Fighter vs. wizard balance and number of fights per long rest

[Allevar]

I am thinking about writing an adventure in 5e but I have never played it; I only played an earlier edition (2e) and read the 5e players' handbook. 5e seems really interesting and well-designed!

My question is, how do you balance a party that will face only 1-2 fights per long rest? Personally, I really like adventures that focus heavily on mysteries, infiltration, solving logistical problems, and trying to influence people, with maybe one big combat at the end. The 1-2 combats that do happen are challenging and important, but there isn't time for a huge number of fights given all the other things that have to happen in this adventure.

So I was trying to figure out how fighters vs. wizards are balanced. I guess it seems logical that if a wizard faces only 1-2 fights per day, then they can use their best combat spells round after round. Their damage per round could be enormous, especially at higher levels.

Furthermore, wizards have many spells which are useful in non-combat situations, such as disguise self, fly, detect thoughts, dimension door, etc. The fighter doesn't have anything like that. Under those circumstances, I almost wonder if a party of four wizards would be better than 2 fighters + 2 wizards?

Given that, how should the DM and players negotiate this? Will it be fun for the fighter or will they feel left out? Going beyond wizards and fighters, should players be recommended to limit their selection to certain classes? Which will be the best / worst classes?

Thanks for any help you can give.

[Malifice]

My question is, how do you balance a party that will face only 1-2 fights per long rest?

Use the gritty rest variant.

It turns long rests into 1 weeks long downtime, and short rests into overnight breaks.

That's perfect for a campaign that features 0-2 encounters per day as average.


So I was trying to figure out how fighters vs. wizards are balanced.

They're balanced around 6-8 encounters between long rests, and around 2-3 short rests over that same time.

You should be aiming for around 2 encounters between short rests, and around 2 short rests between long rests.

[Anymage]

There's a rule variant in the DMG that turns a short rest into sleeping overnight, and a long rest into an hour of uninterrupted downtime. It's a bit of a caster nerf (in that long duration buffs are effectively shortened compared to longer times between encounters and between rests), but nothing too major. That's kind of the default fix if you want both combats and spell effects to be spread out more.

Because it's not just wizard vs. fighter. Some classes are more short rest based while others are more long rest based. Assuming long rests between every fight is a lot harder to rebalance around.

[djreynolds]

I love 5E, but really short rests annoy me because players showing up for 1 two-three hour session don't have time.

It should be assumed after combat that all players are binding nicks and cuts, picking up arrows, and all that.

I have learned that players do not like to leave the table in the middle of a fight, or a conversation, or sitting in a dungeon.

What I do is if you expect to have say 3 battles/obstacles a day that are designed to eat up resources like spells and HP and you are willing to provide the ability to have say 2 short rests and 1 long rest, I take these numbers and times it by the fighter, monk, and warlock abilities and also anyone with short rest abilities.

So 2 short rests would give a 5th level monk, 15 KI points for the entire day. A 5th level battle master would have 12 maneuvers, 3 second winds, and 3 action surges.

After a battle, I allow players to just roll Hit dice as long as it is secure.

This is really helpful IMO if you have 4 long rest powered characters and 1 fighter or monk or warlock

[Malifice]

I love 5E, but really short rests annoy me because players showing up for 1 two-three hour session don't have time.

Huh?

Players: We short rest.
DM: OK, roll your Hit Dice.

It's not like the Players have to sit around for an hour doing nothing to short rest.


I have learned that players do not like to leave the table in the middle of a fight, or a conversation, or sitting in a dungeon.

Dude. Why are players 'leaving the table' when they short rest?

[imanidiot]

As long as you have 6-8 encounters per long rest you wont have much problem with balance issues. As mentioned the gritty rest variant would do just that for your style of game, I highly recommend you use them.

Edit: as for you question of how to balance martials and spellcasters with only 1-2 encounters per long rest. The answer is that you don't. Wizards are going to be way more powerful with only 1-2 encounters unless you nerf them hard.

[Malifice]

Edit: as for you question of how to balance martials and spellcasters with only 1-2 encounters per long rest. The answer is that you don't. Wizards are going to be way more powerful with only 1-2 encounters unless you nerf them hard.

You could triple the short rest resources of a class and make them long rest resources.

Fighters get 3/action surges per long rest and 3/ second winds per long rest at 1st level.

