What would you do to rebalance martials vs casters? [Archive]

MrStabby

2020-07-02, 04:39 AM

So a preamble...

The game should be about doing things together. Any part of the game where some players are sidelined is not good. Each character ideally should have meaningful things to do in each pillar of the game. That said, some PCs reflect an investment in a role - and that role should be respected.

Firstly strip out all the spells that obviate skills or ability scores or have a massive functional overlap with them. Some could be added back as a weaker spell at a lower level - for example Bigby's hand makes the wizard better at strength than a character with maxed strength... a hand with only 18 strength but as a 3rd level spell would suit my preferences better as it allows the strong characters to best do the feats of strength stuff. Others could be added in to supliment skills instead - for example knock would now give a +10 bonus to the next thieves tool role a target character would make.

Secondly, share the ability to control pacing amongst the entire party. Strip out spells that allow sidestepping of encounters or safe resting. Some can be replaced with others - invisibility can be replaced with pass without trace (I get they do different things, but there is some alignment) so every party member's skills matter. Likewise spells like spider climb just give a big bonus to athletics checks/strength checks to climb. Spells like leomund's tiny hut get moved to an optional class ability on classes like the ranger - ability to fashion a hidden shelter (no not magical or impervious, but I think secure resting is harmful to the game).

Thirdly, make spell DCs a bit lower but compensate by adding in a lot for feat support for spellcasting. Things like a feat to raise DCs for a specific spell school or that can enhance psychic damage and so on. Give incetives for being a specialist rather than a generalist.

Fourthly, go back to vancian casting on prepared spell classes. Having to effectively sacrifice a spell slot as well as a spell prepared slot to be able to fulfil a function raises the opportunity cost for doing what might be able to be done by another class.

Fifthly, rebalance a lot of the remaining spells. Shield giving +4 rather than +5 AC seems more reasonable for example. Fireball doing 7d6 damage rather than 8d6... but also addressing the underused spells - acid arrow, witch bolt etc..

Sixthly, change the focus of the spell slots to give more lower level and fewer higher level effects; if an encounter can be trivialised by a single spell then it is an encounter that other players don't have a functional role in deciding the outcome of. More, smaller effects can still be powerful whilst still allowing other players to take part.

Seven, where possible softenthe line between success and failure. For example hold person can be paralysed on a fail by 3 or more, stunned on a fail, incapacitated if they pass but by 3 or less, slowed is they pass but by 5 or less and fine if they pass by 6 or more. Numbers are just an example - hoping for fewer effects that trivialise whole encounters and fewer dead turns as targets make saves.

Eight, give back to casters - the above is more of a nerf than is needed on pure power grounds and will massively affect some classes. New spells, more spell recovery options and other benefits are needed to ensure that there is some compensation. Some particularly cool spells and features to reward specialisation would be appropriate.

Nine, lets bring back exotic weapons. Let these be the weapons with special effects, cool rules etc.. Weapon master feat would grant access. This gives martials access to more complex things to do in combat.

Ten, add more good feats that add combat options. Shield master is cool... but it adds one option on what to do. A feat that added multiple uses for attacks/bonus actions wouldbe good.

Eleven. Broaden combat uses for skills in the core rules. Right now we have athletics (and I guess stealth), and more passively perception and acrobatics. I want to see sleight of hand, insight, perfomance, acrobatics, medicine and the knowledge skills all have things they can do that are worth an action/bonus action/their cost).

Twelve. Rules for exceptional rolls on skills. Stealth roles actually turning you invisible for example. Slight of hand allowing genuine teleportation of objects. Athlectics allowing things beyond anything a human could actually do.

DeadMech

2020-07-02, 05:21 AM

There is no one single cause of nonmagical martial's being deficient. It's a number of issues.

Guy at the gym fallacy in a world that is explicitly magical. People assume that a non casting character does not do anything magical or impossible in our world.

Boring nerfed mundane equipment. Hey you're a strength character? You won't be able to carry anything particularly fun after you have your full plate and golf bag of weapons.

Lack of concrete usage dc's for skills. What's the acrobatics DC to act like you came out of a Prince of Persia video game? The more people you ask the less consensus you will have.

Bounded Accuracy means you never progress as a martial character to a point where you overwhelm a sea of basic low level enemies. If a wizard drops a big high level spellslot AoE on a crowd of kobolds or other 1/4 cr enemies they clear the bunch regardless of passed saves. So why don't we allow the fighter to jump in and treat them like fruit in a blender and coming out unscathed.

Lack of versatility. Most martial characters have a single gimmick that they focus on. So anytime a situation comes up that they can't use that gimmick they are left suck out of luck. You want a simple champion-esk fighter. Sure... but the minimum standard should be taking all those weapon and weapon group specific feats and turning them into floating feats that they can change on like.. a short rest so that when they know a situation is coming they they aren't specced towards they can do something to fix it. You know like that warblade ability from 3.5 ToB.

In fact just port 3.5 ToB already. If any existing classes and subclasses are invalidated by the existence of something with that level of versatility and power then it didn't deserve to exist in the first place. Give us something with some mechanical meat to sink out teeth into.

Xervous

2020-07-02, 07:17 AM

The skill system is an empty box filled with imagination and it’s generally the only way for Martials to interact with two of the three pillars. Develop a robust skill system with actual example DCs that guarantee Martials can interact with the world on the baseline. Furthermore give Martials abilities to set them above the baseline as appropriate for the two noncombat pillars. In some cases this may mean committing to more narrow portrayals so things like the fighter stop being NPC classes.

Either the dm should have to consider what obstacles they are putting in the party’s way or what avenues for success they are giving the party. The current arrangement necessitates barriers be erected for the casters and the carpet be rolled out for Martials. Best commit to a more uniform treatment, preferably the one where players get to wizard and warlord their way through challenges rather than ride along the DMs point and click adventure.

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-02, 08:13 AM

Format:
1. What is the main cause of uneven footing in your opinion?
2. What would you implement (aka what house rule) to fix the cause you listed?

Tough question.

What is the main cause of uneven footing in your opinion?

Martial features are rigid, in that you get them for a particular level, and you cannot redirect resources for that feature towards something else. If a Caster prepares a useless spell that day, he can use the energy he'd spend for it towards one that DOES work. This is before considering that Casters can swap out a useless feature (spell) when they level or sleep, while there's no other equivalent in the game (not even with Battlemaster maneuvers).
Disparity in niche between Casters and Martials. Every caster can get a feature to assist with almost any problem, but Barbarians are not going to be your dedicated Face, AoE specialist or Range specialist, and that Barbarian isn't compensated enough for those weaknesses.
High-end spells can redirect a campaign. This can even make world-building very difficult. Even Fireball does enough damage against 5 targets to warrant needing no other damage dealers at that level.
Disparity in playstyles. Every martial revolves around the Attack Action, and the biggest changes you can do between Attacks is slightly modify your range and damage. Even the Battlemaster is basically just a list of level 1 spells that say "Deal 1d8 more damage on your attack and force a save", Divine Smite is probably the best form of "Smite" effect a Paladin could be using, and it's nothing more than ~9 Radiant Damage. Some customization and versatility could go a long way for such a dull design.
Skills. Don't get me started.

What would you implement (aka what house rule) to fix the cause you listed?

One I've considered is causing spells to be delayed if the spell slot for it isn't less than your proficiency, allowing enemies to interrupt a caster if they're allowed to focus on them. This makes casting a spell a group effort. I was able to cast Dimension Door to get us to freedom because you were protecting me.
Reduce the effectiveness of every. single. utility spell. Find Familiar no longer surpasses Rangers at scouting. Pass Without Trace no longer overshadows your Rogue at hiding the party. Make each spell solve a specific problem, and make "generalist" spells less powerful. Effectively, I'd be making Casters harder to play, while also having fewer dead ends and bad spell choices. Everything you'd pick should be useful (looking at you, Illusory Script), but they should only be useful to solve the problem they were designed for.
Nerf spells of levels 3-9, but dramatically improve upcasting. Not only does this remove concerns related to Casters using spells that alter civilizations affordably, but this also allows Casters to multiclass freely. The main reason we don't multiclass as casters is because the spell level is the most important part of the casting, which you only get by leveling into a single class. Pushing the power towards the spell slot will instead allow a level of diversity otherwise unknown.

da newt

2020-07-02, 09:21 AM

heavyfuel

2020-07-02, 09:33 AM

1- Casters pick spells from a different list -aka spell level - every odd level. Each spell level is (roughly) twice as strong as the previous one. 1 fireball
≈ 2 scorching rays ≈ 4 burning hands. And this is just the damage side of things. Caster utility also drastically increase. Martial are usually doing the same thing from lvs 1 through 20 with just a number difference. And that difference isn't as big as it is for casters.

Whereas Caster utility is player-dependant (i.e. if the player picks good spells, they'll have utility), Martial utility is DM-dependant because the skill system is super vague and entirely up to the DM.

2- Introduce some skill DCs guidelines for your players and for god's sake don't use "the guy at the gym" as parameter for what's possible.

Introduce maneuvers like in 3.5's Tome of Battle. Let martials also get exponentially stronger and give them some out of combat utility in a player-dependant way.

Nerf/Ban truly problematic spells/class features. Don't nerf everything, only stuff that's truly obnoxious like Forcecage or the Illusionist's 14th level feature.

OldTrees1

2020-07-02, 09:51 AM

Cause: Higher level martial characters don't get level appropriate abilities and get too few out of combat level appropriate abilities.
Cause: The existing mechanical frameworks don't address everyone's preferences.

Change:
Phase 1: Innovate more mechanical frameworks!
Step 1: Use known viable patterns
Convert ToB and 3E Warlock mechanical skeletons into 5E. This would give us
A) A martial base class designed for versatility with an encounter based powers list. Some of those powers have decent out of combat uses that remain tier appropriate into Tier 3. We have evidence that having a power list can lead to versatility creep.
B) An At-will partial caster with higher feature density and less spellcasting. Since 5E Warlock is similar but fulfills a different role, this would probably involve changing the theme. Maybe use a Dread Necromancer or similarly feature dense restricted casting theme. I will call them an Invoker for now due to the Invocations.

Step 2: Create new viable patterns from existing viable patterns
Create a martial base class designed for versatility with an at-will based powers list by merging the insights of 3E Warlock and ToB. This will end up looking like a partial initiator without a recharge requirement.

Step 3: Pet project
Take the at-will partial initiator and convert it to a build your own maneuver system. Have the class learn tricks that it can combine to a maximum complexity based on level. This would draw insights on the 3E fighter but have more tricks in exchange for only being able to use a subset each action (or attack if we use attacks as fractional actions).

Phase 2: Tier appropriate abilities.
5E has it better than 3E. So most of the flexibility and versatility issues crop up in Tier 3-4 (presuming the campaign goes to Tier 3-4 rather than Tier 2++).
Step 1: Initiators and Invokers already have frameworks for level gating higher Tier features. Initiators even have frameworks for multiclass rules that work well with the level gating. Use that gift to justify having higher tier features appear in those higher tier lists.

Step 2: Should there be higher tier Feats? When I look at versatility feats (in or out of combat feats) I tend to see Tier 1-2 abilities. This is partially because the downside of the feat framework. Basically you can take your best feat first and your worst feat last, unlike the expectations of a leveling system. So slap on some feats that require Tier 3 (feat chains not needed) and fill them with Tier 3-4 abilities.

Step 3: Existing martial classes have levels in Tier 3-4 but many consider multiclassing out because the front loaded Tier 1 abilities are closer to Tier 3 abilities than the abilities the martials get in Tier 3-4 (excluding spell levels). So give them some higher tier abilities. They will already be level gated by class level so you can feel free to hand out Tier 3-4 abilities at Tier 3-4.

Phase 3: Playtest and adjust. After these adjustments, the disparity will be decreased. However get some feedback on how players feel about the 3 caster frameworks (Spontaneous 5E Cleric/Wizard, Encounter Warlock, At Will partial caster Invoker) and the 4 martial frameworks (existing martials, Encounter ToB, At Will partial Initiator, At Will build your own actions Martial). Listen to that feedback and see how to address the concerns people still have with their preferred frameworks. This includes addressing concerns people that like 5E casters have with those frameworks (did I hear a Sorceress calling?).

If started by WotC now, they might release in 7E with a playtest in 6E.

BurgerBeast

2020-07-02, 09:53 AM

Take the spells that step on another class’s toes away from casters, and convert them into appropriate-level class features. For example, invisibility could be a high level rogue ability. Warriors could get in-combat self-heals, etc. Battlemaster has a nice, workable template to add “levels” to, so that as you progress your abilities scale.

Get rid of generic classes such as fighter and wizard, and replace them with flavourful options that provide a framework for which skills, abilities and/or spells they ought to have; OR only have four generic classes and have Exploration Templates that tack-on like subclasses. Fighter+Nature = Warden; Rogue + Nature = Ranger; Cleric + Nature = Druid; Wizard + Nature = Feylock/Witch; or something like that. But the skill-set could be very similar.

(It would be cool if every character had a combat class, exploration class, and interaction class... but that would probably be a different game.)

Willie the Duck

2020-07-02, 09:54 AM

1. What is the main cause of uneven footing in your opinion?
2. What would you implement (aka what house rule) to fix the cause you listed?

There is no one single cause of nonmagical martial's being deficient. It's a number of issues.

