What exactly do you believe should be done concerning martials/caster balance

[Estralita]

Well, people have been dancing around this topic in other threads for a while, so might as well just address the topic directly. I have seen people complaining about what they feel is a severe imbalance between classes that specialize in magic, and those that don't. I have also seen people who believe otherwise. What I want to see is what other people thing (preferably without attacking people who disagree with your opinions.

As for what I think, I'm not sure. I don't think I have enough practical experience in 5e to say. I actually only bought the PHB recently. I am more interested in seeing what other people think.

[Safety Sword]

The combat balance is much closer in this edition than any other. Ever.

What people usually care about is that magic users have out of combat uses for their class abilities, whereas martial characters can only hit things with a big stick.

This edition is also better with that than others, due to the backgrounds and skills granted.

I'm not sure you can reconcile them. Magic by its nature is flexible and does things that defy normality.

Martial characters can be superhumanly good at things that regular people can do, but that's not good enough for some.

[Ardantis]

It's funny, our party (which is switching over from 3.5 to 5) just fought a cleric villain in our last-ever 3.5 game, and he wiped the floor with us.

Even with action economy, because he was a few levels higher than us, he had an answer to each of our players that we just couldn't deal with.

Next week we start 5e, and only one of us will be playing a full caster. We have yet to see whether or not he'll be responsible for the majority of party success.

[SharkForce]

honestly, i'd say my fix would be to just accept that in order to be comparable to equally high level spellcasters, non-spellcasters are going to be supernatural. not spellcasters, and not even necessarily overtly so, but you need to just ignore what "normal" is and let them do things that are vastly beyond what a regular person could do, and not just in magnitude. something on the order of epic skill checks from 3.x D&D.

[Scarab112]

I would say altering the more powerful spells to make them less gamebreaking. In some cases, this can be as simple as changing the text of the spell to make it more clear, such as Contagion. In other cases, adding in expensive material components can work to a degree, especially if they're objects that the DM can decide are rare enough to be hard to find. Other than that, a few spell combos need houseruling to not break things, such as Wish/Simulacrum.

The other option would be to go for the classical route and require Wizards learn their spells from other spellcasters in-game, thus leaving it to the DM which spells are available. Wizards are the casters with the most problem spells on their lists, though the Bard is also an issue due to being able to poach them freely. This method can work if you agree with your players beforehand, though it also requires the DM to listen to input so a player doesn't end up with a bunch of spells that don't fit their character.

In my opinion, it's a very small pool of effects that are truly troublesome. A few key spells that can just as easily be house-ruled out really.

[Safety Sword]

It's funny, our party (which is switching over from 3.5 to 5) just fought a cleric villain in our last-ever 3.5 game, and he wiped the floor with us.

Even with action economy, because he was a few levels higher than us, he had an answer to each of our players that we just couldn't deal with.

Next week we start 5e, and only one of us will be playing a full caster. We have yet to see whether or not he'll be responsible for the majority of party success.

If you play within the rules he won't be. Make sure that Concentration is enforced and caster power is brought right back into line.

[Ashrym]

The DM chooses the DC for any given ability check. In order to create extraordinary options the DM just needs to scale those DC's appropriately to include the more fantastic options. It takes seconds on the fly.

If a PC wants to balance on a cloud making that a 20 DC balance check just enabled it.

If the DM wants a bigger scale then double proficiency for all proficient skills, allow triple for expertise, and allow a feat to add expertise in one proficient skill with a matching +1 ability score increase.

Changing the scope of nonmagical abilities is easy on an adjusted skill check scale.

[ThermalSlapShot]

The combat balance is much closer in this edition than any other. Ever.


4e says hello. Also, 3.5 tier 3 list says hello also. Those two set ups are more balanced than 5e could ever dream of being. The only thing 5e is balanced with is that everyone can do damage (which helps unbalance the game more... Lol).

But what really needs to be done a not a Caster VS Martial debate. What needs to happen is to bring casters down to the setting OR bring the setting up to caster's level.

One good thing I've found is using the e6 type setting. Casters get all the spell slots they currently do but only learn up to 3rd level Spells. This balances the casters with the world a bit better.

[Giant2005]

You can rebalance the game without drastically changing the setting (Like turning a bunch of people and turning them into superheroes without justification). Just make some more powerful character options but with restrictions on what classes can take them.
If you perceive the issue is utility, then make some kind of demigod race that can only be a Champion. That race can have all of the features of a standard race with some extra utility features thrown in to close the perceived gap. You could also make class exclusive feats that accomplish the same thing or even make the feats available to everyone but scale differently for different classes.

[Malifice]

Enforce (where possible) the 6-9 encounter days, and allow short rests no more than 2-3 times per day.

It wont always be possible, but implementing dues ex machina things like time limited adventures (save princess x before time y or bad thing z happens), intelligent foes that react to 15 minute adventuring day tactics (reinforcing the dungeon during intervals, moving the quest item/ princess elsewhere, reacting to PC hit and run tactics by going after them in the PC's camp etc) or simple wandering monsters to keep up the pressure are all valid techniques to use.

Also; dont be afraid to throw the occasional meat grinder at the PC's. Multiple encounters where long resting is impossible (see the start of RoT where you run around in a city under attack by cultists and barely have time to short rest during multiple encounters).

Remember, caster power is granted by a finite resource (high level spell slots). In 5e, these slots are much fewer in number than before, and are further limited to only having one spell up at a time due to the concentration mechanic. In exchange for a limited number of powerful effects per long rest, the casters base chassis (in terms of at will DPR, HP, HD, skills and proficiencies, AC etc) is much more limited than the the non caster equivalent.

When out of spell slots, casters suck.

A fully rested caster will have the ability to (assuming he has the right spell prepared) turn 1-3 challenging/ hard encounters/ situations per long rest into easy/ trivial ones, and meaningfully contribute (without overshadowing anyone else) for a further 3-4 encounters. Make sure the caster player is aware that repeat nova strikes will render the caster virtually useless for most of the day. He should (by choice) be saving his 'big booms' for the BBEG.

Got a caster that insists on dropping his highest level slots on the first encounter of the day? Make sure he doesnt get the chance to long rest. Force him to spend half the session running around with a handful of low level slots and cantrips, cowering behind the fighter. He'll adjust his playstyle and tactics to conform with the meta expected number of encounters per day (even on days where you as the DM know that he probably wont be getting the full 9 encounters that day) - which makes the system self regulating by the player.

In short: Force the caster to manage his resources, and make the decision to unleash with the 'big boom' spell a meaningful player choice, instead of simply being the go-to tactic for every single encounter.

If your casters are routinely unleashing with nova strikes on round 1 of the first encounter of the day, you're not doing it right.

[Ashrym]

4e says hello. Also, 3.5 tier 3 list says hello also. Those two set ups are more balanced than 5e could ever dream of being. The only thing 5e is balanced with is that everyone can do damage (which helps unbalance the game more... Lol).

But what really needs to be done a not a Caster VS Martial debate. What needs to happen is to bring casters down to the setting OR bring the setting up to caster's level.

One good thing I've found is using the e6 type setting. Casters get all the spell slots they currently do but only learn up to 3rd level Spells. This balances the casters with the world a bit better.

4e also said goodbye ;-) and had different balance issue as things also fell apart in higher levels, IMO.

We had a low magic campaign enforced by restricting classes. The DM allowed assassin and thief rogues, battlemaster fighters, berserker and totem barbarians, and elemental monks. Feats were allowed but feats granting spells had some restrictions. MC was also allowed but there were only 4 classes.

The instructions were to build the concepts out of those options. We had a "cleric" who was a water monk with the healer feat and cleric ritual caster feat, and acolyte background; assassin rogue / fighter "ranger" with the outlander trapper background; totem barbarian "bard" with the sage background; and battlemaster "paladin" with the acolyte background and magic initiate cleric granting resistance, spare the dying, and bless once per day.

A game doesn't necessarily need to change the classes to match the tone of the campaign. Fluff is the easiest thing to change and simply removing classes is always an easy option.

[Ardantis]

If you play within the rules he won't be. Make sure that Concentration is enforced and caster power is brought right back into line.

It's funny, our Bard's biggest issue in deciding his spells known list was working with (and around) the concentration mechanic.

[ThermalSlapShot]

4e also said goodbye ;-) and had different balance issue as things also fell apart in higher levels, IMO.

We had a low magic campaign enforced by restricting classes. The DM allowed assassin and thief rogues, battlemaster fighters, berserker and totem barbarians, and elemental monks. Feats were allowed but feats granting spells had some restrictions. MC was also allowed but there were only 4 classes.

The instructions were to build the concepts out of those options. We had a "cleric" who was a water monk with the healer feat and cleric ritual caster feat, and acolyte background; assassin rogue / fighter "ranger" with the outlander trapper background; totem barbarian "bard" with the sage background; and battlemaster "paladin" with the acolyte background and magic initiate cleric granting resistance, spare the dying, and bless once per day.

A game doesn't necessarily need to change the classes to match the tone of the campaign. Fluff is the easiest thing to change and simply removing classes is always an easy option.

Yes it did say goodbye, and the game that replaced it is the parent to 5e funny enough. There are tweets replies to interviews that actually say that they were working on 4e essentials when they decided how to make 5e. Essentials has a lot in common with 5e, more than people think. Funny enough, essentials is what killed 4e. When they turned away from what was working that is when their sales started falling. Also, every edition of D&D falls apart at higher levels, even 5e, so using that as point against one edition is a bit silly. They really need to design the game starting at level 20 and then work backwards.

See, I love playing casters so I would hate that restrictive game and would never really want to play in it. As a DM that would make things interesting and usable, as I've ran that sort of game already (though no magic classes at all) and the players enjoyed it. I don't want casters to not be powerful, I want everyone playing the same game. This includes casters, martials, and the setting. But I don't want a base game set around low fantasy, screw that, we have enough bull crap low fantasy saturating the market.

Fluff is easy to change but a rose by any other name still smells as sweet.



It's funny, our Bard's biggest issue in deciding his spells known list was working with (and around) the concentration mechanic.

Some of the really good spells don't require concentration.

Spiritual Weapon, Freedom of Movement, and Foresight to name a few.

[Naanomi]

Although I don't think there needs to be 'perfect balance', the main thing I would do is make any 'utility' spell designed for noncombat purposes (divination, teleport, long term flight and invisibility) and give them long casting times; expensive material components, and be 'disruptable'.

It won't fix everything; but at least mundane characters will have 'can solve problems quickly and cheaply' as one of their boons while still giving casters access to their classic abilities

[Giant2005]

Some of the really good spells don't require concentration.

Spiritual Weapon, Freedom of Movement, and Foresight to name a few.

Spiritual Weapon isn't a good spell that doesn't require concentration, it is a really crappy spell that is good because it doesn't require concentration.
Freedom of Movement is so niche that I have trouble considering it a good spell at all. I haven't seen it used in game before and I don't think I have even seen a situation where it would have been useful enough to warrant a spell slot even if someone did have it and it was prepared.
Foresight is an absolutely amazing spell. However it is also 9th level and probably the third or 4th best spell of the bunch. Although it is undeniably great, the opportunity cost of not casting those 2 or 3 superior level 9 spells is far greater (Although I don't know if it works that way in practice - I have never played in a game that has lasted long enough for casters to be slinging those kinds of spells).

[Brendanicus]

The balance it fine. There's no way to make Martials as strong as Casters at level 20 without DnD turning into DBZ with swords. I'd rather take the imbalance.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Spiritual Weapon isn't a good spell that doesn't require concentration, it is a really crappy spell that is good because it doesn't require concentration.
Freedom of Movement is so niche that I have trouble considering it a good spell at all. I haven't seen it used in game before and I don't think I have even seen a situation where it would have been useful enough to warrant a spell slot even if someone did have it and it was prepared.
Foresight is an absolutely amazing spell. However it is also 9th level and probably the third or 4th best spell of the bunch. Although it is undeniably great, the opportunity cost of not casting those 2 or 3 superior level 9 spells is far greater (Although I don't know if it works that way in practice - I have never played in a game that has lasted long enough for casters to be slinging those kinds of spells).

Spiritual Weapon is the reason why Clerics don't get extra attack and why they don't need it. Even if it was concentration it would still be an excellent spell (though Bless is still bless). 1d8 (+1d8/2spell levels above 2nd) + Wisdom Modifier FORCE damage? Used as a bonus action? My god that spell is amazing. You can have a cleric dealing 2d6 + Str (3) + 1d8 + Wis (3) at level 3 (i had a cleric that did this). And still be able to cast bless or whatever other spell that they want to cast. Meanwhile the martials are dealing 2d6 + 3 reroll 1 & 2 (sometimes with bonus damage from other sources like rage).

Freedom of Movement has saved more lives than cure light wounds. Niche? Somewhat. Useful as holy hell? Yes. Next time a cleric attempts to cast freedom of movement on your character I want to you to say "no, I got this". Freedom of Movement stops paralyzation and restraint. This spell is great.

I chose Foresight because it is a higher level spell. I chose a 2nd, 4th, and 9th level spell in order to show how spells throughout the different tiers of play have good/great/awesome spells that aren't concentration.

Replace any of the spells I mentioned with Forcecage (wiz spell) as it the "you are trapped for 1 hour, sucks to be you" spell.


The balance it fine. There's no way to make Martials as strong as Casters at level 20 without DnD turning into DBZ with swords. I'd rather take the imbalance.

First off why should casters be the only ones that get to play DBZ?

Secondly who said that people specifically wanted DBZ with swords?

I mean, I'm sure some people would love that, but that isn't the point.

If the classes aren't balanced between 1-20 then why the hell do they even get those levels? Level 5 should equal (roughly) level 5. You might as well just have martials not be able to go over level 10 or whatever. If you aren't a major league talent then you don't get to play in the big leagues (I guess unless you were a Pirate up until a couple years ago...).

D&D shows us that martials get levels 8-20 and yet they don't deliver. It is like putting a middle school baseball player into a major league game.

[Giant2005]

Spiritual Weapon is the reason why Clerics don't get extra attack and why they don't need it. Even if it was concentration it would still be an excellent spell (though Bless is still bless). 1d8 (+1d8/2spell levels above 2nd) + Wisdom Modifier FORCE damage? Used as a bonus action? My god that spell is amazing. You can have a cleric dealing 2d6 + Str (3) + 1d8 + Wis (3) at level 3 (i had a cleric that did this). And still be able to cast bless or whatever other spell that they want to cast. Meanwhile the martials are dealing 2d6 + 3 reroll 1 & 2 (sometimes with bonus damage from other sources like rage).

If Spiritual Weapon required concentration, it would be quite literally the worst spell of its kind (Repeatable bonus action damage). Flaming Sphere, Bigby's Hand, Heat Metal, Dust Devil, Melf's Minute Meteors and Storm Sphere are all so very far superior to this theoretical Spiritual Weapon that the only room for dispute would be when casting Spiritual Weapon at its very lowest level. Yet those spells are designed to be used with high level spell slots as that is how you get the most mileage out of those slots - comparing them at the minimum level isn't going to be something that is hugely relevant. Without Spiritual Weapon's unique no concentration requirement, the spell is utter rubbish compared to its peers.

[Strill]

If Spiritual Weapon required concentration, it would be quite literally the worst spell of its kind (Repeatable bonus action damage). Flaming Sphere, Bigby's Hand, Heat Metal, Dust Devil, Melf's Minute Meteors and Storm Sphere are all so very far superior to this theoretical Spiritual Weapon that the only room for dispute would be when casting Spiritual Weapon at its very lowest level. Yet those spells are designed to be used with high level spell slots as that is how you get the most mileage out of those slots - comparing them at the minimum level isn't going to be something that is hugely relevant. Without Spiritual Weapon's unique no concentration requirement, the spell is utter rubbish compared to its peers.

No, Mordekainen's Sword would be worse.

[Giant2005]

No, Mordekainen's Sword would be worse.

Fair call. I forgot about Mordenkainen's great shame.

[VoxRationis]

I think that:
1) The concept of complete parity between those who can do things which are impossible (pretty much the definition of magic) and those who cannot is flat-out ridiculous in the first place. It needs to be scrapped. Magic-users will be able to do things the rest of the world can't. We should accept that. What we need to do is make magic less good (or at least a less optimal use of energy) at doing certain things than physical skill and talent is, and make magic less powerful in those areas that it has to itself.
2) The capabilities of magic-users should be cut down a few notches, either by increasing the costs (whatever form those might take) of casting, and/or by reinstituting the fragility of magic-users found in past editions. (The institution of the concentration mechanic and the return of backfiring conjuration spells in 5e were a step in the right direction, but more could be done, such as make checks to retain concentration more difficult, or impose stiff initiative penalties on casting.)
3) Magic needs to be more heavily defined and codified. Part of the reason the disparity is what it is is that we know more or less what's unreasonable for nonmagical activities, but there's no idea of what isn't reasonable when it comes to magic, simply because magic is basically that which cannot be done by natural laws. The design team should start by listing a number of things magic can't do at all, and work from there. (Of course, the desire to retain continuity with the capabilities of past editions will make such a dramatic re-working unlikely.)

[Gurka]

Honestly, tone down a few of the most egregious spells, get rid of "smart magic", and downshift the effectiveness of certain spells that are designed to do exactly what a skilled person can do without magic, only (usually) quicker and better.

That's all that need be done with casters. Truthfully, they probably don't need to have the "I'm better than you at something I've never done" spells toned down, I just dislike them personally. They do contribute to the "casters make non-casters obsolete" issue, but they're not the primary cause. Some minor tweaks of spells and magic users are golden.

For martial classes, I'd like to see 3 primary changes:

This isn't so much a change to martial classes, as an increase in resources for them. I think one thing they need is some more extensive examples of "improvised actions", so that DM's feel more comfortable allowing them. I love that this edition specifically promotes the use of such actions (as opposed to the last couple editions, where they were heresy), but my limited experience this edition as a player (as opposed to DM) has shown me that several of the DM's I've played with really aren't comfortable with the frequent use of improvised actions yet, and tend to resist allowing them (either by refusing, or by setting arbitrarily high difficulties). I don't have a problem with "mother may I", but I think the above would go a long way towards that. Also, some additional combat styles, feats, etc.

The second bit, and I intend to try it out in one of our upcoming games (though who knows exactly when that will be) for martial classes to get an attribute increase AND a feat, instead of having to choose between the two. There are only a few feats that really benefit casters, but they're quite integral for martial characters to be at their best. Particularly late game, I think this could make a significant impact. Particularly as more Feats are published, adding extra breadth to the combat options of the martial classes.

Lastly, throwing each of the martial classes another few skill proficiencies wouldn't hurt either. To be an adventurer without magic at your disposal, you've got to be good at a lot of things, just to keep your head above the proverbial water. Stealth, perception, survival, animal handling, some medicine, athletics, investigation, and probably Arcana. Those are just thing things you likely need to make it through a fairly average adventure (in my experience) without magic to aid you. Now, no single character has to have all of those things, but even with a few of them, it doesn't leave much room for other flavorful skills either.

[Ralanr]

Although I don't think there needs to be 'perfect balance', the main thing I would do is make any 'utility' spell designed for noncombat purposes (divination, teleport, long term flight and invisibility) and give them long casting times; expensive material components, and be 'disruptable'.

It won't fix everything; but at least mundane characters will have 'can solve problems quickly and cheaply' as one of their boons while still giving casters access to their classic abilities

I like that idea. People might call BS on how careful destruction spells are quicker to do than utility spells. But I like it nonetheless

[Gurka]

I like that idea. People might call BS on how careful destruction spells are quicker to do than utility spells. But I like it nonetheless

Simple response: What's easier, building a castle out of blocks, or knocking it over? Destruction is mechanically simple and requires comparatively little energy, while creating something with a more constructive effect takes many times the energy, effort and discipline.

[Malifice]

To answer the OPs question: proper encounter balancing, rest pacing and designing your encounters with the parties capabilities in mind.

If you can't cope with the 6-9 encounter adventuring day, lengthen long rests to be 1 full week (per the DMG).

That curbs caster power and creates a more 'reserved caster' feel aka Gandalf.

[KorvinStarmast]

a. reinstituting the fragility of magic-users found in past editions.
b. The institution of the concentration mechanic and the return of backfiring conjuration spells in 5e were a step in the right direction,
Agreed on both points. Casting Mage Armor as a ritual is one way that mage fragility has been curtailed. Then again, since the model for design is a four person party (which is small, fewer targets for the enemy to choose from) perhaps it was a better idea. If we go too far with fragility, the casters spend a lot of time on the floor bleeding.

Is that fun?

or impose stiff initiative penalties on casting.)While I don't disagree that this would be more "real" in terms of what it takes to cast a spell, be careful with this idea or we end up going back to segments and suffer playability issues.

1e had casting times for various spells in segments. It was an effort to add opportunity cost to the use of magic that was in some ways a good idea that got in the way of pace of play. (The way our group got around this was that as a player, I helped the DM with a lot of the admin. I was the segment master, and kept close track of "whose turn is it." I also made 3x5 cards for all spells used by the players, which were played face up when a spell was called to be cast. It had spell name and pertinent data on it. Yes, we had a pretty large deck as the campaign progressed. We found it a fine playing aid. Without the "assistant" our DM would have been overtasked with admin during fights. It worked, because I wanted to help make the game flow better. Yes, my inner Dm was at work as a player.

Can you fold in this idea without returning to segments?

One way is via a general rule that each spell level costs you an initiative penalty based on its spell level:
Example.
I roll initiative 12.
Cast cantrip: initiative remains 12
cast first level spell: initative score moves to 11
cast second level spell, initiative moves 10.
Cast third level spell, initiative moves to 9 (in terms of when the spell goes off).
This means I could be interrupted during the casting attempt if I lose a concentration check when a disrupting event happens between start and finish.
In above example, if at initiative score 10 I get hit with an arrow or a rock, I need to make a concentration check or that fireball doesn't go off.

And so on

If that's too penal, try every other level

I roll initiative 12
Cast cantrip or 1st level spell? initiative remains 12
Cast 2d or 3rd level? initiative moves to 11
Cast fourth or fifth level spell? initiative moves to 10

What's the problem with that? One problem is that some spells by their nature (I'll use Feather Fall as an example) are reaction or fast cast ... or they are utterly pointless. The reaction spell Shield is another example.

Shield (1st-level abjuration)
Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are
hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell
Range: Self
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 round
Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus
to AC, including against the triggering

And for a third level reaction spell

Counterspell!

So there'd need to be a clear "specific versus general" clarification for such spells.

Does this address the balance issue? Maybe. The down side is that it adds complexity for the DM running a combat. Is that worth the effort?

[Finieous]

I think the balance (or lack thereof) is pretty solid. Feels like D&D and doesn't break the game.

[tieren]

Maybe there is a way to make being mundane more beneficial in and of itself.

Like if there were a lot of high level monsters that had some kind of "feedback" type damage that injured a player based on the number of spell slots they had available or something?

maybe give high level mundanes more resistances or something?

[Fwiffo86]

You can rebalance the game without drastically changing the setting (Like turning a bunch of people and turning them into superheroes without justification). Just make some more powerful character options but with restrictions on what classes can take them.
If you perceive the issue is utility, then make some kind of demigod race that can only be a Champion. That race can have all of the features of a standard race with some extra utility features thrown in to close the perceived gap. You could also make class exclusive feats that accomplish the same thing or even make the feats available to everyone but scale differently for different classes.

You could also go the other way, and remove all level 6+ spells from the game entirely. Allow the slots (for boosting other spells effectiveness), but dump all of those spells entirely, as in does not exist.

[Soular]

Enforce (where possible) the 6-9 encounter days, and allow short rests no more than 2-3 times per day.


This. Play the game how it's meant to be played, and the disparity diminishes.

The problem rears it's head when DMs half-ass the adventure and don't take time into the equation.

[VoxRationis]

Agreed on both points. Casting Mage Armor as a ritual is one way that mage fragility has been curtailed. Then again, since the model for design is a four person party (which is small, fewer targets for the enemy to choose from) perhaps it was a better idea. If we go too far with fragility, the casters spend a lot of time on the floor bleeding.

Is that fun?
While I don't disagree that this would be more "real" in terms of what it takes to cast a spell, be careful with this idea or we end up going back to segments and suffer playability issues.

1e had casting times for various spells in segments. It was an effort to add opportunity cost to the use of magic that was in some ways a good idea that got in the way of pace of play. (The way our group got around this was that as a player, I helped the DM with a lot of the admin. I was the segment master, and kept close track of "whose turn is it." I also made 3x5 cards for all spells used by the players, which were played face up when a spell was called to be cast. It had spell name and pertinent data on it. Yes, we had a pretty large deck as the campaign progressed. We found it a fine playing aid. Without the "assistant" our DM would have been overtasked with admin during fights. It worked, because I wanted to help make the game flow better. Yes, my inner Dm was at work as a player.

Can you fold in this idea without returning to segments?

One way is via a general rule that each spell level costs you an initiative penalty based on its spell level:
Example.
I roll initiative 12.
Cast cantrip: initiative remains 12
cast first level spell: initative score moves to 11
cast second level spell, initiative moves 10.
Cast third level spell, initiative moves to 9 (in terms of when the spell goes off).
This means I could be interrupted during the casting attempt if I lose a concentration check when a disrupting event happens between start and finish.
In above example, if at initiative score 10 I get hit with an arrow or a rock, I need to make a concentration check or that fireball doesn't go off.

And so on

If that's too penal, try every other level

I roll initiative 12
Cast cantrip or 1st level spell? initiative remains 12
Cast 2d or 3rd level? initiative moves to 11
Cast fourth or fifth level spell? initiative moves to 10

What's the problem with that? One problem is that some spells by their nature (I'll use Feather Fall as an example) are reaction or fast cast ... or they are utterly pointless. The reaction spell Shield is another example.

Shield (1st-level abjuration)
Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are
hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell
Range: Self
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 round
Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus
to AC, including against the triggering

And for a third level reaction spell

Counterspell!

So there'd need to be a clear "specific versus general" clarification for such spells.

