions that can include multiple permutation sequences with multiple attacks. Comments about only moving and attacking are obvious hyperbole based on caster bias.

Not at all.

The skills that the Rogue has expertise are reliable but for anyone else who doesn't have magic (as magic can bypass skills still)? They just aren't reliable.

And most skills boils down to "move and attack" anyways. You aren't able to do anything new or anything anyone else with training couldn't do.

A Cleric or Wizard Skilled in Stealth (Dex based builds) are just as good and can do just as much as a Dex based Fighter that has Stealth skill.

Skills are a wash because that isn't something your class can do but something everyone can do. Athletics on a Strength based cleric does the same as on a Strength based Fighter. Actually it does more because the cleric has class features that can make his skill check better. The Fighter gets to attack more... Whooopie.

[Pex]

I'm going to say it. Those who hate casters tend to be DMs more than players, and it ties to my gripes in another thread.

There are a small number of DMs who really don't like player characters being able to do powerful things. This ire is not limited to spellcasters, but they will bash spellcasters just as well when the subject comes up. They don't like PCs getting large numbers in whatever - to hit, damage, actions, bonus numbers, ability scores, saving throws. They don't like PCs affecting the game world even on a small scale against a monster they are fighting. Fast kills, manipulate actions, force movement, anything where the DM has to react to what the player does as opposed to the monster does its stuff and the player characters suffer or react. If the rules do not specifically say a PC can do something, then by default a PC is forbidden to do it. These DMs will have difference of tolerance levels of allowing a player to give a convincing argument of why his character can do something. The DM of my former 5E group was one such DM, and one of the reasons I quit. He boasted out loud that he is a DM who doesn't allow players to get what they want. Spellcasters inherently can do powerful things, so these DMs hate them.

The more common scenario of a DM not liking casters is really tied to specific spells but they blame spellcasters as a whole anyway. Some spells can make particular gaming styles obsolete. These DMs can't or won't adapt. Teleportation is the common angst. Many DMs like that parties have to take game world time to travel to where the main adventure is to take place. This forces the party to interact with the minutiae details of the game world, the environment, weather, random encounters of NPCs and/or monsters, getting transportation if needed, resource management of food rations, etc. Teleportation allows a party to get to where the adventure itself is in an instant and bypass all that. This irks these DMs to no end. Some might just ban teleportation. Others will add on penalties of some kind to spellcasting. Another problem spell is Sending. It allows instant communication with known NPCs for information gathering or passing along information across great distances. Traveling becomes less necessary. This also ties into spells of the Divination school in general. With one spell PCs get to learn stuff depending on the spell. There is less need to spend time investigating, though it is still done as follow-up to the information learned, and the length of the air of mystery is shortened. This bothers DMs who are used to the lower level adventures where PCs have less options to circumvent or obsolete obstacles. They feel the higher level spells become luxurious things that spoil players. The 3E Epic Level Handbook had great advice. The DM should adapt to make these spells necessary. The party needs to teleport because it is the only way to get to where they need to be to save the world/princes. Divination spells need to be cast because it is the only/fastest way to get the information they need for the adventure. Without that information or taking too long to get it they'd be doomed. DMs who can't or refuse to take this route would then blame spellcasters for ruining the game.

Then there are those who don't like the discrepancy in power between spellcasters and warriors. This is where players who don't like spellcasters tend to fall as well, though some players also don't like the change in dynamics of game play as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. These DMs, though, don't really hate spellcasters. Particular spells could be a problem, but they don't blame the class or the game system. They just fix those spells to taste and play on.

[Psikerlord]

In general casters and martials are both fine. If you're getting balance problems, it's up to the DM and players to sort that out at their own table. As always.

[ThermalSlapShot]

In general casters and martials are both fine. If you're getting balance problems, it's up to the DM and players to sort that out at their own table. As always.

If I wanted to make my own game I wouldn't have bought the 5e core set.

If you think martials and casters are generally fine then that's OK. You are OK with an unbalanced game that leads to issues (like me feeling like the bad guy on accident) that a game that has such history and backing (money, people, etc...) shouldn't have.

I like a game where everyone is playing on the same level or at least the same game.

[HockeyPokeyBard]

I'd like to apologise at this point. I gathered you all here under a ruse. I don't actually care who hates it or what. I just noticed that these kinds of titles lead to a more productive and considerate debate.

I was really wanting to know how people have or plan to fix this problem, beyond just "buff martials, nerf casters". It seems everyone has a vague idea on what to do but nobody has offered a tangible solution.

[Giant2005]

I'd like to apologise at this point. I gathered you all here under a ruse. I don't actually care who hates it or what. I just noticed that these kinds of titles lead to a more productive and considerate debate.

I was really wanting to know how people have or plan to fix this problem, beyond just "buff martials, nerf casters". It seems everyone has a vague idea on what to do but nobody has offered a tangible solution.