DM's got it right there, although my list is going to be somewhat different.
1. Rest frequency is perhaps the most obvious. The balancing amount of activity seems to be in the valley between a bimodal distribution of how people actually play (dungeon crawls would be a lot more than it, but most other types of gaming would be a lot less). This is the part that can most easily be tweaked by the DM, but even then, it's not going to be consistent (a 'day' needs to be shorter when entering a dungeon then when on the road, or the like) which makes it seem extra gamist to plenty of people.

2. There are some spells that are flat out hard to balance -- any spell where you get to take on a new set of stats (polymorph or shapechange, Druid wildshape if we stretch our definitions) or get a whole 'nother character to play with (Simulacrum, the various 'summon' and 'planar' spells, plus undead-wrangling). Plus of course Wish. You could theoretically tone these down so far as to be meaningless (you can turn into a wolf by 18th level, you get one skeleton ally at a time, Wish costs a level or permanent attribute loss to use), but toning them down to be just useful enough to be on par with what martials are doing at a similar level is a frightfully hard undertaking.

3. There are some problems that magic solves easily (that are harder to explain how a non-magical individual could solve). Guy at the gym issue indeed. 'Get up to the flying castle' or the like being a relatively pure example. Mind you, that's magic vs. non-magic, not martial vs. caster, and boots of flying solve this just as well, but the days of fighters getting the best magic items is long gone and lots of people don't see it as a satisfactory solution anyways. Some of these don't have to be as they are (and some frankly aren't. Knock and Invisibility have been taken down a peg as far as 'doing a rogue's job, but better' is concerned), but there are certainly quite a few things in the game that the expected solution is magic, full stop.

As for solutions, some form of policing the workday does a lot for #1. The biggest problem there seems to be a lack of consensus as to how (plus, at least online, some real resistance to doing so, even though everyone seems to be aware of the problem. Do people not own the DMG/see the alternate rest frequency rules?). #2 is harder if you want those spells to be on magic lists (but trivial if you don't). Actual continuous upkeep costs on minionmancy might help, as would constraining the lists of summons/shapechanges (I know later 3e started experimenting with individual spells which allowed you to turn into one specific type of monster/animal... well after the manticores had left the barn). To the third, honestly I think there needs to be some spell types that either everyone gets or nobody does. 4E experimented with the idea that the wizard was mostly a battle wizard (where they solved combat problems with magic, whereas a fighter would solve those with swords and armor), and if someone was the kind of person who could open planar portals or raise the dead, it was a quality separate from their main class. I think that was a worthy idea to explore that sadly got nixed with plenty of the other 'things that were in 4e but probably not the reason 4e underperformed in the marketplace.'

Boring nerfed mundane equipment. Hey you're a strength character? You won't be able to carry anything particularly fun after you have your full plate and golf bag of weapons.

This (and a corollary) is a huge part of it. Every time D&D has tried to do interesting things, the default has been magic (starting with the healer role being a cleric rather than a medic, and soon after the Ranger class getting spells to emulate Aragorn's herbalism abilities because there wasn't a skill system in place at the time). Various editions have played around with interesting equipment -- AD&D 2e having a bunch of supplemental thieving equipment in the 'Complete' splatbook, along with the odd lasso/mancatcher/net weapon doing something other than damage, 3e having tanglefoot bags and the like. 5e it is mostly the net weapon, caltrops, ball bearings, and hunter's traps.

In fact just port 3.5 ToB already. If any existing classes and subclasses are invalidated by the existence of something with that level of versatility and power then it didn't deserve to exist in the first place. Give us something with some mechanical meat to sink out teeth into.

What I remember of ToB is that there were quite a lot of ways to make combat more interesting as a martial character, but outside of that one recovery ability so vaguely worded that it could fix anything, there really wasn't that many out of combat benefits as people had hoped.

OldTrees1

2020-07-02, 10:09 AM

What I remember of ToB is that there were quite a lot of ways to make combat more interesting as a martial character, but outside of that one recovery ability so vaguely worded that it could fix anything, there really wasn't that many out of combat benefits as people had hoped.

There were at least 10 out of combat benefits, but yes that was less than was hoped.
Still being able to use Mountain Hammer to tunnel through solid rock, use Dance of the Spider to climb, Hunter's Sense to track, Step of the Dancing Moth to fly, Cloak of Deception to vanish, and Shadow Jaunt to Misty Step was a decent start for a versatility desiring martial adept.

RSP

2020-07-02, 10:51 AM

One way I like that nerfs Wish and lessens it’s impact with toe stepping:

“When duplicating another spell’s effect, the ongoing effects of that spell end after 24 hours.”

I really like the idea of a 9th level “Omni-spell” option, but hate it being used for permanent Simulacrum, Greater Find Steeds, Awakened sidekicks, etc. This would allow Wish to grant you a Greater Steed, but you’ll need to cast it daily to maintain it.

Likewise with a Sorc making a Simulacrum. Use it for a day as your 9th level slot is a fair trade, but having it from last week’s casting and still having your 9th level slot is more of a breaking the game thing.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2020-07-02, 11:05 AM

DMG p267, Rest Variants, use Gritty Realism which says short rests are now 8 hours and long rests are now 7 days. Say temporary resources such as temp hp or spell slots from flexible casting go away at the end of a short rest. Make a short rest recover expended hit dice equal to one fourth of their max hit dice rounded up, and a long rest recover all spent hit dice, so it's actually playable. So now you're going an entire adventure on a single long rest, and they can get maybe two short rests per day but no more than that.

Maybe also use spell points so there's a lot more versatility in how spell slots are spent.

Dienekes

2020-07-02, 11:09 AM

I'd first start with a firm idea of what type of adventure I want to accomplish at each level of play.

Level 1-4 Gritty sword and sorcery
Level 5-10 Heroic epic
Level 11-16 Mythic super powers
Level 17-20 Godlike

From there I would try to make abilities that fit that level of play.

Level 1-4 probably unchanged.

After 5th level, start putting in abilities that build on what they can already do in more discrete ways, developing off of skills for the most part. Insight checks to discover if a person has a secret and a hit toward finding it. Using a Nature check as a Bonus Action to find out all the various weaknesses of a creature or figuring out what their next move will likely be. Survival checks to look at upturned ground and be able to say exactly what happened their as though seeing directly into the past. Persuasion checks to rile a crowd up or calm them down with actual rules for it. Try to keep things realistic-ish.

Level 11 onward we start going real superhuman. Being able to shrug off debilitating effects. Medicine checks to grant a lot of hit points, or reattaching arms, or bringing people back to life. Barbarians can become Siege Monsters. As a general rule everyone should be able to move faster, be smarter, act more convincing than a normal person could ever really hope of doing.

By 17th level your martials should be able to jump over mountains, hear a leaf fall a mile away, punch through walls of force, grapple a titan, get a villain to change to your side with a few words, etc.

Of course all this stuff will have to be balanced around the limitations of the system. With perhaps some stamina point system or something to make it not feel like playing the same as a caster. Personally, I really wish that WotC would have the guts to break out of the At-Will, Short Rest, Long Rest recharge mechanics to try something new that would fit the class easier. The recharge mechanic of the ToB classes is part of why they were so much fun to play.

Jamesps

2020-07-02, 11:46 AM

The longest standing balance I've used for martials and casters is that magic has social consequences. I've been using that trope for 24 years and it's by far and away the easiest.

In the last long-running DnD campaign I ran every source of magic had it's own social consequence or restriction, while martial characters were free to operate how they chose on the very edges of what was acceptable in polite society. Wizards had colleges they owed fealty to, Druids and Clerics were drafted into the society's agricultural and law enforcement operations, sorcerers suffered prejudice and warlocks were part of a secret society that was being actively hunted.

Meanwhile nonmagical (I used noncaster variants for the martial classes) characters could operate entirely under the oppressive society's ever present eye of authority with, well not quite impunity, but a lot more freedom.

As a result both players and NPCs (except the government) were forced to use magic sparingly even though they never ran out of spell slots.

RSP

2020-07-02, 12:10 PM

Maybe also use spell points so there's a lot more versatility in how spell slots are spent.

Keep in mind this is actually a straight buff to casters (at least prior to getting their second 6th level slot) and particularly diminishes the Sorc as it gives all casters a better version of their 2nd level ability.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2020-07-02, 01:31 PM

Keep in mind this is actually a straight buff to casters (at least prior to getting their second 6th level slot) and particularly diminishes the Sorc as it gives all casters a better version of their 2nd level ability.

Right, but if you're going with my first suggestion, all spellcasters only get their spells once per entire adventure, other than Arcane Recovery or similar. Plus Sorcerers would add their sorcery points to their spell points and not need to spend bonus actions to convert them, and Sorcerers still have metamagic.

Warwick

2020-07-02, 01:55 PM

One realization I've had is that martial classes are fundamentally defined by what they do while full caster classes are defined by the tools they use. A fighter or a paladin or a ranger or even a rogue - they all center on hitting things. They have some supporting features, but really it comes down to hitting things. Full casters - cleric, druid, bard, wizard, sorcerer - all center on their access to an incredibly versatile toolbox. The toolboxes have somewhat different flavors, but they can all pretty much do whatever they want.

To that end, we probably need to force casters to specialize (which has the upside of letting us give them more significant class features) while creating a toolbox for martial characters that goes beyond a vestigial skill system and can be applied across classes (with curation) to both combat and non-combat problems. In other words, some kind of maneuver system, though hopefully with lessons taken from past attempts at doing that.

Additional remarks:

1. Using your abilities is cool and not using your abilities is lame. So any proposal should not revolve around cracking down on ability usage. The problem is not wizards casting too many spells (though we could probably stand to tone down some of the spells themselves) but that their spells are relatively too powerful and/or versatile.

2. Designing the game around long-term resource attrition is generally miserable, since it disincentives people from using their abilities. Balancing said system is tricky, since the amount of attrition pressure you will face in any given interval varies. It is also contrary to how a lot of people play the game, with 0-3 encounters per session. I'm increasingly convinced the game ought to lean towards treating encounters as primarily self-contained as far as resource expenditure goes.

3. You want everyone to operate on more or less the same schedule. You don't want tension between at-will, short rest, and long-rest classes when it comes to making the decision of whether or not to rest. Some decisions are interesting, this one is mostly just a feel-bad moment for whoever loses the argument. A split between quasi-at-will and long rest

Lupine

2020-07-02, 02:29 PM

I think the problem stems from the fact that spells are supposed to be very powerful, but WOtC decided that running out of the character’s defining characteristic sucks, and set the numbers high enough that the player would rarely —if ever— run out.

My proposed fix is to have spells take an HP cost. Something high enough to be threatening, but not high enough to kill players outright. Basically, the goal is to have something where burning your highest level spell slot is both an oppressive cost, and a hit on health. That way, casters will try to use the lowest effort to get the job done, just like most people don’t want to put in more work than is needed to do the job to their satisfaction.
It also means that casters have to watch their hp pool, because it could end up with them being unable to cast a spell without dropping themselves.
It would also incentivize long-rest based classes to short rest more often, because their resources are fine, but they need the hp.
And before people start saying the “it buffs clerics/paladins/bards, by raising the value of healing” line, I will state that it does make healing more valuable, but it also makes those classes have fewer resources: if spend more time healing party members, then they spend less time overshadowing the martial members. And before people say that that makes cleric players feel less combat-viable, I will state that in my experience, players are more than happy to watch another party member clean house, but only so long as they feel that THEY had some part in the other player’s success.

EDIT: I forgot to say what I thought the HP cost should be. I would say either Level*2, or Level*Level, whichever makes people less queasy.

At 2*level, it makes teir one terrifying, as a first level spell saps 2 health.

However, Level*Level makes 9th level spells SUPER scary, as they suck out 81 health (enough to potentially system shock a player.) it does make high-con casters with the tough feat FAR effective, as they can unload more hurt before having to tap out.

Composer99

2020-07-02, 02:42 PM

If we assume that "Casters are stronger/better than Martials" is true, what would you do to put them on a more even footing?

The M vs C topic is certainly a contentious one, but let's leave that aside. The idea is to share ideas that some DMs might use in their home games.

If you're going to critique an idea, don't say that the perceived imbalance is not accurate, just critique on the basis of how OP or UP a change would be, or how the change would not address the stated imbalance.

Format:
1. What is the main cause of uneven footing in your opinion?
2. What would you implement (aka what house rule) to fix the cause you listed?

I don't think I'll be saying anything that anyone hasn't already stated on this thread, but my two cp here:

Causes
At the broadest of strokes, martial characters lack the following, relative to dedicated spellcasters.

First: They lack the ability to strategically shape an encounter, right from the outset. This discrepancy only grows as characters gain levels. For instance, the D&D game I'm playing is a souped-up/modified Lost Mines of Phandelver. The opening battle was an ambush by 6-7 goblins and two... wolves, I think? (We didn't interact with them enough.) We got ambushed (all of us were surprised), and our warlock went down right away. In the second and third rounds... the fighter killed a goblin with a weapon attack, I think our cleric cast shield of faith to protect himself, and I ended the encounter with two castings of sleep. (It helped that I rolled high for initiative.) The thing is, the fighter never had the ability to swing the encounter in a similar way, or even half as much (by, say, downing two goblins with a single stroke). And if I'd gone down early, it would have been a TPK.

Second: In combat, they lack the versatility of interacting with different enemy defences and imposing conditions on enemies. Beefy barbarians can grapple. Monks can stunlock. A few scattered abilities here and there allow martials to frighten enemies. But there just isn't the same ability to decide whether to interact with AC or with saving throws, or deal damage or impose conditions or control the battlefield.

Third: Unless players build them appropriately, martials generally lack a lot of interesting choices in combat. You can handwave that as being abstracted by the nature of making attacks in combat. But it can be unsatisfying to play. You can grapple or shove, true, but those abilities are rarely better than just attacking, especially at low levels before you get Extra Attack.