Does this address the balance issue? Maybe. The down side is that it adds complexity for the DM running a combat. Is that worth the effort?
I would say so, but then, I've never had the opportunity to actually play with a AD&D-style initiative count. Also, I have a higher complexity tolerance than a lot of people—I'm the one arguing in another thread that GURPS-style wealth checks are an unnecessary abstraction when basic math works far more precisely.

[KorvinStarmast]

This. Play the game how it's meant to be played, and the disparity diminishes.
How it was meant to be played? That kind of broad brush rhetoric isn't helpful.

Enforce (where possible) the 6-9 encounter days, and allow short rests no more than 2-3 times per day.
The way it was balanced for?
Yes, agree with you. That will help bring casters and martials into closer balance.

As to your comments on half arsed DMs, it isn't only the DMs who are a source of the problem here. Players make decisions, risk based, on when the party can go forward and when they have to recoup. If the players aren't on the same page as the 6 encounters 2 short rests model before they seek a reset, that puts the DM into the problem of having to egg the players on which trips over into meta gaming as often as not.

It takes two to tango.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would say so, but then, I've never had the opportunity to actually play with a AD&D-style initiative count. It had its plusses and minuses.

Also, I have a higher complexity tolerance than a lot of people— The complexity-simplicity-playability interaction has no single perfect solution. I love the way you put that: complexity tolerance.

A perfect case in point is our current group. Five of the six grew up playing the game together as teen-agers when it first came out. We have varying levels of immersion and complexity tolerance even today. The sixth is second generation (my nephew)who grew into the game in the 3.0 and 3.5 era.

[Demonic Spoon]

In terms of combat balance, I'm not convinced anything needs changing beyond the obvious (Simalucrum cheese, true polymorph).

I think there is a legitimate point to be made in that there is a large distinction in out of combat utility between high level full casters and high level examples of some other classes. Some non-caster classes already do this - Shadow monks get frequent use of their stealthy spells and at-will shadow step and invisibility. Rogues' expertise makes them incredibly good at skills that they can affect the story in powerful ways simply through clever use of them.

It would be cool if the other less magical classes could do stuff like that - rangers could get abilities at higher levels that seriously ramp up the power/utility of Natural Explorer - make it work in all terrains, and make it work better such that a party led by a ranger moves around natural terrain quickly, easily, and stealthily while tracking basically whatever they want. That gives cool narrative power without actually altering combat balance.

It's that kind of thing that more classes need at high levels - narrative power, not combat power.

[Easy_Lee]

I see three primary issues with casters vs martials:

Many spells work automatically, such as buffs, teleport, control weather, magic missile, and so on. When you create a thing with magic, you do not fail to create it, it is just made. AoE is at least 50% effective every time. In contrast, nearly all martial abilities have a reasonable chance of complete failure.
Casters can do many more things than martials can. The total number of individual effects achievable through spells greatly outnumbers what can be done via mundane means.
To add to the previous point, martials have precious few out of combat abilities compared to casters.

Those are the problems I would seek to fix. Purely using the system we have though, it is unrealistic, short of giving everyone equal amounts of magic.

[Naanomi]

This. Play the game how it's meant to be played, and the disparity diminishes.

The problem rears it's head when DMs half-ass the adventure and don't take time into the equation.
In-adventure stuff isn't always the problem though (it can be but isn't always). Between adventure fabricate and scrying, world hopping teleportation for various petty reasons... These cause more problems in my games than anything moderating rests would control.

Also to some degree ritual magic (which I like) has made the rest formula a bit messy as well. When one class can build a hidden tent maybe, and another disappears into a rope dimension to sleep; expensing equal resources (or perhaps even less for the magic guy, at least ranger guy needs to buy a tent) it still feeds into utility at no opportunity cost

[Soular]

As to your comments on half arsed DMs, it isn't only the DMs who are a source of the problem here. Players make decisions, risk based, on when the party can go forward and when they have to recoup. If the players aren't on the same page as the 6 encounters 2 short rests model before they seek a reset, that puts the DM into the problem of having to egg the players on which trips over into meta gaming as often as not.

It takes two to tango.

My reply was curt because I have seen this very topic come up over and over. No one deserved my ire, I just give it out too freely.

The DM's job is to create tension. Set a timeframe. D&D is a resource management game (spells per day, arrows, healpots, rations, torches, etc.). Part of the DM's job is to whittle away at the PCs' precious resources giving the adventure an air of urgency, even desperation.

If this doesn't happen, of course the characters that can go nova will outshine everyone else. But if certain resource, time, and encounter conventions are actually enforced, the disparity melts away. Look at Superman and Doomsday. These two beings are darn near equal. Now Supes can out-nova DD by blowing all his power at once, but he has to recharge. DD may not have the wealth of crazy abilities that Supes has, or the ability to go nova in the same way, but he is an unstoppable titan that can keep doing his thing virtually forever.

[KorvinStarmast]

The DM's job is to create tension. Set a timeframe. D&D is a resource management game (spells per day, arrows, healpots, rations, torches, etc.). Part of the DM's job is to whittle away at the PCs' precious resources giving the adventure an air of urgency, even desperation.

If this doesn't happen, of course the characters that can go nova will outshine everyone else. But if certain resource, time, and encounter conventions are actually enforced, the disparity melts away.
No argument from me on that score, other than I'd say that "one of the DM's jobs is to create tension."

[Demonic Spoon]

In-adventure stuff isn't always the problem though (it can be but isn't always). Between adventure fabricate and scrying, world hopping teleportation for various petty reasons... These cause more problems in my games than anything moderating rests would control.

Also to some degree ritual magic (which I like) has made the rest formula a bit messy as well. When one class can build a hidden tent maybe, and another disappears into a rope dimension to sleep; expensing equal resources (or perhaps even less for the magic guy, at least ranger guy needs to buy a tent) it still feeds into utility at no opportunity cost

There's an opportunity cost - the spell must be prepared for any class but a wizard, and a wizard must still learn it.


In-adventure stuff isn't always the problem though (it can be but isn't always). Between adventure fabricate and scrying, world hopping teleportation for various petty reasons... These cause more problems in my games than anything moderating rests would control.


I'd point out that teleportation, aside from very specific circumstances, has a nontrivial failure change. Teleportation for petty reasons could have some pretty awful results.

[Vogonjeltz]

As for what I think, I'm not sure. I don't think I have enough practical experience in 5e to say. I actually only bought the PHB recently. I am more interested in seeing what other people think.

My experience so far is that the caster classes are comically inferior, mechanically, in most situations (combat and non-combat). Your mileage may vary.


I'm not sure you can reconcile them. Magic by its nature is flexible and does things that defy normality.

And yet, mechanically, magic isn't doing much in the crisis situations (combat) that dominate the game landscape.


Some of the really good spells don't require concentration.

Spiritual Weapon, Freedom of Movement, and Foresight to name a few.

Not that a Bard gets Spiritual Weapon... I also wouldn't classify: spending a 2nd level+ spell slot to effectively emulate two-weapon fighting (every time you spend your bonus action the weapon makes a melee spell attack against a target no more than 25 feet from it's starting position each round, so actually slower and worse than a player using two-weapon fighting, but hey, that's cool) as "really good". It's mediocre.

Freedom of Movement is a slightly nicer (but obviously temporary) version of the Land's Stride class feature, but it also costs a 4th level spell slot. Not cheap.

And Foresight is nice (it should be considering it uses the one 9th level spell slot that can't be regained until a long rest, of which only one is available every 24 hours)...but it isn't better for combat than Rage from a Barbarian at level 20. And that Barbarian can rage unlimited times per day.


You can have a cleric dealing 2d6 + Str (3) + 1d8 + Wis (3) at level 3 (i had a cleric that did this).

This doesn't seem possible without using rolled stats. Nothing gets +3 in some combination to strength and wisdom, which is what you'd need to have two 16's for those specific scores.

If we're going by that metric, why not just say 2d6+5 and 1d8+4? (rolled two 18's with +2 to one of them). I'd also note that only two Cleric domains actually allow for the 2d6 number, because Clerics aren't proficient in martial weapons at all unless they're Tempest or War domain. They also, default equipment, don't start with a greatsword, and if the starting gold option is taken it represents a huge percentage (anywhere between 25% and 100%) of their starting gold.

I don't find this very unlikely result to be representative of the whole set of possible outcomes.


No, Mordekainen's Sword would be worse.

Two things that mitigate this:
1) It technically does slightly better damage with the d10 vs the d8 if using the same level spell slot.
2) Wizards and Bards don't get Spiritual Weapon; Cleric's don't get Mordenkainen's Sword. So, from that second point, there's no overlap, nobody is making the choice to use one or the other.

[charcoalninja]

The combat balance is much closer in this edition than any other. Ever.



4E says hi.

[Demonic Spoon]

This doesn't seem possible without using rolled stats. Nothing gets +3 in some combination to strength and wisdom, which is what you'd need to have two 16's for those specific scores.

If we're going by that metric, why not just say 2d6+5 and 1d8+4? (rolled two 18's with +2 to one of them). I'd also note that only two Cleric domains actually allow for the 2d6 number, because Clerics aren't proficient in martial weapons at all unless they're Tempest or War domain. They also, default equipment, don't start with a greatsword, and if the starting gold option is taken it represents a huge percentage (anywhere between 25% and 100%) of their starting gold.

I don't find this very unlikely result to be representative of the whole set of possible outcomes.


You don't need +3 in some combination to strength and wisdom - you just need human (or variant human) with 15 in STR and WIS from point buy.

Even still, that hardly meaningfully affects his point - 2d6+2 and 1d8+3 is hardly much of a difference.


Not that a Bard gets Spiritual Weapon... I also wouldn't classify: spending a 2nd level+ spell slot to effectively emulate two-weapon fighting (every time you spend your bonus action the weapon makes a melee spell attack against a target no more than 25 feet from it's starting position each round, so actually slower and worse than a player using two-weapon fighting, but hey, that's cool) as "really good". It's mediocre.


spiritual weapon does not emulate TWF. A critical component of TWF is that you use your main action less effectively in order to get that bonus weapon attack. Past the first round, you give up nothing to attack with spiritual weapon except other bonus action spells.

[Ralanr]

I'd point out that teleportation, aside from very specific circumstances, has a nontrivial failure change. Teleportation for petty reasons could have some pretty awful results.

Even one of the bad D&D movies pointed this out. The spellcaster was out of commission for the final battle, mainly because her left arm was fused with the stone wall when the party arrived through her teleport spell.


Honestly casters (especially wizards) are incredibly versatile because of their spells. This is how they are suppose to function though. They are suppose to have a solution for multiple situations because they sacrificed physical training for mental knowledge (there's that wish fulfillment). The problem is that they have all this versatility, with none of the downsides aside from the players choosing. Looking back at 3.5 (not as bad as 5e, but hold on) a wizard could summon something much better than the parties fighter while at the same level. In an age where multitasking is somewhat normal (if my college experience is anything to go by) this makes sense and annoys martials. People tend to trivialize how long and how much focus it is suppose to take to learn magic or use a damn sword effectively (I love proficiency for that reason. Nothing stops a caster from using a sword they're untrained with, they just add their strength modifier and nothing else (I'd rule it that if you aren't trained with the weapon, you couldn't use finesse if it had it)).

How to fix it? I don't know. The problem isn't just in games like D&D, it's deep within the core of the fantasy genre. How many villainous sorcerers could wipe away armies with meteors from the sky? How many just teleported or sent an astral projection to the good kings throne room? Though their ends always come by the blade.

If there is one setting/story that showcases martial power that rivals and/or even surpasses magic is from a Manhwa called, "Id-Greatest fusion fantasy". To put it best, there are these people called "Sword masters" who are rarer than very powerful mages and probably more destructive. To give an example of their power, a king tells a story of when a massive army came upon his land. Only 3 people were sent out to stop them. These three people? The King's attendant, a flag bearer, and the King who was the only one armed. The enemy army had no survivors (Only the king fought, if I'm not making that obvious).

A lot of things in that setting wouldn't work by D&D rules, I don't mean just damage die, I mean things like movement speed and other simplicities. So buffing martials to superhuman (which, to be fair they already are. Maybe nerfing the physical aspects for the action economy for wizards might help) requires reworking the rules alot.

[VoxRationis]

How to fix it? I don't know. The problem isn't just in games like D&D, it's deep within the core of the fantasy genre. How many villainous sorcerers could wipe away armies with meteors from the sky? How many just teleported or sent an astral projection to the good kings throne room? Though their ends always come by the blade.


I think that's part of the problem. There are a lot of villain- or plot-only spells in stories that they needed a way to codify in-game, but doing so meant that players could get their hands on them as well, if the game was to be "fair" between the DM and the players.

[Ashrym]

Agreed on both points. Casting Mage Armor as a ritual is one way that mage fragility has been curtailed.

Mage armor isn't a ritual. It costs a spell slot every time it's cast. It's also usually better to be cast on a rogue than oneself because it's touch and better than non-magical light armor.

The optional speed factor rules on page 271 of the DMG already include spell levels in the calculation. Casting a spell subtracts the spell level from the initiative roll to determine the spell caster's turn in the initiative order all spellcasting takes an initiative penalty under that rule.

[Vogonjeltz]

You don't need +3 in some combination to strength and wisdom - you just need human (or variant human) with 15 in STR and WIS from point buy.

Even still, that hardly meaningfully affects his point - 2d6+2 and 1d8+3 is hardly much of a difference.



spiritual weapon does not emulate TWF. A critical component of TWF is that you use your main action less effectively in order to get that bonus weapon attack. Past the first round, you give up nothing to attack with spiritual weapon except other bonus action spells.

Attack is the single most effective (and flexible) combat action. For example, contests all substitute for a melee attack.

[Easy_Lee]

Attack is the single most effective (and flexible) combat action. For example, contests all substitute for a melee attack.

Disagreed. Attack can deal damage against one target within the range of your weapon, and is affected by AC and advantage / disadvantage. If you want to talk consistent results, magic missile is the most effective option. AoE is also more consistent than attacking since it does half damage on a failure and does not care about your own advantage or disadvantage.

[Morty]

There's a lot that would need to be done to counter D&D's inherently skewed power structure. "Power" might not be a good word, anyway. It's more about agency and versatility. But then, arguing about labels and semantics has never got us anywhere, so let's get to more concrete things.

1) A functional physical combat model. The one D&D has held onto forever is hopelessly primitive, and gets in the way of making classes that rely on it competent.

2) A better skill model. D&D has never really got it right. Still, it has always been more engaging than the combat system, not that it's hard. But it could use a move from just increasing numbers to a more horizontal advancement. Again, it's not really about "power" here but about giving more variety and agency to certain archetypes. As in, instead of skill proficiency just bumping up numbers it should be about cool things you can do with a skill that other people can't.

3) Different classes. "Physical" classes in D&D are a mess. What it needs is a set of classes that cover different archetypes of warriors, leaders, rogues, savants, barbarians and rakes in a comprehensive manner, rather than a mess that's grown haphazardly since there were just fighters and thieves. Incidentally, the fighter and the rogue should be the first on the chopping block. But I can't think of any "martial" class that would escape it.

On the magic side, some things need to be done as well.

1) Enforce specialization. It's perfectly appropriate if magicians can do wondrous things. Less so if they can do a dozen. Or all of them.

2) Acknowledge that not every magical feat needs to be codified in a spell. If certain powerful effects like teleportation, transmutation of matter and suchlike are governed by a more individual system of magical workings, it could help a lot.

[Easy_Lee]

There's a lot that would need to be done to counter D&D's inherently skewed power structure. "Power" might not be a good word, anyway. It's more about agency and versatility. But then, arguing about labels and semantics has never got us anywhere, so let's get to more concrete things.

1) A functional physical combat model. The one D&D has held onto forever is hopelessly primitive, and gets in the way of making classes that rely on it competent.

2) A better skill model. D&D has never really got it right. Still, it has always been more engaging than the combat system, not that it's hard. But it could use a move from just increasing numbers to a more horizontal advancement. Again, it's not really about "power" here but about giving more variety and agency to certain archetypes. As in, instead of skill proficiency just bumping up numbers it should be about cool things you can do with a skill that other people can't.

3) Different classes. "Physical" classes in D&D are a mess. What it needs is a set of classes that cover different archetypes of warriors, leaders, rogues, savants, barbarians and rakes in a comprehensive manner, rather than a mess that's grown haphazardly since there were just fighters and thieves. Incidentally, the fighter and the rogue should be the first on the chopping block. But I can't think of any "martial" class that would escape it.

On the magic side, some things need to be done as well.

1) Enforce specialization. It's perfectly appropriate if magicians can do wondrous things. Less so if they can do a dozen. Or all of them.

2) Acknowledge that not every magical feat needs to be codified in a spell. If certain powerful effects like teleportation, transmutation of matter and suchlike are governed by a more individual system of magical workings, it could help a lot.

Great post, I agreed with much of what you said.

Regarding specialisation, that combined with reduced high level power is exactly what EverQuest did, which was heavily inspired by old D&D. Each caster was limited to certain types of magic, with some general spells common across. A spell was more powerful than a mundane effect, but casters had a finite amount of mana, and so relied on mundanes for most things.

And it worked. In spite of casters having more solo power, people were overall happy with balance. EQ being an MMO, the math had to be much tighter, but they got things pretty close even back then.

The fact that WotC still insists on wizards having a choice from 200+ distinct features in the form of spells boggles my mind. How have they not learned yet that this is a major part of the problem?

[charcoalninja]

This. Play the game how it's meant to be played, and the disparity diminishes.

The problem rears it's head when DMs half-ass the adventure and don't take time into the equation.

Or allow simulacrum. That takes your pacing idea and throws it completely out the window.

[Ashrym]

Disagreed. Attack can deal damage against one target within the range of your weapon, and is affected by AC and advantage / disadvantage. If you want to talk consistent results, magic missile is the most effective option. AoE is also more consistent than attacking since it does half damage on a failure and does not care about your own advantage or disadvantage.

Disagree with you.

The attack action deals damage to as many targets as available attacks within the action and by range or movement between attacks, and many feats and class / subclass abilities add to this.

Magic missile or fireball do nothing but damage while while the same attack action can be used to shove or grapple.

Spells usually use attack rolls or saving throws for combat and are affected be AC and advantage / disadvantage. They don't do the focused damage weapons do because hit points increase with CR too quickly and it requires too many spell slots to eliminate the targets. 5 CR monsters have ~70-90 hp and fireballs don't kill 2 and 3 CR monsters. Magic missile is a joke on those monsters that would require half a dozen spell slots to kill a single enemy. Unless by consistency you meant consistently bad. ;-)

Direct damage is one of the worst approaches to make use of spell slots unless a person is using AoE spells on 1 CR and lower groups of monsters.

[Easy_Lee]

Disagree with you.

The attack action deals damage to as many targets as available attacks within the action and by range or movement between attacks, and many feats and class / subclass abilities add to this.

Magic missile or fireball do nothing but damage while while the same attack action can be used to shove or grapple.

Spells usually use attack rolls or saving throws for combat and are affected be AC and advantage / disadvantage. They don't do the focused damage weapons do because hit points increase with CR too quickly and it requires too many spell slots to eliminate the targets. 5 CR monsters have ~70-90 hp and fireballs don't kill 2 and 3 CR monsters. Magic missile is a joke on those monsters that would require half a dozen spell slots to kill a single enemy. Unless by consistency you meant consistently bad. ;-)

Direct damage is one of the worst approaches to make use of spell slots unless a person is using AoE spells on 1 CR and lower groups of monsters.

Have you tried it in play, or are you basing that opinion on theory? Because in the campaigns I've played in, especially the low level ones, AoE spells were king. Targets the could not be killed easily by AoE were few, so two casters were sufficient to control or debuff them.

By the time 11th level rolled around in one campaign, when those spells started to lose power, casters had enough distinct options open to force our team to win the fight, if they played correctly. The only way monsters were a threat was if they had legendary resistance, at which point the monk would spend three to five ki to blow through it in one round.

We had a barbarian for consistent damage, but that's all he did. The caster's handled 90% of everything, the barbarian hit stuff after the casters enabled him to hit it or prevented it from dodging, and the monk used stunning fist sometimes.

Did it technically work? Yes. Did the monk and barbarian have as much impact on the story as the casters? Not even ****ing close. Would a party of four casters have been able to do everything we did? Absolutely, just by keeping the right divination and escape spells handy so they knew what was coming, then preparing exactly which spells they needed to solve the problem. That's the problem. Casters still solve everything.

[Vogonjeltz]

Disagreed. Attack can deal damage against one target within the range of your weapon, and is affected by AC and advantage / disadvantage. If you want to talk consistent results, magic missile is the most effective option. AoE is also more consistent than attacking since it does half damage on a failure and does not care about your own advantage or disadvantage.

Magic missile can't be used to impose status affects, it can't be used to disarm an enemy, take an item, knock someone out a window, etcetera.

Attack does all this and more.

For the record, I'm applying actual playing experience to this. Attack action is far and away more flexible and applicable. A Wizard can have at most 25 spells available any given day. There are infinite possible actions available as a variant of the attack action.

[Pex]

The same as I said when 5E was in development. 3E Tome of Battle for the warrior system. 3.5 Psionics for the magic system. Done.

Can also allow for 3E Vancian system for divine casters to help differentiate from the arcane/psionics. Dreamscarred Press Psionics for Pathfinder is good too.

Take the opportunity to fix problems in the details such as stance progression, particular spells/powers, wild shape etc.

But alas we have 5E. I have my own, er, gripes about it, but I can play it as is with everything except the Point Buy.

[Easy_Lee]

Magic missile can't be used to impose status affects, it can't be used to disarm an enemy, take an item, knock someone out a window, etcetera.

Attack does all this and more.

For the record, I'm applying actual playing experience to this. Attack action is far and away more flexible and applicable. A Wizard can have at most 25 spells available any given day. There are infinite possible actions available as a variant of the attack action.

You're confusing the term "attack" with a bunch of BM maneuvers, various skill checks that aren't even in the rules, and anything involving an attack. That's ridiculous. The attack action, with no added features, can be used to do three things:

Weapon damage.
Shove (really an athletics check)
Grapple (same as above)

If that's your idea of versatile, you haven't read many spells. Compare that to the spell suggestion, which can be used to force someone to do an infinite number of distinct things.

[Morty]

Great post, I agreed with much of what you said.

Regarding specialisation, that combined with reduced high level power is exactly what EverQuest did, which was heavily inspired by old D&D. Each caster was limited to certain types of magic, with some general spells common across. A spell was more powerful than a mundane effect, but casters had a finite amount of mana, and so relied on mundanes for most things.

And it worked. In spite of casters having more solo power, people were overall happy with balance. EQ being an MMO, the math had to be much tighter, but they got things pretty close even back then.

The fact that WotC still insists on wizards having a choice from 200+ distinct features in the form of spells boggles my mind. How have they not learned yet that this is a major part of the problem?

Thank you. D&D is pretty unique in its approach to giving magic-users a grab-bag of spells to pick, in my experience. Even most systems that make them purposefully extremely powerful and versatile (like Mage: the Awakening) tend to enforce some sort of focus on them.

[spadflyer12]

I was thinking about this earlier. A simple solution would be to give them more bodies. Allow high level martial characters to impart their knowledge to squads of soldiers. A single swordsman can't raze a city, but give him an army at his back and he sure as hell can.

After a certain level allow fighters, barbarians, Paladins, rangers, and rogues to start gathering minions, and give them a group of "squad" abilities. I'm not going to spend the time fleshing this idea out here, but anyone else feel free to expand on it.

[hacksnake]

IMO - read the epic of Gilgamesh, Beowulf, & Norse mythology.

Let non casters do all the crazy stuff like they did / claim to have done.

[Ashrym]

Have you tried it in play, or are you basing that opinion on theory? Because in the campaigns I've played in, especially the low level ones, AoE spells were king. Targets the could not be killed easily by AoE were few, so two casters were sufficient to control or debuff them.Definitely played. The XP / encounter and XP / day budgets were used for encounter building.

When 3 or 4 ogres is a standard 5th level encounter for a party of 4 PC's it takes 2 fireballs to kill them. That's all your 3rd-level spells on one encounter for a single encounter in the day, the control or debuff options are limited, and someone has to be doing damage. Those 10 damage magic missiles you mentioned would take the majority of slots on a 5th-level wizard to kill one of the ogres and 6 rounds. They can live through 2 fireballs with luck (25% save chance twice).

Ogres are 2CR monsters and have 59 hp.

AoE spells are great. AoE damage spells are very situational. Hypnotic pattern would be great to cast instead of fireball in that situation, but since going up to 5th level meant sorcerers, warlocks, and bards only learned 1 spell they don't really have (edit: much, can swap up) alternative 3rd-level spells, wizards added 2 spells but in taking both lost (insert utility spell here ppl keep mentioning), and clerics or druids cannot take both spells either.

That's one encounter taking the highest level slots on low CR monsters and leaving little for another half dozen encounters and spending all these spells known and slots on more utility options.

It's because I have played a lot that I know how mistaken many of the assessments posted lately really are.


By the time 11th level rolled around in one campaign, when those spells started to lose power, casters had enough distinct options open to force our team to win the fight, if they played correctly. The only way monsters were a threat was if they had legendary resistance, at which point the monk would spend three to five ki to blow through it in one round.

Not with damage spells and certainly not the fireball and magic missile comment to which I responded.

Multiple encounters with 2-4 vampire spawn searching for the vampire in the crypt until you get to the vampire eats through spells and that's the type of adventure appropriate to an 11th level party.

It takes 3 or 4 fireballs to kill vampire spawn and you don't have 18 fireballs.

Vampire spawn are only 5 CR monsters and have 82 hp. They also have DEX / WIS save proficiencies, immunity to several spells as undead, and proficiency in stealth and perception. An 11th level wizard with proficiency in perception usually has about a 14 passive perception and it takes half the vampire spawn with +6 stealth bonus for the group to succeed so a group of can wizards get taken by surprise more than half the time going through that crypt. A typical rogue has an 18 passive perception and better chance to avoid ambush but the real opportunity is in the alert feat, not a spell. Good thing fighters and rogues get more feats than every other class.