I quickly lost interest in this thread because of how fast it spun off topic... And now you are saying that you didn't even intend for it to stick to topic?
How is that anything other than blatant trolling? More importantly, why would this thread even need to exist if the intention was for it to be an exact replica of a front page thread that already exists?
Nvm, don't bother answering anything - those questions were kind of rhetorical and I won't see the response anyway due to the whole ignore function thing. I like my games to be DnD-based, not amuse-HockeyPokeyBard-based.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I quickly lost interest in this thread because of how fast it spun off topic... And now you are saying that you didn't even intend for it to stick to topic?
How is that anything other than blatant trolling? More importantly, why would this thread even need to exist if the intention was for it to be an exact replica of a front page thread that already exists?
Nvm, don't bother answering anything - those questions were kind of rhetorical and I won't see the response anyway due to the whole ignore function thing. I like my games to be DnD-based, not amuse-HockeyPokeyBard-based.

Unless...

The apologizing is the real false post and HPB there is going all troll-ception on us.

[Ashrym]

Not at all.

The skills that the Rogue has expertise are reliable but for anyone else who doesn't have magic (as magic can bypass skills still)? They just aren't reliable.

Magic doesn't bypass skills. Magic uses skills, can replicate skills, but doesn't replace skills.

It's more legitimate to claim skills replace spells because thieve's tools are better than knock and anyone can learn to use a disguise kit during downtime. There are spells that are easily replaced by at-will skill checks.

Higher bonuses on a rogue are more reliable, not less.


And most skills boils down to "move and attack" anyways. You aren't able to do anything new or anything anyone else with training couldn't do.

Flipping over a table on it's side for cover is neither movement nor attacking, sleight of hand to snatch'n'grab is not an attack even if it's followed by movement, and while shove or grapple replace attacks they are not just attack move either. An 11th level champion can shove one enemy back, shove prone / grapple move another, and effect basic push slide maneuvers just off the standard actions for a bit of control.

Only moving and attacking ignore standard rules and available options.


A Cleric or Wizard Skilled in Stealth (Dex based builds) are just as good and can do just as much as a Dex based Fighter that has Stealth skill.

If someone's character concept is a DEX based wizard or cleric they have other issues than just trying to be more skilled than fighters.

They won't be as good as the fighter, however, because bonus feats / ASI's applied to additional skills and / or more ability scores gives more skills than just DEX. The fighter covers his combat stat on DEX while the other two miss out, and can afford to invest in CHA if he wants to really be skilled and not a rogue. The fighter can also action surge for 2 skills used in one turn that require actions, unlike clerics or wizards.


Skills are a wash because that isn't something your class can do but something everyone can do. Athletics on a Strength based cleric does the same as on a Strength based Fighter. Actually it does more because the cleric has class features that can make his skill check better. The Fighter gets to attack more... Whooopie.

Wait, did your DEX based cleric just become a STR based cleric? He isn't both and that's something a lot of people miss. It turns into Shrodinger's cleric or whatnot class. This is something to be careful of and why posting builds makes more sense.

First, skills are always relevant and never a wash because all characters use them; we build characters and the ability to use skills doesn't vanish just because one part of that character is a fighter.

Second, if a person wants a non-magical or low-magical character who uses skills there are more options than fighters. How much fight and how much skill becomes a value choice so if a person values skill more he or she will play a rogue.

It's a fallacy to think a fighter doesn't have enough skill just because the fighter is lower on the skill scale. In a class based system with skill options in classes some class or other will always be bottom or low. Just being one of those classes isn't an issue in itself because that's normal. Fighters don't need to have the best skills just because bigger numbers might exist and still have those options with lower success rates.

There is a difference between no options and many options with lower success rates and that second area is where players often put their fighters. I say players do that because fighters have bonus feats and there are many noncombat options available from which to choose for their fighter PC's. If a player doesn't choose any of them that's not a design issue; it's choice. I also think it's a better choice than a DEX cleric or wizard trying demonstrate skills and still failing compared to rogues.

Third, there are a lot of skills based on 4 ability scores plus athletics, and more ability checks with which there is no associated skill proficiency. That means a DEX wizard still sucks at CHA and WIS skills, for example. Just sticking with INT gives him several good skills but he cannot cover all of them. That's why bonus ASI's work in the fighter's favor if both classes are focused on skills.

That's also why reliable talent is so good. Reliable talent applies to all proficient skills so even lower bonuses have good success rates. Just proficiency and a +1 ability modifier automatically succeeds DC 15 checks.

Finally, it's impossible to just move and attack in the game's social pillar. Out of the game's three main pillars there is only one in which moving and attacking is even possible and your DEX based wizard or cleric will continue to be weak in that pillar. They don't have the ability to take all the skills or have all high ability scores or necessarily have the spells and spell slots to compete.

Wizards are one of my least favourite classes to play in 5e because they don't excel at anything except control and area effects and it's boring to watch other classes shining more often as they have the better damage options and aren't restricted by spell slots. It's like sitting on the sideline half the time, or more, spamming cantrips (yay) and if I am going to do that I would rather play a lore bard for the skills and cutting words, and add healing to that sideline.