As an alternative, you could remove spellcasting progression and turn all caster classes into Warlock spell progression (1-4 slots per short rest, plus 0-4 long rest slots).

You would probably need some at will invocations to pick up the slack though. Bit more work required.

Finally; you could just make 'rests' trigger or milestones instead of resting.

[djreynolds]

Huh?

Players: We short rest.
DM: OK, roll your Hit Dice.

It's not like the Players have to sit around for an hour doing nothing to short rest.



Dude. Why are players 'leaving the table' when they short rest?

I have to remind players to short rest. They just don't get it.

I think 5E has 2 groups, guys/gals from 4E....... and guys/gals from 3.5 who just didn't get 4E and passed on it.

Players at my table just do not get it. So I sometimes scrap it, I know its crazy.

"Huh?" Is right, I tell players to rest and they just don't. They are stuck in the 3.5E world of this long rest thing.

I even tried making monks, warlocks, and fighters encounter based.... still don't get it. "You have all your KI for every battle"

These are educated professionals, they are just stuck in 3.5E

[Malifice]

[QUOTE=djreynolds;22386355]I have to remind players to short rest. They just don't get it.


From memory you tend to run 1-2 'super duper deadly' encounters per day, so most of your PCs will feature long rest dependent nova classes (Casters, Barbarians, Paladins) who [nova] then [long rest] then [nova] so they probably never need to short rest.

Throw 6-8 encounters at them before letting them long rest. As a median.

Then you'll see very different classes at your table (a mix) and you'll see many more short rests.


"Huh?" Is right, I tell players to rest and they just don't. They are stuck in the 3.5E world of this long rest thing.

You encourage that kind of playstile though.

You push them into long rest based nova classes, who must rely on the 5MWD to survive.

I know youve tripled the short rest resources of your short rest classes (Fighters, Monks, Warlocks) but that is only making the problem (nova strikes and never short resting) more entrenched.

[djreynolds]

[QUOTE]

From memory you tend to run 1-2 'super duper deadly' encounters per day, so most of your PCs will feature long rest dependent nova classes (Casters, Barbarians, Paladins) who [nova] then [long rest] then [nova] so they probably never need to short rest.

Throw 6-8 encounters at them before letting them long rest. As a median.

Then you'll see very different classes at your table (a mix) and you'll see many more short rests.



You encourage that kind of playstile though.

You push them into long rest based nova classes, who must rely on the 5MWD to survive.

I know youve tripled the short rest resources of your short rest classes (Fighters, Monks, Warlocks) but that is only making the problem (nova strikes and never short resting) more entrenched.

I cannot disagree with you, I feel like I'm trapped in time loop myself

The table never got the adventuring day down. It seems to be the mix of old school players and new kids, the new kids played 4E and get it. But the old school want, to begin the adventure on after a rest and end it on one.

"5MWD"... I'm keeping this, its good.

Its really tough to break these old school players down, they didn't like 4E and were stuck on computer games between 3.5 and 5E.

Running Tomb of Horrors, was a horror show for me.

I'm like, "you should rest and recover HP on a short rest"
Them, "I have healing spells... I'll be fine"
Me, "That's why they have short rests, you only have so many spell slots total"
Them, "I'll use a potion"
Me, "You have none."
Them, "We'll find some."

These are teachers and engineers, etc. Educated folk.

I may start drinking during game play.

[Malifice]

The table never got the adventuring day down.

You're the DM. Thats on you. Dont blame them!

You've been setting the players 1-2 'super deadly' encounters between long rests. This forces them into long rest classes, and forces them into nova tactics and the 5MWD.

If they dont nova long rest resouces (rages, spell slots, smites), they die.

If you pushed 6-8 medium-hard encounters per long rest on them (instead of 1-2 super deadly encounters), then you would see a lot more warlocks, fighters and monks and more short rests taken.


Running Tomb of Horrors, was a horror show for me.

You probably didnt put them on a Doom Clock.

'You must locate and slay Acerak within 48 hours, or he finishes his ritual and consumes the world'

Go.


I'm like, "you should rest and recover HP on a short rest"
Them, "I have healing spells... I'll be fine"

If you were pushing 6-8 encounters on them, they would be using hit dice, and saving the spell slots for for other stuff.


Them, "I'll use a potion"
Me, "You have none."
Them, "We'll find some."

You: Not before the 48 hours ends, and the world ends with it, you wont!