Gosh forbid the number of other spells needing to be used on utility items getting to the vampire.


We had a barbarian for consistent damage, but that's all he did. The caster's handled 90% of everything, the barbarian hit stuff after the casters enabled him to hit it or prevented it from dodging, and the monk used stunning fist sometimes.

Why didn't the barbarian scout? Barbarians have danger sense, fast movement, and feral instinct in the class features. Eagle totem gives good distance advantage on eyesight and a good escape mechanism using bonus dash combined with feral instinct.

What non-combat feats did the barbarian and monk take? What backgrounds did they have? Did the barbarian take advantage of rage grappling and shoving because he would have had advantage on the checks?

Quite honestly, if all a player does is move and attack that's his or her own fault. I pack around ball bearings, caltrops, flanks of acid, and take feats like healer. I learn professions and build contacts and buy trained animals. All a player needs to do is use more options than move and attack.


Did it technically work? Yes. Did the monk and barbarian have as much impact on the story as the casters? Not even ****ing close. Would a party of four casters have been able to do everything we did? Absolutely, just by keeping the right divination and escape spells handy so they knew what was coming, then preparing exactly which spells they needed to solve the problem. That's the problem. Casters still solve everything.

So by using divination spells and escape spells and utility spells and defense spells and area spells and control spells all casters somehow have all these options and the spell slots to use them and be covered for all the encounters in all the pillars and be always better than non-casters? Sorry, still don't buy it. Not even part of it where casters always have the spells available and slots to cover the day.

Especially not "reliable" spells like magic missile and fireball.

I do play and DM, and know better.

[Ashrym]

You're confusing the term "attack" with a bunch of BM maneuvers, various skill checks that aren't even in the rules, and anything involving an attack. That's ridiculous. The attack action, with no added features, can be used to do three things:

Weapon damage.
Shove (really an athletics check)
Grapple (same as above)

If that's your idea of versatile, you haven't read many spells. Compare that to the spell suggestion, which can be used to force someone to do an infinite number of distinct things.

No, those are riders on attacks with permutations increasing based on multiple attacks and maneuvers. Skill checks and maneuvers are definitely options available in combat.

[Easy_Lee]

Definitely played. The XP / encounter and XP / day budgets were used for encounter building.

When 3 or 4 ogres is a standard 5th level encounter for a party of 4 PC's it takes 2 fireballs to kill them. That's all your 3rd-level spells on one encounter for a single encounter in the day, the control or debuff options are limited, and someone has to be doing damage. Those 10 damage magic missiles you mentioned would take the majority of slots on a 5th-level wizard to kill one of the ogres and 6 rounds. They can live through 2 fireballs with luck (25% save chance twice).

Ogres are 2CR monsters and have 59 hp.

AoE spells are great. AoE damage spells are very situational. Hypnotic pattern would be great to cast instead of fireball in that situation, but since going up to 5th level meant sorcerers, warlocks, and bards only learned 1 spell they don't really have (edit: much, can swap up) alternative 3rd-level spells, wizards added 2 spells but in taking both lost (insert utility spell here ppl keep mentioning), and clerics or druids cannot take both spells either.

That's one encounter taking the highest level slots on low CR monsters and leaving little for another half dozen encounters and spending all these spells known and slots on more utility options.

It's because I have played a lot that I know how mistaken many of the assessments posted lately really are.



Not with damage spells and certainly not the fireball and magic missile comment to which I responded.

Multiple encounters with 2-4 vampire spawn searching for the vampire in the crypt until you get to the vampire eats through spells and that's the type of adventure appropriate to an 11th level party.

It takes 3 or 4 fireballs to kill vampire spawn and you don't have 18 fireballs.

Vampire spawn are only 5 CR monsters and have 82 hp. They also have DEX / WIS save proficiencies, immunity to several spells as undead, and proficiency in stealth and perception. An 11th level wizard with proficiency in perception usually has about a 14 passive perception and it takes half the vampire spawn with +6 stealth bonus for the group to succeed so a group of can wizards get taken by surprise more than half the time going through that crypt. A typical rogue has an 18 passive perception and better chance to avoid ambush but the real opportunity is in the alert feat, not a spell. Good thing fighters and rogues get more feats than every other class.

Gosh forbid the number of other spells needing to be used on utility items getting to the vampire.



Why didn't the barbarian scout? Barbarians have danger sense, fast movement, and feral instinct in the class features. Eagle totem gives good distance advantage on eyesight and a good escape mechanism using bonus dash combined with feral instinct.

What non-combat feats did the barbarian and monk take? What backgrounds did they have? Did the barbarian take advantage of rage grappling and shoving because he would have had advantage on the checks?

Quite honestly, if all a player does is move and attack that's his or her own fault. I pack around ball bearings, caltrops, flanks of acid, and take feats like healer. I learn professions and build contacts and buy trained animals. All a player needs to do is use more options than move and attack.



So by using divination spells and escape spells and utility spells and defense spells and area spells and control spells all casters somehow have all these options and the spell slots to use them and be covered for all the encounters in all the pillars and be always better than non-casters? Sorry, still don't buy it. Not even part of it where casters always have the spells available and slots to cover the day.

Especially not "reliable" spells like magic missile and fireball.

I do play and DM, and know better.


No, those are riders on attacks with permutations increasing based on multiple attacks and maneuvers. Skill checks and maneuvers are definitely options available in combat.

To your first set of comments, most of the things you mentioned for non-casters to do, such as taking feats and using ball bearings, are things that anyone can do. Specific things that monks and barbarians can do, such as scouting and stunning fist, can generally be done better by casters (arcane eye, hold person, etc.). Yes, casters only have limited slots. And when you have two of them, you make sure that if they're running low, you get out of dodge. The entire game ends up revolving around casters, what they can do, when they can do it, and when they're going to do it.

Yes, we had ball bearings and Caltrops. We stuck them in the bag of holding with everything else, or ocassionally wore them on our belts. Those were party tools. Regarding the healer feat, the wizard took it, weirdly enough. And he did just as well with that feat as anyone would have.

Regarding your ideas of encounters, gee, I didn't know that all encounters consisted of exactly two-four monsters of exactly the right level. I thought that sometimes they were like that, sometimes there would be eight or ten weak monsters with a stronger leader, and sometimes there would be one or two powerful monsters. In any of those cases, the monk and barbarian were really watching their own butts. The casters were just deciding which spell would best solve the problem. Maybe I'll write up a full synopsis on the campaign sometime.

But anyway, you get the point. Our campaign revolved around caster abilities because they had the widest variety of abilities, and their solutions were the most reliable. Regardless of how any of us feel, we all know that's not good balance.

Regarding attacks, riders on attacks come from other abilities. Technically, the term "an attack" is used probably more often than any other single phrase in the book. However, only a small few of the possible attacks are inherent to the attack action. Most of the cool things one can do with an attack, such as smiting, come from abilities. Saying that the attack action is the most versatile is no different from saying that the cast a spell action is the most versatile, aside from the fact that the latter would be more true given the hundreds of spells, some like Suggestion having infinite uses.

[Ralanr]

I was thinking about this earlier. A simple solution would be to give them more bodies. Allow high level martial characters to impart their knowledge to squads of soldiers. A single swordsman can't raze a city, but give him an army at his back and he sure as hell can.

After a certain level allow fighters, barbarians, Paladins, rangers, and rogues to start gathering minions, and give them a group of "squad" abilities. I'm not going to spend the time fleshing this idea out here, but anyone else feel free to expand on it.

1e says hello.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of that idea. There are many characters in fiction who are powerful physical combatants but are not leaders. I don't like the idea of ordering a bunch of NPC's around (except maybe when they have personalities I like. But that's beside the point). I'm sure there are a lot of people who play martials and have no desire to lead armies. So to make that the balance point would frustrating to a lot of people.

End goal caster: I know the codes of the universe and can input them whenever I desire.

End goal Martial: I command a country.

Some people might like the idea of commanding a country, but that should be more fluff and not built into a class. Me? I'd like to break peoples faces while breaking the laws of physics. I'd like to play a guy who can slay entire armies by himself at one point. Wanna know some martial characters that do that? Nosferatu Zodd from Berserk, Kratos from God of War, Kenpachi Zaraki from Bleach. While these characters have supernatural abilities, their true danger is from their physical prowess on the battlefield (Kenpachi doesn't do anything crazy until near the very end compared to everyone else. One of the biggest thing he did was swing his sword with both hands).

I think that's what a cap level martial should be. Casters can alter reality? Martials should be powerful enough to make Casters consider escape plans in case they come in contact with them.

How to actually do that? Hell if I know, I just have the result I like.

[djreynolds]

How good is mage slayer? I'm sure a wizard will have picked up resilient feat con and have war caster as well. Can a high level monk or paladin give a caster a run for his money with their high saves. Does battlemaster attacks have any tricks, such as trip or push, that can help out? Does breaking concentration only affect his defenses and not his offensive casting? Grappler or shield master?

I just picked up 4 level and need to know if my fighter is gonna be relevant, and our warlock's Igor.

It seems it would make a fun campaign if martial were sent out to dispatch a nastly high level caster.

[Ashrym]

To your first set of comments, most of the things you mentioned for non-casters to do, such as taking feats and using ball bearings, are things that anyone can do. Specific things that monks and barbarians can do, such as scouting and stunning fist, can generally be done better by casters (arcane eye, hold person, etc.). Yes, casters only have limited slots. And when you have two of them, you make sure that if they're running low, you get out of dodge. The entire game ends up revolving around casters, what they can do, when they can do it, and when they're going to do it.

Specific shared abilities don't stop a non-caster from having those abilities. The point was that there are more options than just move and attack on any character. If you were to state that wizards have a broader range of abilities than champions I would agree, but it's illogical to believe that there are no options just because there are less options.

Hold person isn't better because it carries the spell slot and concentration, but also the opportunity cost in a lost spell used for something else that could be equally or more important. It doesn't even take a stunning fist attack because grappling can be effective, binding with manacles, or using some of the various poisons in the DMG, or custom made.

Getting out of dodge isn't necessarily feasible. It's the "5MWD" syndrome artificially constructed to game the system by players based using the best resources and then regaining the best resources but ignores subsequent consequences of inaction and the typical player choice to play the game instead of game the play. Even in older editions I've never had an issue with players trying to work the system by 5MWD as a player or DM; just the opposite -- most spell casters hoarded spells for major encounters fearing not having a spell for when it was really needed. Well, 3e was a bit different in that respect due to item creation and the change to the d20 saving throw system. I really enjoyed 3e for the level of customization I had and didn't really see the 5MWD so much as powerful spellcasters in general, but definitely powerful spellcasters. That didn't stop me from getting my spotlight on a barbarian. ;-)

5e cut back high level spells slots and spell power while keeping lower level spells relevant and adding better at-will abilities in cantrips and rituals so I continue to not see 5MWD's or caster dominance as it's more evened out.


Yes, we had ball bearings and Caltrops. We stuck them in the bag of holding with everything else, or ocassionally wore them on our belts. Those were party tools. Regarding the healer feat, the wizard took it, weirdly enough. And he did just as well with that feat as anyone would have.

Again, shared abilities to create a situation where only casters have those options. That's refuting the restriction players place on themselves if all they do is move and attack. The reason the healer feat worked well for the wizard was because it was a non-magical option available to non-spellcasters for whom it would have worked equally as well as the wizard. It's disingenuous to state using magic is superior while using a non-magical option because of how effective it is.

The reason I like caltrops and ball bearings is because I haven't seen a DM dispute using fast hands for laying them yet even though the description lists "use an action" for them. Even without fast hands, using equipment like a climbers kit for fall protection or block and tackle to lift 4 times my weight or acid to melt a lock open quietly works well without magic. I find it kind of lame to use a spell slot on something anyone can simply do but those spells tend to come up in debates like this. It doesn't bother me one bit that a spellcaster can also set a hunting trap, use marking chalk, or a battering ram. What matters to me is that I have those options on a character.


Regarding your ideas of encounters, gee, I didn't know that all encounters consisted of exactly two-four monsters of exactly the right level. I thought that sometimes they were like that, sometimes there would be eight or ten weak monsters with a stronger leader, and sometimes there would be one or two powerful monsters. In any of those cases, the monk and barbarian were really watching their own butts. The casters were just deciding which spell would best solve the problem. Maybe I'll write up a full synopsis on the campaign sometime.

Gee, I don't recall saying all encounters consisted of exactly 2-4 monsters of any level let alone some exact level. That's probably because I never said that. ;-)

I specifically recall stating area damage spell were highly situational because hit points increase rapidly with CR's. The spells are only useful against large numbers of CR1 and lower monsters. Ogres are CR2 and are weaker monsters for a 5th level party and vampire spawn are weaker monsters for an 11th level party. You could change it to 8 ogres and a hill giant for the 11th level party for larger numbers of weak monsters and still not kill any of them with a fireball just because there are more.

You mentioned magic missile and fireball for reliable damage. If you're 5th level party is still fighting a lot of goblins then those 2 or 3 fireballs (depending on which caster to which you refer) will mess up the goblins but not the bugbear leader who is leading them or his dire wolf pet, and the other 4 encounters of the day no longer have the fireball option. A person also needs to assume not surprised, gains initiative, range that prevent friendly fire damage, and not range outside of the fireball from which the goblins pepper the spellcaster with ranged attacks because weapon range usually exceeds spell range.

When I run an encounter like that for a higher level party (your 11th level group, for example), I run multiple groups of weaker monsters and each group has 1 leader and 1 subcommander. I also have the main leader who is a step above the the other commanders and he may or may not have a spell caster advisor. Each group provides separate functions such as: worg riding cavalry, archers, infantry. They come in different directions and multiple waves are built into the encounter on a timed event basis. These are complex encounters that take 12+ rounds and are the general equivalent of about 4-6 dungeon exploration style of encounters.

The monk and barbarian would be focused on key targets instead of trash because they are mobile and generally higher targeted damage. They don't have to just move and attack, however. They might start a fire with burning oil and cost the archers their cover, or lay the caltrops for the worgs and slow down the calvalry. They might choose to take an important hostage, or bribe one of the subgroups to betray the leader and fight with them. They definitely have options but the spellcasters will start conserving spells once a 2nd or 3rd wave appears. This makes a good wilderness type of encounter because there are less encounters so bigger ones fit the bill.

Zombie apocalypse is pretty easy too. I run those simply by not running out of zombies and just keep adding them where and when I want more zombies. It always inevitably turns into a resource management issue because groups need to keep moving and rests are strictly controlled. Often constant moving and exhaustion rules impact the players and help create the atmosphere for the adventure or campaign outside of the actual encounters.

The vampire / vampire spawn example I gave above was only part of the full adventure. The vampire was the main villain and vampire spawn are there because that's normal for fighting vampires and there would be several encounters like that. There was also a graveyard with a wight and zombies, a couple of packs of wolves roaming the countryside, and a mystery investigation over missing townsfolk while finding out about the vampire in the first place that included little combat but a lot of social interaction and skill work prior to getting to encounters. That's a typical vampire adventure day.

Not all combat encounters are 2-4 monsters, but that doesn't make all encounters groups of <1CR monsters either, and the party works on defeating all of them. You didn't seem to respond to the actual issue of the spell caster struggling with those monsters and instead deflected towards other encounters; that didn't remove the types listed from existence. Even powerful monsters have followers, and solo monsters turn out to be the legendary saves monsters you mentioned earlier. It's hard to do everything when the abilities only provide support (buffs, CC) or work on large numbers of weak monsters and not important monsters or struggle with other encounters. The "perfect level" you mentioned earlier is nothing more than level appropriate challenges.


But anyway, you get the point. Our campaign revolved around caster abilities because they had the widest variety of abilities, and their solutions were the most reliable. Regardless of how any of us feel, we all know that's not good balance.

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't trump mine to demonstrate any flaws in the system. It sounds like the situation was self-perpetuating based on the group and that's an issue with the table, not the mechanics.


Regarding attacks, riders on attacks come from other abilities. Technically, the term "an attack" is used probably more often than any other single phrase in the book. However, only a small few of the possible attacks are inherent to the attack action. Most of the cool things one can do with an attack, such as smiting, come from abilities. Saying that the attack action is the most versatile is no different from saying that the cast a spell action is the most versatile, aside from the fact that the latter would be more true given the hundreds of spells, some like Suggestion having infinite uses.

So if a non-caster has infinite options through creativity with an action (like improvised action) and a caster has infinite options through creativity with a spell (like suggestion) then infinite equals infinite and we have parity, non? ;-)

Suggestion isn't infinite any more than improvised actions are. Each is limited in their own way. Suggestion requires having the spell be available, slots, short range, single target, an action, concentration, visibility, the ability to hear and understand the caster, no protection from charms (immunities), specific wording, capability to complete the suggestion, and no self harmful actions. It's a fairly long list. Improvised action is generally restricted to environment interactions and would enable a lot of creativity but tends to get tossed into ability checks for success.

The issue with suggestion is that it's still just duplicating standard option. Any player can try to convince someone to do something that isn't harmful to himself with a persuasion check, maybe with a bribe or extortion for good measure. Spending spell slots to duplicate non-magical actions is only doing same thing differently and it's fair to say that suggestion is replaceable by persuasion and intimidation skills. It's a DC10 check to convince friendly or neutral NPC's towards the party to do something without personal risk and DC20 to get them to convince them to do something with with risk. It's a DC20 check to convince hostile NPC's to assist the party when there isn't a risk involved. That rogue with persuasion expertise and reliable talent can do a DC20 check at will with no CHA bonus starting at 13th level. A +2 CHA modifier allows it at 10th level for a rogue. It's still a decent chance eventually for a fighter with proficiency and no modifier.

Either way, it's more options than the move and attack that's been posted, and the fireball / magic missile reliable damage should be debunked because it's only reliable on trash mobs because of the number of actions and slots required to make those spells work at higher levels. Fireball is just a softener.

[Malifice]

IMO - read the epic of Gilgamesh, Beowulf, & Norse mythology.

Let non casters do all the crazy stuff like they did / claim to have done.

Why cant you do that with the system as is?

The DM sets skill DC's right?

Whats stopping you (as DM) from setting DC's (for high level non spell casting characters) enabling superhuman stuff? Strength (athletics) to lift a mountain, or jump from town straight to the dungeon entrance and so forth?

Allow a high level fighter who cant use magic to attempt a DC 15 strength check to hurl a horse 100 feet through the air. Only caveat being for these checks, you must be a sufficiently high enough level martial character.

The rules support this.

[hacksnake]

Why cant you do that with the system as is?

The DM sets skill DC's right?

Whats stopping you (as DM) from setting DC's (for high level non spell casting characters) enabling superhuman stuff? Strength (athletics) to lift a mountain, or jump from town straight to the dungeon entrance and so forth?

Allow a high level fighter who cant use magic to attempt a DC 15 strength check to hurl a horse 100 feet through the air. Only caveat being for these checks, you must be a sufficiently high enough level martial character.

The rules support this.

I guess my feeling is - the rules don't really support it any more than they support playing D&D: magical cat girl anime edition. If you house rule / DM fiat stuff there's nothing stopping you but the rules don't support it in the same way that they codify the fancy stuff casters can do.

PHB 175-176:

...The DM might also call for a Strength check when you try to...Keep a boulder from rolling...You can push, drag, or lift a weight in pounds up to [30 times STR]...

So for a human your STR caps at 20.
The max you can lift is 600 lbs per RAW.
Also per RAW if the DM so desires he's free to let you make a Strength check to lift a mountain.

I think a number of DMs will look at the lifting capacity & laugh you off if you say "I'd like to lift that mountain and crush the troll with it".

How much does a mountain dropped on someone do anyway? I didn't think 5e had rules for dropped/thrown object damage (other than improvised weapons - 1d4 unless DM decides otherwise).

Another example is breathing underwater. Both Beowulf and Gilgamesh swam for superhuman durations and exerted themselves underwater without drowning (days in one case if I recall - it's been a while). In D&D per RAW that's a magic spell or a magic item. Sure your DM can decide to allow you do to that - but if you have a DM who thinks martials need to obey normal human limits while casters don't then there's nothing in the rules you can show them to change their mind in the slightest. They'll just say "Yeah, the DM can do that but I'm not because it's ridiculous - people can't lift mountains unless it's magic!"

EDIT:
If I try to 'charop' lifting capacity per RAW the best I can do off hand, so may have missed something, is:
Goliath race: x2
Barbarian: Bear Totem 6: x2
Enlarge (magic from someone else or multiclass caster) = Large size; per lifting rules: x2.
Belt of Storm Giant Strength (again... magic): STR=29

Total with magic: 29*30*2*2*2=6960 lbs.
Total not barb 20 without magic: 20*30*2*2 = 2400 lbs.
Total barb 20 without magic: 24*30*2*2 = 2880 lbs.

[djreynolds]

It's tough to get to high levels, and wizards depends martial characters or summons to protect them til they get there.

But the best way to kill a wizard is with another wizard. Wizard battles are the stuff of legend. Create a nemesis for high level caster so that he needs those martial characters. I hate to quote novels, but "War of the Spider Queen" had gods go quiet. And high level wizards scare everyone anyhow. Have wild magic areas or problems in the "weave." Anti magic zones. It's not the way, but a way to keep martial characters relevant.

Wizards always make magic items as rewards for servants and comrades.

[Logosloki]

Better DM documentation of skill DC calculation, Allowing people to become an expert in one of their class skills, better scaling on special types of movement (swimming, crawling, running, jumping), physical 'cantrips' so that you have an alternative to the attack action, pruning the spell section further by sending some spells to the Dungeon Master's book (teleport, fabricate, wish, there are a good assortment that could be DM'd), Adding some more cost to the cost-benefit of a wizard choosing one of their 8 archetypes via banned spell class (you choose your archetype and spells of the opposite archetype are banned.

It isn't power in of itself as such but that casters (particularly wizards, who are the party gap fixer) have a larger toolbox and a larger variety tools to go into it. The DM should being given a spell list that they can work into their campaign rather than those spells being given to a player and making a DM work around the spell (such as a DM favourite like teleport). Non-casters should get some more innate utility so they have more to play with innately. General skills like jumping should have higher scaling so that players who are more physical are rewarded for being more physical (as well as jump becoming a finesse ability).

[Slipperychicken]

We could do what a lot of video-games have done, stripping out most of the non-combat uses of magic, or otherwise making them small enough that they don't break things (invisibility for an hour at level 3? Flight for an hour at level 5? Seriously?). Similarly, we could just give magic to non-casters too, so they can do cool stuff without people crying about realism.

[Easy_Lee]

@Ashrym, your post was too long for me to quote the whole thing, but let me make this general response. All of the things you were talking about martials doing, such as using items or making improvised actions, are things that a commoner could do. A martial's power over a commoner is his class features. A caster's power over that commoner is his class features and spells. Only casters have far more spells and abilities than martials have features, and those spells do a much wider variety of things than martial abilities. And on top of that, spells very often have a lower chance of failure than mundane options; few DMs will agree that a high enough persuasion roll reproduces the effect of Suggestion, just as an example.

And that's the real issue. Casters just do more things than martials can, and the gap widens every level. That's a tough hill to climb. 4e tried to climb that hill, but many hated 4e because it felt like an MMO and took too long. WotC assumed that people hated 4e because of it not being exactly like 3.5e, and here we are. I'm not sure that these imbalances will ever be fixed.

[Ralanr]

@Ashrym, your post was too long for me to quote the whole thing, but let me make this general response. All of the things you were talking about martials doing, such as using items or making improvised actions, are things that a commoner could do. A martial's power over a commoner is his class features. A caster's power over that commoner is his class features and spells. Only casters have far more spells and abilities than martials have features, and those spells do a much wider variety of things than martial abilities. And on top of that, spells very often have a lower chance of failure than mundane options; few DMs will agree that a high enough persuasion roll reproduces the effect of Suggestion, just as an example.

And that's the real issue. Casters just do more things than martials can, and the gap widens every level. That's a tough hill to climb. 4e tried to climb that hill, but many hated 4e because it felt like an MMO and took too long. WotC assumed that people hated 4e because of it not being exactly like 3.5e, and here we are. I'm not sure that these imbalances will ever be fixed.

I think fixing it wouldn't make D&D feel like D&D anymore to a lot of people. That's a major problem in trying to balance it all.

5e I think is a good step. Mainly in how you need to make an effort to be ineffective.

Maybe it's not the system. Maybe it's the players?

[PoeticDwarf]

Well, people have been dancing around this topic in other threads for a while, so might as well just address the topic directly. I have seen people complaining about what they feel is a severe imbalance between classes that specialize in magic, and those that don't. I have also seen people who believe otherwise. What I want to see is what other people thing (preferably without attacking people who disagree with your opinions.

As for what I think, I'm not sure. I don't think I have enough practical experience in 5e to say. I actually only bought the PHB recently. I am more interested in seeing what other people think.

I don't think it has to be more balanced. When a wizard can cast wish, other classes can do this


Open hand monk lv. 17, master of instant death. Against a wizard with an average CON save of +4 pretty strong

Assassin lv. 17/lv. 3 druid, +27 stealth (pass without trace). Without rolling 40d6+1d8+5 damage if he assassinates someone without a magic weapon (average of 149,5)

Fighter lv. 20 (champion), every turn regening 10HP, and still 4 attacks, AC 21 and 4 attacks, without magic weapon each 2d6+5 damage reroll a 1 or a 2.

Barbarian, a lv. 20 berserker can do with +13 to hit (no magic weapon) 6d6+27 damage in a frenzy.
A bear totem with a CON of 24 (hilldwarf), the most tanky person ever.

Those all aren't able to cast spells.

[Kane0]

Meh, not much needs to be changed really. I just got through a one shot with a party of 4 level 14 wizards and honestly? We were lacking in a whole bunch of stuff that wouldve been great to have and our solve-problem buttons actually turned out fairly easy to handle by our dm without much need for anti-magic countermeasures. It was surprisingly fair.

[Cazero]

All of the things you were talking about martials doing, such as using items or making improvised actions, are things that a commoner could do.