I would stick with rogue. They are good in this edition.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Magic doesn't bypass skills?

I'm sorry but let's start a list of Spells that bypass skills.

Dancing Lights (perception/stealth in the dark)
Light (perception/stealth in the dark, can't hide if you can be seen)
Mending (whatever skill a DM will call for craft)
Animal Friendship (Animal Handling)
Charm Person (Persuasion/Deception/Performance)
Comprehend Languages (Intelligence Check)
Cure Wounds (Medicine, stabilizing)
Detect Magic (Int Check, Perception/Investigation)
Disguise Self (Disguise Kit, Deception, Persuasion)
Faerie Fire (Perception)
Feather Fall (Acrobatics)

Do I need to go on? This was just some cantrip/1st level bard spells. Spells get around skill checks all the dang time.

And they usually take a fraction of the time to use, disguise self for instance. And by mid levels casters have so many of these Spells that it's nothing to them to blow a few low level Spells.

[Malifice]

Who and why please. Simple terms are best

No edition wars, but the 4E admirers are the most vocal haters of the return of 1-3E caster/ martial dichotomy.


If you think martials and casters are generally fine then that's OK. You are OK with an unbalanced game that leads to issues (like me feeling like the bad guy on accident) that a game that has such history and backing (money, people, etc...) shouldn't have.

It's not unbalanced. Your premise is false.

Feel free to create an 11th level Wizard. Ill do the same for a Fighter.

Then I'll happily create an adventure featuring 9 encounters that needs to be completed within 24 hours (or else the princess dies) for us to compare what happens.

[Sindeloke]

Well, based on this thread and the other two, I conclude that the demographic that hates casters the most is the one that thinks imposing an artificial 6-9 encounters per day structure on every session of an entire campaign (thereby forcing the campaign to go from level 1 to level 20 in about the space of an in-game week) is not a fun way to play.

[Malifice]

Well, based on this thread and the other two, I conclude that the demographic that hates casters the most is the one that thinks imposing an artificial 6-9 encounters per day structure on every session of an entire campaign (thereby forcing the campaign to go from level 1 to level 20 in about the space of an in-game week) is not a fun way to play.

You don't have to do it every time for it to be effective. It's also practically near impossible.

You enforce it about a third of the time, and casters will naturally pace themselves for the majority of the times you don't enforce it. The players cant reliably know when the DM is going to meta a 9 encounter day on them, and when he's not. So they'll naturally be cautious and conserve spell slots accordingly.

It's much the same if you never enforce it. Players will catch on to the meta, and resort to nova strikes on the 1st round of the 1st encounter all the time. If this is happening to your group, then its time to start enforcing time limited adventures, surprise 9 encounter days (a single wilderness encounter, followed by a random encounter that triggers a wave of smaller encounters with no rest), intelligent BBEG's that react to (and counter) 15 minute adventuring day tactics and so forth. Make them hold back, manage resources, save big boom boom spells for the BBEG and so forth.

If youre doing it right, the players will naturally pace themselves, and there will be no balance problems. Occasionally the caster will dominate; occasionally the martials will. Throw in the occasional 1 encounter adventuring day. Throw in the occasional multiple encounter, no rest, meat grinder adventuring day.

The trick is finding the sweet spot for balance (taking into account your parties composition) and then doing it as un-intrusively as possible.

[ThermalSlapShot]

No edition wars, but the 4E admirers are the most vocal haters of the return of 1-3E caster/ martial dichotomy.



It's not unbalanced. Your premise is false.

Feel free to create an 11th level Wizard. Ill do the same for a Fighter.

Then I'll happily create an adventure featuring 9 encounters that needs to be completed within 24 hours (or else the princess dies) for us to compare what happens.

Well when you get something right (balance, interesting martial characters, multiclassing) people of course are going to not like it when you go back to being unbalanced, uninteresting martials, and horrid multiclassing style. It is only natural. They could have easily have brought in 3.5's Tome of Battle and the people who liked 4e would have been ok with that... But we got the crappy Battle Master who's main thing is yet again *moar damage* + *odd casting mechanic based on short rest*.

Did you not read what I wrote?

I was in a situation where, the game being unbalanced, caused me to feel like the bad guy (not in the game, but in real life). Because I could come in as my Cleric and mop up/take care of things easily while all the others could do is *move and attack*. THEY told me not to change my character because I liked my character and that THEY didn't like how they didn't get anything interesting and useful outside of *doing maor damage*. They decided to get into the caster business so that they can have interesting, flavorful, and useful options.

That's not a false premise, that is an issue that really happened. You can call me a liar if you want, I don't care, but that is what happened.

[Malifice]

I was in a situation where, the game being unbalanced, caused me to feel like the bad guy (not in the game, but in real life). Because I could come in as my Cleric and mop up/take care of things easily while all the others could do is *move and attack*.

What level were you all, and can you explain how this happened with a little more detail?