Fourth: Martials, generally speaking, lack the ability in many cases to get around the vague rules for noncombat pillars, while spellcasters can use spells. Since everyone can use skills, everyone is affected by the relative dearth of rules for dealing with exploration and interaction. But casters have ways around that, from low levels. Charm person or suggestion can make certain social interactions much easier (even if there is a long-term cost, such as in the case of charm person). It's true that these spells have time or use limits (for instance, fly isn't as good, in my view, as it's made out to be), but I think it's often the case that the extent to which martials' "I can do this all day" quality is effective is overrated. For instance, yes, a rogue with expertise in Stealth just is better, day in and day out, than anyone casting pass without trace, but casting pass without trace helps everyone in the party, often for just long enough to get the job done, while the rogue's mad sneaking skillz help... just the rogue, most of the time.

Fifth: Such abilities as martials possess to affect noncombat pillars can often be made redundant by spellcasters. This probably really becomes noticeable in tier 2 play, and becomes more prominent from tier 3 on. For instance, a single casting of Leomund's tiny hut is sufficient to prevent the dangers of ambushes overnight for the party, although mounts or vehicles that might not fit in the space might still be in danger of being stolen or eaten. Teleportation and food gathering in environs unsuitable for foraging are other examples. Martials can get the Ritual Casting or Magic Initiate feats to get in on some of that action, but they'll never get full access to such capabilities. It's not as bad as the bad old 3.X days where a single class feature (druid animal companion or PF summoner eidolon) or even a single spell (summon monster) was just better than a martial character, but there's definitely room for improvement.

Solutions
Some broad ways to solve the above problems.

First: Give martials some more in-combat options. To toot my own horn a bit, something not unlike the combat manoeuvre system in my signature. These options should give martials the ability to:
- Strategically shape an encounter;
- Interact with saving throws and impose conditions;
- Have interesting choices to make.

(I do think the system I made up does need work to better fulfill these goals. For instance, maybe adding a TOB-like refresh mechanic.)

Ideally, each "full" martial class would have a distinct way of interacting with this system, and hybrid characters (paladins and rangers) would have partial access, and dedicated casters could get a subclass that interacts with it for Gish flavour.

Second: Have better-defined mechanical elements for downtime, NPC interaction, exploration, and skill use.
For instance, NPCs you have relationships with might be categorised as allies (people who will do stuff for you like give you money or shelter), retainers (people who will accompany on your journey in some capacity or another), rivals (people who try to hinder you), and contacts (people from whom you can get information). Exploration activities such as tracking, covering your tracks, and the like, could be better structured.

Third: Give martials better utility functionality. In some cases this might mean a bit of a nerf. For instance, ranger's Natural Explorer should be less powerful, but more broadly applicable. This includes giving more powerful utility effects at high levels. If you want some modular design and not have to make up individual abilities for each class, you could tie many of these abilities to skills, and then give martials more ability to access those abilities. Spellcasters could conceivably get these abilities, but not as easily. It's easier to come up with options to add in this step if you made the effort to better support the noncombat pillars mechanically.

Fourth: Rebalance some spells or spell support. This might mean removing spells (jump), making some better (witch bolt), and making some worse (simulacrum). Other options might include making some spells only castable as rituals with long casting times, removing the "must be a spellcaster" gatekeeping. One thing I'd consider doing is taking wish off of class spell lists, and making it something available through items or genies.

Fifth: Rebalance the existing martial classes, and add new "basic" ones. I think, for instance, that archetypes should come on at first level. Also, 1st and 2nd level feel like "tutorial levels" for many classes (full martials and the sorcerer, especially). However, I think there should be some "basic" class options that allow players who don't care to deal with the above-described moving parts to play the game.

On a Related Note
Solving some related problems.

First: Add "basic" casters to the game. I think it's worth giving that option for people who want a simpler play experience, similar to playing a Champion fighter or a barbarian, while playing a spellcaster. This would be easier with spells that are a little better balanced so players can take spells they like while not worrying too much about their quality.

Second: Rebalance feats and make them more broadly available, and include options for "multiclass" feats. If a lot of the big combat feats (GWM, PAM, etc) become martial manoeuvres or exploits, that opens up more design space for feats. Also, add more feats that emulate multiclassing (the way Magic Initiate or Martial Adept do).

RSP

2020-07-02, 02:45 PM

Right, but if you're going with my first suggestion, all spellcasters only get their spells once per entire adventure, other than Arcane Recovery or similar. Plus Sorcerers would add their sorcery points to their spell points and not need to spend bonus actions to convert them, and Sorcerers still have metamagic.

I’m not sure why using rest variants would mean Wizards need a boost over Sorcerers. In fact, Sorcerers would probably be hurt more by extending LRs as both their main features, Meta Magic and Spell slots, run off the same LR resource, while Wizards, who would be equally affected in terms of spell slots, would still have unlimited Ritual casting and their normal Arcane Recovery, in addition to a better form of the Sorcerer’s Flexible Casting feature.

RAW, the Spell Point variant still requires spell points to convert to Sorcery Points via making slots using BA, though it sounds like you’re houseruling it differently.

Pex

2020-07-02, 02:57 PM

Give example DCs for skill use to show what actually can be done without magic. Because of Bounded Accuracy gate fantastical skill uses by level prerequisites and only let warriors do it. For example, jumping to on top of a 30 ft wall might not sit well for level 3 even though spell casters can cast Spider Climb or Levitate. At level 10 it's more palatable with an Athletics check of DC X, but only warriors can do it. Spellcasters already have their spells to get on top of the wall. That same 30 ft jump can also be used to jump high enough to attack a flying creature who is 30 ft in the air. Further, let players take the initiative of choosing to Take 10/20 for autosuccess so they become good at what they want instead of what the DM will allow. It's their character, not the DM's or game's.

Spellcasters are themed. They can't cast every spell in existence. They get spells that fit their theme but also of enough variety so they aren't shut out when their theme won't work. For example a Fire Mage should have useful effective spells that don't deal fire damage to use against creatures resistant or immune to fire. Spellcasters are allowed to do wonderful powerful things warriors can't. They just can't do everything. Warriors get their own wonderful powerful things.

I would never punish a character for doing something. No character of any class will ever lose hit points, lose turns, go insane, become exhausted, be more vulnerable to opponents' attacks, etc. for doing something that he's supposed to be doing. If something is so powerful you feel the need to apply such a penalizing punishment don't have that powerful ability at all and do something else. If you feel that need for every powerful thing you can think of learn that PCs are supposed to be powerful and get rid of those punishments.

Misterwhisper

2020-07-02, 03:17 PM

MaxWilson

2020-07-02, 04:11 PM

A conversation I had with a designer:

Me: you know the way this is designed casters are going to rule everything

D: that is why they are balanced for 6-8 encounters per day.

Me: but your official modules and organized play are not even close to built that way.

D: just add in more encounters to drain resources.

Me: why should I have to specifically add encounters to make sure some classes don’t steam roll things.

D: well if you don’t want casters to steam roll don’t complain about having to add more fights.

Me: that means you have a design problem, either with classes or with modules.

D: every class but 1 has caster options, play those of you think they are so strong.

Me: some people like playing mundane class builds.

D: I can’t help it is if boring people want to play boring classes.

This why I lost all respect for anyone at 5e except JC.

JC's response seems inline with this view:

Q: How do you skip fights with little story relevance but keep the 4 to 6 encounters per day? It's my biggest problem to balance the short rests classes.

[Crawford] A: D&D doesn’t require a certain number of encounters per day.

The “Dungeon Master’s Guide” gives the number of encounters a typical group can face before tuckering out.

There’s no minimum.

Source https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1012366625985609728?lang=en

Kane0

2020-07-02, 05:06 PM

Combat changes:
- Reintroduce a few more soft-nerfs to casting such as interrupting opportunity attacks, casting in armor, bringing back fort/ref/will saves, etc
- Offer more varieties of magic other than spellcasting via spell slots
- Rebalance short/long rest resources around a shorter adventuring day with sturdier optional rules for lengthier ones
- Reintroduce a martial system to break up the monotony of attack routines and differentiate between martial classes

Noncombat changes:
- Cut down spell lists to be more focused based on class/subclass
- Allow anyone to potentially gain access to Rituals
- Expand greatly on the other two pillars of the game that aren't combat
- Similarly build up a more robust skill system

And overall continue the trend of making the martial-caster divide more of a spectrum than a dichotomy

Ogre Mage

2020-07-02, 07:28 PM

I wouldn’t do anything for tier 1 and 2.

Yeah, I agree. Tier 3 is when the gap between martials and casters becomes noticeable. I have sometimes thought that is one minor contributing factor to why many campaigns end in Tier 3.

Hael

2020-07-02, 07:42 PM

It’s amusing how many of these replies are basically a reversal of design back towards 1e and 2e tropes.

I personally don’t like the concentration mechanic, and much prefer the no armor+oa against in range spells+casting times of previous editions, but the likelihood we see that return is nil.

The big problem imo is that nerfed magic items and attunement hurts martials more than casters in the endgame. Couple that with the removal of fortresses and followers, and it’s clear that ultimately a martials dimension of play stays fixed past say 11th lvl, and barely improves whereas casters start getting abilities
to do things along many different axis’ (combat, utility, exploration, movement, social etc) almost without bound or restriction.

Ignimortis

2020-07-02, 08:45 PM

A conversation I had with a designer:

Me: you know the way this is designed casters are going to rule everything

D: that is why they are balanced for 6-8 encounters per day.

Me: but your official modules and organized play are not even close to built that way.

D: just add in more encounters to drain resources.

Me: why should I have to specifically add encounters to make sure some classes don’t steam roll things.

D: well if you don’t want casters to steam roll don’t complain about having to add more fights.

Me: that means you have a design problem, either with classes or with modules.

D: every class but 1 has caster options, play those of you think they are so strong.

Me: some people like playing mundane class builds.

D: I can’t help it is if boring people want to play boring classes.

This why I lost all respect for anyone at 5e except JC.

This is a very interesting anecdote, and one I can actually believe, too. Rob Heinsoo spoke about this kind of caster bias being present in many designers, and my experience with RPGs also shows it to be true very often.

JC's response seems inline with this view:
Source https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1012366625985609728?lang=en

So JC doesn't know how the system he among others designed, works. Oof.

djreynolds

2020-07-02, 09:11 PM

I have always thought cantrips were just a bit too powerful. I might even say they stop increasing with cantrip power at 5th level when PCs martials gain the extra attack. Firebolt is stuck at 2d10.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2020-07-02, 10:23 PM

I have always thought cantrips were just a bit too powerful. I might even say they stop increasing with cantrip power at 5th level when PCs martials gain the extra attack. Firebolt is stuck at 2d10.

Cantrips aren't the problem, it's literally all the other spells that causes issues. A Hexblade 2/ Paladin 18 with Agonizing Blast is going to do more damage in melee than he will with EB. He'll be outshined by any full caster, not necessarily in damage, but in everything else he tries to do.

Misterwhisper

2020-07-02, 10:41 PM

Cantrips aren't the problem, it's literally all the other spells that causes issues. A Hexblade 2/ Paladin 18 with Agonizing Blast is going to do more damage in melee than he will with EB. He'll be outshined by any full caster, not necessarily in damage, but in everything else he tries to do.

Similar: play a swashbuckler rogue in any party with a good bard.

gnomewerks

2020-07-02, 10:49 PM

I may have messed up the format and flow of this thread but I'll offer my 2cents anyway.

Let's assume the game/book gives everything to casters. During gameplay, stop giving everything to casters.

I have no issues with casters in my games. Here's why:

- I create magic items with the keywords - usable by (that one martial class PC) only
- I alter existing (DMG) magic items to have some of those keywords.
These two things often give the martial classes some of the cool stuff that casters wish they had. Yes, I do have items for casters only.

- Some fights have big ol' anti-magic things. An item that beast has. An aura effect. A small space where it just doesn't work.
- Some monsters (like devils/demons) have the magic resistance trait. It's a problem for casters at times.
- Some fights have persistent damage. It mucks with concentration checks.
These three things give casters more to juggle than just figuring out how to outshine the martial classes.

- I have regional/cultural consequences to casting, as someone mentioned.
- I have regional/cultural benefits to those that live the martial way. Think of how Samurai were revered. Do the same for all-in, never multi-class Battlemasters.
These two things make the playing of martial classes appealing. Therein is the main deal -

Make martial classes appealing in your game. Even if the book tries to dump all over them in design, your story/world/encounters don't have to cater to casters. There are consequences for everything in a D&D game. Create consequences for picking a caster when the choice is mostly because "they are the most powerful". A game needs more depth than that.

Tanarii

2020-07-02, 10:58 PM

Spiritchaser

2020-07-03, 06:18 AM

1) Problem: casting in combat is too easy.
- casting & ranged attacks provoke an OA and requires a concentration check

This is one I’ve been thinking about for a while, and I plan to try something like it when I get the right group... but apart from some very minor efforts, I haven’t really tested it.

I have some concerns:

Having a straight opportunity attack and damage-dependent concentration check would seem to be a reasonable deterrent, but as this should presumably work for PCs as well as against them, it strongly favours those characters who can generate at will spike damage.

Those who can make a relatively standard weapon attack are not especially likely to succeed. I wouldn’t have a problem with this, except that the melee characters this empowers tend to be some of the stronger melee choices.