The problem is right there. Logically, everything a martial can do should be something a commoner can attempt, but with bigger numbers in such a way that PC can accomplish what commoners can't. Any commoner can sustain a hit or swing a sword, but a high level champion fighter is so good at it that he can sustain dozens of hits, one more hit every round, and attack four times faster for more damage each time. That's just bigger numbers.
And the system starts sucking as soon as we leave the basic interaction with enemies. A lvl 20 barbarian really should be able to lift a mountain. There is no door that should resist a lvl 20 rogue, even magically sealed.

3.5 skill system had massive numbers that allowed PC to accomplish that kind of thing. And it was completely broken.
Part of the problem comes from how swingy a d20 is when it comes to skills that should be reliable, and an other part for 5e comes from the fact you barely make any progress in skill use past lvl 8 if you don't have expertise. Using reduced DC and a smaller dice would reduce both those problems, but nooo, D&D has to use d20 for skills.

[Psionic]

Personally, I always felt like spellcasters were always pretty average, simply because if you try anything really dangerous, it'll just be counterspelled by an enemy mage.

That being said, I really wish counterspelling was a mechanic, not a spell. It dumbs down combat with casters really badly.

What's worse is the idea that counterspell can counter everything, RAW, including Power Words, which is just stupid.

[Ralanr]

Personally, I always felt like spellcasters were always pretty average, simply because if you try anything really dangerous, it'll just be counterspelled by an enemy mage.

That being said, I really wish counterspelling was a mechanic, not a spell. It dumbs down combat with casters really badly.

What's worse is the idea that counterspell can counter everything, RAW, including Power Words, which is just stupid.

Even wish?

[Easy_Lee]

Personally, I always felt like spellcasters were always pretty average, simply because if you try anything really dangerous, it'll just be counterspelled by an enemy mage.

That being said, I really wish counterspelling was a mechanic, not a spell. It dumbs down combat with casters really badly.

What's worse is the idea that counterspell can counter everything, RAW, including Power Words, which is just stupid.

Counterspell is exactly the kind of spell I don't like. It's fine if players use it, but it's just not fun to do a thing and have that thing have absolutely no effect. I've talked before about how a lot of games have started using partial resist systems rather than full resists. So, if you have like 5 fire resist or whatever, it reduces fire damage by a specific percent, or reduces the duration of fire effects by the same percent, rather than negating it. Those kinds of systems are more consistent, and usually more fun for casters, than full resist ones.

Regarding counterspell, yes a DM can keep a team of counterspellers ready in any encounter to force casters not to do stuff. That seems like a really cheap way to enforce balance, though, and I wouldn't enjoy it as either a caster or a martial.

[Ashrym]

@Ashrym, your post was too long for me to quote the whole thing, but let me make this general response. All of the things you were talking about martials doing, such as using items or making improvised actions, are things that a commoner could do. A martial's power over a commoner is his class features. A caster's power over that commoner is his class features and spells. Only casters have far more spells and abilities than martials have features, and those spells do a much wider variety of things than martial abilities. And on top of that, spells very often have a lower chance of failure than mundane options; few DMs will agree that a high enough persuasion roll reproduces the effect of Suggestion, just as an example.

And that's the real issue. Casters just do more things than martials can, and the gap widens every level. That's a tough hill to climb. 4e tried to climb that hill, but many hated 4e because it felt like an MMO and took too long. WotC assumed that people hated 4e because of it not being exactly like 3.5e, and here we are. I'm not sure that these imbalances will ever be fixed.

Incorrect. Commoners have no proficiencies and flat 10 across the board in ability scores. They certainly cannot do those things because they don't have tool proficiencies or the means to afford the equipment and with 4 hp lack the ability to survive in a 5th level or 11th level encounter.

Going with your class features and spells comments, spells are a class feature so it's class features and class features. Spell levels gained are considered a class feature and why spell casters get fewer and other class and subclass features.

Casters don't do more things than non-casters; they may have a wider selection of options but the number of actions don't change. Most comparisons revolve around comparing a wizard to a champion when the permutations of options a battlemaster has outnumber the spells a sorcerer has known and high level rogues gain infallible abilities that are unrestricted in use.

You keep claiming a gap but you don't prove your claim or refute rebuttals.

You claimed magic missile was consistent damage. I pointed out it was crap damage that cannot kill things in any reasonable amount of time. You went back to claiming a gap.

You claimed fireball was also good consistent damage. I pointed out the same issue with hit points and encounters in my experience. Your response was, "well, in my campaign it's weak monsters and a boss." Your campaign might be true of your campaign but not in general. When I pointed out that was situationally worth it but only for very weak monsters you sluffed off the fact that your fireball statement had been refuted with a comment about using CC but then ignored my rebuttal about not having all those spells available and we're back to your general statement of gap that for which every argument given by you has been refuted.

You even stated the monks and barbarians only move and attack, but that was also easily refuted and when you tried to dismiss that as actions available to other classes it clearly didn't stop monks and barbarians from performing those actions and continues to have refuted your statement. You never did answer my questions about the choices the monk or barbarian made to allow themselves more options.

Your premise is flawed with argument by assumption and argument by dismissal.

Now we're at better because bigger list. That's also flawed with argument by assumption because it requires the assumptions more abilities truly exist (not all casters are high utility and not all non-casters are low utility) and that in the cases where more options might exist it requires the assumption those abilities are in fact more powerful (for illustrative purposes, 39 abilities that each create a spot on the wall of a difference colour is not more potent than the one ability to use a machine gun; I am not saying this is the case in classes but just to demonstrate the flaw in your reasoning).

The only thing I see as true is that different classes are different and excel in different areas. That's normal in a class based system. A monk might not be able to meteor swarm once per day but he can use a save or die effect up to 6 times per short rest; spell casters don't have 18 SoD's in a day either and definitely don't autosucceed 20 DC persuasion checks at will as I mentioned when you brought up suggestion like a rogue can.

[djreynolds]

Question? How important to a wizard of high level are constitution checks? And then how much of difference does resilient make and war caster?

[SharkForce]

Question? How important to a wizard of high level are constitution checks? And then how much of difference does resilient make and war caster?

(assuming you mean saves)

depends a lot on how good you are at not getting hit regularly. it should be something you'd like to have but which is not absolutely required. from the sound of it, some people seem to get hit constantly, and for them it is extremely important.

basically, it's always a good idea to have... but with good planning it can become a lot less necessary.

[Ralanr]

I'm gonna try something I've never done before; breaking a post into several quotes to take on individually.


Incorrect. Commoners have no proficiencies and flat 10 across the board in ability scores. They certainly cannot do those things because they don't have tool proficiencies or the means to afford the equipment and with 4 hp lack the ability to survive in a 5th level or 11th level encounter.

Are there actual stats for commoners in 5e or are we basing it off previous editions? I'm just a little curious.


Going with your class features and spells comments, spells are a class feature so it's class features and class features. Spell levels gained are considered a class feature and why spell casters get fewer and other class and subclass features.

I've never considered spells being class features. I always thought spells were just the meat behind the class and the class features were the things that altered how the spells worked. Kinda like how martial class features alter how they use weapons/function in combat.


Casters don't do more things than non-casters; they may have a wider selection of options but the number of actions don't change. Most comparisons revolve around comparing a wizard to a champion when the permutations of options a battlemaster has outnumber the spells a sorcerer has known and high level rogues gain infallible abilities that are unrestricted in use.

I believe that is the main problem, especially when those options begin to alter reality on a grand scale while the fighter gets really good with his weapon. Personally I think it'd be fair if the fighter got so good with his weapon that he could alter reality slightly with it. Like cutting through space, or atoms.

You are right that everyone has about the same number of actions. Heck fighters and rogues have more due to class abilities. I still think 5e does a good job in balancing the classes, but on epic scales the wizard tends to reign supreme. Granted most debates on who would win all seem to hing on the wizard going first and casting wish. If the wizard needs to use the most powerful spell in the game on his first turn (which is unlikely going to be before the fighter. In a no feat game, the fighter will most likely have a higher dex. In a feat game, well the fighter could have alert and mage slayer couldn't he?) then there isn't much superiority.



You claimed magic missile was consistent damage. I pointed out it was crap damage that cannot kill things in any reasonable amount of time.

I don't see how your point refutes this. Since when is damage being good or crap a factor in consistency? Consistency is just being able to keep it up constantly, whether it's good enough to kill something is a different matter entirely.



You even stated the monks and barbarians only move and attack, but that was also easily refuted and when you tried to dismiss that as actions available to other classes it clearly didn't stop monks and barbarians from performing those actions and continues to have refuted your statement. You never did answer my questions about the choices the monk or barbarian made to allow themselves more options.

This was probably more true in earlier editions. Though now with the improvised actions encouragement, it's no longer the case. At least for monks, barbarians are still hurt a bit if they want to be combat effective. Until they hit level 15 in their class, they can only keep their rage up by attacking or taking damage. So if they chose to use their action for something that's not an attack and then don't take damage, they lose rage and thus a lot of their combat effectivness. This is very irritating for berserker barbarians (in my opinion) because their level 10 ability requires the use of an action (On top of other problems). So if a barbarian does this, it most certainly will not be while in rage. I feel it makes more sense for it to work in rage, otherwise it's just an intimidate with a saving through instead of a check. Pretty pointless if you're proficient in intimidate, which I guess not all barbarians are. Except all half-orc barbarians (That race that screams "BEST BARBARIAN CHOICE")




The only thing I see as true is that different classes are different and excel in different areas. That's normal in a class based system. A monk might not be able to meteor swarm once per day but he can use a save or die effect up to 6 times per short rest; spell casters don't have 18 SoD's in a day either and definitely don't autosucceed 20 DC persuasion checks at will as I mentioned when you brought up suggestion like a rogue can.

1. I agree with you. That's how things should work.
2. Only one monk subclass can do that. Not best to use one subclass ability as an example of full monk prowess. People can do that with wizards though, because the only thing that stops them from taking spells out of their specialty is lack of funding and time. All of which are seemingly never brought up as an issue. Makes me wonder why they got rid of barred schools.
3. I thought this edition got rid of most save of die throws. There are 18? What are they?

[djreynolds]

(assuming you mean saves)

depends a lot on how good you are at not getting hit regularly. it should be something you'd like to have but which is not absolutely required. from the sound of it, some people seem to get hit constantly, and for them it is extremely important.

basically, it's always a good idea to have... but with good planning it can become a lot less necessary.

I only ask because this seems to be the one area that martial character must employ to defeat a caster. It should be a caster's Achilles heal. Only sorcerers have constitution as save. The others must take feats to accomplish this. Would not allowing those feats completely unbalance the game. I know a high level wizard would have other contingencies. But this would force casters to always have those prepared and probably casted and eat up spells. Perhaps having mage slayer as class feature for free would be reasonable.

But yes, spell casters are very powerful now. Scaling cantrips and shillelagh allow casters to forgo physical ability improvements. Feats like resilient are better than putting points in constitution for save purposes. Get rid of resilient. Fighters have indomitable and rogues have slippery mind and paladins have charisma.

[Lolzyking]

Incorrect. Commoners have no proficiencies and flat 10 across the board in ability scores. They certainly cannot do those things because they don't have tool proficiencies or the means to afford the equipment and with 4 hp lack the ability to survive in a 5th level or 11th level encounter.

Going with your class features and spells comments, spells are a class feature so it's class features and class features. Spell levels gained are considered a class feature and why spell casters get fewer and other class and subclass features.

Casters don't do more things than non-casters; they may have a wider selection of options but the number of actions don't change. Most comparisons revolve around comparing a wizard to a champion when the permutations of options a battlemaster has outnumber the spells a sorcerer has known and high level rogues gain infallible abilities that are unrestricted in use.

You keep claiming a gap but you don't prove your claim or refute rebuttals.

You claimed magic missile was consistent damage. I pointed out it was crap damage that cannot kill things in any reasonable amount of time. You went back to claiming a gap.

You claimed fireball was also good consistent damage. I pointed out the same issue with hit points and encounters in my experience. Your response was, "well, in my campaign it's weak monsters and a boss." Your campaign might be true of your campaign but not in general. When I pointed out that was situationally worth it but only for very weak monsters you sluffed off the fact that your fireball statement had been refuted with a comment about using CC but then ignored my rebuttal about not having all those spells available and we're back to your general statement of gap that for which every argument given by you has been refuted.

You even stated the monks and barbarians only move and attack, but that was also easily refuted and when you tried to dismiss that as actions available to other classes it clearly didn't stop monks and barbarians from performing those actions and continues to have refuted your statement. You never did answer my questions about the choices the monk or barbarian made to allow themselves more options.

Your premise is flawed with argument by assumption and argument by dismissal.

Now we're at better because bigger list. That's also flawed with argument by assumption because it requires the assumptions more abilities truly exist (not all casters are high utility and not all non-casters are low utility) and that in the cases where more options might exist it requires the assumption those abilities are in fact more powerful (for illustrative purposes, 39 abilities that each create a spot on the wall of a difference colour is not more potent than the one ability to use a machine gun; I am not saying this is the case in classes but just to demonstrate the flaw in your reasoning).

The only thing I see as true is that different classes are different and excel in different areas. That's normal in a class based system. A monk might not be able to meteor swarm once per day but he can use a save or die effect up to 6 times per short rest; spell casters don't have 18 SoD's in a day either and definitely don't autosucceed 20 DC persuasion checks at will as I mentioned when you brought up suggestion like a rogue can.

So yeah a monk can kill 6 enemies per short rest if they fail a save, and have 0 ki for the rest of the army. Meanwhile mr wizard castes wish and they proofed out of existence

[Ralanr]

So yeah a monk can kill 6 enemies per short rest if they fail a save, and have 0 ki for the rest of the army. Meanwhile mr wizard castes wish and they proofed out of existence

To be fair, a lot of scenarios with wish are very lenient. Wish is supposed to function like a genie wish. With the whole, "be careful what you wish for" or "word it carefully. Like really carefully"

I think that spell shouldn't exist simply because of the debates it sparks.

[SharkForce]

I only ask because this seems to be the one area that martial character must employ to defeat a caster. It should be a caster's Achilles heal. Only sorcerers have constitution as save. The others must take feats to accomplish this. Would not allowing those feats completely unbalance the game. I know a high level wizard would have other contingencies. But this would force casters to always have those prepared and probably casted and eat up spells. Perhaps having mage slayer as class feature for free would be reasonable.

But yes, spell casters are very powerful now. Scaling cantrips and shillelagh allow casters to forgo physical ability improvements. Feats like resilient are better than putting points in constitution for save purposes. Get rid of resilient. Fighters have indomitable and rogues have slippery mind and paladins have charisma.

to some extent, perhaps. the thing is, you have to be able to attack to trigger those concentration saves.

but, most importantly, this isn't about fighters killing wizards or vice versa*. it is about who contributes more.

if you want to have concentration (and difficulty of maintaining it) feature highly in making a fighter as big of a contributor as a wizard in combat, my advice would be to provide the fighter with more tools to protect others and draw the attention of enemies. if the fighter could actually keep enemies away from the wizard, the fighter would be a lot more valuable to have around.

and in fact, this is a fairly large part of why the paladin (for example) is much more highly regarded in late game. their AoOs are innately stronger and can be made *much* stronger if they spend resources. their aura, and ability to remove negative status effects and heal their allies means that getting rid of them will make it easier to get rid of the rest of their party.

alternately, you could look elsewhere; the monk, for example, is another non-caster (yes, yes, they can cast a few spells, but that isn't their primary function. also, i refuse to acknowledge that the elemental monk exists until WotC makes it less awful), but does a much better job of remaining relevant late-game. they can attempt to stun enemies 3-4 times a round, have incredible mobility, can easily get right past the enemy's front lines, have excellent ability to escape from harm. a monk earns their keep by being able to get past the enemy's front line, which is much more valuable for the PCs because most of the time the enemy front line can include a lot more people, which means you face more AoOs if you try and just go through somehow, plus they can cover more area so that it is harder to go around than the PCs innately can. in addition, they make extremely good scouts, and as a result can provide valuable information to those in the party who benefit greatly from being able to prepare for what is ahead.

meanwhile, either the monk or the paladin are also perfectly capable of dealing respectable damage (fairly similar to the fighter's damage) while retaining similar or better personal defence. oh, their damage may not be exactly as high, but it will be pretty close. they just get to add a bunch of other things to their kit as well.

* the arena fight is misleading. if you let the caster know who he'll be fighting in advance and give him time to prepare, he will crush any non-caster because he gets an entire day's worth of resources in a lump sum, and can benefit massively from preparation. it fails to highlight the fighter's limited strengths at all, which are primarily not running out of resources as easily and not needing special preparations to be as effective as normal.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I've changed my mind on a few things within the last... Couple of hours.

Replace martials with psionics and make it where you can make the barbarian, fighter, and rogue via the Soulknife or Psychic Warrior. You can also make some partial martials out of each of the other classes like we currently can.

New base classes going forward

Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Bard
Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger
Psion, Soulnife, Wilder, Psychic Warrior

[Easy_Lee]

I've changed my mind on a few things within the last... Couple of hours.

Replace martials with psionics and make it where you can make the barbarian, fighter, and rogue via the Soulknife or Psychic Warrior. You can also make some partial martials out of each of the other classes like we currently can.

New base classes going forward

Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Bard
Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger
Psion, Soulnife, Wilder, Psychic Warrior

Sounds like Book of Nine Swords, aka Book of Nine Euphemisms For My ****, aka Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic. I don't disagree; supernatural abilities for mundanes are exactly what the mundanes need. Consider the Paladin, who is fine, or the Monk, who is almost fine if it had a few more spell likes and supernatural abilities.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Sounds like Book of Nine Swords, aka Book of Nine Euphemisms For My ****, aka Book of Weaboo Fightan Magik. I don't disagree; supernatural abilities for mundanes are exactly what the mundanes need. Consider the Paladin, who is fine, or the Monk, who is almost fine if it had a few more spell likes and supernatural abilities.

The monk essentially is a psionic martial already. They use a type of magic to enhance themselves and they can go down two paths that allow them to express their ki (magical ability) to produce tangible outside effects.

The monk is a great example of how this can work, even if the current monk has some issues with the elemental tradition. Though we have seen what crowd sourcing can do to fix that.

[Easy_Lee]

The monk essentially is a psionic martial already. They use a type of magic to enhance themselves and they can go down two paths that allow them to express their ki (magical ability) to produce tangible outside effects.

The monk is a great example of how this can work, even if the current monk has some issues with the elemental tradition. Though we have seen what crowd sourcing can do to fix that.

And notably, the base monk is still missing a few classic things. Feign Death, just as one example, even shows up in FR books. But yes, the monk is a good example of one general method to balance a martial against a caster. Even if they're not all the way there, monks are useful to have around and never really feel useless (again, unless multiple casters in the party are handling literally everything with spells).

[ThermalSlapShot]

And notably, the base monk is still missing a few classic things. Feign Death, just as one example, even shows up in FR books. But yes, the monk is a good example of one general method to balance a martial against a caster. Even if they're not all the way there, monks are useful to have around and never really feel useless (again, unless multiple casters in the party are handling literally everything with spells).

I don't read FR books, or really any D&D related book, I find them to be... Completely and utterly boring, stale, and outdated. So i wouldn't know what abilities the characters have in those books.

Adding a few abilities that don't have a huge mechanical impact to the monk shouldn't hurt, especially something like a Feign Death ability.

[Ralanr]

I've changed my mind on a few things within the last... Couple of hours.

Replace martials with psionics and make it where you can make the barbarian, fighter, and rogue via the Soulknife or Psychic Warrior. You can also make some partial martials out of each of the other classes like we currently can.

New base classes going forward

Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Bard
Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger
Psion, Soulnife, Wilder, Psychic Warrior

Why psionics?

Supernatural powers I'm more or less fine with, though I don't see why it would be psionics. In a sense, the basic fighter already has supernatural abilities. Second wind, action surge, and indomitable.

Second Wind: We could call this an adrenaline surge, except there is no backlash. You're suddenly healing yourself and can do it again after a short rest. Course this leads to the hit point debate, which can get annoying.

Action Surge: My personal favorite fighter ability. While this is without a doubt an adrenaline surge, you get to do this twice in a row at level 17. At that point, I'm just imagining the person moving faster than people are able to notice for a very short time. I'm talking, walking past a guy who explodes into a puddle of blood after you pass him, kind of speed. Or several guys explode into blood, because of all the extra attacks this class gets.

Indomitable: This class feature feels like a weaker version of legendary resistance, which is incredible. By level 17, the fighter can use this up to three times. Sure they could get a worse throw, but the ability to get a 1 is equal to the ability to get a 20. It's also the only ability in base fighter (I might be wrong) that requires a long rest. So it's on par with abilities like rage and spell slots.

Heck, even the simple fighter subclass feels supernatural. A level 18 champion basically gets regeneration when they are at half health or lower.

Martial classes can already do things that are pretty much impossible. Why is it so difficult to give them a boost and not call it magic (or psionics.)?

[ThermalSlapShot]

Why psionics?

Supernatural powers I'm more or less fine with, though I don't see why it would be psionics. In a sense, the basic fighter already has supernatural abilities. Second wind, action surge, and indomitable.

Second Wind: We could call this an adrenaline surge, except there is no backlash. You're suddenly healing yourself and can do it again after a short rest. Course this leads to the hit point debate, which can get annoying.

Action Surge: My personal favorite fighter ability. While this is without a doubt an adrenaline surge, you get to do this twice in a row at level 17. At that point, I'm just imagining the person moving faster than people are able to notice for a very short time. I'm talking, walking past a guy who explodes into a puddle of blood after you pass him, kind of speed. Or several guys explode into blood, because of all the extra attacks this class gets.

Indomitable: This class feature feels like a weaker version of legendary resistance, which is incredible. By level 17, the fighter can use this up to three times. Sure they could get a worse throw, but the ability to get a 1 is equal to the ability to get a 20. It's also the only ability in base fighter (I might be wrong) that requires a long rest. So it's on par with abilities like rage and spell slots.

Heck, even the simple fighter subclass feels supernatural. A level 18 champion basically gets regeneration when they are at half health or lower.

Martial classes can already do things that are pretty much impossible. Why is it so difficult to give them a boost and not call it magic (or psionics.)?

Out of the three core magic systems you have Arcane Magic, Divine Magic, and Psionics.

Arcane and Divine magic use the same system, more or less. The magic comes from the weave but Arcane users pluck the magic from the weave themselves and Divine users have spells granted to them.

Martial type heroes in stories don't have stuff just given to them. Many of them learn to wield their power that comes from themselves. This can be anything from McClain from Die Hard to whatever else you want to make up (since this is fantasy).

Psionics gives you just that. Psionics is a system in which you unlock abilities that come from yourself. These are not abilities you borrow from a deity or that you steal from the fabric of the universe.

Martial classes are mundane. They don't actually do anything other than what someone could normally do within that setting. Indomitable is nice at first until you realize it sucks as a reroll doesn't really help as much as one would think when you are dealing with a unfair saving throw system. Make indomitable a con save and you are getting somewhere.

And all indomitable gives you is another chance at being mundane.

For me I can give martials a boost but that is not where D&D wants to go or be. D&D has shown that it wants nothing to do with martials being awesome.

Psionics may be a form of magic (general term) but it isn't Arcane Magic or Divine Magic. It can be fluffed as endurance if you want, people tend to like that word.

People readily accept that flash step can use ki/power points. But if you say that your character is just really really really fast? They lose their minds and start whining.

So lets not fight it anymore. Lets build up a third type of energy that partial martials can use to be your extraordinary martial types.


Edit

Also Action Surge is the same as indomitable. It just lets you be mundane again. Actually most if not all of the fighter is all about having mundane abilities and then doing those mundane things over and over and hoping that you eventually do something.

[Ashrym]

Are there actual stats for commoners in 5e or are we basing it off previous editions? I'm just a little curious.

Yes. They are listed in the MM or free DMG pdf in the NPC stats. All 10's and they attack with clubs for d4 damage.


I've never considered spells being class features. I always thought spells were just the meat behind the class and the class features were the things that altered how the spells worked. Kinda like how martial class features alter how they use weapons/function in combat.

Interesting. The spell casting class feature is listed in the class features and the gaps in other class features are caused by spell access. That was confirmed as intent during playtesting and carried through. Weapon proficiencies are also listed in class features. Knowing how to use more weapons is having more features, but since most of them aren't different that's largely a ribbon ability.

You can confirm this by looking at the heading "class features" in the PHB and seeing what's directly under it. ;-)


I believe that is the main problem, especially when those options begin to alter reality on a grand scale while the fighter gets really good with his weapon. Personally I think it'd be fair if the fighter got so good with his weapon that he could alter reality slightly with it. Like cutting through space, or atoms.

The alter reality is a myth. The spells don't do that. One spell does that, once per day, in the epic tier, and isn't available to all casters. In using that one spell for that purpose the caster carries significant risk of NEVER doing it again. Other spells don't bend the fabric of reality; that's just a fluff statement for magic and isn't actually part of the mechanics. The mechanics allow things beyond what can be done without magic but when the overall effect is usually just accomplishing the same thing faster it's not as impressive as it sounds, and the game isn't all about 8th and 9th level spells.

I would take a battlemaster action surge spike over most 9th level spells and more often used.


You are right that everyone has about the same number of actions. Heck fighters and rogues have more due to class abilities. I still think 5e does a good job in balancing the classes, but on epic scales the wizard tends to reign supreme. Granted most debates on who would win all seem to hing on the wizard going first and casting wish. If the wizard needs to use the most powerful spell in the game on his first turn (which is unlikely going to be before the fighter. In a no feat game, the fighter will most likely have a higher dex. In a feat game, well the fighter could have alert and mage slayer couldn't he?) then there isn't much superiority.

It's funny how the debates keep going back to wizards, one or two spells, and still listed as if it represents all casters. ;-)


I don't see how your point refutes this. Since when is damage being good or crap a factor in consistency? Consistency is just being able to keep it up constantly, whether it's good enough to kill something is a different matter entirely.