CoDzilla is no longer a thing. I'm genuinely curious. Was the DM enforcing 9 encounter/ 2 short rest days? Why weren't the rest of the party doing things other than 'move and attack'?

[Ashrym]

Magic doesn't bypass skills?

I'm sorry but let's start a list of Spells that bypass skills.

Dancing Lights (perception/stealth in the dark)
Light (perception/stealth in the dark, can't hide if you can be seen)
Mending (whatever skill a DM will call for craft)
Animal Friendship (Animal Handling)
Charm Person (Persuasion/Deception/Performance)
Comprehend Languages (Intelligence Check)
Cure Wounds (Medicine, stabilizing)
Detect Magic (Int Check, Perception/Investigation)
Disguise Self (Disguise Kit, Deception, Persuasion)
Faerie Fire (Perception)
Feather Fall (Acrobatics)

Do I need to go on? This was just some cantrip/1st level bard spells. Spells get around skill checks all the dang time.

And they usually take a fraction of the time to use, disguise self for instance. And by mid levels casters have so many of these Spells that it's nothing to them to blow a few low level Spells.

Dancing lights or light cantrips don't bypass skills. Dancing lights only sheds dim light and light is cast by touch on an object. You would need to make your perception check in the first place to know where to put the light, a skill that isn't benefitted by the magic; again. This is an example of magic made moot by a lantern or torches. Dancing lights is rarely taken because it's often considered a poor spell due to the concentration mechanic.

Mending is replaced by artisan tool proficiency. Mending is faster but also restricted by item size where the appropriate artisan ability would not.

Animal frienship doesn't grant any skill in getting the animal to do anything. All it does is give the charmed condition so the animal can't attack the caster and the caster has advantage on social checks but still requires the skill to apply those social checks somehow.

Charm person doesn't allow a person to earn the professional downtime income that performance proficiency allows. It also doesn't replace the skill because all it does is use the skill. It also lets the target know you charmed it after the spell ends for potential repercussions. Charm person can be replaced by bribery or expertise.

Comprehend languages is replaced by learning the languages. It allows understanding but not speaking so tends to be limited. A person could simply copy text and take it to someone for translation, or take a prisoner for interrogation purposes since most speak common as well.

Cure wounds sucks compared to options like the healer and inspiring leader feats. Calling that one out is really grasping.

Detect magic detects magic. That isn't much overlap with the listed skills. Arcana can be used for magical traps and a short rest gives information on items. It's also a bit of a catch 22 because why would the spell caster know to cast the spell in the first place?

Disguise self... Hopefully the spell caster never needs to speak. Just use a disguise kit.

Faerie fire... How did the spell caster know to cast the spell in the first place? Perception checks ftw. It's normally used for the advantage attacking instead of the more situational anti-hiding.

Featherfall doesn't do everything acrobatics does.

You are only looking at one side of the coin. The reality is most of those spells are easily replaced by strong skill bonuses but without spell preparation / known restrictions, slots used, concentration mechanics, or action costs (like passive perception does not require). It's not spells replacing skills; it's skills replacing spells because that works both ways.

The spell caster also needs access to the spells listed (none has every spell listed), the spells either prepared or known (this is a further restriction beyond the spell list), the ability scores and/or proficiencies to make competitive use of the spells using them (charm person is useless compared to CHA and proficiency if the caster doesn't have those and invisibilty only provides the ability to get caught in more locations; unfortunately spellcaster don't have the ability to focus on all those ability scores or gain those proficiencies), needs to know when to cast some of those spells (ie they don't faerie fire every dark shadow or thicket they see hoping catch hiding scouts and would need perception to spot them otherwise), and needs enough spell slots to cover the number of checks required (casting knock doesn't matter if it needs to be cast 12 times in an adventure).

You can go on if you want, but you will continue to be way off base in your assessment. The development team was deliberate in not creating spells to simply replace skills.

[Giant2005]

I was in a situation where, the game being unbalanced, caused me to feel like the bad guy (not in the game, but in real life). Because I could come in as my Cleric and mop up/take care of things easily while all the others could do is *move and attack*. THEY told me not to change my character because I liked my character and that THEY didn't like how they didn't get anything interesting and useful outside of *doing maor damage*. They decided to get into the caster business so that they can have interesting, flavorful, and useful options.

That's not a false premise, that is an issue that really happened. You can call me a liar if you want, I don't care, but that is what happened.