Now I’ll grant that the relative strength of rogues in my campaigns is probably somewhat specific to how I deal with stealth and some skill checks, but the relative strength of paladins is likely quite universal.

I’m not saying that they measure up to full casters, but if you were adding a mechanism to restrict spell casting in combat, it’s probably better if that mechanism doesn’t add more (relatively) to paladins.

I would also note that this would seem to make more of a negative impact on cleric PCs than on wizards (other deltas as well, depending on where your role puts you)

While I think clerics are fine, I would argue that they are likely not the best targets of a relative nerf.

Again, I haven’t tried this much, so there’s probably a lot I’m missing.

Have you tested anything like this?

noob

2020-07-03, 07:20 AM

Short adventuring days with too few encounters and too easy recharging of powers with little to no consequences.

Longer adventuring days with more encounters and recharging of powers is not too easy/reliable and/or the time taken to rest comes with consequences.

That is over-convoluted (needs constant gm foresight/planning because it can break down in case of surprising behaviour from the adventurers ex: they do not want to storm the goblin fortress you planned for them to attack and decides to go on the side of the goblins in order to have that "magical victory from the timer meant to make the goblins win after some time to prevent the adventurers from taking too many long rests") when you can just turn the short rest classes in long rest classes with all the resources they would have obtained in 3 short rests(ex: the champion fighter have their short rest hit dice added to their hp).
Also it is not a problem of martial vs casters it is a problem of short rest vs long rest.

ezekielraiden

2020-07-03, 07:35 AM

1) Problem: casting in combat is too easy. Possible solutions:
- on your initiative count, spell takes effect 2*slot level counts later. Concentration applies during that time.
- Make level 6+ spells take a full round to cast.
- casting & ranged attacks provoke an OA and requires a concentration check if hit.
- reintroduce firing into melee hits a random target
The last two also address "ranged attacks are too easy".
In order:
a. That...could work, but good god that would be a nightmare to keep track of.
b. Doesn't have much impact since the vast majority of spells cast (because of slots) are level 5 or below.
c. Possibly helpful, but just further encourages hit-and-run/never-be-in-range tactics. Not much of a solution.
d. Bad idea, because it's not the caster who gets punished for it, it's whoever they're casting at...which has a high likelihood of being martial-focused characters.

Overall, not really seeing a proper solution here. If you could find some way to make the first one simple to track, it could actually be reasonable, and would open design space for trying to interrupt spellcasting on both team PC and team Monster, as well as design space for preventing that. I'm just real worried the tracking nightmare is insoluble. Edit: Actually, no, there's a serious flaw. It means that spells take longer specifically in solo fights, because there's only one monster initiative count. Forcing the party wizard to wait more than a full round to see their spell go off just because there's only one monster present is not good. Worse, the tracking nightmare becomes harder as enemies die, because spells will take longer to manifest--killing an opponent may delay your buddy's spells, meaning casters might literally have good reason to get mad at martials for actively preventing them from being able to contribute.

2) Problem: high level spells give casters too much utility and wreck the "plot" (or travel, or survival mode, whatever). Possible solutions:
- add expensive and consumed material components for any "plot" wrecking spells. Teleport is one I hear a lot of complaints about recently.
- increase the casting time of "plot" wrecking spells by some large factor (minutes -> Hours, hours -> days)
- curate spell lists and remove "plot" wrecking spells
i. Unacceptably punitive in most games, and IME, very difficult to balance well. It's extremely easy to either charge too little, and thus make no difference, or overcharge, and thus effectively soft-ban spellcasters. Neither actually solves the problem, and what the right price point is may well vary based on something like how the player is feeling that day.
ii. Again, unacceptably punitive. I'm absolutely a pro-martial here, and I still think making fun utility spells take days to cast is just not a good idea, acting as a soft ban rather than a solution. Worse, it risks punishing everyone else with waiting and doing NOTHING while their caster buddy solves the problem with the slow-but-risk-free solution.
iii. I'm totally on board for this one, but I fear most pro-caster types aren't. They get really really REALLY pissy when you take away their toys. If you can curate the spells without making the pro-caster types throw a hissy fit, this is actually a solution.

As before, not many practical solutions here. The third works if you can get your players to accept it. Both of the others just strike me as crappy "earn your fun" mechanics.

3) problem: casters nova too often or have too many slots for utility
Solution: fix your encounters per adventuring day. There are numerous ways to do that depending on the specifics of your campaign.
That's not a "solution." That's literally "stop having the problem you're having, and be like people who don't have that problem.

Morty

2020-07-03, 07:46 AM

Me: some people like playing mundane class builds.

D: I can’t help it is if boring people want to play boring classes.

I know this is an anecdote of uncertain veracity, but if this doesn't sum up D&D's attitude towards non-casters, I don't know what does.

stoutstien

2020-07-03, 08:41 AM

I would add or replace bad features around tier 3 that gives each Martial class a tool that is both applicable to all three pillars of play and cannot be emulated by spells or magic. Just spitballing

Barbarian- move indomitable might down to lv 9 and collapse brutal critical into the rage feature. Add a new feature at 13 that allows them to spend a hit die and add it on a missed attack roll or failed Str or Con save/check. Move unlimited rage is down to level 17.

Fighter- indomitable now just turns a failed ST into a pass.

Rogue- move reliable talent up to 20. Add a new feature at 11 that gives them a +1 boost to their proficiency bonus. *Probably the most controversial idea but I think it could work well for the class that is meant to be the master of all things skill related.*

Tanarii

2020-07-03, 08:53 AM

Those who can make a relatively standard weapon attack are not especially likely to succeed. I wouldn’t have a problem with this, except that the melee characters this empowers tend to be some of the stronger melee choices.Have the spell fail, no concentration check to prevent it.

Have you tested anything like this?In 5e? No. But I played BECMI, AD&D 1e, and 3e a ton. It works great if you believe casters should be less dominant in combat. (Okay not so much in 3e. Casters dominated combat anyway, for a variety of reasons.)

Also please note I don't believe casters dominate in combat in 5e, at least in T1 or T2. I'm providing potential solutions to perceived problems.

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-03, 09:08 AM

Have the spell fail, no concentration check to prevent it.

Not sure I like that solution. Improving on Concentration Checks is an investment, sometimes a class feature (Bladesinger), and those features are often targeted towards casters in melee range (War Caster, Bladesinger). Not only that, but straight-up denial is the worst form of mechanic you can implement into a game. Punish actions by making them expensive, risky even, but denial is something that should be introduced as a last resort.

Denial is very powerful, yes, but it cuts down on player interaction and impact. You can add more decision-making to a game by causing punishments to make things taxing, but removing options only ever removes player options for...basically targeted power creep. You're improving martials by giving them an "I Win" button without reasonable means for interaction or interrupting.

Given, DnD doesn't do "Interruption" well, but it does use it in the form of defenses and investments (such as Concentration).

Put another way, whether the Concentration Check is allowed to be made or not is the difference between the Caster having their character-building decisions to have weight. And while he does get an initial voice, as he's the one casting the spell, there are a lot of spells that are limited to melee range (Earth Tremor, for example) and he's already being struck with an OA. It'd be best to err towards a weak balance change that includes the Caster's investments than a strong one that removes counterplay.

LibraryOgre

2020-07-03, 09:12 AM

In some ways, part of what drives the caster v. martial problem is an abundance of resources on the part of casters. While AD&D frequently had a problem of your wizards not being magically useful, 3.x and 5e* swing the other way... there's too damn much that a wizard or cleric can do, all day long. This is exacerbated by the rest mechanics, which stripped some of the cost from casters of blowing all their powers (it used to take DAYS for a high-level caster to get all their spell slots filled; now it's an hour), and the lessening of material components, and so on.

In some ways, what I think could be done is to move most casters into the Warlock casting style, specifically the Tomelock... mostly cantrips, a couple special abilities (i.e. invocations), very few spell slots, and a ritual book that lets them do fun things at a cost of time and/or silver. A wizard might be able to throw *A* fireball, and could detect magic, and use magic items, but would wind up falling back on rituals, a lot, because rituals would be for doing big things.

Another option, which 5e did to an extent, was allow more non-magical healing. The main resource martials trade in is Hit Points. A Battlemaster out of Superiority Dice and an Eldritch Knight out of spell slots can still hit people with a sword well, and they can keep doing it until they run out of hit points. What determines when the adventuring day ends? Unless you're stuck in hostile territory or on a time crunch, your adventuring day ends when you run out of resources... be they spell slots or hit points. To an extent, you can trade spell slots for hit points (Cure spells), but that just pushes the problem further along... do it enough, and a couple of your casters become jackleg martials.

*A petty reason I dislike 4e: It is so wildly different from the other games that I can't include it in criticisms of 3.x and 5e, or combine them meaningfully as "WD&D" in most discussions. There are mechanical and style complaints, too, but I certainly can't lay this particular problem on 4e.

Tanarii

2020-07-03, 09:29 AM

In some ways, part of what drives the caster v. martial problem is an abundance of resources on the part of casters. While AD&D frequently had a problem of your wizards not being magically useful, 3.x and 5e* swing the other way... there's too damn much that a wizard or cleric can do, all day long. This is exacerbated by the rest mechanics, which stripped some of the cost from casters of blowing all their powers (it used to take DAYS for a high-level caster to get all their spell slots filled; now it's an hour), and the lessening of material components, and so on.

5e casters have far less resources than a high level AD&D 1e or BECMI character, or even a 3e one. 9 spells of each spell level was the standard. Now it's 3 to level 5, and 1 per level above 6. It's definitely an abundance at low levels in comparison though.

What they really gained at higher levels, which is where the complaints mostly seem to lie, is:
- fast & no-melee-loss casting
- enemies that don't have ludicrous saves

-----------------------------

On that note:
4) problem: spells affect high level enemies too easily, and fighters saves suck compared to old school

Potential solutions:
- give high CR monsters proficiency in any save they don't have, and expertise in any they do
- change Fighter's indomitable to be proficiency in all saves, expertise in Str/Con. Indomitable II gives expertise in all saves.
- throw barbarians and Rangers some kind of save bonus too. Paladins already have one.
- Rogues and monks are out of luck, saves are not supposed to be their strong point using old school logic

GreatWyrmGold

2020-07-03, 09:30 AM

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-03, 09:37 AM

The way I see it, martials are consistently weaker than casters across all editions for one simple reason: They are bound by the laws of physics, or at best action-movie physics, while spellcasters can give physics the middle finger and do whatever awesome fantasy stuff they want.

Either the game needs to dial back on the high fantasy elements, or mundane characters need to be able to do more awesome fantasy stuff. Especially at high levels.

It would be nice if it were the other way around. That is, Fighters and the like can use physics to directly influence magic, rather than vice-versa.

For example, make Wall of Force great at creating protection against magic, but warps easily when struck by a weapon. Shield Bash a Fireball back at its owner before it can explode. Use a shield overhead to block out Moonbeam.

MrStabby

2020-07-03, 09:39 AM

I am not sure disruption is a great balancing tool.

I find that the issue with casters is that it can lead to some players being unable to meaningfully make a difference to the outcome of a challenge. Changing around who doesn't get to contribute doesn't diminish the frequency with which this hapens. Having casters not get to do anything isn't great.

A more modest version might be ok - if disrupted it provides advantage on the saves or disadvantage on the attack roll and only stopps the spell completely if it takes neither of these things.

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-03, 09:51 AM

One thing I've always wanted to try was my Channeling solution, which is where any spell you cast that has a spell slot level that isn't less than your Proficiency must first be Readied (with Concentration) until the start of your next turn.

There are some other rules that allow the caster to change the spell or cast Reaction spells without losing the spell slot, but that's the gist. So a caster has to make a choice as to whether he's going to cast a small-mid range spell instantly, or if he's going to Channel one of his biggest spells.

This not only telegraphs the big spells, but also allows room for characters to interact with that spell's casting ("He's Channeling, everyone take cover!"), as well as injects more life into low-level spell as being uninterruptible. Martials will have more worth as defenders to help their Casters pull off their biggest spells, making a Caster's success a team success. This also has the distinct benefit of only penalizing the Caster's highest tier of spells, relative to the party's power level - that is, Half-Casters are untouched by this change and Casters will eventually be able to cast things like Fireball without delay (when Fireball isn't quite as big of a deal).

Lots of good things, or so I assume. Haven't tested it yet, though.

MrStabby

2020-07-03, 10:03 AM

One thing I've always wanted to try was my Channeling solution, which is where any spell you cast that has a spell slot level that isn't less than your Proficiency must first be Readied until the start of your next turn.

There are some other rules that allow the caster to change the spell or cast Reaction spells without losing the spell slot, but that's the gist. So a caster has to make a choice as to whether he's going to cast a small-mid range spell instantly, or if he's going to Channel one of his biggest spells.

This not only telegraphs the big spells, but also allows room for characters to interact with that spell's casting ("He's Channeling, everyone take cover!"), as well as injects more life into low-level spell as being uninterruptible. Martials will have more worth as defenders to help their Casters pull off their biggest spells, making a Caster's success a team success. This also has the distinct benefit of only penalizing the Caster's highest tier of spells, relative to the party's power level - that is, Half-Casters are untouched by this change and Casters will eventually be able to cast things like Fireball without delay (when Fireball isn't quite as big of a deal).

Lots of good things, or so I assume. Haven't tested it yet, though.

I think I prefer this solution - to be honest, I wouldn't mind seing a lot of nerfs like this but some compenation such as using the DMG spell points system. I want to see more spells of the level that contribute to encounters and fewer spells of the level that either dominate encounters or are underwhelming. A rule like this is a lot less of a penalty if casters can decide to rarely cast their top level spells.