It's because no one in their right mind spends 6 rounds and 6 spell slots to kill 1 ogre. Extra attack with 65% accuracy is more than consistent enough with better damage to the point magic missile is usually a poor choice. It's niche.


This was probably more true in earlier editions. Though now with the improvised actions encouragement, it's no longer the case. At least for monks, barbarians are still hurt a bit if they want to be combat effective. Until they hit level 15 in their class, they can only keep their rage up by attacking or taking damage. So if they chose to use their action for something that's not an attack and then don't take damage, they lose rage and thus a lot of their combat effectivness. This is very irritating for berserker barbarians (in my opinion) because their level 10 ability requires the use of an action (On top of other problems). So if a barbarian does this, it most certainly will not be while in rage. I feel it makes more sense for it to work in rage, otherwise it's just an intimidate with a saving through instead of a check. Pretty pointless if you're proficient in intimidate, which I guess not all barbarians are. Except all half-orc barbarians (That race that screams "BEST BARBARIAN CHOICE")

It's not even just the improvised actions. Standard actions, skills, feats, and class abilities all contribute to the total character before looking at MC options. A totem barbarian get 3 rituals for free, some non-combat abilities for exploration and scouting, and with all 3 eagle totem abilities has cunning dash bonus action, 1 mile vision, and at will fly ability to go with STR and CON that has gotten into the demi-god range beyond mortal PC's and autosucceeds any DC 20 STR check at will and better than the stoneskin spell at will. Then he can add non-combat feats to that. That's a low utility option class that looks like it's not so low to me.


1. I agree with you. That's how things should work.
2. Only one monk subclass can do that. Not best to use one subclass ability as an example of full monk prowess. People can do that with wizards though, because the only thing that stops them from taking spells out of their specialty is lack of funding and time. All of which are seemingly never brought up as an issue. Makes me wonder why they got rid of barred schools.
3. I thought this edition got rid of most save of die throws. There are 18? What are they?

Not all casters have all the spells people list for them either. All monks have tongue of the sun and moon, diamond soul, and empty body though. Empty body is a pretty good ability.

When you play the 5e content you'll find that scrolls and spellbooks are not common, and random charts don't provide much chance of getting scrolls. They are usually deliberately placed. Wizards are restricted by what is in their books, but they do eventually have access to more spells. 44+ in a book isn't bad, but in the end they still only have so many actually prepared at any given time, and wizards are on the high end of caster utility. They do not represent the whole. The amount of money it takes to fill a spell book would fund a small army for a few months so given equivalent value that's a big potential shift for another PC.

Save or Die isn't really there. Save or suck is. Open hand monks get one of the few save or die abilities in the game and they can do it often. A high level battlemaster can just do a huge action surge damage spike so there's often little difference. Damage is what some classes are good at, but when it comes to spell casters it's not so much in most cases. I was saying the spell casters don't have 18 SoD's because they don't; SoD's aren't the norm in 5e. ;-)


So yeah a monk can kill 6 enemies per short rest if they fail a save, and have 0 ki for the rest of the army. Meanwhile mr wizard castes wish and they proofed out of existence

Yeah, not so much. Once per day, likely with a save as determined by the DM, and then 1/3 chance of permanently losing the ability to cast wish sucks compared to quivering palm running off of a short rest recovery mechanic using ki. Just using it twice per day is better than your wish example by far.

[Ralanr]

Out of the three core magic systems you have Arcane Magic, Divine Magic, and Psionics.

Arcane and Divine magic use the same system, more or less. The magic comes from the weave but Arcane users pluck the magic from the weave themselves and Divine users have spells granted to them.

Martial type heroes in stories don't have stuff just given to them. Many of them learn to wield their power that comes from themselves. This can be anything from McClain from Die Hard to whatever else you want to make up (since this is fantasy).

Psionics gives you just that. Psionics is a system in which you unlock abilities that come from yourself. These are not abilities you borrow from a deity or that you steal from the fabric of the universe.

Martial classes are mundane. They don't actually do anything other than what someone could normally do within that setting. Indomitable is nice at first until you realize it sucks as a reroll doesn't really help as much as one would think when you are dealing with a unfair saving throw system. Make indomitable a con save and you are getting somewhere.

And all indomitable gives you is another chance at being mundane.

For me I can give martials a boost but that is not where D&D wants to go or be. D&D has shown that it wants nothing to do with martials being awesome.

Psionics may be a form of magic (general term) but it isn't Arcane Magic or Divine Magic. It can be fluffed as endurance if you want, people tend to like that word.

People readily accept that flash step can use ki/power points. But if you say that your character is just really really really fast? They lose their minds and start whining.

So lets not fight it anymore. Lets build up a third type of energy that partial martials can use to be your extraordinary martial types.


Edit

Also Action Surge is the same as indomitable. It just lets you be mundane again. Actually most if not all of the fighter is all about having mundane abilities and then doing those mundane things over and over and hoping that you eventually do something.

Sounds a lot like the grit/panache system from pathfinder gets it right.

People really complain when characters move very fast? I have a friend who is going to play a monk with the mobile feat. Her character moves 10 feet per second with regular movement speed. Taking into account that people don't get exhaustion from basic movement or dashing, that's pretty damn fast (not world record 100 meter fast. But still).

Heck barbs get an ability to get a 20 on every strength check if they get lower (if their strength is maxed obviously). Mundane? Only on the account that it's not flashy.

@Ashrym: Well played good sir :smallbiggrin:. Very good points. And on the wizard thing, that's pretty much how I feel when people refer to fighters when they talk about martials. Barbarians often get ignored.

If I wore a hat, I'd tip it off to you.

[Ashrym]

Why psionics?

I think he just likes the flavor over what exists. Rogues and monks (well 2 subclasses; I'm not a fan of elemental monks either) have it pretty good, imo, but as a player if I wanted a magical fighter I would play an eldritch knight and take a ritual caster feat or play a paladin. High level paladins also have it pretty good. Some players don't want that.

I don't think there's actually anything wrong with not liking particular classes or subclasses. 5e tried to hit the biggest audience but it's not possible to please everyone. A psionic game could be fun too.

I just don't agree there is balance "issue" and see a lot of bias and hyperbole. ;-)

[Easy_Lee]

I don't read FR books, or really any D&D related book, I find them to be... Completely and utterly boring, stale, and outdated. So i wouldn't know what abilities the characters have in those books.

Adding a few abilities that don't have a huge mechanical impact to the monk shouldn't hurt, especially something like a Feign Death ability.

Off topic: I can understand that, and don't blame you. I've been reading them since I was a young child, so it's one of those things for me. Regarding Feign Death, FD and monks are something I'm hyper-conscious of due to EverQuest (Monks had feign death, which was extremely useful and by far the best single ability in that game). To that end, I did create a monk homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?422653-Whistling-Fist-(Monk-Archetype-Inspired-by-EverQuest)) based on EQ which took the EQ stuff into consideration.

Back on topic: I think these kinds of things, the ability to replicate spell effects and do certain things much more often or creatively than a caster, are what mundanes need. Merely spreading warlock invocations around the mundanes may even accomplish this; prior to level 11, blade pact warlocks are one of the most competent melee-focused characters due to their spells and invocations. Removal of spell casting and the addition of melee features may create a more versatile form of martial.

This is one of the reasons the errata annoyed me. By making an 8 monk / 12 blade pact warlock, I was able to create a martial who got spells and spell-likes at the exact same time as martial power started to taper off. So the character was able to produce magical effects and do more things than he could before, while having a nice capstone to look forward to. The character wasn't perfect, of course, and was squishy and MAD, but IMO was a step in the right direction. Of course, the capstone doesn't fully work anymore now that unarmed strike isn't a weapon. Oh well, quarterstaves are fine I suppose.

[Ralanr]

I think he just likes the flavor over what exists. Rogues and monks (well 2 subclasses; I'm not a fan of elemental monks either) have it pretty good, imo, but as a player if I wanted a magical fighter I would play an eldritch knight and take a ritual caster feat or play a paladin. High level paladin's also have it pretty good. Some players don't want that.

I don't think there's actually anything wrong with not liking particular classes or subclasses. 5e tried to hit the biggest audience but it's not possible to please everyone. A psionic game could be fun too.

I just don't agree there is balance "issue" and see a lot of bias and hyperbole. ;-)

It's mostly bias. My gaming group doesn't complain about it and I've fine when friends use powerful spells to ward off fights (Like my druid buddy using summon lighting to keep 1/4 of the map distracted). The problem with tabletop games is also their advantage: the human factor. We make mistakes, we make judgements and opinions. Computers don't, they calculate the numbers as they're programed. I still prefer the human element over the computer element.

Honestly my only grips with psionics is due to a friend of mine trying to make them despite only playing a soulknife once. He talks like he's a master of the subject, but his previous creations are really unbalanced and it's just frustrating to deal with (I'm not the DM, but I'm the only other person besides the DM with the book, so I get asked stuff a lot.).

Fluff wise, casters summon fireballs, martials swing weapons. Mechanics wise, both due ridiculous stuff that's not physically possible (Evasion is hilarious). Then again they aren't suppose to be physically possible 100% of the time. It's a fantasy game, fantasy stories do ridiculous stuff. The best example I can think of is when the single knight fights and defeats a dragon. Is it cool? Yes. Is it possible if dragons were real? It wouldn't be very probable.

Edit: @Easy_lee: Off Topic: Have you thought about homebrewing a simple fist weapon like knuckles or do you play without homebrew?

[ThermalSlapShot]

The reason why the martial classes are shafted, and especially so at later levels, is that all of their class features revolve around doing mundane things more or again.

Extra Attack is nice, however it is just doing one mundane thing 1 to 3 more times. It doesn't actually make the character special in anyway.

Indomitable and Action Surge is the same way. They give you another chance to do something you can already do. IF the base thing that you can do is mundane, then the next thing you can do will also be mundane.

Sneak Attack is nice, but people can already stab others for damage. This is nothing new that anyone can't already do. The sneak attack just piles on more mundane on top of a mundane sundae.

Uncanny dodge however is something new. It allows you to take half damage. No one else can really do that as easy as the Rogue. No mundane person can do that. Hit by a firebolt? Hit by a greatsword? Hit by a deity megaton punch? Any of those can be at half damage.

The same go for the Totem Barbarian feature... Well some of them. They grant new things that mundanes or casters can't really do. Half damage while raging? Awesome. Auto advantage to allies while raging? Awesome. Hulk Jumping? Awesome.

The core Fighter has nothing brings it out of the realm of mundane. Even the battle master is pretty damn mundane.

But Psionics fixes this. Everyone is heading toward magic so lets give martials a magic that isn't Arcane or Divine and can actually make sense for them. This magic isn't really magic as you can call it whatever you want.

If we are going down this rabbit hole, then let's do it correctly, and fall feet first (so we can hit the ground running).

[Ralanr]

The reason why the martial classes are shafted, and especially so at later levels, is that all of their class features revolve around doing mundane things more or again.

Eh, that's more or less true. Casters getting access to very powerful spells also has a hand at that.


Extra Attack is nice, however it is just doing one mundane thing 1 to 3 more times. It doesn't actually make the character special in anyway.

Yes, all that training doesn't matter at all cause anyone can swing a greatsword from 2-12 times in 6 seconds.


Indomitable and Action Surge is the same way. They give you another chance to do something you can already do. IF the base thing that you can do is mundane, then the next thing you can do will also be mundane.

Does mundane just translate to not magical?


Sneak Attack is nice, but people can already stab others for damage. This is nothing new that anyone can't already do. The sneak attack just piles on more mundane on top of a mundane sundae.

You know what else people can do? Learn magic. There have been lots of debates on how sneak attack is basically targeting vitals, which I can't imagine to be easy.


Uncanny dodge however is something new. It allows you to take half damage. No one else can really do that as easy as the Rogue. No mundane person can do that. Hit by a firebolt? Hit by a greatsword? Hit by a deity megaton punch? Any of those can be at half damage.

Yeah it is pretty awesome, heck it can use it without need for rest! No magic required, just the ability to dodge.


The same go for the Totem Barbarian feature... Well some of them. They grant new things that mundanes or casters can't really do. Half damage while raging? Awesome. Auto advantage to allies while raging? Awesome. Hulk Jumping? Awesome.

You're aware that regular rage grants resistance to slashing, bludgeoning, and piercing right? No totem for that.


The core Fighter has nothing brings it out of the realm of mundane. Even the battle master is pretty damn mundane.

What part of healing themselves is in the realm of mundane? Do people close their wounds through sheer force of will all the time?


But Psionics fixes this. Everyone is heading toward magic so lets give martials a magic that isn't Arcane or Divine and can actually make sense for them. This magic isn't really magic as you can call it whatever you want.

No it doesn't. Psionics are already an established thing, they are established as different from martials. This is more replacing martials with psionics. Sure we can create a system of energy for martials, pathfinder does it with Gunslingers and Swashbucklers, and it looks pretty fine.

Honestly my biggest issue of "Let's fix this problem by putting psionics in it" is that where is the justification on why the casters don't get psionic abilities? I see no reason why a caster couldn't attain psionic abilities. Then boom, casters would still have their supposed leg up on martials.


If we are going down this rabbit hole, then let's do it correctly, and fall feet first (so we can hit the ground running).

Let's make sure we roll when we land, else we break our legs and need medical attention.

I do think there are ways to work this all out. I don't think psionics. Wouldn't giving the mundane psionic abilities make psionic abilities less special in the long run?

[ThermalSlapShot]

Eh, that's more or less true. Casters getting access to very powerful spells also has a hand at that.



Yes, all that training doesn't matter at all cause anyone can swing a greatsword from 2-12 times in 6 seconds.



Does mundane just translate to not magical?



You know what else people can do? Learn magic. There have been lots of debates on how sneak attack is basically targeting vitals, which I can't imagine to be easy.



Yeah it is pretty awesome, heck it can use it without need for rest! No magic required, just the ability to dodge.



You're aware that regular rage grants resistance to slashing, bludgeoning, and piercing right? No totem for that.



What part of healing themselves is in the realm of mundane? Do people close their wounds through sheer force of will all the time?



No it doesn't. Psionics are already an established thing, they are established as different from martials. This is more replacing martials with psionics. Sure we can create a system of energy for martials, pathfinder does it with Gunslingers and Swashbucklers, and it looks pretty fine.

Honestly my biggest issue of "Let's fix this problem by putting psionics in it" is that where is the justification on why the casters don't get psionic abilities? I see no reason why a caster couldn't attain psionic abilities. Then boom, casters would still have their supposed leg up on martials.



Let's make sure we roll when we land, else we break our legs and need medical attention.

I do think there are ways to work this all out. I don't think psionics. Wouldn't giving the mundane psionic abilities make psionic abilities less special in the long run?


Swinging a sword 4 times in 6 seconds is mundane in a fantasy world.

We are talking about martials, the non-casters. Learning magic and pushing them toward magic is what I was originally talking about.

Again we are talking about martials, the non-casters. Learning magic and pushing them toward magic is what I was originally talking about.

If martials had more abilities like Uncanny Dodge we wouldn't have a problem. But sadly the really good martial abilities are mundane or all about doing mundane things more... Which is just mundane^x.

Regular Rage is nice, however casters can get access to spells that give them that ability. However they can't get resistance to every damage type (except one) at one time without multiple casters working together.

HP in D&D is not just physical wounds. HP is about luck, endurance, will, physical, and a ton of other things. When you see a Fighter use Second Wind that is just like someone getting pumped up through adrenaline like from a rousing speech. There is nothing special about it. Plus second wind sucks. 1d10 + Fighter Level? After a few levels you are doing sub 20% healing, which won't be useful during a fight since monsters will out damage that easy.

Psionics are NOT an established thing in 5e or beyond 5e. And psionics can be used to give both sides what they want. People who want martials to have cool things that they don't have to use Arcane or Divine magic for and for people who want martials to be gone from the game. Because when you get down to it, pushing for martials to be so mundane really just means you don't want martials at all. You just want mundane sacks of HP.

Casters can multiclass into a psionic class if they want, nothing is stopping them. Just like psionic classes can multiclass into casters. Then everyone is on the same page.

[Malifice]

Personally, I always felt like spellcasters were always pretty average, simply because if you try anything really dangerous, it'll just be counterspelled by an enemy mage.

That being said, I really wish counterspelling was a mechanic, not a spell. It dumbs down combat with casters really badly.

What's worse is the idea that counterspell can counter everything, RAW, including Power Words, which is just stupid.

Need it prepared and only works within 60'.

Move 30' before casting. In practice it can be quite hard to pull off.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Need it prepared and only works within 60'.

Move 30' before casting. In practice it can be quite hard to pull off.

Yup, and with the range of a lot of decent spells out there it is really easy to go outside the range and cast a spell.

Of course this is also why I love sorcerers. The caster may counter spell my bonus action/action cantrip but my next spell is the real winner.

And really if a mage is only counterspelling your spells and trying to cast spells on their turn then they will run out of spell slots before you.

[Ralanr]

Regular Rage is nice, however casters can get access to spells that give them that ability. However they can't get resistance to every damage type (except one) at one time without multiple casters working together.


Psionics are NOT an established thing in 5e or beyond 5e. And psionics can be used to give both sides what they want. People who want martials to have cool things that they don't have to use Arcane or Divine magic for and for people who want martials to be gone from the game. Because when you get down to it, pushing for martials to be so mundane really just means you don't want martials at all. You just want mundane sacks of HP.

Casters can multiclass into a psionic class if they want, nothing is stopping them. Just like psionic classes can multiclass into casters. Then everyone is on the same page.

(Just gonna focus on these three. Not disrespecting or ignoring your entire post).

1. What spells? The closest thing I can think of is fiend warlock who can change to one resistance everyone short rest.

2. I didn't mean 5e. I meant D&D in general. Has anyone stated they don't want martials in the game? I haven't really heard that complaint. Also, if that's directed towards me specifically: I want martials in the game, I much prefer playing a martial character to playing a caster. I believe martials are beyond mundane sacks of HP, I think they should be equal in threat to powerful casters.

I'd be perfectly fine with martials gaining abilities that allow them to temporarily break reality. Things that allow them to ignore magical effects for a short time, give their melee attacks in a cone attack, or even have the impact of their weapons make massive craters.

A resource system is fine, heck it's a great idea. But wouldn't psionics make them more MAD? Psionic classes usually require focus in one mental skill. Now let's look at the barbarian, who people try to give decent scores in all the physical ones. So this psionic barbarian would need to focus in a 4th score? Gee ain't that great? Fighters and Rogues don't face this issue because they have a subclass that focuses int, so a psionic one could use that.

3. That's not what I meant. Psionics are apparently natural developing (this is actually my problem with fluff when multiclassing into sorcerer), so what would stop a wizard or a warlock from developing the same abilities as a psionic barbarian? Fluff wise? Who freaking cares apparently :smallannoyed:. It's just like with sorcerers, "I've had magic in my blood that has suddenly awakened!" which hey, that works fluffwise to a point. But then nothing stops anyone from multiclassing into a sorcerer, a class that is supposedly rare fluffwise. Apparently dragons sleep around a lot or mortal races put out the most.

(I have nothing against the sorcerer class. The fluff just seems to fall flat when you realize that there is nothing stopping anyone from multiclassing into the rare bloodlines of sorcerers. I feel they should change the fluff a little, or make it less rare as they imply. It's like getting a rare item from someone only to realize they sell it on the street corner for half of what you played.)

[Lucas Yew]

While I always read on this forums as a mere guest, this article sparked my urge to post on this ages-long debate and I decided to spill some beans on this matter.


If there is one setting/story that showcases martial power that rivals and/or even surpasses magic is from a Manhwa called, "Id-Greatest fusion fantasy". To put it best, there are these people called "Sword masters" who are rarer than very powerful mages and probably more destructive. To give an example of their power, a king tells a story of when a massive army came upon his land. Only 3 people were sent out to stop them. These three people? The King's attendant, a flag bearer, and the King who was the only one armed. The enemy army had no survivors (Only the king fought, if I'm not making that obvious).

The history of (South) Korean pulp fantasy genre is unique that while it's heavily influenced by Tolkien and D&D, the very backbone of it is actually the wuxia genre, pronounced "muhyeop" in Korean. As such, martial characters who star in novels of such genre usually don't shy away from supernatural feats like chopping up a mountain over there on the horizon in half with a single "gi(qi/ki)" infused sword swing at-will (after reaching epic levels, of course). In fact, the general consensus around Korean pulp is that whether through carefully controlled training or gritty experiences on the field, all high level pure martial characters WILL eventually know how to harness gi for practical usage. In 5E terms, like all major martial classes get Extra Attack on their 5th class level, the actual Monk class is dissected into universal features for all martial classes that always show up on their class feature table, with each feature's power levels cranked up to eleven.

To be fair, high level spellcasters also got somewhat gonzo, like summoning down actual asteroids (do note that a single asteroid is suspected to be the harbinger of doom for the non-avian dinosaurs) instead of magical makeshift mini-clones of them to wipe out nations, or reshaping space-time and rewriting a fraction of history for their whim. What the authors, at least the more skilled ones, tried to give them further balance was to make a narrative atmosphere that favors martials over casters in the form of a built-in "NPC(supportive cast)" approval on the nature of powers. Commoners in such stories usually regard epic martials more identifiable to them than those scary wizards and clerics, and thus the martials have a social boon in interactive scenes.

By the way, if anyone got hold of the facts that I wrote of the Korean pulp fantasy genre look too generalized, it's because it is. One of the biggest weaknesses of the genre in Korean subculture is that its terms are too generalized; for example, about 95% of the stories feature "Sword Masters (cheap authors usually don't even care to use a different word)" who are walking war gods wielding gi infused swords to cause mayhem for the enemy army and politics, only matched by fellow Masters and high level mages. And I won't even talk about other generalized memes in it, like almost all western dragons having an universal culture of posing as humanoids for decades for amusement (in traditional D&D, only a number of metallic ones like to do such).

----

And for the solutions for the highly unstable ability check DC problem, it would be nice to actually have a fixed DC table for most skill checks like 3.X edition, but more lenient on its epic limits (like "running on clouds" is Dexterity(Acrobatics) DC 35, or else). While no one agrees on a single DC to decide whether a character hops on a chandelier to traverse the upper parts of the room, the skill system is too unreliable compared to the hard-coded-ness of magical spells.

Also give non-primary-casters more skill points, I mean, starting skill proficiencies. It should feel a lot better for their players. Some class features for martials that work reliably in exploration and social interaction encounters would be nice. Plus more things I can't even think of to make sure that in a class based system all classes feel jealous of each other class, which probably would eliminate a lot of those pesky spotlight problems (I think that the biggest reason for this debate is this).

[Ralanr]

To be fair, high level spellcasters also got somewhat gonzo, like summoning down actual asteroids (do note that a single asteroid is suspected to be the harbinger of doom for the non-avian dinosaurs) instead of magical makeshift mini-clones of them to wipe out nations, or reshaping space-time and rewriting a fraction of history for their whim. What the authors, at least the more skilled ones, tried to give them further balance was to make a narrative atmosphere that favors martials over casters in the form of a built-in "NPC(supportive cast)" approval on the nature of powers. Commoners in such stories usually regard epic martials more identifiable to them than those scary wizards and clerics, and thus the martials have a social boon in interactive scenes.

By the way, if anyone got hold of the facts that I wrote of the Korean pulp fantasy genre look too generalized, it's because it is. One of the biggest weaknesses of the genre in Korean subculture is that its terms are too generalized; for example, about 95% of the stories feature "Sword Masters (cheap authors usually don't even care to use a different word)" who are walking war gods wielding gi infused swords to cause mayhem for the enemy army and politics, only matched by fellow Masters and high level mages. And I won't even talk about other generalized memes in it, like almost all western dragons having an universal culture of posing as humanoids for decades for amusement (in traditional D&D, only a number of metallic ones like to do such).

----



Huh...interesting.

That and mankind's view of magic throughout it's history are pretty big reasons why wizards aren't usually main characters in stories.

[Ashrym]

While I always read on this forums as a mere guest, this article sparked my urge to post on this ages-long debate and I decided to spill some beans on this matter.



The history of (South) Korean pulp fantasy genre is unique that while it's heavily influenced by Tolkien and D&D, the very backbone of it is actually the wuxia genre, pronounced "muhyeop" in Korean. As such, martial characters who star in novels of such genre usually don't shy away from supernatural feats like chopping up a mountain over there on the horizon in half with a single "gi(qi/ki)" infused sword swing at-will (after reaching epic levels, of course). In fact, the general consensus around Korean pulp is that whether through carefully controlled training or gritty experiences on the field, all high level pure martial characters WILL eventually know how to harness gi for practical usage. In 5E terms, like all major martial classes get Extra Attack on their 5th class level, the actual Monk class is dissected into universal features for all martial classes that always show up on their class feature table, with each feature's power levels cranked up to eleven.

To be fair, high level spellcasters also got somewhat gonzo, like summoning down actual asteroids (do note that a single asteroid is suspected to be the harbinger of doom for the non-avian dinosaurs) instead of magical makeshift mini-clones of them to wipe out nations, or reshaping space-time and rewriting a fraction of history for their whim. What the authors, at least the more skilled ones, tried to give them further balance was to make a narrative atmosphere that favors martials over casters in the form of a built-in "NPC(supportive cast)" approval on the nature of powers. Commoners in such stories usually regard epic martials more identifiable to them than those scary wizards and clerics, and thus the martials have a social boon in interactive scenes.

By the way, if anyone got hold of the facts that I wrote of the Korean pulp fantasy genre look too generalized, it's because it is. One of the biggest weaknesses of the genre in Korean subculture is that its terms are too generalized; for example, about 95% of the stories feature "Sword Masters (cheap authors usually don't even care to use a different word)" who are walking war gods wielding gi infused swords to cause mayhem for the enemy army and politics, only matched by fellow Masters and high level mages. And I won't even talk about other generalized memes in it, like almost all western dragons having an universal culture of posing as humanoids for decades for amusement (in traditional D&D, only a number of metallic ones like to do such).