Conversely, I was in a situation where our team had invaded an enemy keep and had been detected. The sirens had been sounded; alarms raised. Yet the spellcasters in the group were kicking and screaming at the party (very nearly literally) to barricade up a room in order to take a long rest within the enemy's stronghold because they felt useless with their extended spell slots.
That isn't a false premise, that is an issue that really happened.
There are situations that are advantageous to casters but also an equal number of situations where casters are severely disadvantaged. Balance doesn't have to take the 4e approach of everyone being exactly the same all of the time, balance can be exactly how the game plays - people being advantaged sometimes and people also being disadvantaged to the same degree, an equal number of times,
The only time the game might seem imbalanced is if the DM tends to favor one type of encounter more than others and that type of encounter is one that suits one type of class more than the others. That however, is not a game system fault but a game management fault.
Although considering that people come to these boards and complain about casters being OP far more often than they come to complain about Martials being OP, it seems that it is probably more common for the DMs to place casters in favourable situations rather than martials (Or more likely, people just really like to complain and know they will get a lot more backup if they complain about casters being OP). If you do find yourself running a game that favors casters more than martials and don't have the ability to balance the encounters out, simply cut down on the spellslots of the casters and perhaps give Cantrips a limited number of spellslots in the same manner. That way those people that are unable to run resource intensive encounters will now have their formerly average encounters transformed into resource intensive encounters.

[ThermalSlapShot]

What level were you all, and can you explain how this happened with a little more detail?

CoDzilla is no longer a thing. I'm genuinely curious. Was the DM enforcing 9 encounter/ 2 short rest days? Why weren't the rest of the party doing things other than 'move and attack'?

Clericzilla is certainly a thing in 5e. 16 - 18 AC at level 1, good HP, damaging spells, utility spells, self healing, and melee options. The cleric is a beast. Now is it the 3e cleric? No, but nothing is. The cleric in 5e has been reigned back a lot, but the martials have been reigned back just as much.

I'm going to assume you haven't played the martial (or a cleric, my god are the clerics powerful) classes as you seem confused on why they are *move and attack*. All of their features revolve around damage, in 4e this was called being a striker, this means that while they get abilities that focus on doing damage. About the only exception to this is the Rogue as they get expertise and can actually be reliable with their skills.

We were level 5 (not 4, I got that bit wrong in my post) and I really don't want to type out a huge paragraph about what happened because it doesn't matter exactly what happened and I don't have the minutes (i'm going off memory). But we were taking 3+ short rests each adventuring day. At one point the DM even changed them to 10 minutes to see how that would effect the game (yeah bad bad we know and we didn't care). The issues wasn't how much they could use their abilities but what abilities they had to use. In fights the fighter would use his maneuvers, the rogue would do damage, and the ranger's pet would die. But they were so limited with what they could do with their class features while I could switch up and be effective in every battle.

I'm a firm believer that you shouldn't have to optimize in a game to be effective. Sure optimizing for build or fun is well fun, but I shouldn't be punished for not optimizing. The others were punished for not optimizing and choosing classes that were built better.


Editied

on skills: No duh the spells don't do everything a single skill does. But the spell will replace something or more than something that a skill does.

Feather Fall reduces fall damage to 0 and you don't land prone. Acrobatics does this too, except, it reduces fall damage based on a DC set by the DM and if you take damage by the fall then you end up prone.

Advantage feather fall.

[Malifice]

Clericzilla is certainly a thing in 5e. 16 - 18 AC at level 1, good HP, damaging spells, utility spells, self healing, and melee options. The cleric is a beast. Now is it the 3e cleric? No, but nothing is. The cleric in 5e has been reigned back a lot, but the martials have been reigned back just as much.

That's not a beast at all!

Even assuming War or Light domains, you should have an equivalent AC to a fighter at Lvl 1, deal less damage (thanks to an assumption that most fighting styles increase DPR barring protection and defence), 2 less HP and have a handful of cantrips and 2 2nd level spells (opposed to his second wind feature granting him 3d10+3 extra HP through the day).

They are perfectly balanced at 1st level!


I'm going to assume you haven't played the martial (or a cleric, my god are the clerics powerful) classes as you seem confused on why they are *move and attack*. All of their features revolve around damage, in 4e this was called being a striker, this means that while they get abilities that focus on doing damage. About the only exception to this is the Rogue as they get expertise and can actually be reliable with their skills.

Huh? Yeah I agree that most 'martial' abilities revolve around high DPR and the ability to tank (uncanny dodge/ rage/ bear totem/ high AC/ protection+defence fighting styles/ manouvers/ deflect arrows etc) but there are a ton of utility effects in there as well.

Look at the options available to (for example) a lowly Human (BM) S+B Fighter 3 with shield master feat and protection style:

Move and:
Standard attack
Menacing attack (maneuver)
Parry (maneuver)
Riposte (maneuver)
Protect an ally (fighting style)
Knockdown (via feat)
Shield block (via feat)
Opportunity attack
Grapple (athletics)
Disarm/ sunder (athletics)
Shove aside (athletics)
Climb onto his opponent (athletics)
Knock back (athletics)
Shield bash (TWF w improvised weapon)
Second wind (heal 1d10+3)

Plus all the possible Action surge combinations of the above.

I mean, that's just listed actions I can think of off the top of my head, before we consider improvised actions!

How on earth is this just 'move and attack' to you?