[MrStabby]

A lot of the main ones have been mentioned, however there are a few more steps that can help a bit.

More low AC high HP opponent will favour attacks over saves. Also you can adjust the rarity of different magic items in the game. Elemental resistance is more common, extra HP items are more common, magic swords are more common...

Use nets.

[Eric Diaz]

I see two ways to solve this problem.

One:

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2017/06/fixing-rests-5e-quick-fix.html

The problem: the 5e DMG assumes 6-8 encounters per long rest. That might make sense in a dungeon, but in a wilderness setting not even the most "Fantasy Vietnam" games will have 7 encounters per day on average.

And long rests take too long. How can you rest for one hour in a dungeon without being attacked by its denizens? I don't remember how 5e treats this, but Moldvay makes random encounter checks every 20 minutes.

The result: "long rest" classes, such as the (already powerful) Wizard, are always on the top of their game. "Short rest" classes like the Champion Fighter look weak by comparison.

Here is the fix: short rests in a dungeon take 20 minutes. Long rests still take eight hours.

Resting in the wilderness takes three times longer. Which means one hour for a short rest, and 24 hours for a long rest (unless you're in Rivendell, Tanelorn, etc.)

(the reasoning is, basically, from Moldvay: In the wilderness, you're moving three times faster, fighting under the sun or bad weather, and often treading over difficult terrain. Combatants start far form each other, meaning they often have to run while being shot with arrows. If you're concerned with realism, modern boxing and MMA have probably indicated that smaller rings are less tiring.)


two:

If your players are accustomed with 5e, just make short rests 5 minutes, and keep long rests as they are. Make all encounters a bit harder. Use the "healing surges" option in the DMG (page 266) to balance things out.

[Allevar]

You could triple the short rest resources of a class and make them long rest resources.

Fighters get 3/action surges per long rest and 3/ second winds per long rest at 1st level.

As an alternative, you could remove spellcasting progression and turn all caster classes into Warlock spell progression (1-4 slots per short rest, plus 0-4 long rest slots).

You would probably need some at will invocations to pick up the slack though. Bit more work required.

Finally; you could just make 'rests' trigger or milestones instead of resting.

One problem with the "gritty rest" idea is that I'm not sure at this point if I will run any more than a single adventure ... it depends how it goes and if the players like it and if we have time. Given this, players won't know how many spells to use up in that one adventure. Gritty rest only works if players believe (rightly or wrongly) that they will soon face two more adventures of equal difficulty before they long rest again.

So I really like the above suggestions that do not involve the gritty rests. Three actions surges per long rest is good, although I think that will still leave the fighter as weaker than the wizard, depending on the level of the party. Tripling the number of spells per encounter makes the wizard much stronger, because fireball and animate objects are potentially much, much stronger than poison spray or chill touch. In contrast, an action surge is "only" twice as strong as a regular attack. Wizards are much more dependent on fireballs to deal mega-damage, and consequently tripling their fireballs is huge. Still, it would be a major improvement on things as they stand. Maybe the plot could also involve a race of magic-resistant enemies.

Nerfing the wizard's spell list is also an interesting idea, like maybe 2/2/1/1 at 9th level. That gives them precisely one fireball per encounter if there are two encounters, which is just about fair. There is unfortunately no good way (that I can think of) to give them use of their fifth level spell slot.

Finally, I still kind of like my solution of dissuading people from taking fighters. Apart from the combat, the issue with fighters in this setting is that they have few non-combat options, and the adventure is mostly not combat. Also, it's fun to have huge numbers of spells. I want wizards to be freely casting a lot of knock, gaseous form, dimension door, alter self, detect thoughts, etc. not save their few slots for big fireballs. If people want a martial class, let them play a shadow monk (who has shadow step which is useful in non-combat situations) or a cleric of the war domain (who can fight and has locate object, zone of truth, command, speak with dead ...) [Edit: even better would be a "college of valor" bard or a "pact of the blade" warlock, both of whom have interesting spells + high charisma for social situations.]

[MinotaurWarrior]

One solution I haven't seen mentioned is designing non-combat encounters to eat up spell slots.

E.g. You're trying to enter a building. The wizard has to dispell a bunch of glyph wards. The rogue has to unlock the door. The door is super heavy, and requires the fighter to push it open. Everyone was useful and only the wizard used up resources.