GreatWyrmGold

2020-07-03, 10:03 AM

One thing I've always wanted to try was my Channeling solution, which is where any spell you cast that has a spell slot level that isn't less than your Proficiency must first be Readied until the start of your next turn. [snip]
Two problems.

First, "spell level !< proficiency bonus" seems like an odd trigger condition. The first two levels never have to chanel, levels 3-6 (assuming full caster) only have to channel for their highest-level spells, and the number of spell levels you need to channel for just gets higher. I'm sure there's a way to make this make sense, but it feels so arbitrary.

Second...there are two types of spells.
There are combat spells, and there are noncombat spells. I don't think there are any combat spells so overpowered as to be worth spending two precious turns casting; indeed, in 5e, combat spells tend to be pretty balanced against martial options. (Though I admit I'm comparing 5e primarily to 3.5 and Pathfinder, which were a lot worse on caster balance.) Spending an extra turn channeling would make these spells virtually useless.
On the other hand, there are noncombat spells, which range from basic utility options like detect magic and light to plot-ending incantations like speak with dead and teleport. Spending an extra six seconds on these doesn't affect anything.

In short, channeling would certainly weaken spellcasters, but mostly by telling them that they can't use their high-level spell slots in combat.

Now, this sort of telegraphing isn't a bad thing; quite the opposite! Having bosses do something on the turn before they unleash a powerful attack is a common tactic in video games for a darn good reason—it gives players a chance to react and prepare before getting slammed. But there's no reason it should be limited to spells, and for that matter no reason that a 20th-level lich should be giving off the same cue for chain lightning as meteor swarm.

MagneticKitty

2020-07-03, 10:10 AM

I do wish martials with extra attack would stack. Like you could build a sudo fighter by sacrificing high lv abilities. What I mean is:
Paladin 5, monk 5, ranger 5 character level 15 would have 3 attacks. And then change fighter to getting extra attack every 5 levels.

Anyway, I think the main issue is utility outside of combat missing for martials. Rogue has some, ranger has some, eldritch knight has some... But over all a lot of utility they did have can be outclassed by magic. There are door opening spells, spells to lift heavy things, spells to enhance physical ability (enhance ability), spells to increase speed
these should be restricted to higher level half casters I think, because they did devote resources to physical things. Else removed.

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-03, 10:13 AM

Two problems.

First, "spell level !< proficiency bonus" seems like an odd trigger condition. The first two levels never have to chanel, levels 3-6 (assuming full caster) only have to channel for their highest-level spells, and the number of spell levels you need to channel for just gets higher. I'm sure there's a way to make this make sense, but it feels so arbitrary.

Second...there are two types of spells.
There are combat spells, and there are noncombat spells. I don't think there are any combat spells so overpowered as to be worth spending two precious turns casting; indeed, in 5e, combat spells tend to be pretty balanced against martial options. (Though I admit I'm comparing 5e primarily to 3.5 and Pathfinder, which were a lot worse on caster balance.) Spending an extra turn channeling would make these spells virtually useless.
On the other hand, there are noncombat spells, which range from basic utility options like detect magic and light to plot-ending incantations like speak with dead and teleport. Spending an extra six seconds on these doesn't affect anything.

In short, channeling would certainly weaken spellcasters, but mostly by telling them that they can't use their high-level spell slots in combat.

Now, this sort of telegraphing isn't a bad thing; quite the opposite! Having bosses do something on the turn before they unleash a powerful attack is a common tactic in video games for a darn good reason—it gives players a chance to react and prepare before getting slammed. But there's no reason it should be limited to spells, and for that matter no reason that a 20th-level lich should be giving off the same cue for chain lightning as meteor swarm.

The first part is intentional. If you're playing with level 1-2 characters, you're likely playing with players who could do with some experience. Not only that, but most complaints towards a Martial/Caster imbalance is targeted towards higher level of play, which is hindered more by this system. So as the imbalance gets bigger, Casters get a tighter leash. As far as sense goes, it seems reasonable for someone with experience to be able to handle more unstable magic, similar to how someone with a proficiency in Intelligence Saves has a higher Intelligence Save bonus as they level (even if that's as a Barbarian).

On the second aspect, two things:

1. Channeling doesn't take two whole turns. The spell is cast just before your next turn starts, so your Action Economy is roughly the same, just that bigger spells have a delayed response and can be interrupted (they carry more risk). This does weaken Concentration spells, since Readying a spell requires Concentration, but most of your Concentration spells you cast are your biggest spells anyway.

2. Consider the power disparity between the Rogues and the Fighters. Rogues do not contribute as much in combat as Fighters, because Rogues are specialized for non-combat scenarios, and that's fine. Changing every single utility spell, or having an even-wider sweeping changes to caster spell slots and effects would actually be a lot more work in comparison, if you wanted to reduce the effectiveness of their utility. So rather than trying to finagle a balance solution from arbitrarily powered spells and half-assed Exploration rules, implement changes where the rules matter: Combat.

In a way, the Caster:Martial relationship can be the same as Rogue:Fighter. I have not heard of many concerns of balance issues between Rogues and Fighters, as they are specialists in different types of problems DESPITE having imbalances.

In other words, the only thing we'd have to do to justify Casters' abundance of utility is nerf their combat potential to merely being..."rogue level".

So JC doesn't know how the system he among others designed, works. Oof.

I saw this a little late. I think it has more to do with the very "wishy-washy" developer language he uses in explaining things. They're usually very "up to interpretation" and don't get far into complicated details for the most part. I think part of it that he's held onto this ideal that tables should be allowed to modify things as they see fit, and setting hard lines on these kinds of things diminishes that.

"Ah, but you see here, the LEAD DESIGNER said 4 years ago that melee attacks can't be used while Hiding, so I don't get attacked with Advantage!"

Problem is, the alternative means we're stuck figuring out for ourselves exactly how many encounters we should have to balance certain classes where that sorta thing matters. At the same time, he can't really acknowledge there's a fault in the code he's responsible for, likely required by WotC. Or if it's not forced, just from common sense. It would not make anyone happy if some bigwig from Microsoft acknowledged that there was legal spyware in a Windows 10 update package.

Spiritchaser

2020-07-03, 10:23 AM

Not sure I like that solution. Improving on Concentration Checks is an investment, sometimes a class feature (Bladesinger), and those features are often targeted towards casters in melee range (War Caster, Bladesinger). Not only that, but straight-up denial is the worst form of mechanic you can implement into a game. Punish actions by making them expensive, risky even, but denial is something that should be introduced as a last resort.

Denial is very powerful, yes, but it cuts down on player interaction and impact. You can add more decision-making to a game by causing punishments to make things taxing, but removing options only ever removes player options for...basically targeted power creep. You're improving martials by giving them an "I Win" button without reasonable means for interaction or interrupting.

Given, DnD doesn't do "Interruption" well, but it does use it in the form of defenses and investments (such as Concentration).

Put another way, whether the Concentration Check is allowed to be made or not is the difference between the Caster having their character-building decisions to have weight. And while he does get an initial voice, as he's the one casting the spell, there are a lot of spells that are limited to melee range (Earth Tremor, for example) and he's already being struck with an OA. It'd be best to err towards a weak balance change that includes the Caster's investments than a strong one that removes counterplay.

What I would want the system to do is:

I. Be relatively agnostic with regards to the melee character making the attack, though feats like mage slayer should factor in
This allows a sword and board champion fighter to be as effective as a Paladin.

2. Be more punishing to those casting higher level spells.
When trying to nullify a spell with counterspell, the caster can choose to use a higher level slot. In the case of melee spell I Would at least try a system where it was easier to disrupt a spell that was closer to level 9. This might allow the use of the shield spell or a booming blade cantrip at relatively low risk, and could let clerics get away with a healing word, but might make casting a level 7 spell most unwise. This could be tuned such that it wouldn’t impact tiers 1 and 2 too much, but could take the edge off of high level big guns.

What I’m not sure if the attack should do? Damage. I’m not convinced this needs to be an attack at all, just a disrupt magic reaction. Or maybe it should... 1d4 per spell level disrupted? More? I just don’t know

Problem: While I’m sure a formula that does this is possible, likely not even hard, it will be next n-intuitive and different from everything else in the game. Because of all the interaction it will likely also be difficult to test.

Fun to think about though

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-03, 10:49 AM

What I would want the system to do is:

I. Be relatively agnostic with regards to the melee character making the attack, though feats like mage slayer should factor in

[...]

2. Be more punishing to those casting higher level spells.

Not to plug, but...uh, a few posts up:

One thing I've always wanted to try was my Channeling solution, which is where any spell you cast that has a spell slot level that isn't less than your Proficiency must first be Readied (with Concentration) until the start of your next turn.

Bobthewizard

2020-07-03, 10:51 AM

There are a lot of interesting ideas on this thread and everyone seems to be playing along without derailing it with arguments, so I'll join in.

I don't think you need 6 encounters per day to keep martial classes relevant in combat. Your players need to know that there could be 6 encounters per day. If the spell casters cast all of their spells, then you throw another hard fight at them. As long as they are conserving resources, you should be fine with less encounters and the spell casters going into the long rest with spell slots left over.

I don't like the idea of nerfing casters a lot. Coffeelocks, Simulacrum chains, nonconcentration planar binding, sure. But just making it harder to cast spells in combat will make things less fun for players.

I do think martial classes need more at higher levels, though, so here's my proposal

First, give every martial character battle master maneuvers. It at least gives them a little variety each round.

Then I would propose that when martial classes get an ASI, they get both an ASI and a feat, and maybe other bonuses. You could add any combination of +1 damage per hit, +5' movement, one new skill, one new expertise, even +1 to hit or +1 AC. So if you give all of those plus an ASI plus a feat, are martial characters still behind casters at high levels? If you think so, then offer additional martial only feats that can mimic spells, some possible examples below, although some may be gated behind a level.

1. Expert Climber - gain climbing speed
2. Expert Swimmer - swim speed equal to walking speed, plus water breathing
3. Expert Jumper - gain flying speed equal to walking speed but must land at end of turn
4. Expert Sneak - BA invisible until end of next turn
5. Legendary Resistance - 1/LR each time you take it, can be taken more than once
6. Swarm fighting - can attack as many extra times as level / CR of monster.
7. Slippery - BA 30' teleport 1/SR
8. Hit harder - add 1d8 to each attack
9. Hit faster - gain one more attack on your turn
10. Magic resistance - advantage on saves vs. spells and magic effects

Any other class or race feature you want to add as a feat you could.

I just made all this up so there may be problems with it but it's just the start of a proposal.

Wryte

2020-07-03, 10:53 AM

Reduce spell slots and condense spell levels.

The problem as noted with the idea that martials are reliable due to not being based on resources while casters are unreliable due to dependence on resources fails because casters never actually run out of resources. Making it harder to cast spells doesn't fix this, it only makes it more annoying to actually play a caster.

I would throw the full caster progression out the window (new spell level every second class level, up to 9th) and make the half-caster progression the new full caster progression (new spell level every fourth class level, up to 5th) and one-third-caster progression the new half-caster progression (new spell level every sixth class level, up to 4th). The one-third casters would either become half-casters or get a new spell progression (new spell level every eighth class level, up to 3rd) depending on how the new balance worked out.

Then, condense spell lists so that current 1st and 2nd level spells were 1st level, 3rd and 4th were 2nd, 5th and 6th were 3rd, 7th and 8th were 4th, and 9th were 5th, with appropriate rescaling of damage.

I do wish martials with extra attack would stack. Like you could build a sudo fighter by sacrificing high lv abilities. What I mean is:
Paladin 5, monk 5, ranger 5 character level 15 would have 3 attacks.

This is something I'm strongly considering as a house/setting rule. The fact that Extra Attack doesn't stack makes martial multiclassing very awkward as getting your first Extra Attack makes 5th level in any other martial a dead level for you; something casters on the other hand aren't punished for, as their class levels stack together for determining slot levels, and cantrip progression is entirely divorced from what class levels - only character level matters.

Sure, this could theoretically result in a multi-classed character getting as many attacks as a single-classed fighter, but they'd be going MAD to do so (need at minimum 13 in four different ability scores) and would be passing up a lot of powerful class abilities from the 6th+ levels like paladin auras and barbarian brutal criticals. Fighter's last Extra Attack would need to be brought down to 15th level, though, and something else put in the capstone's place.

If I did this, I'd also change cantrip scaling to be based off of levels in classes which get cantrips as class features. Instead of a bump at 5th/11th/17th level as a character, it would come at 5th/11th/17th level of combined bard/cleric/druid/sorcerer/warlock/wizard levels.

Morty

2020-07-03, 01:39 PM

Willie the Duck

2020-07-03, 02:02 PM

LibraryOgre

2020-07-03, 02:13 PM

5e casters have far less resources than a high level AD&D 1e or BECMI character, or even a 3e one. 9 spells of each spell level was the standard.

This is not true.

A 20th level magic-user (1e) v 20th level wizard (5e)

Cantrip 0 / 5
1st 5 / 4
2nd 5 / 3
3rd 5 / 3
4th 5 / 3
5th 5 / 3
6th 4 /2
7th 3 / 2
8th 3 / 1
9th 2 / 1

So, while a 20th level wizard in 1e had more high level slots when maxxed out, it would take him 1650 minutes of study to recover them (at 10 minutes per spell level)... twenty-seven and a half hours of study, not including sleep... and getting back 9th level slots requires 12 hours of sleep. Whereas the 5e wizard will be at full after 9 hours of sleep and study. So, a 1e mage who novas will be back to full after 4 days (2 days of sleep and 2 days of study), while a 5e mage who novas will be full after a night's sleep. When you count slots over a tenday, it looks like this

Cantrip 0 / 5
1st 10 / 40
2nd 10 / 30
3rd 10 / 30
4th 10 / 30
5th 10/ 30
6th 8 /20
7th 6 / 20
8th 6 / 10
9th 4 / 10

So the 5e caster doesn't have less slots, unless you only consider a single instant, when both are at their fullest. If you're playing a campaign, the 5e caster drowns the 1e caster in spells.