We were level 5 (not 4, I got that bit wrong in my post) and I really don't want to type out a huge paragraph about what happened because it doesn't matter exactly what happened and I don't have the minutes (i'm going off memory). But we were taking 3+ short rests each adventuring day. At one point the DM even changed them to 10 minutes to see how that would effect the game (yeah bad bad we know and we didn't care). The issues wasn't how much they could use their abilities but what abilities they had to use. In fights the fighter would use his maneuvers, the rogue would do damage, and the ranger's pet would die. But they were so limited with what they could do with their class features while I could switch up and be effective in every battle.

How were you able to do this as a 5th level cleric? I can assure you that I can create a vanilla S+B BM Fighter 5 that is just as versatile as any Cleric 5, and just as effective in every battle situation I can think of.

I mean - assuming 3 short rests per day, you're looking at 8-9 encounters that day. Assuming a sizable bit of your casting power is devoted to healing the other fighters in your party, how exactly were you able to 'switch up and be effective in every battle' where a 5th level BM Ranger, Rogue and Battle-master Fighter were not?

How often were skills used in your games? Particularity during combat encounters? How often did your martials (and you) improvise actions?

[Elbeyon]

Which proficiency gives the ability to write messages in the sky, summon demons, fly, teleport, block spells, change the entire battlefield in one action, come back from death instantly, give walls magical powers, turn anything into anything, create 3D imagines like holograms, force killing imagines into a persons mind, bring objects to life, gain control over an entity for over a year, bring a creature out of existent with the snap of the finger without ever hurting them, create creatures as strong as dragons out of a bit of dust and snow, change dimension, create a tornado, and do most of that with one spell? I only read half of my spell list btw.

[Malifice]

Which proficiency gives the ability to write messages in the sky, summon demons, fly, teleport, block spells, change the entire battlefield in one action, come back from death instantly, give walls magical powers, turn anything into anything, create 3D imagines like holograms, force killing imagines into a persons mind, bring objects to life, gain control over an entity for over a year, bring a creature out of existent with the snap of the finger without ever hurting them, create creatures as strong as dragons out of a bit of dust and snow, change dimension, create a tornado, and do most of that with one spell? I only read half of my spell list btw.

Personal wealth.

[Elbeyon]

Personal wealth.Are the heroes going to start giving the quests now? Does that mean they retired to the life of hiring wizards? :smalltongue:

[Malifice]

Are the heroes going to start giving the quests now? Does that mean they retired to the life of hiring wizards? :smalltongue:

Huh?

Most of the things you mention above (or the equivalent efects) can be achieved in a variety of different ways outside of spellcasting. Their isnt much meaningful real world difference between saying 'I cast summon undead army' or 'I hire a mercenary army' or 'I teleport to the dungeon' as opposed to 'I ride my warhorse there' or even 'I cast power word kill' versus 'I smash his head in with an axe'. The caster is just achieving the same thing as he could have achieved anyway (albeit with a bit less 'in game' expenditure of gold and time, and a lower requirement for creative thinking).

All spells do is exchange burning a spell slot (daily resource) to make tasks easier 'in game'. Virtually every single spell effect (which is the means - not the end) can be replicated with a mundane ability.

Need to fly to get to the flying castle? Capture a pegasus or gryphon. Buy a potion, hitch a ride on a skyship.

[Elbeyon]

Huh?

Most of the things you mention above (or the equivalent efects) can be achieved in a variety of different ways outside of spellcasting. Their isnt much meaningful real world difference between saying 'I cast summon undead army' or 'I hire a mercenary army' or 'I teleport to the dungeon' as opposed to 'I ride my warhorse there' or even 'I cast power word kill' versus 'I smash his head in with an axe'. The caster is just achieving the same thing as he could have achieved anyway (albeit with a bit less 'in game' expenditure of gold and time, and a lower requirement for creative thinking).

All spells do is exchange burning a spell slot (daily resource) to make tasks easier 'in game'. Virtually every single spell effect (which is the means - not the end) can be replicated with a mundane ability.

Need to fly to get to the flying castle? Capture a pegasus or gryphon. Buy a potion, hitch a ride on a skyship.Ah, I see. Personal wealth is costly, slower, and could end in failure. Personal wealth sounds like a crappy spell. A wizard would never pick that up.

My character can create an exact copy of themselves for free in under six seconds. How much money does it cost to buy an equivalent level wizard slave that serves with absolute loyalty for all of my character's eternal life?

Edit: Doh. The joke was that personal wealth is paying someone else to do the job for them. Aka, quest giver status.

[Malifice]

My character can create an exact copy of themselves for free in under six seconds. How much money does it cost to buy an equivalent level wizard slave that serves with absolute loyalty for all of my character's eternal life?

You're a 17th level Wizard using Wish to create a simulacrum then. Seeing as you've asked for 'an exact copy' you've probably triggered 'Wish burn out/ twisted wish shenanigans' too (the simulacrum created by the spell is not an exact copy in every way) but that's besides the point.

My 17th level Fighter doesn't need to waste six seconds. He probably has a 17th level Sorcerer or Wizard in his adventuring party that he's been best buddies with since he was 1st level hanging around.

Or he hires one, or he calls in a favor from an NPC one he's met over the journey from 1st to 17th level.