----

And for the solutions for the highly unstable ability check DC problem, it would be nice to actually have a fixed DC table for most skill checks like 3.X edition, but more lenient on its epic limits (like "running on clouds" is Dexterity(Acrobatics) DC 35, or else). While no one agrees on a single DC to decide whether a character hops on a chandelier to traverse the upper parts of the room, the skill system is too unreliable compared to the hard-coded-ness of magical spells.

Also give non-primary-casters more skill points, I mean, starting skill proficiencies. It should feel a lot better for their players. Some class features for martials that work reliably in exploration and social interaction encounters would be nice. Plus more things I can't even think of to make sure that in a class based system all classes feel jealous of each other class, which probably would eliminate a lot of those pesky spotlight problems (I think that the biggest reason for this debate is this).

The problem with chopping apart mountains and such in D&D is that balors, pit friends, ancient dragons, and powerful mages can't do things like that either.

Indomitable might and the barbarian capstone are scaled to monsters going into superhuman ability. What you described isn't a level of ability that exists.

I would just scale skill DC's to match expectations, but then again that has been suggested a few times.

[CyberThread]

4e says hello. Also, 3.5 tier 3 list says hello also. Those two set ups are more balanced than 5e could ever dream of being. The only thing 5e is balanced with is that everyone can do damage (which helps unbalance the game more... Lol).

But what really needs to be done a not a Caster VS Martial debate. What needs to happen is to bring casters down to the setting OR bring the setting up to caster's level.

One good thing I've found is using the e6 type setting. Casters get all the spell slots they currently do but only learn up to 3rd level Spells. This balances the casters with the world a bit better.



so cute :)

You think homemade rules like only allowing your characters to play as a tier 3 list in 3.5, qualifies in this debate instead of only highlighting the entire problem.

[Scarab112]

The problem with chopping apart mountains and such in D&D is that balors, pit friends, ancient dragons, and powerful mages can't do things like that either.

Indomitable might and the barbarian capstone are scaled to monsters going into superhuman ability. What you described isn't a level of ability that exists.

I would just scale skill DC's to match expectations, but then again that has been suggested a few times.

A Fighter with the Shield Master feat in 5e can actually deflect a Meteor from meteor swarm using only his shield. If that isn't superhuman, I don't know what is.

[Ralanr]

A Fighter with the Shield Master feat in 5e can actually deflect a Meteor from meteor swarm using only his shield. If that isn't superhuman, I don't know what is.

Can I just take a moment here and say that is reason enough to show how awesome shield master is. Heck with correct positioning I bet you could save your party from dragonbreath.

[Ashrym]

A Fighter with the Shield Master feat in 5e can actually deflect a Meteor from meteor swarm using only his shield. If that isn't superhuman, I don't know what is.

I wouldn't call it deflect. It's not like the fighter bounces the meteor swarm back at the wizard, for example.

It does remind me of a scene in the first marvel secret wars limited series where captain america told the human torch to go nova when ultron had a hold of the torch and hid behind his shield without dying in the process.

I agree that shield master be seen as pretty superhuman when that kind of damage is prevented, especially if the fighter can take a second save if he fails the first.

I don't think it's on a mountain destroying level. ;-)

[Scarab112]

I wouldn't call it deflect. It's not like the fighter bounces the meteor swarm back at the wizard, for example.

It does remind me of a scene in the first marvel secret wars limited series where captain america told the human torch to go nova when ultron had a hold of the torch and hid behind his shield without dying in the process.

I agree that shield master be seen as pretty superhuman when that kind of damage is prevented, especially if the fighter can take a second save if he fails the first.

I don't think it's on a mountain destroying level. ;-)

Well, it's either deflecting the meteor to the side with a careful angling of the shield, or it's blocking it completely without budging an inch. Either one is a very impressive feat of strength and skill.

[Ralanr]

Well, it's either deflecting the meteor to the side with a careful angling of the shield, or it's blocking it completely without budging an inch. Either one is a very impressive feat of strength and skill.

It's probably the former.

Still awesome.

[Morty]

Back on topic: I think these kinds of things, the ability to replicate spell effects and do certain things much more often or creatively than a caster, are what mundanes need. Merely spreading warlock invocations around the mundanes may even accomplish this; prior to level 11, blade pact warlocks are one of the most competent melee-focused characters due to their spells and invocations. Removal of spell casting and the addition of melee features may create a more versatile form of martial.


I prefer to think of it as less about "replicating spells" and more about spreading the effects normally provided only by spells to other "power sources". Not just the effects, but being able to pick, arrange and swap them to achieve what you want without relying on scarce resources like class features and feats.

[Vogonjeltz]

You're confusing the term "attack" with a bunch of BM maneuvers, various skill checks that aren't even in the rules, and anything involving an attack. That's ridiculous. The attack action, with no added features, can be used to do three things:
•Weapon damage.
•Shove (really an athletics check)
•Grapple (same as above)

If that's your idea of versatile, you haven't read many spells. Compare that to the spell suggestion, which can be used to force someone to do an infinite number of distinct things.

No, I'm talking about the rules in the PHB and DMG:

Grapple is a contest that replaces a single melee attack and imposes a status, Disarm does the same and can be used to grab an item from an enemy, shove knocks them out a window or impose a status effect (prone).

That's just the actually listed variations on the theme, the PHB outright states that the DM should improvise others. All this (and more!), done via the attack action. Those are the rules, I just use them to their fullest.


Martial classes are mundane. They don't actually do anything other than what someone could normally do within that setting. Indomitable is nice at first until you realize it sucks as a reroll doesn't really help as much as one would think when you are dealing with a unfair saving throw system. Make indomitable a con save and you are getting somewhere.

You keep using that word, mundane, as if it's applicable to some classes. It's not. They are nowhere near ordinary, nor for that matter is just anyone capable of doing the things they are, anymore than just anyone is doing what a Wizard does. The player characters are, by their very nature, special and different.


Swinging a sword 4 times in 6 seconds is mundane in a fantasy world.

This is an interesting viewpoint given that, even with magic, some characters can't attack that many times using just their attack action.

Rogues, Bards, Druids, Warlocks, Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerers, Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, Monks, all get fewer than even 3 attacks. The Fighter is literally attacking twice as often as every other melee competent class, faster than them using magic.

That's literally the opposite of mundane, it's extraordinarily gifted.

[Ramshack]

I guess I dont see this problem at my tables. Everyone hates casters in 5e at my table. Their extremely limited number of spells per day at low levels and their subpar at will damage even with cantrips compared to other classes really detract people from playing them. In the games where we do have casters our Cleric or druid is relegated to a heal bot. I can only think of two instances where the wizard really stole the spot light: 1. A dozen or more goblins began to swarm us and a fireball wiped them all out and our wizard in the starter campaign had a staff of defense and tanked 4 trolls with a blur spells and 5 uses of the shield spell in a row thanks to the staff charges. And this after playing through the Starter Set campaign, rise of tiamat and horde of the dragon queen. I have also played 2 low level campaigns with unique story lines and DMing my own campaign.

Most Damage spells barely match a full round of damage from our Barbarian. In fact the barbarian has been so effective in 5e almost everyone at my tables wants to play them. Damage Resistance to everything and 2 handed weapon with great weapon mastery and they are scary. Rogues and Paladins come in second with the occasional huge burst.

Most situations can be handled with mundane means and I've never had a player go man, the wizard can do everything or otherwise complain about the wizards abilities, usually they that occasional rare spell is awesome.

[Kaacee]

Good discussion. Nerfing casters, buffing martial classes, and increasing the complexity of the game are all viable ideas, but I don't think any of them are D&D the way it is intended to be played. I think most players understand this unbalance, and it's not really an issue, but there are options if the players express some concerns.

I believe this problem can quite easily be managed by occasionally making the martial classes the focus of the encounter. Build encounters where the martial player has a battle of wills with the BBEG while the casters deal with the minions, or where there is an element that is totally immune to magic, but the martial character has an amazing special ability.

I'm also in favor of designing boss encounters that limit the caster's resources. For example, the BBEG summons everyone to a pocket dimension where the caster's spells have a reduced or limited effect. This duplicates the entire 6-9 encounters per day framework, but without requiring all those rounds of combat (who has time for that, I'd prefer to have about one combat for every couple hours of role play/adventure, but I want that encounter to be epic).

Another option is to make the martial players the focus of the adventure. Maybe they have been chosen/adopted by the patron, and recieved hints about the future. Maybe they have some key role to play in the BBEG's plan, so they aren't overshadowed by the casters.

Finally, something else to consider, I think it is fair for the DM to situationally prevent certain problematic spells from working consistently, but it is best to make it part of the campaign. For example, if you want to discourage teleportation, then have a group of baddies take over the plane that the wizard travels through. Have a nice epic encounter in the plane, then dump the players out in some interesting location. Sure, they can teleport at their own risk, but now they have an adventure to figure out what is interfering with teleportation.

You can do this with almost any problematic spell, but it might be best to discuss this with the players before you go down that road.

I think keeping things simple and fun, while focusing on the adventure are your best choices.

[SharkForce]

and you don't even notice that you're being obligated to rewrite everything to account for the fact that the casters are massively more powerful.

why should everything be adjusted to make casters feel less awesome? more to the point, why should the game be designed around that assumption that the DM is going to take away the caster's toys on a regular basis? why do we not have threads popping up where people talk about how they have to make every fight happen in a magnetized dungeon so that fighters can't use their best weapons and armour?

why can't we just have non-casters that are awesome in the first place. they don't have to be awesome in a way that doesn't fit; i don't recall anyone ever accusing the 2e fighter of being obviously magical, but were they ever helpful to have around in a fight, even without any taunts or stances or anything, just because they had massive consistent damage and when casters were getting their most ridiculous spells coincided with the time where fighters *and* monsters were all getting ridiculously good saving throws.

i've been in 2e groups where we had 3 fighters and 4 mages in the party (it was specifically a "mage campaign", the fighters were modified classes that also had spellcasting abilities) and in a tough fight, haste was still the go-to spell because dang those fighters could tear through enemies like a hot knife through butter. nobody ever said "hey wait, the best thing for the fighters to do is to cast spells", and in fact the fighters frequently strapped on their armour after throwing a few key buffs in the morning and just ignored the rest of their spellcasting, because being a fighter basically meant you were a near-unstoppable juggernaut that could carve their way through a horde of enemies with ease.

[MrStabby]

As a rule martial characters do more damage in combat. Between 60% and 80% of our session is spent in combat (although this may be in part to doing it online which drags out combat a bit). This means that for us a martial character is outperforming a spellcaster 60% to 80% of the time.

Sure casters can do awesome things outside of combat - teleport being given as an example, but that awesomeness is pretty short lived and will only account for a few minutes of a session. Begrudging a wizard those few minutes in the spotlight seems a bit petty.

[rhouck]

coincided with the time where fighters *and* monsters were all getting ridiculously good saving throws

... and insane magic resistance *shudder*

[Fwiffo86]

and you don't even notice that you're being obligated to rewrite everything to account for the fact that the casters are massively more powerful.

why should everything be adjusted to make casters feel less awesome? more to the point, why should the game be designed around that assumption that the DM is going to take away the caster's toys on a regular basis? why do we not have threads popping up where people talk about how they have to make every fight happen in a magnetized dungeon so that fighters can't use their best weapons and armour?

why can't we just have non-casters that are awesome in the first place. they don't have to be awesome in a way that doesn't fit; i don't recall anyone ever accusing the 2e fighter of being obviously magical, but were they ever helpful to have around in a fight, even without any taunts or stances or anything, just because they had massive consistent damage and when casters were getting their most ridiculous spells coincided with the time where fighters *and* monsters were all getting ridiculously good saving throws.

i've been in 2e groups where we had 3 fighters and 4 mages in the party (it was specifically a "mage campaign", the fighters were modified classes that also had spellcasting abilities) and in a tough fight, haste was still the go-to spell because dang those fighters could tear through enemies like a hot knife through butter. nobody ever said "hey wait, the best thing for the fighters to do is to cast spells", and in fact the fighters frequently strapped on their armour after throwing a few key buffs in the morning and just ignored the rest of their spellcasting, because being a fighter basically meant you were a near-unstoppable juggernaut that could carve their way through a horde of enemies with ease.

2e wizards couldn't wear armor no matter what you did and cast their spells, and they averaged 2+con mod hp per level. Fighters did most of the fighting because wizards died if they tried. That no longer holds true due to the way multiclassing has been changed, hit die boosting, and feats. All which are counter productive to the original limits for the wizard he suffered for his superior spells.

[SharkForce]

- damage is not the only way to contribute in combat. the wizard who keeps half the enemy mooks from fighting for 2-3 rounds with some well-placed CC had a huge impact. quite possibly more than the fighter who eventually melees them down one by one because they can't fight back effectively and can't get into position to fight in a group.

- if damage is the goal, the caster can do that too. not as focused as a fighter, perhaps, but still, a fireball in the right place could very well lead to your wizard doing more damage in the fight than the fighter. but if focused damage is the goal, scorching ray can provide some competition, and there are spells that deal damage as a bonus action (not necessarily casting them as a bonus action, rather simply allowing it to be used as a bonus action) or even as a non-action; a wizard with animate objects can deal quite a bit of damage, and even something as simple as a mordenkainen's faithful hound can add a pretty large chunk of damage per round (if you keep enemies near it; note that it does not require concentration, so you totally can cast it (several times potentially) and then wall of force a bunch of enemies next to it).

- certain types of caster enjoy near-equality with the martials in terms of damage, plus have in-combat utility, plus have out-of-combat utility.

- although this is not strictly speaking a martial/caster disparity, some kinds of non-casters also enjoy roughly equivalent damage to the pure DPR classes but are also superior at in-combat utility and/or out-of-combat utility.

[Ashrym]

Teleport generally sucks in 5e; it's using the most powerful resources after the adventure when such resources are typically gone because even the best knowledge is 1/4 miss rate so not useful to get to the adventure. It's a convenience spell when it can be used. It's not a good example.

[Scarab112]

Something to consider is that part of the problem of spells per day might just be due to the fact that squeezing 9 encounters into a single day makes things fairly hectic and requires a lot of prep on the DMs part.

Using the variant from the DMG makes things a bit easier, since having two or three encounters per day is more in line with the expected pacing, and if you have two or three days of that with short rests in between, you've got the appropriate amount of encounters.

It also makes things less predictable, since you can just as easily have four or five encounters in a single day, so anyone blowing their abilities early may be caught off-guard. This also means you can run more traditional dungeons full of encounters, though classes that rely on short rests may struggle with it.

I've had some success with it myself, though not many players in my group play casters, so I'm not sure how effective it is in the long term.

[SharkForce]

problem there being if you make it hard to take short rests, the classes that rely on short rests also get screwed. and if you ever go into a dungeon, a wizard will have their entire "long rest" worth of resources, while a fighter or warlock is going to be expected to go through a whole bunch of encounters with only one short rest worth of resources.

[Ashrym]

problem there being if you make it hard to take short rests, the classes that rely on short rests also get screwed. and if you ever go into a dungeon, a wizard will have their entire "long rest" worth of resources, while a fighter or warlock is going to be expected to go through a whole bunch of encounters with only one short rest worth of resources.

The opposite is true. If resting is too easy then it overpowers classes. If the adventure has 2 natural break points allowing short rests and continues pacing for a full day then things work well. In dungeons, this is handled by more encounters that are weaker; in wilderness, this is handled by fewer encounters that are much more difficult; in both cases the actual number of encounters still varies so players do not expect the number of encounters. This just isn't that difficult.

I also don't think anyone was indicating that we should be making short rests "too hard" so that other classes would be impacted. That's a strawman argument.

[Ralanr]

The opposite is true. If resting is too easy then it overpowers classes. If the adventure has 2 natural break points allowing short rests and continues pacing for a full day then things work well. In dungeons, this is handled by more encounters that are weaker; in wilderness, this is handled by fewer encounters that are much more difficult; in both cases the actual number of encounters still varies so players do play out an expected number of encounters. This just isn't that difficult.

I also don't think anyone was indicating that we should be making short rests "too hard" so that other classes would be impacted. That's a strawman argument.

Plus more short rests don't help the barbarian, who has their main class feature require long rests.

[Steampunkette]

Shift around some of the high end spells that are dangerously problematic (and mostly thematically massive affairs) into ritual spells.
Give martial characters all of the DMG combat maneuvers.
Apply the spellcasting speed metric to initiative.
Rebuild Rangers from the ground up.

/done.

[Slipperychicken]

Perhaps a DM can compensate for some of the 6-8 fights by extending the length and difficulty of existing ones? There may only be 3 or 4 fights in some adventuring days, but they might be made harder than normal or feature "reinforcements" or additional waves of enemies to drag a 5-round combat out to 10-14 rounds or more.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Loved the discussion of this long thread. Effectively this whole forum is a 'Tome of the DM.'

I haven't DMed enough to experience the balance issue, but now I know what to expect. If my game gets grumpy, I now have ideas thanks to you all.

What I'm planning to do:

Disadvantage wizards for doing almost anything mundane, including automatics. The tool of DC seems to be part of the answer without waiting for 6e. Imagine your latest professor in a dungeon. In D&D 1e, the human wizard/illusionist was ALWAYS 20 years or so older than all other humans to account for all those years in school. For them, nothing mundane is easy because they have lived a lifetime in study. The martials lived there every day, and that's where the baseline was set.

Limit backgrounds. Aren't they all academics of some weird sort? Choices become acolyte, scholar, or (an academic) hermit.

Limit proficiencies. I laugh to consider a wizard ever be proficient in athletics or acrobatics, animal handling, or any of the interpersonal interactions.

I want to try 2d10s for skill checks to get some sort of normal distribution working. Passive skill checks tries to get this right. The d20 is a lousy outcome determinant. I'd use 2d10 only because 4d6 - 4 takes too long to count.

Then there's hit points. In 1e, caster's hit dice were a d4 and had the worst chances at melee hits. Can your professor take a punch like a mid-level martial artist in their late teens? That's why. Low AC accounts for this, as well as a d6. But reinstate the d4 and now you have a frail thing!

Sorcerer? Warlock? I don't know, finding spells should be tough.

Feedback?

[Ralanr]

Even with my stance in the argument, that just hurts so much.

1d4 hit die I can get by. That sucks but I can see it.

When we start putting age requirements we get complaints about elves of the same level being 100 years older at least.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Even with my stance in the argument, that just hurts so much.

What hurts? d20 a bunch of stuff? The point was to make the 'mundanes' necessary to the wiz as much as the wiz is to the mundanes.

Or was it the background limitation? Or counting 4d6 - 4?

In any case, I didn't mean to hurt anyone, just summarize my likely takeaways. I apologize.

[Ralanr]

What hurts? d20 a bunch of stuff? The point was to make the 'mundanes' necessary to the wiz as much as the wiz is to the mundanes.

Or was it the background limitation? Or counting 4d6 - 4?

In any case, I didn't mean to hurt anyone, just summarize my likely takeaways. I apologize.

Mainly the looks of my friends who like playing casters. They'd just be very disappointed and wouldn't have fun.

Personally I think removing spells above level 6 would balance a lot out, but those spells are staples.

Enforcing backgrounds isn't something that's really new, look at Druid and Cleric.

In a world where casters can *obligitory powerful spell that can be cast multiple times before resting* I think martials (I refuse to call them mundanes. I don't find them boring) being able to push past what is possible shouldn't be too unexpected.

They already do, look up the guy at the gym fallacy in these forums.

Personally I think a barbarian at high level and with enough strength (to do it often) should be able to shatter boulders with a single punch. Looking at the ground smashing rage power in pathfinder is a good example.

But apparently reaching the power of Beowulf requires something magical or supernatural. Course a lot of ancient heroes had a smidge of divinity in them.

Odysseus was completely normal though. He was also really really clever.

[Easy_Lee]

To fully address the issue would require rewriting the book. For now, I think the simplest thing to do is a two-part solution:

Limit spell selection above SL6.
Use time-constrained missions and other methods to discourage the 5 minute workday.

[druid91]

So far, I'd say that it's balanced just fine. Casters have powerful options but they also have to manage a resource. That more than anything else has kept things relatively even at our table so far. The DM knocked the idea of "Nova all your spells out first thing" out of the casters heads early on because he doesn't do the 15 minute workday. Not to mention that the 15 minute workday is against the rules anyway.

You can only take a long rest once every 24 hours by the book. Meaning once you've blown your highest level spell slots, they're pretty much guaranteed gone. You get one mulligan as a wizard where one a day you can short rest and regain half your level in spell slots, but not sure about sorcerer or Warlock.

[KorvinStarmast]

Not to mention that the 15 minute workday is against the rules anyway. No, it isn't against the rules.

It does stray form the model against which the game was balanced.

[druid91]

No, it isn't against the rules.

It does stray form the model against which the game was balanced.

You can only take a long rest once every 24 hours.

Only Warlocks regain their spells on a short rest, Wizards can regain a few spells once a day on a short rest, not their full complement but enough to go into a boss room not completely unprepared. Sorcerers can regain spell slots VIA sorcery points but you have very few of those.

Erego, the 15 minute workday is against the rules. I mean unless you want to just sit around in a hostile environment all day.

[Morty]

I do think the daily spell system is unsuited to the kind of game D&D has become. It might - emphasis on might - work well in a classic dungeon crawl where the GM can control the pace of the game. In a more flexible story... I don't think it does.

[Inchoroi]

Um, well, if I'm honest, I don't see any balance issues at all between Martial vs. Caster. One of my player's battlemaster is actually, going just by damage's standpoint, blowing the rest out of the water. For utility, there's some stuff that only casters should do, but...I don't see that as bad. Maybe I just have an awesome group, but even when we all play some variation of martial (we only have a druid in our current game, for example), we never feel like we're missing out on anything.

In addition, I don't really think that martials should be getting "supernatural" to "balance" them; it's not necessary at all. You want to be good at disguises? You don't need disguise self. Just take the Criminal background, and have a semi-decent Charisma (~12, usually); you want to be really, really good at disguises, take the Actor feat. One of my player's actually has been pulling this off every day during a session, as her character is actually a her disguising herself as a him to evade the fact that she's wanted. She's just very careful how she roleplays things; she has her character never sleep in the same room as another, even if that means spending more gold to do so; she never bathes outside of locked, individual washrooms. The other players have no idea she's actually a playing a woman, they just think she's weird, because the combination of roleplay and rolls means they can't notice that she's actually disguised. (Would be hilarious if they did; she has a 5,000gp bounty on her head right now...)

I guess what I'm saying is that 5e players need to realize that just because you don't have a special power that says you can do something doesn't mean you can't attempt something like it. That's what roleplay is for!

Am I weird in that respect...?

[VoxRationis]

Um, well, if I'm honest, I don't see any balance issues at all between Martial vs. Caster. One of my player's battlemaster is actually, going just by damage's standpoint, blowing the rest out of the water. For utility, there's some stuff that only casters should do, but...I don't see that as bad. Maybe I just have an awesome group, but even when we all play some variation of martial (we only have a druid in our current game, for example), we never feel like we're missing out on anything.

In addition, I don't really think that martials should be getting "supernatural" to "balance" them; it's not necessary at all. You want to be good at disguises? You don't need disguise self. Just take the Criminal background, and have a semi-decent Charisma (~12, usually); you want to be really, really good at disguises, take the Actor feat. One of my player's actually has been pulling this off every day during a session, as her character is actually a her disguising herself as a him to evade the fact that she's wanted. She's just very careful how she roleplays things; she has her character never sleep in the same room as another, even if that means spending more gold to do so; she never bathes outside of locked, individual washrooms. The other players have no idea she's actually a playing a woman, they just think she's weird, because the combination of roleplay and rolls means they can't notice that she's actually disguised. (Would be hilarious if they did; she has a 5,000gp bounty on her head right now...)

I guess what I'm saying is that 5e players need to realize that just because you don't have a special power that says you can do something doesn't mean you can't attempt something like it. That's what roleplay is for!

Am I weird in that respect...?

Maybe here you're weird, but you're not alone.

[Easy_Lee]

In addition, I don't really think that martials should be getting "supernatural" to "balance" them; it's not necessary at all. You want to be good at disguises? You don't need disguise self. Just take the Criminal background, and have a semi-decent Charisma (~12, usually); you want to be really, really good at disguises, take the Actor feat. One of my player's actually has been pulling this off every day during a session, as her character is actually a her disguising herself as a him to evade the fact that she's wanted. She's just very careful how she roleplays things; she has her character never sleep in the same room as another, even if that means spending more gold to do so; she never bathes outside of locked, individual washrooms. The other players have no idea she's actually a playing a woman, they just think she's weird, because the combination of roleplay and rolls means they can't notice that she's actually disguised. (Would be hilarious if they did; she has a 5,000gp bounty on her head right now...)

The trouble with this logic is that when a caster casts a spell to create a disguise, it works. When a non-caster does it, it takes longer, is subject to good rolls, and the DM has to allow it.

[Inchoroi]

The trouble with this logic is that when a caster casts a spell to create a disguise, it works. When a non-caster does it, it takes longer, is subject to good rolls, and the DM has to allow it.

But why would a DM not allow it? Additionally, "good" rolls are very relative--in dealing with NPCs, how many of them will have a high insight? Doesn't make sense to me that a DM needs to allow you to disguise yourself--unless your relationship with your DM is just that bad that he or she wouldn't; and if so, why play with that DM...?

[Submortimer]

I said it before and I'll say it again: Go look at The Tome of Battle. Sure, most of it was damage effects, but THAT's the kind of thing that brings Martials in line with casters. And sure, the stuff the Swordsage could do was really castery, but the Warblade and the Crusader were monumentally better than the fighter and the paladin, and those had abilities that didn't feel like "Weaboo Fitan Magic".

[Inchoroi]

I said it before and I'll say it again: Go look at The Tome of Battle. Sure, most of it was damage effects, but THAT's the kind of thing that brings Martials in line with casters. And sure, the stuff the Swordsage could do was really castery, but the Warblade and the Crusader were monumentally better than the fighter and the paladin, and those had abilities that didn't feel like "Weaboo Fitan Magic".

But I don't see the imbalance, honestly. I think it's perfectly fine, at least in 5e (ignoring the new UA Mystic).