The 5e caster will likely have more spells, having gotten two at every level, instead of one as in 1e, and having no maximum number of spells known, unlike the 1e caster. They are also going to be guaranteed to have ninth level spells, since they do not require a certain intelligence to cast 9th level spells, and, even if they did, they will have had several ASIs guaranteed, whereas a 1e magic-user might have one, from a powerful magic-item. If the 1e caster does not have an 18 intelligence (the practical maximum for all but a few races), they not only don't get 9th level spells, they also don't get 9th level spell slots.

And the 5e caster will have Cantrips, Ritual spells, and class abilities... all resources which the 1e caster does not. This doesn't cover the change in how magic works, and the flexibility afforded to a 5e caster v. fixed Vancian casting in 1e (though it also ignores how 1e spells don't have the restriction of concentration).

The saves of non-casters are an issue... changing the paradigm to be caster focused instead of target focused is definitely part of the shift in power towards casters. But I would argue that it is not the primary component of the shift. Casters have more they can do. They can do it more often, more consistently and, yes, are more often successful because of saving throw changes, but they fact that they can do it again and again, day after day, does far more to affect their role in an adventuring party than the fact that they're more often successful at bringing out the big guns.

Tanarii

2020-07-03, 02:25 PM

This is not true.

A 20th level magic-user (1e) v 20th level wizard (5e).ah. I was thinking of BECMI then.

A 36th level BECMI magic user, the equivalent of a 20th level 5e Wizard, has the following:
1x9
2x9
3x9
4x9
5x9
6x9
7x9
8x9
9x9

Of course it's worth noting that a 20th AD&D 1e Wizard and a 36th BECMI Wizard aren't really comparable anyway. Getting to 11th level in 5e takes about 3 months of multiple times a week play, or 6 months of once a week play. Getting there in either BECMI or AD&D 1e should take maybe 2 years of frequent play.

Honestly that's another huge part of 5e's problem. What used to be power levels for semi-retired characters that took years to get to that point are now fairly easily accessible. And so people expect it to be "balanced".

Warwick

2020-07-03, 02:29 PM

5e is already fairly stingy with getting to do your cool stuff unless you're a full caster*. The remedy to 'wizards do too much and fighters just attack' should not be imposing cantrip spam.

At the end of the day, spellcasters have a full subsystem's worth of abilities, with considerable potential for growth and expansion. Non-casters get their class features and basic game systems - that's it. If they want any more variety, they need to get access to spells. There's only so much that can be done in face of this.

It wouldn't be impossible to draw up a comparable subsystem for martial characters. It's been done before. It gets into a bit of an awkward question of what you do about the martial half-casters (IMO probably unload utility into rituals and combat spells into maneuvers or class features).

*granted, some of that is due to difference in nature, i.e. being riders on already decently power Attack actions.

KorvinStarmast

2020-07-03, 04:15 PM

What would you do to rebalance martials vs casters? I'd try to sell you D&D 4e. One of the big design focus items for that edition was balance.

OldTrees1

2020-07-03, 04:26 PM

I'd try to sell you D&D 4e. One of the big design focus items for that edition was balance.

For some that would be ideal. For others they want a less trivial solution*. It is possible to balance drastically different mechanical frameworks and themes.

*Some math problems have trivial solutions and non trivial solutions. Both are useful but provide different insights.

Kane0

2020-07-03, 05:03 PM

5eNeedsDarksun

2020-07-03, 05:19 PM

I'm not going to say these are the best options for 5e, but they fit with my experience in 2e and wouldn't be that hard to implement:

1) Take casters down a hit die. In 2e Wizards were d4; Bards were d6...
2) More and more powerful magic items. Winged Boots, a Ring of Invisibility and a +3 Vorpal Weapon do wonders for a Melee Fighter.

Kane0

2020-07-03, 07:23 PM

2) More and more powerful magic items. Winged Boots, a Ring of Invisibility and a +3 Vorpal Weapon do wonders for a Melee Fighter.

In conjunction with more attunement spots the less casting you have?

5eNeedsDarksun

2020-07-04, 12:19 AM

In conjunction with more attunement spots the less casting you have?
Interesting. What if you could have 4 attunements but it prevents concentration?

tKUUNK

2020-07-04, 02:33 AM

In earlier editions that I played, this was less of an issue.

Versatility was always the casters' niche

Accurate, punishing physical attacks used to be the fighter's niche. It was DANGEROUS to stand near an angry martial class character.

Those days are gone.

In 5e, versatility is still the casters' niche.

Yet ANY character class can dish out comparable single-target damage, with similar accuracy. The spellcasters get many other combat options, including crowd control and cool defensive abilities like the shield spell, hellish rebuke, mirror image, etc.

My suggestions:

1) make weapons far more accurate & damaging in the hands of a martial character than in the hands of a spellcaster. Like the good old days.

2) Give melees more ways to do great damage against single targets. Let this be their niche. If "standing next to the warrior" = "Probable Swift Death by Sword", I think we'd see less complaining that they don't get a ton of options.

3) as many others have said: a maneuvers system for all melee classes. Perhaps at-will, like cantrips. Some to augment attacks, some as reactions, some to buff / debuff in place of the usual swing, swing, swing.

Lord Ruby34

2020-07-04, 02:43 AM

I think my biggest thing would be stealing a mechanic from another system, Dungeon Crawl Classics. The Warrior class in that game has a mechanic called Mighty Deeds of Arms. Whenever a warrior makes an attack roll they get to add a d3 to attack and damage. Before they roll they declare what additional effect they are trying to achieve. If they roll a three, they do it. As the warrior levels up the size of the die increases, but they still only need to roll a 3 to succeed, higher numbers just mean a greater degree of success. It's an excellent and elegant mechanic.

Tanarii

2020-07-04, 03:01 AM

Skylivedk

2020-07-04, 05:06 AM

1) Make all classes unique and potentially with their own ressource management systems.
Ie. let Barbarians focus on rage, maybe with sub-classes allowing HD dice going into the rage pool (and maybe allow them to regain HD on a short rest if they don't spend HD).

Fighters would be based around manoeuvres, rogues around Luck/Strokes of the master (I could see them recharge whenever they surpass a skill-challenge with 5 or 10).

2) Overhaul the Skill system
a) Trained skills 2x proficiency, expertise 4x.
b) In higher tiers, martials gain access to heroic/epic uses of skills (not so much a bonus to skills, but new ways of using skills). Paladins are 1 tier behind. Not sure about rangers.
c) provide inspirational tables for different levels of fantasy for skill checks. I find it ridiculous that Scry has a better DC guide than several skills combined.
d) allow for attaining more skills as a part of level progression. Again, a place where mechanics and verisimilitude can be improved at the same time.

3) Give more flexibility to martials
a) allow Battle Masters to change manometers and in general anyone to retrain Fighting Styles
b) allow Barbarians to change at the very least the subclass features - maybe also mix and match between certain subclasses. Especially for the totem barbarian I find it flavourful that they spend the night before dancing/communing with the different animal spirits to gain their favour.
c) provide ways of using resources for out of combat as well.

4) Give more and better options (especially for tier 3 and 4) to martials
a) Barbarians obviously ought to be able to grapple bigger enemies later. It's a well-known and loved trope and I hate that I have to turn my Barbarian into an ape to make grapple
b) Rage should provide more resistance towards mind-affecting abilities IMO
c) Indomitable should recharge on a short rest and allow the Fighter to choose to use STR or CON for the roll.
d) Martials should get roughly the same amount of features as casters get features + spell slots. The features should roughly correspond to the power granted by spells (naturally with an eye as to how often said features can be used).
e) should maybe have been a): Martials ought to get an extra reaction that can only be used to make a weapon attack every time they gain the Extra Attack feature. I find it abhorrent that martials end up so shafted compared to someone with Warcaster.
f) give rogues access to Reliable Talent as an LR resource in tier 1 and as an SR resource in tier 2.
g) allow rogues to change some Sneak Attack dice for some debuffs.

5) Make magic more interruptable/modifiable by martials
a) blocking spells with swords (fighters), bending forcecage bars with sheer disbelief and fury (Barbarian) etc.
b) Mage Slayer should take place before the spell and be able to interrupt spells.

6) Revamp conditions to encourage more team work
a) all classes should have ways of doing more against opponents with specific debuffs; ie. a rogue will hamstring someone who is already staggered.
b) debuffs should be tiered (like Divinity 2 and PF2).
c) (almost) all classes should have access to certain debuffs that they can activate either by trading a resource (damage dealt) or expending a resource; ie. for rogues it would probably be blinded, poisoned and staggered.

7) Narrow down the spell-lists; remove certain spells from the PHB and have them either in the MM or in the DMG
a) remove planar binding and most other permanent buff spells. They either provide too permanent a buff, take too much DM mindspace (fiddling with contracts) or break the sandbox games.
b) in return, we could consider to allow the casters to have an extra concentration slot of a spell equalling tier-1.
c) combine this with better upcasting

8) rethink the rest-system to allow for a wider range of narrative structures without class balance going haywire.
This is not just for class balance, it is also to give the DMs more leeway to design stories without feeling they are punishing their players.

9) Make a separate feat system for non-combat and give more of those feats to martials

10) revamp abilities
a) probably allow strength to give more movement speed and give other key functions to other abilities (wisdom increases your passive perception range or something like it, intelligence gives you extra languages and tool proficiencies).

DwarfFighter

2020-07-04, 06:11 AM

Late to the party, but here's my take. Taking the OP's assertion as fact: casters are more powerful than martials. Let's further assume that all players in your group are on board with this, and are looking for a way to rebalance.

The answer is simple, really: Spell failure.

Decide on the factor by which the casters outclass the martials and apply a commensurate chance of all spells to flat out fail when cast. Do you consider the wizard to be twice as powerful as the fighter? Then each casting of a Fireball Or Mirror Image has a 50% chance to fail and waste the spell slot used. Or if you consider the wizard to be just 20% better, apply a 1-in-6 (16%) chance of spell failure.

Alternatively, recharge failure during rests. For each "caster" resource you recover during a short or long rest there is a chance (see above) that it does not recharge. This is kinder than the spell failure in that you know what resources you can reliably use in an encounter.

If the players start to circumvent these rules, i.e. by taking repeated rests to recover prized resources, you might as well drop them altogether since that means your players are fine with the disparity between the casters and martials.

I wouldn't apply these rules to NPCs.

Edit: Having given this a bit more thought, the recharge failure approach seems the most playable. The power imbalance of casters and martials is most evident when the casters are free to expend their resources without moderation: A wizard Fresh out of a long rest will happily spend his highest level spell slot to fireball a goblin, if he is sure to regain that slot before the next encounter. When the casters apply some restraint the martials become more important.

noob

2020-07-04, 10:48 AM

sayaijin

2020-07-04, 12:06 PM

I posted this in another thread, but what about scaling reliable talent with character level and giving it to everyone, but only on expertise?

So something like this:
Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add double your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll lower than your character level as equal to your character level.

Then you just give more martials expertise (and fewer ways for casters to get expertise) and find another way to boost the rogue since they lose something.

Then you start getting insanely high skill DC's for martials and not for casters. That allows them to do physical things the casters can't.

Skylivedk

2020-07-04, 12:18 PM

sayaijin

2020-07-04, 12:34 PM

Definitely an option! Maybe give it an lr count in tiers 2-3 and sr recharge in tier 4?

I was actually thinking all skill checks. Let's say we give expertise to all martials. So now you have fighters taking double proficiency bonus on athletics. Now, whenever a fifth level fighter wants to jump a gap, the lowest they can roll is a five -guaranteeing they beat DC's ~15. That's not game breaking at all, it just means they're not going to critically fail at something they should be great at. With more specificity on jump distance DC's, they might be able to jump considerable distances. Meanwhile, the wizard can fly.

At level 10, the lowest the fighter can roll is a ten - most likely guaranteeing they beat DC's ~20. As you flesh out DC's for how far you can jump, it's possible the fighter can jump extremely far. Which is sensible for tier 2 heroes.

Skylivedk

2020-07-04, 12:38 PM

I was actually thinking all skill checks. Let's say we give expertise to all martials. So now you have fighters taking double proficiency bonus on athletics. Now, whenever a fifth level fighter wants to jump a gap, the lowest they can roll is a five -guaranteeing they beat DC's ~15. That's not game breaking at all, it just means they're not going to critically fail at something they should be great at. With more specificity on jump distance DC's, they might be able to jump considerable distances. Meanwhile, the wizard can fly.

At level 10, the lowest the fighter can roll is a ten - most likely guaranteeing they beat DC's ~20. As you flesh out DC's for how far you can jump, it's possible the fighter can jump extremely far. Which is sensible for tier 2 heroes.

I'm onboard: my only concern is the rogue losing a lot of comparative attractiveness. If you look at my proposal, a skill system overhaul was also a part of it with the eradication of swingyness at the core (plus heroic and epic skill uses).

sayaijin

2020-07-04, 12:47 PM

I'm onboard: my only concern is the rogue losing a lot of comparative attractiveness. If you look at my proposal, a skill system overhaul was also a part of it with the eradication of swingyness at the core (plus heroic and epic skill uses).