He's probably lord of a small keep somewhere, so it shouldn't be too hard.

Why do we need the simulacrum wizard anyway by the way? What in game challenge are we trying to overcome that requires the simulacrums presence, and where no other option but casting simulacrum will suffice?

And more to the point, why has the DM put that challenge before me, knowing I cant cast simulacrum?

[Gurka]

Huh?

Most of the things you mention above (or the equivalent efects) can be achieved in a variety of different ways outside of spellcasting. Their isnt much meaningful real world difference between saying 'I cast summon undead army' or 'I hire a mercenary army' or 'I teleport to the dungeon' as opposed to 'I ride my warhorse there' or even 'I cast power word kill' versus 'I smash his head in with an axe'. The caster is just achieving the same thing as he could have achieved anyway (albeit with a bit less 'in game' expenditure of gold and time, and a lower requirement for creative thinking).

All spells do is exchange burning a spell slot (daily resource) to make tasks easier 'in game'. Virtually every single spell effect (which is the means - not the end) can be replicated with a mundane ability.

Need to fly to get to the flying castle? Capture a pegasus or gryphon. Buy a potion, hitch a ride on a skyship.

To a degree, you're right. But compare a non-magic user accomplishing even most of these things to a Wizard, respectively. For one, that's months or years worth of invested effort, and a tremendous expenditure of resources. For the other, it's what you do before brunch.

It's an exaggeration of course, but I hope it's illustrative. Yes, with enough ingenuity, resources, and acumen, a fighter can take over the world. Mundane characters can accomplish a hell of a lot. There are a handful of things that they will simply NOT be able to do, save for paying a different magic user to do for them. That's the point of magic. It's magical. A lot of folks have taken issue with the fact that the list of things that martial characters are supposed to be BETTER at, than spellcasters starts small and gets smaller the more spells are published.

I have no problem with Clerics, I really like them this edition and don't find them out of kilter. That said, on the note of clerics and fighters being "perfectly balanced", when they have nearly identical defensive stats (AC, HP within a few points) and nearly identical offensive stats (damage throughput within a few points per round). yet one can call fire from the heavens, heal the injured, etc... and the other can... shove you. You put them on a scale and one side tips.

[Malifice]

To a degree, you're right. But compare a non-magic user accomplishing even most of these things to a Wizard, respectively. For one, that's months or years worth of invested effort, and a tremendous expenditure of resources. For the other, it's what you do before brunch.

It's an exaggeration of course, but I hope it's illustrative. Yes, with enough ingenuity, resources, and acumen, a fighter can take over the world. Mundane characters can accomplish a hell of a lot. There are a handful of things that they will simply NOT be able to do, save for paying a different magic user to do for them. That's the point of magic. It's magical. A lot of folks have taken issue with the fact that the list of things that martial characters are supposed to be BETTER at, than spellcasters starts small and gets smaller the more spells are published.

Agreed it's easier for the Wizard to accomplish some tasks.

But... also isn't the adventure written with this in mind?

An adventure on the planes for example. It's written by the DM knowing that the wizard is the only one that can get them there. With no wizard, the DM simply writes the adventure starting at a planar gate provided by the NPC that hires them (or some equivalent plot contrivance).

Really most of the Wizard abilities become plot enablers, not plot destroyers.

It's all down to the DM.

Handled poorly, I can see how a wizard could overshadow other PC's. 15 minute adventuring days, poor encounter design, poor comprehension of a wizards abilities etc (scry + teleport to the top of the tower and bypass the other encounters is a common enough - and depressing that its allowed to happen - story).

[Elbeyon]

It's nice to have your hand in the gm's cookie jar, no? I enjoy help writing the plot.

[Malifice]

It's nice to have your hand in the gm's cookie jar, no? I enjoy help writing the plot.

Oh yeah for sure. Nothing wrong with it at all.

Some dudes like to rock up to the table and smash face. For them we have the champion and barbarian.

For the rest of us we have the wizard :)

[Dimolyth]

As DM, I really don`t see any problem with magic/martial PC`s even back in 3.5. I have a number of PC casters (let say X), each of them could solve a number of problems (let say Y) per day. That means, X*Y is the number of problems, that the whole party could resolve. Just give them more challenges. And 5e is MUCH better in this than 3.5e: high level slots are cut (so the "Y" is diminished), and casters don`t require rest in the middle of the day (cantrips ARE decent).
As a player, I still consider that-god-shaking magic as the resourse of the party. And my choice of martial/magic user was always a choice between reliability (for martials) at any given time (interrupted long rest is best example) and awesome probleme-solving X times per day.

The analogy of altillery is quite realistic and fit for Middle Ages. Absence of artillery made the Robin Hood not to take down the castles. The presence of altillery made Tamerlan to conquer an empire three times as big as Roman`s Empire, and he did that just in one generation.
And also, well prepared level 20 wizard can handle unprepared army. That will mean, that generals of the army are just buffons. Prepared army will have artillery, and a number of low-level mages - five of them could cast a Counterspell five times against that game changing spell of the wizard, and the rst of army can kill your wizard like twenty times per turn...
That is why Elminister don`t destroy hordes of orcs/goblins/undead/evil nations here and there.