[djreynolds]

I'm new to 5e, but very familiar with the old systems. But I like this new system. It feels more "organic"

What I like is the concentration aspect. A cleric buffed out in 3.5 could keep up with anyone in a one on one duel. He had so many buffs, and could cast spell mantle, etc. and divine power augmented all of his multi-classes and not just his cleric's. Now you have to keep up your concentration to keep up your buff, that's nice because it limits all those previous buffs.

But with regards to resting, I think if a DM has to go out of his way to limit resting to curb the wizards power, that may not be fair to a player who is really good and has planned for every contingency. And that may need to be fixed by Wotc and not homebrewed.

The wizard now is very powerful, with 1d6, ability to use armor, rituals, sorcerer like flexibility with spells, and one attack that rivals the martial classes, unlimited cantrips. And I'm not sure if it is fair to take away the wish spell.

[Scarab112]

But with regards to resting, I think if a DM has to go out of his way to limit resting to curb the wizards power, that may not be fair to a player who is really good and has planned for every contingency. And that may need to be fixed by Wotc and not homebrewed.

The game was built on the assumption of a certain number of encounters per day. If the DM puts 6-9 encounters in a day, he isn't going out of his way, he's doing his job. I will say that 6-9 encounters is a lot to fit in and plan for, and that most DMs I've seen tend to prefer 3-5 encounters per day instead.




The wizard now is very powerful, with 1d6, ability to use armor, rituals, sorcerer like flexibility with spells, and one attack that rivals the martial classes, unlimited cantrips. And I'm not sure if it is fair to take away the wish spell.

Cantrips don't really rival martial prowess that much. The armor use requires multiclassing to get. Compared to 3.5, the wizard has gotten a massive downgrade in terms of how many spells he can cast in a day. Nothing will bridge that gap.

As for the Wish spell, it has a 1 in 3 chance of taking away itself. Granted, it isn't very fair to fiat that the wizard can't take spells, but it also isn't very fair to try and use simulacrums to get infinite wishes and break the DM's game. Banning a handful of high level spells sorts out a large number of issues on its own.

[Giant2005]

You don't need to get rid of Wish, just get rid of Wish's ability to cast level 1-8 spells, or at least make that aspect require an Arcana check for spells that the Wizard doesn't already know which is something that every DM worth their salt should be doing anyway (I'd recommend a DC of 3 x spell level).
Is there even any word as to whether or not we have been using that particular aspect of Wish correctly? I mean... I play it the same as everyone else (You cast Wish and it grants the effects of a level 1-8 spell of choice) but the terminology in the description is a bit washy - it specifically says duplicate. The way I (And everyone else) uses Wish isn't really duplicating, it is creating. Duplication requires something already existent to copy and the use of that word implies that it would simply copy the effects of an already active spell.

[SharkForce]

As for the Wish spell, it has a 1 in 3 chance of taking away itself. Granted, it isn't very fair to fiat that the wizard can't take spells, but it also isn't very fair to try and use simulacrums to get infinite wishes and break the DM's game. Banning a handful of high level spells sorts out a large number of issues on its own.

there are plenty of great uses for wish that don't risk losing the ability to cast wish.

[djreynolds]

The game was built on the assumption of a certain number of encounters per day. If the DM puts 6-9 encounters in a day, he isn't going out of his way, he's doing his job. I will say that 6-9 encounters is a lot to fit in and plan for, and that most DMs I've seen tend to prefer 3-5 encounters per day instead.




Cantrips don't really rival martial prowess that much. The armor use requires multiclassing to get. Compared to 3.5, the wizard has gotten a massive downgrade in terms of how many spells he can cast in a day. Nothing will bridge that gap.

As for the Wish spell, it has a 1 in 3 chance of taking away itself. Granted, it isn't very fair to fiat that the wizard can't take spells, but it also isn't very fair to try and use simulacrums to get infinite wishes and break the DM's game. Banning a handful of high level spells sorts out a large number of issues on its own.

Thanks for this, great insight. As you know I'm only wee little dwarf. I haven't played much wizard, but if he's a close as 3.5E was I'm gonna rule the world.

[Sigreid]

In a world where casters can *obligitory powerful spell that can be cast multiple times before resting* I think martials (I refuse to call them mundanes. I don't find them boring) being able to push past what is possible shouldn't be too unexpected.

They already do, look up the guy at the gym fallacy in these forums.

Personally I think a barbarian at high level and with enough strength (to do it often) should be able to shatter boulders with a single punch. Looking at the ground smashing rage power in pathfinder is a good example.

But apparently reaching the power of Beowulf requires something magical or supernatural. Course a lot of ancient heroes had a smidge of divinity in them.

Odysseus was completely normal though. He was also really really clever.

I don't mind at all if there are martials that do supernatural things. I think EL missed an opportunity by not introducing elemental warrior, for example. Sometimes I want to play the totally not supernatural fighter or rogue and would be disappointed if I lost those options.

[Friv]

My personal martial fix:

1) Remove Expertise from the bard. Give them some minor bonus to make up for it.
2) Provide Expertise-variants to the martial classes that don't already have it. Fighters get Expertise with Athletics and feats of strengths. Rangers get Expertise on a couple of ranger skills. Barbarians get Expertise on all Constitution checks. Give Rogues a little bit more Expertise to balance this out.
3) Include a way to ignore low results on a die roll the way that rogues can. Maybe fighters have three points where they choose a physical Ability and consider all results below 5 on that ability to be a 10. Maybe barbarians treat 1s and 2s as 20s. These shouldn't be quite as good or reliable as the rogue's "All Expertise is 10 always", but it should be cool.
4) Create a short list of amazing things that people can do with DC 25 and DC 30 skill results.
5) Possibly make it a bit harder for someone to get Expertise by multiclassing.

If you do that, the caster classes are still rolling 1d20+11 for their skill checks; they can sometimes hit DC 25 (14+), and very rarely DC 30 (19+), but not reliably, so they won't benefit as much from the cool skill results. People with Expertise are rolling 1d20 +17, and ignoring low results; getting a 25 is relatively easy (8+), and getting a 30 is reasonably possible (13+).

[PhantomRenegade]

But why would a DM not allow it? Additionally, "good" rolls are very relative--in dealing with NPCs, how many of them will have a high insight? Doesn't make sense to me that a DM needs to allow you to disguise yourself--unless your relationship with your DM is just that bad that he or she wouldn't; and if so, why play with that DM...?The disguise thing was an example, but it is a relevant one, for every DM out there that lets you be a angry carpenter (http://i.imgur.com/V6JQtnz.jpg) there are DM's who wont let a thief rogue with a sleight of hand skill of 20 steal something resting on someone's hand "because they can see it".

Fact is DM's have to design adventures around the presence or lackthereof of casters, and when they do design an adventure knowing there's gonna be casters around most of the time it feels like my thief is just there to escort the casters while they go about their business, and i say this with a skillmonkey class, god knows how a fighter feels.

[Malifice]

The disguise thing was an example, but it is a relevant one, for every DM out there that lets you be a angry carpenter (http://i.imgur.com/V6JQtnz.jpg) there are DM's who wont let a thief rogue with a sleight of hand skill of 20 steal something resting on someone's hand "because they can see it".

Fact is DM's have to design adventures around the presence or lackthereof of casters, and when they do design an adventure knowing there's gonna be casters around most of the time it feels like my thief is just there to escort the casters while they go about their business, and i say this with a skillmonkey class, god knows how a fighter feels.

But again, isn't this more a critique of bad DM's?

[PhantomRenegade]

I wouldn't call it so much a critique of bad DM's but exposing a mechanical problem that the average, not bad, DM will strugle with.

I'm not a DM but given the extent of the spell list it doesnt strike me as particularly easy to come up with a set of challenges where the wizard won't trivialise half of them with his spell list, the problem grows worst and worst as you go up in levels where most classes simply become more combat proficient the spellcasters expand their reportoir of "oh you thought this'd be hard, haha think again" magics.

[LordVonDerp]

.

It's because I have played a lot that I know how mistaken many of the assessments posted lately really are.

What non-combat feats did the barbarian and monk take? What backgrounds did they have? Did the barbarian take advantage of rage grappling and shoving because he would have had advantage on the checks?

Quite honestly, if all a player does is move and attack that's his or her own fault. I pack around ball bearings, caltrops, flanks of acid, and take feats like healer. I learn professions and build contacts and buy trained animals. All a player needs to do is use more options than move and attack.



Barbarians don't get to take noncombat feats. They get five chances to take a feat, two of which are constrained to combat feats and four of which are constrained to stay increases.


Monks are even more dependent on stat increases, but at least their stats might actually help them with out of combat stuff.

Most of the "options" you quote can just as easily be used by anyone else and thus don't really factor into anything.

[Fwiffo86]

I wouldn't call it so much a critique of bad DM's but exposing a mechanical problem that the average, not bad, DM will strugle with.

I'm not a DM but given the extent of the spell list it doesnt strike me as particularly easy to come up with a set of challenges where the wizard won't trivialise half of them with his spell list, the problem grows worst and worst as you go up in levels where most classes simply become more combat proficient the spellcasters expand their reportoir of "oh you thought this'd be hard, haha think again" magics.

The answer to this is simple.

Don't hand you're wizard all the wizard spells. End of story.

At minimum they get the starting spells, plus 2 researched spells learned every level. That should be more than enough for them to work with.

We need to stop assuming the wizard knows all magic spells. They don't. Anyone allowing their wizard unfettered access to the totality of the wizard spell list is allowing their wizard to dominate the game.



Barbarians don't get to take noncombat feats. They get five chances to take a feat, two of which are constrained to combat feats and four of which are constrained to stay increases.


Monks are even more dependent on stat increases, but at least their stats might actually help them with out of combat stuff.

Most of the "options" you quote can just as easily be used by anyone else and thus don't really factor into anything.

Play the game without feats. Just try it. Our group prefers no feats. Everything balances better.

[Ralanr]

I don't mind at all if there are martials that do supernatural things. I think EL missed an opportunity by not introducing elemental warrior, for example. Sometimes I want to play the totally not supernatural fighter or rogue and would be disappointed if I lost those options.

I agree with you 100%. Supernatural options are fun, but losing the non magic/supernatural options takes a lot of fun out of those classes.

I want options for both. Not for one or the other.

[Morty]

If giving the wizard free access to spells causes problems, why is it an option at all?

[Ralanr]

If giving the wizard free access to spells causes problems, why is it an option at all?

Tradition?

Honestly I have no idea.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

After a certain level allow fighters, barbarians, Paladins, rangers, and rogues to start gathering minions, and give them a group of "squad" abilities. I'm not going to spend the time fleshing this idea out here, but anyone else feel free to expand on it.

Apparently this was actually the plan for 3rd edition (apologies if someone has already pointed this out, I may have skipped a few posts on my read-through, or more than a few). Above roughly level 10 adventurers are famous (or infamous), and wield considerable power. A plan was apparently to let them build bases for themselves at this point. The wizard has his black tower on a mountaintop where he can study the greatest arcane secrets in piece, the fighter has a castle in his very own valley, with villagers who pay him tribute and a small army he can call upon for mission.

The wizard of the published version still gets his arcane might, but on the martial side only the leadership feat survived when this idea was axed for being too complicated.


Enforce specialization. It's perfectly appropriate if magicians can do wondrous things. Less so if they can do a dozen. Or all of them.

I kind of like this idea, it's pretty simple to houserule even. Tell wizard players they can have everything the edition you're playing (probably 3.x if the balance is a big issue, judging by this thread) says they can have, except they only have access to spells from a single school (or a similarly restricted themed list they come up with themselves, like elemental spells, or some version of say the druid spell list). Not everyone will like that kind of challenge, it's for players who like to be creative with what they have rather than those who prefer the strategy game that is selecting the right spells, so basically it's not for the people who would normally choose to play wizard. Clerics and druids were always at least a bit more limited than wizards, but they were also pretty good in the less spell-based aspects of the game, like eating people in the shape of an enormous bear. A limited-list wizard is still just wizardly squishy.

On second thought, I think in a way I may kind of have reinvented the sorcerer just there.

[Fwiffo86]

If giving the wizard free access to spells causes problems, why is it an option at all?

The problem isn't access per se. Its handing over spells to your wizard as treasure which gives them an ever expanding spell list.

Wiz spells are more utilitarian than other classes magic, and I think its fair to say more powerful overall. That's because one of the balances is the limited selection. To be honest, I wouldn't hand out any spell higher than 3rd level as treasure in the first place. The wizard gets 2 spells of his choice per level. That's more than enough. Its not like OD&D where the wizards ONLY method of getting new spells was treasure.

Its much harder to be superior to all classes all the time when you just don't have the tools to do so in the first place.

[Doug Lampert]

The problem isn't access per se. Its handing over spells to your wizard as treasure which gives them an ever expanding spell list.

Wiz spells are more utilitarian than other classes magic, and I think its fair to say more powerful overall. That's because one of the balances is the limited selection. To be honest, I wouldn't hand out any spell higher than 3rd level as treasure in the first place. The wizard gets 2 spells of his choice per level. That's more than enough. Its not like OD&D where the wizards ONLY method of getting new spells was treasure.

Its much harder to be superior to all classes all the time when you just don't have the tools to do so in the first place.
A level 20 wizard prepares 25 spells +4 more from class features. He gets 44 known "for free".

I'm not seeing where 15 more spells than you can prepare (so they may as well be corner case niche spells you mostly plan to use as rituals or in non-combat situations) is all that limiting.
15 throw away spells, knock and simulacrum are two, only 13 to go... (not that I'd be all that tempted to take knock in an actual campaign, it's existence is offensive because it says the skill system is crap compared to spells, but I can't see that it's all that needed.)

I'm also not seeing where "only" 29 prepared is so few that having the right spell needs "Schrodinger's wizard" rather than just a decent list. 5th edition preparation removed the main problem with having the "right" spell prepared, where having the right spell took up a slot that then couldn't be something more generic like fireball.

At lower levels it's not quite that good, but you've still got plenty of spells with just 2*level+4, I'm just not seeing that unlimited spell lists is where the problem comes from. It's just why even a player who makes poor choices for spells known can later correct the problem.

Does someone have a list of 44+ spells that anyone on the board has claimed a wizard needs or even particularly wants?

Similarly: If found spells are limited to level 3 or lower, then a character can "only" have 28 spells known of level 4+. Is limiting to 28 known of level 4+ really a significant limit? It's more than his slots, and far more than he'll prepare of that level or higher.

Finally: If more or less unlimited wizard spell lists make wizards unbalanced good and the "solution" is that you never find spells no matter how little sense that makes; then where's the hard rule limiting all parties ever to no more than one wizard over a campaign? Because with 5+ players I could see two wizards, especially if "no one to trade spells with" is a known setting "feature". Gosh, now PCs are the ONLY wizards with adequate spells known. Or if Al the Wizard dies, and then Bob comes in and the party still has Al's book....

[VoxRationis]

I kind of like this idea, it's pretty simple to houserule even. Tell wizard players they can have everything the edition you're playing (probably 3.x if the balance is a big issue, judging by this thread) says they can have, except they only have access to spells from a single school (or a similarly restricted themed list they come up with themselves, like elemental spells, or some version of say the druid spell list). Not everyone will like that kind of challenge, it's for players who like to be creative with what they have rather than those who prefer the strategy game that is selecting the right spells, so basically it's not for the people who would normally choose to play wizard. Clerics and druids were always at least a bit more limited than wizards, but they were also pretty good in the less spell-based aspects of the game, like eating people in the shape of an enormous bear. A limited-list wizard is still just wizardly squishy.


I sort of did this for my wizard NPCs in my most recent campaign. Based on the cultures I had developed, there were a number of different magical traditions whose spells couldn't be easily translated between them, and each tradition had different thematic elements (high elves, for example, focused on enchantments and illusions, along with a handful of nature spells). I never managed to get it well-defined enough to apply to PCs, though.

[silverkyo]

I personally don't see the issue to be honest. I've always viewed it that the martial classes are able to do their shtick decently well and are great at melee, but the benefit was it was there all the time. You didn't really have a resource to spend that would stop you from really doing something. You can always use your weapon, a rogue can always pick locks, skills are always there, no one needs to spend a resource to do it. Can a spell caster replicate some of the things they do? Sure... in a limited fashion. Eventually they run out of spells and they aren't left with a whole lot. Spellcasters are situationally amazing, but not as consistently good. If the adventuring day is short enough that players run across a small number of situations before they get to rest and reset, then casters by comparison seem broken. If they run out spells and the party decides to turn around and leave and your encounter designs allow for this, then casters by nature are going to shine. But if instead you play the game as intended and press on their limited resources, suddenly martial classes and their consistency become a lot closer to par.

A couple other small things I don't understand as an issue. Wish/Simulacrum is going to have issues based on the nature of the spell and need to be re-balanced slightly, but in this and another thread people keep bringing up teleportation as some game breaking thing. I wish I had a quote on hand to show it, but it's around here. I don't understand the problem with utility spells like that to be honest. Why is out-of combat utility like that so broken? By the time the spell comes up, your party should be past the point where anything they'd find out in the world wouldn't dare mess with them because it'd be a joke, I don't think skipping random road encounters at that point is an issue. They should be dealing with things more grand and appropriate for the level they've obtained. If a wizard can break a whole dungeon because of a single spell, then you've designed a dungeon that isn't suited for the character level of your party. Yes, the game changes the higher level you get, and it should. It shows progress to the characters that they aren't dealing with the same stuff they did at level 5, but with slightly higher numbers. Don't look at the utility and think it's a bad thing, make use of it and show the players new encounters that they couldn't hope to do without the power they've acquired so they feel powerful and like they've gained something. As long as you have everyone being able to meaningfully contribute and shine in their own aspect, I don't see the issue.

tl;dr If at high level a spellcaster is able to do absolutely everything in your encounter, then you've just designed a bad encounter, that doesn't mean the class is OP. Challenge your party so he can't solo carry the group based off magic alone.

[Morty]

Tradition?

Honestly I have no idea.

We're talking about D&D 5e here, so "tradition" has an even or better chance of being the right answer.



I kind of like this idea, it's pretty simple to houserule even. Tell wizard players they can have everything the edition you're playing (probably 3.x if the balance is a big issue, judging by this thread) says they can have, except they only have access to spells from a single school (or a similarly restricted themed list they come up with themselves, like elemental spells, or some version of say the druid spell list). Not everyone will like that kind of challenge, it's for players who like to be creative with what they have rather than those who prefer the strategy game that is selecting the right spells, so basically it's not for the people who would normally choose to play wizard. Clerics and druids were always at least a bit more limited than wizards, but they were also pretty good in the less spell-based aspects of the game, like eating people in the shape of an enormous bear. A limited-list wizard is still just wizardly squishy.

On second thought, I think in a way I may kind of have reinvented the sorcerer just there.

It's really not difficult to do. But WotC never even considered it, because... well, see above.


The problem isn't access per se. Its handing over spells to your wizard as treasure which gives them an ever expanding spell list.

Wiz spells are more utilitarian than other classes magic, and I think its fair to say more powerful overall. That's because one of the balances is the limited selection. To be honest, I wouldn't hand out any spell higher than 3rd level as treasure in the first place. The wizard gets 2 spells of his choice per level. That's more than enough. Its not like OD&D where the wizards ONLY method of getting new spells was treasure.

Its much harder to be superior to all classes all the time when you just don't have the tools to do so in the first place.

I ask again - if handing over spells is such a problem, why do the rules even allow for it? Seems it'd be much easier and simpler to just cut down on it. Enforce specialization, let wizards only cast from scrolls, rather than learn from them, whatever. Not allow wizards to theoretically learn every spells they want and leave it to GMs to figure out how many spells they can give them before the game breaks.

[charcoalninja]

Considering Clerics can Planar Bind, Nuke and have great utility magic as well, what's your answer to them and druids having access to their entire list? Wizards aren't the only caster kicking the crap out of the game compared to the capability of others around them. A cleric has all the summoning, divination, offense and utility needed to contribute more to any challenge you can name than an equal marshal just as a wizard can.

Especially once Divine Intervention enters the equation.

Limiting Wizards spells isn't an answer because a) it's silly and b)a limited player is just going to take all the best ones anyway to ensure they don't die and can keep playing their character, so all your limit will do is reduce his access to fringe magic rather than the real problem spells like True Polymorph or Simulacrum.

[VoxRationis]

The problem with limiting wizards to only those spells they get at level up is that it conflicts horribly with the established nature of how wizards work. Given that their spells are based on Intelligence, they keep grimoires filled with magical notes, and they are written as having an erudite tradition of magical knowledge, it only makes sense that they could make use of any magical effects they could translate and put into their spellbooks. The tradition idea (i.e., thematic spell list limiting) makes far more sense, since one could easily argue that the traditions are so different (in cosmology, notation, what have you) that they can't exchange spells, while still allowing wizards to act reasonably within their spell lists.

And as mentioned previously, we would need to provide similar limitations on clerics and druids in order for that to be at all fair.

[Scarab112]

And as mentioned previously, we would need to provide similar limitations on clerics and druids in order for that to be at all fair.

Clerics and Druids have far more narrow spell lists. It's why they get a bunch of bonus spells to make up for it.

As for Wizards finding spells versus learning them automatically, it might be more fair to switch the the older edition method of giving the wizard no free spells on level up and having them learn whichever spells the DM makes available. While that may sound unfair and requires a good DM, so too does judging skill DCs so martials can get creative. If a Fighter has to deal with a DM who doesn't think he should be able to climb up a slippery cliff on a 30, then the wizard can deal with only learning fire spells instead of flight.

[Malifice]

I wouldn't call it so much a critique of bad DM's but exposing a mechanical problem that the average, not bad, DM will strugle with.

I'm not a DM but given the extent of the spell list it doesnt strike me as particularly easy to come up with a set of challenges where the wizard won't trivialise half of them with his spell list, the problem grows worst and worst as you go up in levels where most classes simply become more combat proficient the spellcasters expand their reportoir of "oh you thought this'd be hard, haha think again" magics.

The expectation is that the DM grows in skill as his players do, and learns those tricks as they first crop up.

Personally, I don't have a problem with a spell-caster using a class feature/ resource (high level spell) to trivialize a hard challenge. That's kind of the whole point of the class.

It only becomes an issue with the 5 minute adventuring day, or with inexperienced DM's who are still writing 15th level adventures and challenges the same way they were designing them at 1st level.

[SharkForce]

Thanks for this, great insight. As you know I'm only wee little dwarf. I haven't played much wizard, but if he's a close as 3.5E was I'm gonna rule the world.

eh, it definitely isn't remotely close to 3.5 was.

martials are generally better (relative to the world) than they were in 3.x and casters are generally worse (relative to the world) than they were in 3.x i'd say.

not balanced fully is not the same thing as "broken from level 1 and just keeps getting worse", which is basically what could happen in 3.x if you had a good optimizer playing a wizard.

[Ramshack]

I think its pretty close, yes Casters have more utility and have the potential to clear rooms with AOE, but their limited in their uses and if the DM follows the recommended encounters per day then I think resource management really comes into play. Meanwhile Martial's are generally the king of sustained damage and make up the work horses of combat. Yes magical users bring more utility to the party but in order to do that they have to spend resources to do it and that means resources not spent on damage.

I think as others have said it's not as bad as in 3.5 for sure. Martial's are still better in terms of HP damage and survivability generally at lower levels and casters catch up around 5-6. Yes there are something casters will do that martial's simply can't but this has never been a solo game, and generally the group works together to solve problems and their thankful to have a wizard or cleric their to bring those options. I haven't had a problem at my tables of anyone feeling outclassed by a caster. In fact most casters feel outclassed by their martial counterparts.

I realize this isn't a popular opinion but In short I think it's fine as it. Martials are the work horses, diesel engines that run for a long time and casters are bottle rockets that shine bright for a short amount of time. I wouldn't recommend any changes.

[Morty]

Restricting the clerics' and druids' spell lists is an eminently logical idea in any event. It never made any sense why they should get a laundry list of spells while other magic-users need to learn them first.

And I find it endlessly hilarious that while 4e is still derided as "too MMO-like", people seriously praise 5e martial classes for being good at "sustained damage". At least it's not sustained dps. I don't know about anyone else, but doing a boring thing all day long is not my idea of proper representation of a competent warrior.

[Fwiffo86]

A level 20 wizard prepares 25 spells +4 more from class features. He gets 44 known "for free".

I'm not seeing where 15 more spells than you can prepare (so they may as well be corner case niche spells you mostly plan to use as rituals or in non-combat situations) is all that limiting.
15 throw away spells, knock and simulacrum are two, only 13 to go... (not that I'd be all that tempted to take knock in an actual campaign, it's existence is offensive because it says the skill system is crap compared to spells, but I can't see that it's all that needed.)

I'm also not seeing where "only" 29 prepared is so few that having the right spell needs "Schrodinger's wizard" rather than just a decent list. 5th edition preparation removed the main problem with having the "right" spell prepared, where having the right spell took up a slot that then couldn't be something more generic like fireball.

At lower levels it's not quite that good, but you've still got plenty of spells with just 2*level+4, I'm just not seeing that unlimited spell lists is where the problem comes from. It's just why even a player who makes poor choices for spells known can later correct the problem.

Does someone have a list of 44+ spells that anyone on the board has claimed a wizard needs or even particularly wants?

Similarly: If found spells are limited to level 3 or lower, then a character can "only" have 28 spells known of level 4+. Is limiting to 28 known of level 4+ really a significant limit? It's more than his slots, and far more than he'll prepare of that level or higher.

Finally: If more or less unlimited wizard spell lists make wizards unbalanced good and the "solution" is that you never find spells no matter how little sense that makes; then where's the hard rule limiting all parties ever to no more than one wizard over a campaign? Because with 5+ players I could see two wizards, especially if "no one to trade spells with" is a known setting "feature". Gosh, now PCs are the ONLY wizards with adequate spells known. Or if Al the Wizard dies, and then Bob comes in and the party still has Al's book....

I get what you are saying, but I don't think you understand what I am saying.