Your idea also works. Both basically say give martials better skill rolls than casters. I was also trying to solve the expert critically failing something they've trained their whole life for issue at the same time.

You absolutely would need to boost the rogue. Either with more skills and more expertise or a new class feature altogether that helps them stay the premier skill monkeys.

Misterwhisper

2020-07-04, 02:31 PM

noob

2020-07-04, 03:21 PM

Some simple things that would solve issues.

1. Bring back more opportunity attacks.
- casting in melee
- ranged attack in melee
- switching weapons

2. Getting hit from that OA while casting requires a check to keep the spell.

3. Arcane failure chance returns, but give a feat to get rid of it on medium armor. Let them cast in light armor for free.

4. This is a huge one for me, reformat weapons to go back to multiple crit multipliers and ranges. They are all just boring currently. Facing an orc with a great axe in melee should be terrifying for a clothie, not, oh well I have shield or misty step.
switching weapons have never been a cause for opportunity attacks: what was a cause was putting back in your inventory/ behind your shoulders/in your holster a weapon.
so you could always avoid aoo when weapon switching by just letting your previous weapon fall on the ground(not that you care about your nonmagical weapons because you are in 5e and half of the gms decides "there is no such thing as magical items")
Also dropping weapons on the ground was common in 3.5 when in an antimagic zone because at that point you use only nonmagical adamentine,mithril, silver or cold iron items.

DwarfFighter

2020-07-04, 03:55 PM

No if the players rests repeatedly it is not because they are fine with the disparity: it is just that they are trying to obtain as many advantages as possible as a party during their adventuring.

Too bad all those martials are taking the place of casters that could further advantage the party, amirite?

noob

2020-07-04, 04:01 PM

Too bad all those martials are taking the place of casters that could further advantage the party, amirite?

That is more complicated than that: martials can be heavily synergetic with casters.
Example: a caster uses a spell to immobilise the opponent and meanwhile the martial deals damage thus saving spell slots.
Also at low levels casters runs out of spells extra fast so mid battle they run out of spells and then have to stab opponents with a longsword or something (In case of arcane tricksters or valor bards it can be a longsword and for paladins or Eldritch Knights it is probably with a quarterstaff or a hand crossbow)

tKUUNK

2020-07-04, 04:06 PM

1) Make all classes unique and potentially with their own ressource management systems...

I'm not saying all of what you said would be simple to implement, but I love the ideas. Saved your post for re-reading. thank you.

And to answer Tanarii, actually yes, I WAS referring mostly to 3rd edition, funny enough. The game DID tilt away from martials even then, so I get where you're coming from. But I disagree if you think the problem was as bad in 3.5 as it is in 5e. Not even close. You can build a dangerous fighter many different ways in 3.5. In 5e, you've got SS, GWM, PAM, sentinel... and to take any of those you sacrifice a much-needed ASI.

On-paper arguments are one thing. Actual play experience is more important. In 3.5 I could play any martial class and be completely satisfied with a little min-maxing. In 5e, martials so often are not a credible threat, and I mean right out of the gates. It's not just a high-tier problem any more.

The_Glen

2020-07-05, 09:22 PM

Bring back spell disruption. If you cast a spell and I can interrupt you, there's a chance the spell fizzles. Easy enough.

SociopathFriend

2020-07-05, 10:18 PM

Personally? I would make equipment much more vital than it currently is.

In particular enemies have more noted vulnerabilities to given basic damage types (slashing, bludgeoning, piercing) and less Spells will have access to them. If the casters can have the ideal tool for a situation then so should the martials.

Suddenly the Fighter with his ability to haul out any given damage type on-demand is looking pretty good, eh?

Ideally I would also work at the equipment and adding basically mini-maneuvers to all martials but the above bit was easy to think of while this part requires more thought.

Also, and this is a more general thing I readily complain about Rogues for as well, squishier classes NEED less ways to mitigate and avoid damage. The casters don't need to be teleporting around with 2nd level spells and Rogues don't need to have more tanking abilities than Fighters. I don't disagree that casters rule the world at higher levels but the chip gets a lot lighter on the shoulder when they have to spend a larger portion of the game genuinely having to work when a group of tiny gremlins charges them en masse.

5eNeedsDarksun

2020-07-05, 10:53 PM

Honestly that's another huge part of 5e's problem. What used to be power levels for semi-retired characters that took years to get to that point are now fairly easily accessible. And so people expect it to be "balanced".

Fully agree with this. I'm considering halving the XP for all monsters which somewhat addresses the OP, but also helps make the game more challenging and slow advancement.

Nagog

2020-07-05, 11:10 PM

I think the greatest disparity is in the utility. Combat is fairly balanced, with each class playing a defined role, with various builds branching into other roles, but all in all each class has a defined role in combat.

Outside of combat is really where Casters outshine Martials. Full casters all have spell lists that cover each pillar of play, so Casters can be built to excel in any environment. Rogues and Rangers often have class abilities or skills to help them out there (and in every argument I've seen regarding the topic of Martial vs. Magic, they're often left out or overlooked), while Barbarians and Fighters really get the short end of the stick. A few subclasses get a ribbon or other occasionally useful feature to use outside of combat, but all in all, if the session doesn't have combat, their only tool is role-playing. Fighters get enough ASIs to make /some/ headway into out of combat utility, but that comes at the cost of combat feats that often make a Fighter more flavorful than spamming the Attack action. Barbarians don't even get that. They have purely combat abilities, with the few exceptions I'm aware of being the Fey themed one having an odd variant of Detect Magic a few times a day, and Totem Warrior and Ancestral Guardian getting a few, very specific spells they can ritual cast. If you want to be a Barbarian that's useful outside of combat, you better get really good at role-playing or multiclass.

So: How to fix said disparity? Giving them skill proficiencies seems like a cop-out, and steps on the toes of classes like Ranger and Rogue that are often described as being skill-based. I'd rather give them something like Sorcery or Ki points, call it Reputation, and allow them to use those outside of combat for various effects. Perhaps they can use it to activate a passive aura of some sort, where people recognize them and are more likely to help them (out of fear or admiration is up to the DM), or perhaps they can use them to add a bonus to a Persuasion, Intimidation, or Deception roll, made by themselves or a party member. Perhaps they can use these to challenge somebody to a duel, similar to the Compelled Duel spell. Giving them a variety of options for utility out of combat would make them much more fun to play, particularly in campaigns that have a lot of role-play outside of combat.

Nagog

2020-07-05, 11:35 PM

Fully agree with this. I'm considering halving the XP for all monsters which somewhat addresses the OP, but also helps make the game more challenging and slow advancement.

I've always just used Milestone leveling, but I'm unsure how that would re-balance the two. They still have the same balancing issues, they just become more apparent with continued exposure to each level.

1) Make all classes unique and potentially with their own resource management systems.
Ie. let Barbarians focus on rage, maybe with sub-classes allowing HD dice going into the rage pool (and maybe allow them to regain HD on a short rest if they don't spend HD).

I like this idea for Barbarians, with their resource being their Hit Dice, though I would encourage using it more for out of combat abilities. Barbarians in combat are plenty powerful throughout play, though outside of combat, frankly they're useless.

2) Overhaul the Skill system
a) Trained skills 2x proficiency, expertise 4x.
b) In higher tiers, martials gain access to heroic/epic uses of skills (not so much a bonus to skills, but new ways of using skills). Paladins are 1 tier behind. Not sure about rangers.
c) provide inspirational tables for different levels of fantasy for skill checks. I find it ridiculous that Scry has a better DC guide than several skills combined.
d) allow for attaining more skills as a part of level progression. Again, a place where mechanics and verisimilitude can be improved at the same time.

The only qualm I have with this is that it leads to the skill system becoming extremely broken. Currently it's based in a Bounded Accuracy system, which is largely the reason why Expertise is so powerful. DCs of 18+ are typically seen as Hard, but any class can do it. Even if your party doesn't have a Rogue, your Artificer can still magic up some Thieves Tools and try to pick the lock with a chance of success. Under this revision, there would be insane bonuses that would mandate that DCs be set much much higher to compensate (otherwise skill checks could become obsolete as soon as a party has all the skills covered by at least one party member). With higher DCs, a party that doesn't have a member proficient in a particular skill would simply be unable to progress past that check, as a DC 30 or 35 would be far beyond what a +5 (assuming a maxed stat

I was actually thinking all skill checks. Let's say we give expertise to all martials. So now you have fighters taking double proficiency bonus on athletics. Now, whenever a fifth level fighter wants to jump a gap, the lowest they can roll is a five -guaranteeing they beat DC's ~15. That's not game breaking at all, it just means they're not going to critically fail at something they should be great at. With more specificity on jump distance DC's, they might be able to jump considerable distances. Meanwhile, the wizard can fly.

At level 10, the lowest the fighter can roll is a ten - most likely guaranteeing they beat DC's ~20. As you flesh out DC's for how far you can jump, it's possible the fighter can jump extremely far. Which is sensible for tier 2 heroes.

While that does gimp out the Rogue, the earlier mentioned issue of DCs and obsoleting skill checks still comes into play as well. Furthermore, the higher level you become, the less and less likely you are to want to roll a skill check you're proficient in. By the time you're level 20, you will never ever roll an ability check you're proficient in, because the only way you'll get higher than your passive bonus is with a natural 20, assuming of course your DM counts those as automatic wins rather than your baseline of 20+ modifiers. And while that sounds like fun, just automatically winning a set check, it drains the fun out of the situation. There is no risk, and therefore the "reward" is hollow and unfulfilling. It may feel nice the first time or two, but once the "New Toy" feeling wears off, it won't have any appeal.

Skylivedk

2020-07-06, 12:37 AM

I'm not saying all of what you said would be simple to implement, but I love the ideas. Saved your post for re-reading. thank you.

And to answer Tanarii, actually yes, I WAS referring mostly to 3rd edition, funny enough. The game DID tilt away from martials even then, so I get where you're coming from. But I disagree if you think the problem was as bad in 3.5 as it is in 5e. Not even close. You can build a dangerous fighter many different ways in 3.5. In 5e, you've got SS, GWM, PAM, sentinel... and to take any of those you sacrifice a much-needed ASI.

On-paper arguments are one thing. Actual play experience is more important. In 3.5 I could play any martial class and be completely satisfied with a little min-maxing. In 5e, martials so often are not a credible threat, and I mean right out of the gates. It's not just a high-tier problem any more.

Thanks for the compliment. After writing the list I had considered ranking it in terms of easiest to hardest, but ran out of time.

I like this idea for Barbarians, with their resource being their Hit Dice, though I would encourage using it more for out of combat abilities. Barbarians in combat are plenty powerful throughout play, though outside of combat, frankly they're useless.
Agreed! I think I left a message on everybody's telepathic answering machine that I would tie a lot more utility into rages as well. There's good precedent for it as well: from Samson, the Hulk, Stærkodder, Cú Chulainn etc.

The only qualm I have with this is that it leads to the skill system becoming extremely broken. Currently it's based in a Bounded Accuracy system, which is largely the reason why Expertise is so powerful. DCs of 18+ are typically seen as Hard, but any class can do it. Even if your party doesn't have a Rogue, your Artificer can still magic up some Thieves Tools and try to pick the lock with a chance of success. Under this revision, there would be insane bonuses that would mandate that DCs be set much much higher to compensate (otherwise skill checks could become obsolete as soon as a party has all the skills covered by at least one party member). With higher DCs, a party that doesn't have a member proficient in a particular skill would simply be unable to progress past that check, as a DC 30 or 35 would be far beyond what a +5 (assuming a maxed stat

Well, I'm not sure about extremely broken, it just takes the skill system out of bounded accuracy which I'm super fine with. No matter how many times I try a triple bypass operation without training, I'm probably failing it. No matter how many times an untrained tries solving complex math, they fail. At the same time both doctors and mathematicians are much more reliable at succeeding than what is currently reflected in the game.

Bounded Accuracy was implemented to keep low CR relevant in combat for the whole game. I think it was a mistake to use it everywhere.

While that does gimp out the Rogue, the earlier mentioned issue of DCs and obsoleting skill checks still comes into play as well. Furthermore, the higher level you become, the less and less likely you are to want to roll a skill check you're proficient in. By the time you're level 20, you will never ever roll an ability check you're proficient in, because the only way you'll get higher than your passive bonus is with a natural 20, assuming of course your DM counts those as automatic wins rather than your baseline of 20+ modifiers. And while that sounds like fun, just automatically winning a set check, it drains the fun out of the situation. There is no risk, and therefore the "reward" is hollow and unfulfilling. It may feel nice the first time or two, but once the "New Toy" feeling wears off, it won't have any appeal.
I'm not sure about that. Hopefully your DM will keep the game challenging. Also you don't roll of the consequences of failing area inconsequential - at least not according to the rules as they are and iirc have been in 3e as well.

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-06, 09:25 AM

Well, I'm not sure about extremely broken, it just takes the skill system out of bounded accuracy which I'm super fine with. No matter how many times I try a triple bypass operation without training, I'm probably failing it. No matter how many times an untrained tries solving complex math, they fail. At the same time both doctors and mathematicians are much more reliable at succeeding than what is currently reflected in the game.

Yeah. It's easy to miss, but the reason Bounded Accuracy works for attacks is because AC isn't the only part of the equation. You gain damage as you level, which is how higher-level creatures trump lower-level ones. Bounded Accuracy acts as a means to allow lower-level creatures to contribute, but it is still an uphill battle. This allows swarming to be a valid tactic, or so the players can take on a higher target if they know they can isolate him, etc.