[KorvinStarmast]

Advantage feather fall.If you only fall once.

[Giant2005]

If you only fall once.

And you have spell slots remaining, and are lucky enough to have such a niche spell prepared in the first place.

[VoxRationis]

That will mean, that generals of the army are just buffons.

It's nice that the generals in your setting are so well-learned. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Louis_Leclerc,_Comte_de_Buffon)

[KorvinStarmast]

It's nice that the generals in your setting are so well-learned. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Louis_Leclerc,_Comte_de_Buffon) Whoa, is that the original ArchDruid? :smallsmile:

[Vogonjeltz]

There are a lot of threads about nerfing spells and why casting is overpowered. So I want to know who hates it more, the players or the DM?

I personally am fine with full casting because I play with a group where we prefer to work together to tell a story and don't just want to destroy every challenge we come across. But that's just my amazing luck. I want to hear your thoughts

I don't hate casters, but I wouldn't overstate their capabilities. If anything, they're weaker because they have limited functionality and require very precise resource commitment in order to even measure up to the alternatives.


That's another issue. With how the game works there really wouldn't be that many settlements. With all the really strong magical creatures... Any of them could/would wipe out civilization if high level casters/martials are as rare as the settings like to say.

It wouldn't even take a particularly smart creature to wipe out a country and they don't need to only use brute force.

Things just don't fit together. Even with the factions working for the general good of the world and good/evil dragons keeping each other in check.

You can ignore the problem if you want, but for those of us that likes settings that have a bit of internal consistency it is hard to do.

Tigers are, relative to Human beings, incredibly dangerous. But Humans working with technology (or even without technology) in concert easily kill them. That's why societies aren't terribly threatened in these fantasy worlds, because Human(oid)s vastly outnumber these creatures and, working together, can easily kill them.

Yes, a vampire is a crazy scary monster on an individual basis. But it's doomed if a society recognizes that it exists and makes a determined effort to stamp it out. And, for obvious reasons, that's exactly what societies do to threats like that.


Skills are a wash because that isn't something your class can do but something everyone can do. Athletics on a Strength based cleric does the same as on a Strength based Fighter. Actually it does more because the cleric has class features that can make his skill check better. The Fighter gets to attack more... Whooopie.

Classes, races, and backgrounds, determine skill availability. Clerics don't get Athletics, so it's a canard to say they are going to be, in general, as good at Athletics checks as a Fighter (a class which does have Athletics as a choice).

If the existence of the capability is reliant on something NOT the class, then it's not a fair point to say they could, hypothetically have the same check. Yes, they could, but they simply won't.


Feather Fall (Acrobatics)

I'm fairly certain Feather Fall doesn't allow the character to escape a grapple, or tumble and avoid opportunity attacks. Yes, magic is sometimes capable of emulating one tiny aspect of an ability check...but generally speaking that's all.


Ah, I see. Personal wealth is costly, slower, and could end in failure. Personal wealth sounds like a crappy spell. A wizard would never pick that up.

Using a spell slot to teleport means an opportunity cost of one other spell that might have saved your life and the use of a spell slot that, likewise, could mean the difference between success or failure for a class entirely dependent on spell slots.

Malifice's point was that spells are generally just another way to the same end goal. You need to get from point A to point B, how you do it doesn't really matter because nobody is scoring you on creativity or style points.

[Elbeyon]

Malifice's point was that spells are generally just another way to the same end goal. You need to get from point A to point B, how you do it doesn't really matter because nobody is scoring you on creativity or style points.Right, the way to the same end goal doesn't matter at all. The fact that my wizard accomplish in seconds what another character would have to spend days to a lifetime to do isn't important. I've got a car that can travel the speed of light, but that other car that goes three miles an hour is just as good.

[Vogonjeltz]

Right, the way to the same end goal doesn't matter at all. The fact that my wizard accomplish in seconds what another character would have to spend days to a lifetime to do isn't important. I've got a car that can travel the speed of light, but that other car that goes three miles an hour is just as good.

It's a question of having to put time and resources in before or after. If you want to (safely) teleport that long distance you have to have already been there within the previous 6 months and be carrying a token, or they have to spend an entire year in that place. Oh and they have to spend a spell slot and it's another spell they can't cast that day.

If they haven't been there before, best of luck, they'll need it.

[Dimolyth]

Right, the way to the same end goal doesn't matter at all. The fact that my wizard accomplish in seconds what another character would have to spend days to a lifetime to do isn't important. I've got a car that can travel the speed of light, but that other car that goes three miles an hour is just as good.

Teleporting is not personal recourse in that case. It is party recourse. So you have a guy with a car, and another one with tickets for plane. They can took the plane once, and moving among three nearby towns unlimited times by car in the same day. That is exactly how fighter & wizard party functions.