Spells Known as per level:

Base spells (for level 1 character)
2 - +2 level 1 spells
3 - +2 level 2 spells
4 - +2 level 2 spells (4 total)
5 - +2 level 3 spells
6 - +2 level 3 spells (4 total)
7 - +2 level 4 spells
8 - +2 level 4 spells (4 total)
9 - +2 level 5 spells
10- +2 level 5 spells (4 total)
11- +2 level 6 spells
12- +2 level 6 spells (4 total)
13- +2 level 7 spells
14- +2 level 7 spells (4 total)
15- +2 level 8 spells
16- +2 level 8 spells (4 total)
17- +2 level 9 spells
18- +2 level 9 spells (4 total)
19- +2 additional
20- +2 additional

This gives us Base +38 spells known/learned. This has nothing to do with being able to cast or spell slots per rest. I'm talking about the actual list the wiz has in their book. As represented above, from level 6 on, I as a DM feel their may be too many spells "learned/researched" in this default model.

Less tools (which has nothing to do with less "castings") instead of less uses of tools is what I am pointing out. We always seem to assume the wizard magically has access to any spell they want and use that to point out how superior they are. I do not follow this logic. I have never run across a game where the Wizard has that many spells to work with. Usually the wizard has the smallest selection (ignoring Sorcs as they are relatively new) of spells to work with.

I am simply commenting that theory crafting wizards that have access to the perfect spell selection 100% of the time as proof they are superior is flawed.

[Ace Jackson]

Restricting the clerics' and druids' spell lists is an eminently logical idea in any event. It never made any sense why they should get a laundry list of spells while other magic-users need to learn them first.


Catechisms, lots and lots of catechisms. The clerics and druids have organizations (though we could argue about the nature of it for druids) with people on all levels, wizards may have schools for the basics, but the classic image is the wizard studying alone for the greater secrets arcane. Grant you that if you mean that as prepared casters they're assumed to know everything as opposed to the domain/circle auto-prepare lists, that could well be worth discussion.

'Course the answer to that one should be easy as well, as GM, dictate which spells a given domain, or if you really feel like getting into the details, which spells a faith would have available beyond the auto prepare list. If generous, negotiate the lists with the players case by case. And provide a mechanism for clerics/druids to learn the other spells, other uses of divine power, similar to the wizard.

This is drifting off topic though, the thread at hand is concerned with balancing martials and casters, not casters against each other.

To that end, what if higher level rouges could get a dedicated "fast-talk" ability functionally similar to a charm effect spell, say friends as a base level, but without the drawback of the target knowing they've been charmed at the end of the effect, because there is no effect. Whereas a sorcerer can magic his way into good graces for a few minutes and then be rebuffed by his efforts, a rouge is assumed to be able to charm a mark for hours, steal something in the dead of the night, and then act shocked and grieved with sympathy for the owner to throw off suspicion before leaving with the loot.

Obviously that needs a lot of work, and only addresses one martial class, but much of the objection to casters in this discussion, as far as I've noticed, has been magical auto success with blow back (charmed, knock with a boom, etc,) vs martials facing DM fiat. So it seems intuitive to offer a similar but better utility capability to martials at high levels while casters still have a market of AOE damage.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Had a thought this morning about martials.

I foud inspiration in Sun Tzu.
“To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
“Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.”
“The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.”

This says to me making a martial do more martially things faster/stronger is not the right direction at all. Actual command of followers/soldiers/units is not everyones' cuppa. So the direction should be winning without a fight. 'Tactics' and 'Taunt' come to mind, just not like the bardic taunt.

At middle levels (ability is not meant to be available through multi-classing), the ability to taunt individuals quickly scaling to groups of intelligent enemies who can understand your languages into fleeing or submission might work. This becomes a novalike effect at high levels, imparting the ability to discover a ruse or other stratagem that neutralizes all the minions of a powerful foe in a given location/tactical situation before initiative is rolled in the first round.

"I am Fighter the Great! I have you surrounded! Flee and live! Oppose me and die stupidly, pointlessly and unmourned."
<:roach:Minions scatter. BBEG :xykon:blinks twice in solitude.>

What do you think?

I don't like the limitation on clerics/druids lists. They come from an immortal god who would have had time to find/know them all.

[Ace Jackson]

Had a thought this morning about martials.

If we want to go the way of upping the martial to offset the imbalance, I find inspiration in Sun Tzu.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
“Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.”
“The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.”
“To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”

Sun Tzu says to me making a martial do more martially things faster/stronger is not the right direction. And given few want to command hirelings, actual command of followers/soldiers/units is meh. The direction should be winning without a fight.

At middle levels, the ability to taunt individuals scaling to groups of intelligent enemies who can understand your languages into fleeing or submission might work. This becomes a novalike effect at high levels, imparting the ability to discover a ruse or other stratagem that defeats all the minions of a powerful foes in a tactical situation before initiative is rolled in the first round.

What do you think?

I don't like the limitation on clerics/druids lists. They come from a god.

I like the inspiration source, not sure about the takeaway, it reads like a "turn sapient," or super intimidate check, and while my suggestion is arguably only a super bluff, it allows for more audacious stuff to be done in the game, whereas this would often bypass a fairly large chunk of the game. Not to mention that it could throw off the resource expense to casters.

Perhaps another fighting style like system for fighters? Something to grant bonuses to movement and/or AC based on the environment of the conflict? Something tied to Sun's observations on terrain, and positioning.

[Morty]

Catechisms, lots and lots of catechisms. The clerics and druids have organizations (though we could argue about the nature of it for druids) with people on all levels, wizards may have schools for the basics, but the classic image is the wizard studying alone for the greater secrets arcane. Grant you that if you mean that as prepared casters they're assumed to know everything as opposed to the domain/circle auto-prepare lists, that could well be worth discussion.

Now explain how this works if the cleric is a hermit mystic who followed an inner calling and went off to live in a desert, whereas the wizard is a graduate of a magical academy from a mago-cratic country.


Had a thought this morning about martials.

I foud inspiration in Sun Tzu.
“To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
“Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.”
“The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.”

This says to me making a martial do more martially things faster/stronger is not the right direction at all. Actual command of followers/soldiers/units is not everyones' cuppa. So the direction should be winning without a fight. 'Tactics' and 'Taunt' come to mind, just not like the bardic taunt.

At middle levels (ability is not meant to be available through multi-classing), the ability to taunt individuals quickly scaling to groups of intelligent enemies who can understand your languages into fleeing or submission might work. This becomes a novalike effect at high levels, imparting the ability to discover a ruse or other stratagem that neutralizes all the minions of a powerful foe in a given location/tactical situation before initiative is rolled in the first round.

"I am Fighter the Great! I have you surrounded! Flee and live! Oppose me and die stupidly, pointlessly and unmourned."
<:roach:Minions scatter. BBEG :xykon:blinks twice in solitude.>

What do you think?

I don't like the limitation on clerics/druids lists. They come from an immortal god who would have had time to find/know them all.

It works as a thing for high level warriors to do. One option out of many. It's not appropriate for all "martial" or "physical" types, nor is everyone going to want to use it. Part of the problem is that non-magical classes get their abilities in a highly regimented way through class features.

[Ace Jackson]

Now explain how this works if the cleric is a hermit mystic who followed an inner calling and went off to live in a desert, whereas the wizard is a graduate of a magical academy from a mago-cratic country.



It works as a thing for high level warriors to do. One option out of many. It's not appropriate for all "martial" or "physical" types, nor is everyone going to want to use it. Part of the problem is that non-magical classes get their abilities in a highly regimented way through class features.

To the first half, theming, while organized religion is assumed from the western perspective, eastern perspectives put far more emphasis on the individual as an authority. Beyond that, even in western religions, you occasionally have people who were not especially well liked by the establishments of their days, lived as travelers and vagabonds, but arguably had far greater impact then the establishment. Depending on who you talk to at least.

Likewise on the wizard, theming, I assumed a classic image, you've assumed something else, and even there, if you've graduated from an academy, how much respect do you get from those with actual experience? How much do you really know? In our world, most IT positions require both a degree and experience, it's a tough field.

Maybe I'm falling into a 'the guy at the university' fallacy here, but I still don't see much problem. However, we are once again off topic.

I also notice you've not mentioned one ounce of my fast-talking rouge idea, what exactly do you think of that, and/or the underlying idea behind it?

[Kurt Kurageous]

fast-talking rouge idea, what exactly do you think of that, and/or the underlying idea behind it?

I like it, sort of a Bugs Bunny effect. Charm Person without the hangover because it's a straightforward manipulation. Seems like it should have been part of the Charlatan background. I'm not sure rogue has a monopoly on this. If so it needs to be part of a new archetype of Rogue. Bardish? If not, then it's a feat, perhaps?

[Ralanr]

I like it, sort of a Bugs Bunny effect. Charm Person without the hangover because it's a straightforward manipulation. Seems like it should have been part of the Charlatan background. I'm not sure rogue has a monopoly on this. If so it needs to be part of a new archetype of Rogue. Bardish? If not, then it's a feat, perhaps?

Definitely charlatan worthy. The "tonic seller" is often the first thing that comes to mind when I think of charlatan.

[Ace Jackson]

I like it, sort of a Bugs Bunny effect. Charm Person without the hangover because it's a straightforward manipulation. Seems like it should have been part of the Charlatan background. I'm not sure rogue has a monopoly on this. If so it needs to be part of a new archetype of Rogue. Bardish? If not, then it's a feat, perhaps?


Definitely charlatan worthy. The "tonic seller" is often the first thing that comes to mind when I think of charlatan.

Fair enough I suppose, I thought about it from the end of a rogue because to make it accessible to everyone, casters included, would be a null point as a balancing feature. Still, it would bloat the system a bit but what if we made feats and/or background features that only take effect under certain conditional tags, like fast talker in addition to the standard charlatan background if not a caster? Casters getting something like a temporary effect tonic, which still carries hangover from charm, as there was an effect rather then being purely psychosomatic, but could also be tailored so as to mask a poison sale? There are probably issues there, but in principal what about that idea? That certain abilities only activate if certain tags are true when acquired?

[Shining Wrath]

There is no way to bring characters who can't cast Wish up to the raw power level of characters who can.

But there's lots of ways to help martial classes have fun in a game. The strength of martials versus casters is repeatability; they can use their bodies all day long. So sometimes (not every time, but sometimes) do this sort of stuff.

Every door is locked. Every. damn. one. And there are a lot of doors to go through.
There isn't one ravine to cross, there are dozens, for you are in the badlands.
Before you get to talk to the VIP, you have to cool your heels in the waiting room - and you are being watched. So any charisma-boosting spells you have on you wear off, and can't be readily reapplied unless you're a sorcerer with the right metamagic. Same thing with language spells.


None of these are terribly out of place. You might even use them if no one at the table is playing a caster this time around. But they will deplete spell slots if someone has run a caster, unless they are willing to let the mundane folk shine.

[Ralanr]

In all honesty it's actually pretty detrimental to your overall power if you pick spells that replicate mundane effects. You have a rogue, no need for knock. You get the slot for something else.

Though some spells I've found are better than others for their mundane ability. I think Jump is better than levitate in most situations.

3 times jump distance vs hovering up and down 20 feet and needing to push off something to move forward or backward.

Why yes I take the jump invocation when I play warlock.

[Morty]

To the first half, theming, while organized religion is assumed from the western perspective, eastern perspectives put far more emphasis on the individual as an authority. Beyond that, even in western religions, you occasionally have people who were not especially well liked by the establishments of their days, lived as travelers and vagabonds, but arguably had far greater impact then the establishment. Depending on who you talk to at least.

Likewise on the wizard, theming, I assumed a classic image, you've assumed something else, and even there, if you've graduated from an academy, how much respect do you get from those with actual experience? How much do you really know? In our world, most IT positions require both a degree and experience, it's a tough field.

Maybe I'm falling into a 'the guy at the university' fallacy here, but I still don't see much problem. However, we are once again off topic.

To the contrary, this is very on-topic. This thread is about balance between different character types. Enforcing specialization on magic-users is an oft-proposed way of making them easier to control and less likely to cause problems. Letting clerics and druids have access to their entire list of spells not only runs contrary to this idea, but also makes very little thematic sense. You can come up with post-fact rationalizations as to why it should be so, but they tend to come with a lot of unnecessary assumptions.


I also notice you've not mentioned one ounce of my fast-talking rouge idea, what exactly do you think of that, and/or the underlying idea behind it?

It's not a bad idea, but it shouldn't be something high-level rogues just get. It should be something they can get, picked from a variety of other expressions of masterful skill.

[charcoalninja]

Personally I feel that high level martials should have some pretty serious resilliance and my only real issue with them aside from not having a 4e style complex martial (Battlemaster would work if they didn't run out of dice in a round and a half), is that while they only deal HP damage, they don't have the defensive tools to weather the storm when the stakes are high.

Paladin and Monk do, Pally adds CHA to saves, Monk gets them all and can go invisible and ethereal IIRC.
Rogue is almost there with evasion and uncanny dodge, but Fighter's Indomitable is pathetic, second wind heals are negligable past level like 3 or so.

[Doug Lampert]

I get what you are saying, but I don't think you understand what I am saying.
I explicitly referenced 44 spells known and the fact that that's MORE than enough to get EVERY spell anyone's ever said a wizard needs.

You are not saying anything I had not clearly addressed.

[VoxRationis]

Restricting the clerics' and druids' spell lists is an eminently logical idea in any event. It never made any sense why they should get a laundry list of spells while other magic-users need to learn them first.

Well, quite simply, it's because they're not really learning them at all. The spells are given to them by the powers they answer to.* Frankly, even the normal casting progression of available spell levels is more restrictive than truly makes sense for the concept. Attempts to justify why clerics can't do all their tricks from the beginning, in my experience, tend to ring hollow.
"HELLO, MY CHOSEN ONE. GO FORTH AND DO MY WILL. BRING LIFE TO THIS RAVAGED WORLD IN MY NAME."
"Can I make plants grow with my magic?"
"DON'T BE RIDICULOUS. YOU HAVEN'T KILLED ENOUGH GOBLINS TO GET PLANT GROWTH."

Not having to contend with learning spells individually or carry around spellbooks is one of the perks that comes with being the gofer of a celestial being.


*And if you bring up "clerics of a cause," you're being ridiculous; the entire concept is a blatant excuse to cherry-pick domain combinations for additional optimization, as well as make DMs swallow characters that don't fit their campaign material. Having mere devotion to a cause give full-on cleric powers implies that rogues, wizards, etc. don't devote themselves to a cause as fully, which is not true (especially since most of the clerics I've seen haven't been that zealous to begin with).

[KorvinStarmast]

Its not like OD&D where the wizards ONLY method of getting new spells was treasure.
Not quite right. As far back as Men and Magic, Book1 of OD&D, spell research was a feature of the game.

page 34, Magical Research.


Both Magic-Users and Clerics may attempt to expand on the spells listed (as applicable by class).

@Shining

•Every door is locked. Every. damn. one. And there are a lot of doors to go through.

Sounds like OD&D. Man, did we ever kick down a lot of doors ...

[druid91]

Well, quite simply, it's because they're not really learning them at all. The spells are given to them by the powers they answer to.* Frankly, even the normal casting progression of available spell levels is more restrictive than truly makes sense for the concept. Attempts to justify why clerics can't do all their tricks from the beginning, in my experience, tend to ring hollow.
"HELLO, MY CHOSEN ONE. GO FORTH AND DO MY WILL. BRING LIFE TO THIS RAVAGED WORLD IN MY NAME."
"Can I make plants grow with my magic?"
"DON'T BE RIDICULOUS. YOU HAVEN'T KILLED ENOUGH GOBLINS TO GET PLANT GROWTH."

Not having to contend with learning spells individually or carry around spellbooks is one of the perks that comes with being the gofer of a celestial being.


*And if you bring up "clerics of a cause," you're being ridiculous; the entire concept is a blatant excuse to cherry-pick domain combinations for additional optimization, as well as make DMs swallow characters that don't fit their campaign material. Having mere devotion to a cause give full-on cleric powers implies that rogues, wizards, etc. don't devote themselves to a cause as fully, which is not true (especially since most of the clerics I've seen haven't been that zealous to begin with).


On the one hand, if that one person WERE the deity's chosen one. The first and last true saviour of [Pelor/Thor/St. Cuthbert/Vecna/WHATEVER] They WOULD get all their powers to start with..... By being a higher level. As it is, they're one small guy who's been granted enough divine power to fit their station. As their deeds wax in greatness, so to do the gifts of their patron. I mean if you were handing out powers, would you just grant full on worldshattering miracle working power to just any random schmoe who praised your name? Or would you grant lesser power to lots of people and then slowly upgrade them over time based on merit?

As far as clerics of a cause, I have always held that it's the domains themselves that actually grant power, rather than the gods, who are something of a divine bureaucracy rather than all powerful world creators. And at the very least in my campaign world this is the truth. Gods gain their power by tapping in to domains and aligning themselves with them. Clerics of a cause therefor, are proto-gods. Tapping into the fundamental domains of the universe by faith alone, without a divine intermediary. They don't quite have the power of a god, but they are on the path that leads to such. Of course the more gods of a particular domain, the less power that domain grants to each of them, and so gods are quite.... protective.

[Morty]

Well, quite simply, it's because they're not really learning them at all. The spells are given to them by the powers they answer to.* Frankly, even the normal casting progression of available spell levels is more restrictive than truly makes sense for the concept. Attempts to justify why clerics can't do all their tricks from the beginning, in my experience, tend to ring hollow.
"HELLO, MY CHOSEN ONE. GO FORTH AND DO MY WILL. BRING LIFE TO THIS RAVAGED WORLD IN MY NAME."
"Can I make plants grow with my magic?"
"DON'T BE RIDICULOUS. YOU HAVEN'T KILLED ENOUGH GOBLINS TO GET PLANT GROWTH."

Not having to contend with learning spells individually or carry around spellbooks is one of the perks that comes with being the gofer of a celestial being.


*And if you bring up "clerics of a cause," you're being ridiculous; the entire concept is a blatant excuse to cherry-pick domain combinations for additional optimization, as well as make DMs swallow characters that don't fit their campaign material. Having mere devotion to a cause give full-on cleric powers implies that rogues, wizards, etc. don't devote themselves to a cause as fully, which is not true (especially since most of the clerics I've seen haven't been that zealous to begin with).

And yet, clerics, druids and warlocks do need to gather experience and go up levels just like everyone else. So clearly, there is an element of learning to use the power they get from their deities, eldritch pacts and the like. And since clerics aren't level 20 by default, clearly deities are limited in how much power they can invest in a mortal servant.

I understand you're angry about clerics of a cause, but maybe you should have waited until I actually mentioned them. Which I wasn't going to.

[VoxRationis]

I understand you're angry about clerics of a cause, but maybe you should have waited until I actually mentioned them. Which I wasn't going to.

I apologize for seeming like I was angry, or addressing you in particular, Morty. I was using a broader "you," and not being as unambiguous about it as I often try to be. I find that mentions of clerics being linked to deities are frequently answered by references to cause-based clerics on this forum, and was trying to save time by addressing it up front.

[Sigreid]

So, I've been following this thread and I've noticed a trend. It appears that the issue, for those who believe there is one falls into basically 3 categories.

1. Martial characters can and regularly do fail at tasks, even if they are supposed to be their specialty where as casters have spells that will automatically and instantly do many of these things without the caster even bothering to learn how to do the task.
2. Casters can do some things that martial characters simply can't. An example would be banishing a devil back to the pits of Hell from which it came without bothering to fight.
3. Spellcasters can do some perfectly normal tasks so efficiently/quickly that parties sometimes work their entire day around the spellcaster's spell slots.

The first one is, in my opinion a DM problem. It usually means one of three things.

1. The DM has a particular agenda and has set the difficulty high enough to all but ensure that the party will have no choice but to follow a predetermined path.
2. The DM is purposefully setting difficulties to require a magic solution in order to deplete the spellcaster's resources.
3. The DM's game world assumes a large number of highly competent people. For example, cities contain large numbers of level 10+ thieves so the average lock is DC20 or higher instead of the DC10-15 that would be considered adequate in a world with only a few rare high level thieves.

The second one I don't see as a real problem as long as those things are the caster's moment to shine instead of every fight every day. Basically these abilities should support the party's ability to succeed without being the dominate way the party succeeds. If the answer to the party's success is always "the wizard did it" I think the DM should consider increasing the difficulty and play around with challenges until everyone knows they are vital.

The third one is typically something like cutting down on travel time via the teleport spell...yay, you serve the same purpose as a horse and buggy only faster.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that there is a sever problem, or there isn't, based entirely on the type of campaign you are part of.

Edit: Wrong thread. This was meant for the Caster OP thread. :eek:

[Morty]

I apologize for seeming like I was angry, or addressing you in particular, Morty. I was using a broader "you," and not being as unambiguous about it as I often try to be. I find that mentions of clerics being linked to deities are frequently answered by references to cause-based clerics on this forum, and was trying to save time by addressing it up front.

I think clerics of a cause have their place, although probably not as members of the same class as the regular priests who answer (or think they answer) to deities. But that's basically a separate discussion. One way or the other, while we can explain why clerics get all the spells on their class list, there's really no reason why they should.

[Scarab112]

The discussion earlier about how not all martial characters wanted armies at high levels gave me an idea. Instead of just giving them a single option at high levels, why not frame it like 4e did and have something similar to Epic destinies? Benefits that are extrodinary, but still mundane.

To give an example from 4e, there's an epic destiny that makes the character an expert wanderer and wayfinder. They can travel to any destination safely within 24 hours, and may bring a half-dozen people with them. This means they could travel across the globe or to another plane in a single day, using their wits, knowledge of the land, shortcuts, allies, and resources to get there faster than anyone would think possible.

While a bit extrodinary, such benefits at higher levels could help martials compete with high level spells in a meaningful way.

[Ralanr]

The discussion earlier about how not all martial characters wanted armies at high levels gave me an idea. Instead of just giving them a single option at high levels, why not frame it like 4e did and have something similar to Epic destinies? Benefits that are extrodinary, but still mundane.

To give an example from 4e, there's an epic destiny that makes the character an expert wanderer and wayfinder. They can travel to any destination safely within 24 hours, and may bring a half-dozen people with them. This means they could travel across the globe or to another plane in a single day, using their wits, knowledge of the land, shortcuts, allies, and resources to get there faster than anyone would think possible.

While a bit extrodinary, such benefits at higher levels could help martials compete with high level spells in a meaningful way.

How would they be implemented?

Frame it like the subclass system but input it at a higher level and have it scale with the character?

[Scarab112]

How would they be implemented?

Frame it like the subclass system but input it at a higher level and have it scale with the character?

I was thinking of something like that. Basically, you pick out all the martial classes, and a level to give them the benefits, so say level 15 or so. You could potentially base it off spell slots if you wanted to account for multi-classing, but that's less important.

Depending on how drastic you wanted it to be, it could either be a single huge benefit that you get all at once, or it could be more along the lines of a high-powered subclass with a handful of strong features.

I would say that all of them should mostly be based on non-combat stuff. Having a combat-only one would defeat the purpose and not really solve anything.

[GiantOctopodes]

Clerics and Druids have far more narrow spell lists. It's why they get a bunch of bonus spells to make up for it.


I just wanted to point out that this statement is not accurate. Clerics and Druids get buffs, debuffs, summons, healing, crowd control, utility, direct damage spells, and more. What class of spells are you looking for them to have that they don't? Land Druids and Clerics get 35 spells *prepared* out of outrageously good lists, and have every single spell on their spell lists known, without relying on DM intervention, presence of defeated Wizards, or anything of the sort. Sure, they're not as good of ritual casters, nor do they have quite the same breadth of utility spells, but frankly, from a pure caster perspective, I'm not at all convinced a Cleric or Druid with the Ritual Caster (Wizard) feat isn't a more diverse and better rounded spellcaster than a Wizard with the ritual caster (Cleric or Druid) feat. Wizards lack *entirely* in healing, and have minimal summoning and environmental adaptation spells. Clerics and Druids may have *fewer* utility spells (a problem Ritual Caster swiftly and effectively solves), but they certainly still have them.

Say what you will regarding martial vs caster balance. Just don't tell me the best rounded casters in the game with the most outrageously good spellcasting mechanics have "narrow" spell lists. For the record, the Cleric and Druid have over 100 spells known, an amount equal to the Sorcerer's entire list (and far larger than the list of the Ranger, Paladin, Warlock, and within 10 of the Bard), could he know them all, but instead the Sorcerer is limited to 15 spells known, the Warlock 19, the Ranger 11, and the Bard 22. I think they'll be ok with their meager 35 spells prepared from their 100+ spells known.

Sure, the Wizard clears 100 spells on his list before he's done with 4th level spells, but that's hardly the point. Quality over quantity, and even on the quantity game, Wizards have more spells they *know*, but fewer spells prepared.

[Ralanr]

I was thinking of something like that. Basically, you pick out all the martial classes, and a level to give them the benefits, so say level 15 or so. You could potentially base it off spell slots if you wanted to account for multi-classing, but that's less important.

Depending on how drastic you wanted it to be, it could either be a single huge benefit that you get all at once, or it could be more along the lines of a high-powered subclass with a handful of strong features.

I would say that all of them should mostly be based on non-combat stuff. Having a combat-only one would defeat the purpose and not really solve anything.

Level 15 would be a good spot. Could be like JNA's prestige classes except...do you lose character progression with prestige classes? I've never picked one.

If so, then this would not lose that.

[JNAProductions]

You multiclass into a Prestige class. That being said, give me a few minutes. Epic Wayfarer sounds interesting.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?427295-Epic-Wayfarer&p=19521831#post19521831

Take 1!

[Morty]

It says volumes about D&D as a franchise that giving physical classes an actual choice, rather than saddling them with the same class features every time, is an unusual idea.

That's not to say that the idea is bad, mind you. But it's just one of those things that would be solved if non-spellcasting classes had a broad range of discrete abilities with their own resource systems. On low levels they'd be realistic (or realistic-ish), on high levels they'd be mighty.