[Allevar]

What would happen if you simply ban combat-oriented wizard spells except for cantrips? No shatter, fireball, lightning bolt, hypnotic pattern, banishment, etc. Does this make the wizard too weak? Not really ... it works as long as non-combat challenges are truly important in this campaign. If the fighter is severely limited during the non-combat segment of the adventure, it's fair that the wizards are severely limited during the combat segment.

[Dhuraal]

Now, don't get me wrong I am not saying that this is a good idea, as it is something that only just popped into my head as an idea for a houserule, but, what if you had it so that whenever a spellcaster used up their last slot of one of their 2 highest levels, they gain a level of exhaustion. Will make the spellcaster a bit more conservative with their spells, and simulate the strain that such spells would have to cast. Unless of course they nuke then rest, nuke then rest. Idk, possibly a terrible idea, but there it is nonetheless.

[Sigreid]

You could set up non combat challenges that encourage the casters to spend slots on non combat activities.

Wizard players would probably enjoy using their slots on divanitions, for example.

[Allevar]

You could set up non combat challenges that encourage the casters to spend slots on non combat activities.

Wizard players would probably enjoy using their slots on divanitions, for example.

Yes, that's definitely what I want to happen! And if they spend all their slots on divinations, illusions, etc. outside of combat then there is no problem. I guess my worry is whether they will spend half their slots on the divinations and still have enough firepower to make the fighters look bad. (In which case everyone may as well play a caster.)

[Sigreid]

Yes, that's definitely what I want to happen! And if they spend all their slots on divinations, illusions, etc. outside of combat then there is no problem. I guess my worry is whether they will spend half their slots on the divinations and still have enough firepower to make the fighters look bad. (In which case everyone may as well play a caster.)

Well, here's the thing. Playing a caster is always a gamble. The fact is you never know, or at least shouldn't know, for sure what the day has in store for you. When I play a caster, which is most of the time, I usually end the day with unused slots because, well, you never know.

[BW022]

Thanks for any help you can give.

Sure. Your standard campaigns rarely have a lot of combat, and yet we've never found this an issue.

1. If you are focusing on non-combat encounters, your casters will naturally start selecting non-combat spells and using them.

2. If you aren't having a lot of combat, you may find that players focus on skills, roleplaying, world-building, political/family ties, etc. Magic may be far less important in these.

2. If combat is secondary to roleplaying, plot, etc. then it doesn't matter as much that the certain players dominate combat. You have less combats so it isn't as noticeable that Zortan wins every combat in a few rounds.

3. Often the actually number of combats per rest isn't as important as the perception of when rests are available. You may find that if you simply have say one session in ten have 3-4 combats per short rest is enough to sow doubt such that casters are already saving spells. I.e. do throw in a few dungeon crawls, times when PCs can't rest, etc. every month and casters may always be saving spells. You can often vary the setting or adventure to invite such indecision.

4. 5E spells aren't that overpowered. Direct damaging spells don't really shine most of the time. A fireball isn't that much more effective against 3-4 CR appropriate creatures than a few rounds of attacks. The most effective 5e spells tend to be crowd control types in which cases the non-casters are still typically doing the bulk of the damage and killing.

5. Many non-combat heavy campaigns tend to put natural limits on casters. City, social, political, stealth, outdoor, etc. combats often don't permit lots of casting.

I wouldn't worry about it. Run the campaign and if it becomes a problem... toss in more dungeons, chases, or other casting restrictions to even things out.

[Malifice]

One problem with the "gritty rest" idea is that I'm not sure at this point if I will run any more than a single adventure ... it depends how it goes and if the players like it and if we have time. Given this, players won't know how many spells to use up in that one adventure.

That is the whole point of the gritty rest variant.

Because it takes an entire week of down time to recover long rest resources, players with them will be reluctant to use them, and when they do use them it's a really big deal.

If you are only running a single adventure then you can also place a time limit on that adventures completion. The players need to uncover who is trying to kill the king, before the king is killed in say... 10 days time. Or the players need to uncover who is in the cult, and then stop that cult from completing a ritual that ends all existence (the ritual is scheduled to go off on the next full moon in 10 days time).

If the players take one whole week off to long rest then the doom clock ticks closer to midnight and they hurt themselves in other ways.

If it is only a one of adventure then it is the perfect time to implement some sort of apocalyptic doom clock.

Using a Doom clock sounds perfect for you in that you get to frame how many resources they will have available.