So, in a way, Bounded Accuracy for attacks is X*Y, where X is your chance of success and Y is the value provided by your level.

But Bounded Accuracy for skills is just X. You still need a Y in there in order to contrast higher levels with lower levels. Unless you plan on DC 10 locked doors to still be a thing at level 15. Expertise kinda does this, by giving a specific bonus for specific levels for specific classes, but it doesn't help anyone that doesn't get it, and trivializes problems for those that do.

Skills are borked in 5e, because they tried to have everything fit around Bounded Accuracy, and then forgot why it worked for attacks (which was a level-based amplifier, in the form of damage). Combine that with the fact that the impact of a caster on the world is effectively on an exponential curve based on your level, and it's easy to see that skills really fall flat in 5e one you get out of Tier 1.

Consider for a moment that, while a Barbarian gets a +1 to his proficient skills at level 5, a Druid gets that and Speak With Animals 4x a day (or something else if Speak With Animals isn't needed that many times that day.

One thing I'd like to introduce is preemptive defensive toggles for martials-for all of them. For example, improving the Dodge Action to only cost an Attack (or maybe all of your movement, etc). I realized it when discussing on the other Martial thread:

Yeah, that's one of my complaints about 5e, as there are very few defensive options for martials, but plenty of "Hit me more" mechanics for when they're not being focused.

But the thing is, a pack of goblins are going to attack the first thing they can reach. Wolves would do the same if they feel threatened (they might try to drag away a "weaker" target if they think they could get away with it). I could imagine bandits trying to do something like grappling with a Wizard and using him as a hostage to convince the rest of the party to give up, maybe. But for the most part, Barbarians and Fighters will almost always be in the front, and creatures will almost always attack the big, scary enemy directly in front of them.

If I have something like this:

"Before you, you see the savage and his robed master. The man-beast smells you, slowly rises from the fire, and lets out a blood-curdling shriek that seems to invigorate his muscles, just before he lunges at you". Doesn't matter if that Barbarian used Rage just then, you're going to attack him because he seems stronger. Even if I said that your weapons seem dulled against his flesh, you'd probably just focus on him more with other effects.

It probably wouldn't be until after the master started casting spells that he'd be focused down, and with 5e spells, that's usually already too late. You'd have to already know (or assume) that he's a combatant to have a reason to focus him.

It does seem kinda silly for 5e to have taunting effects, but no reason to target anyone other than the front-liners in the first place. Magic can't be interrupted, and casters are a lot tankier than before. So, to me, it makes a lot more sense for martials to have "defensive stances", or something of that nature, since they're already the ones likely to take hits. This would give enemies telegraphed reasons to ignore their original target and create more movement on the battlefield. Heck, most of the time, frontliners are the ones that die first, and the winning strategy in 5e is to have everyone run out of HP at the same time (so the party stays at 100% fighting power. So the more damage your casters can absorb, the longer the martial lives, the more the party wins).

As of right now, the only "telegraphed" defensive maneuvers I can think of are:

Rage, which also increases damage, but is also hard to understand from an outside perspective. You don't know the circumstances that Rage exists, how it improves someone's defenses, and appears more as an aggressive boost rather than a survivability one.
Shield, which is predominantly used by casters. No half-casters (except Eldritch Knight) get this inherently.
Dodge, which is very inefficient for most characters that have to resort to using it, unless you're a Monk (in which case is a wash either way, as a Monk with Patient Defense can probably see both being attacked or ignored as a boon).
Polearm Master, which just makes enemies unlikely to engage with you while you're readying your weapon, and doesn't really have any conditional triggers to take advantage of the defender's momentary weakness, unless some other enemy already took a hit.

Hmm...after thinking about it, I think I'd like to make Dodge cost an Attack, rather than an Action. It'd see a lot more use as a combat tool by doing so, giving martials a throttle to control as to whether they want more focus on them or less. I think that's the real value of the martial in combat - something to control the attention of enemies so the rest of the party has breathing room to work with (basically linebackers) - but they don't really have any real decision-making about that process.

I've played an Ancestral Guardian that fought like a standard Barbarian, and it felt like I didn't have a subclass, simply because enemies didn't really have any reason not to attack the Raging meat-slab that was already within their reach. Giving a reason to ignore me, and then penalizing enemies when they do, sounds like a great mechanical concept that has value in every situation.

I think having that would fix a lot of the combat-related concerns I have for martials, as they don't really solve very unique problems, and don't have very unique ways of doing it. But party-based risk/reward management by throttling various defense/aggression levers? That has the potential for being simple AND complex, having unique decisions for each martial, while allowing the martial to leverage their mechanics in every possible fight.

I guess the reason I'm so passionate about this is because I can see this as something few casters could easily replace. There is an opening here for something Martials could reasonably do that couldn't be duplicated with magic easily (outside of some caster stuff like Warding Bond, Sanctuary or Shield). As of right now, the strategy for most martials is not more more than "Attack my most efficient target" and "protect the person that's squishier than me", which are often the same exact things for everyone, so of course martials feel generic. I can certain replace a Fighter with a Barbarian without much impact to my campaign, while the same probably can't be said if we're talking about Paladins or Druids.

stoutstien

2020-07-06, 09:46 AM

DarknessEternal

2020-07-06, 09:54 AM

I would combine this with the four other threads on the front page about the same thing.

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-06, 10:09 AM

Well put MoG. There is also the factor of attacks are repeatedly attempted within bounded accuracy leading to hitting a target eventually where a skill check can lead to a flat pass/fail outcome on a single roll. This pushes the behavior that if a player wants to confidently use a skill they have to invest in ot to a point where failure is almost impossible. compared to attacking having a +2 vs +3 modifier is noticeable but doesn't feel like you are punished.

Almost feel it would be better off removing proficiency from the skill equation all together and lowering DCs as well. Expertise could stay and be turned into adding proficiency bonus.
Skill proficiency could be moved to almost like mini background features or where they something new for the player almost how they did tools in XGtE.

an example would be if you had proficiency in medicine you don't get a static bonus the medicine checks you just automatically identify natural occurring diseases or deception gives disadvantage on insight checks versus you.

One thing you could do is, instead of altering the bonuses, just requiring more dice for success. Disadvantage is the multiplied chance of failure of two rolls, which is why it is more penalizing for people casually attempting something than it is for professionals.

For example, a pro has a 10% chance of failure, while a noobie has a 15% chance of failure, on the same check. With requiring two success (such as through Disadvantage), that changes to a 19% for the pro, and about a 28% chance for the noobie.

With 3 rolls, that's now a 27% for the pro, and almost 40% for the noobie.

Adding more dice to require success draws a contrast between the slightest differences between one person's success level and another.

So I propose a change to the skill system. Everything is a DC 15, requires more dice to reflect difficulty, unless it's a contest (in which case, it's 1 roll against the defender's). Anything that would normally be a DC 10 or less (using the original skill system) is something anyone with Proficiency automatically succeeds on.

So if you want to do something that is normally insanely hard, you'd have to succeed the DC 15 with all 3 dice rolls. Dis/Advantage simply adds one die to the pool and acts as normal (keep highest/lowest).

Yes, this would mean that characters with Expertise at high levels would automatically succeed on most things they attempt with those skills, but is that still any stronger than the magic at that same level?

stoutstien

2020-07-06, 10:14 AM

One thing you could do is, instead of altering the bonuses, just requiring more dice for success. Disadvantage is the multiplied chance of failure of two rolls, which is why it is more penalizing for people casually attempting something than it is for professionals.

For example, a pro has a 10% chance of failure, while a noobie has a 15% chance of failure, on the same check. With requiring two success (such as through Disadvantage), that changes to a 19% for the pro, and about a 28% chance for the noobie.

Adding more dice to require success draws a contrast between the slightest differences between one person's success level and another.

So I propose a change to the skill system. Everything is a DC 15, requires more dice to reflect difficulty, unless it's a contest (in which case, it's 1 roll against the defender's). Anything that would normally be a DC 10 or less (using the original skill system) is something anyone with Proficiency automatically succeeds on.

So if you want to do something that is normally insanely hard, you'd have to succeed the DC 15 with all 3 dice rolls.

Interesting. I could see this working very well. How do you play with a map to see how this works with stuff like expertise? 15 DC would become auto pass even with disadvantage regardless of the number of rolls. I could see using the -/+ 5 used in passive checks as well somehow.

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-06, 10:16 AM

Interesting. I could see this working very well. How do you play with a map to see how this works with stuff like expertise? 15 DC would become auto pass even with disadvantage regardless of the number of rolls. I could see using the -/+ 5 used in passive checks as well somehow.

Sorry, I edited it in, but my solution is "let them". So what if Stealth makes you invisible at level 15? How many people can a Wizard afford to turn invisible at that level?

So a level 13 Barbarian with Expertise into Athletics auto-succeeds on lifting a house with one of his attacks. Isn't that what you want him to do?

stoutstien

2020-07-06, 10:20 AM

Sorry, I edited it in, but my solution is "let them". So what if Stealth makes you invisible at level 15? How many people can a Wizard turn invisible without much expense?

Agreed. Well I think this concept would make skills feel better I don't think it would actually address the issues that a lot of tables have with difference of opinion on what skill DC X represents in terms of what a is even possible to start with.

I'm going to play with this and is easier than my idea to apply. Thanks!

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-06, 10:33 AM

Agreed. Well I think this concept would make skills feel better I don't think it would actually address the issues that a lot of tables have with difference of opinion on what skill DC X represents in terms of what a is even possible to start with.

I'm going to play with this and is easier than my idea to apply. Thanks!

Let me know how it goes. I've been playing around with using multiple dice to draw contrasts between levels for a while now, but this was the only version I could come up with that was simple enough to fit 5e's simplified design format.

As far as difficulty goes, I'd say that:

Autosuccess: Anything a civilian could reasonably do maybe 50% of the time.
x1: A civilian needs specialized training or magic to reasonably succeed against (such as jumping a 20ft gap).
x2: A warrior needs specialized training or magic to reasonably succeed against (such as jumping a 100ft gap).
x3: These are incredible feats that normal beings couldn't attempt (such as jumping a 500ft gap).

This does simplify things a lot more, as you effectively have this scale:

Civilian - X - X - Godly

With only two steps of "heroic" in between. That's a lot easier than DC 5 - 30 with a step every 5 points. Heck, you could just make that "Heroic" and "Superheroic" and people would kinda already have a feel for how much dice to use.

For a frame of reference, a max-level character making a Godly skill check (x3 rolls) without Expertise or some kind of artificial stat increase only has a maximum of a 61% chance of success on Godly attempts, which is kinda exactly what I'd expect. However, normal "heroic" attempts are still a minor risk at 85%.

Compare this to an untrained hero with no bonus, a single DC 15 roll is succeeded 25% of the time, and would pass a Godly version less than 3% of the time.

You could probably even allow other skills to play a part, like rerolling a failed roll if another skill is applicable, with a number of rerolls available for each applicable skill. So if you're skilled in both Acrobatics and Athletics, you will probably succeed on scaling the walls of the Abyss. Literally climbing your way out of hell is one way of casting your own Revive.

stoutstien

2020-07-06, 10:57 AM

Let me know how it goes. I've been playing around with using multiple dice to draw contrasts between levels for a while now, but this was the only version I could come up with that was simple enough to fit 5e's simplified design format.

As far as difficulty goes, I'd say that:

Autosuccess: Anything a civilian could reliably do.
x1: A civilian needs training or magic to reasonably succeed against (such as jumping a 10ft gap).
x2: A warrior needs training or magic to reasonably succeed against (such as jumping a 30ft gap).
x3: These are incredible feats that normal beings couldn't attempt (such as jumping a 100ft gap).

This does simplify things a lot more, as you effectively have this scale:

Civilian - X - X - Godly

With only two steps of "heroic" in between. That's a lot easier than DC 5 - 30 with a step every 5 points. Heck, you could just make that "Heroic" and "Superheroic" and people would kinda already have a feel for how much dice to use.

For a frame of reference, a max-level character making a Godly skill check (x3 rolls) without Expertise or some kind of artificial stat increase only has a maximum of a 61% chance of success on Godly attempts, which is kinda exactly what I'd expect. However, normal "heroic" attempts are still a minor risk at 85%.

Compare this to an untrained hero with no bonus, a single DC 15 roll is succeeded 25% of the time, and would pass a Godly version less than 3% of the time.

You could probably even allow other skills to play a part, like rerolling a failed roll if another skill is applicable, with a number of rerolls available for each applicable skill. So if you're skilled in both Acrobatics and Athletics, you will probably succeed on scaling the walls of the Abyss. Literally climbing your way out of hell is one way of casting your own Revive.

i love the angle of allowing different skills combined with a dice pool ability checks. once again you fix a problem better than I and with more eloquence.

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-06, 11:30 AM

i love the angle of allowing different skills combined with a dice pool ability checks. once again you fix a problem better than I and with more eloquence.

D'awww, shucks. Thanks man!

Wryte

2020-07-06, 11:37 AM

Let me know how it goes. I've been playing around with using multiple dice to draw contrasts between levels for a while now, but this was the only version I could come up with that was simple enough to fit 5e's simplified design format.

What if instead of requiring multiple successes to pass a check (thereby requiring multiple uses of a skill to pass anything but a practically guaranteed check, if I'm understanding your system right?), you just had the creature roll multiple dice depending on their proficiency bonus (instead of adding the proficiency bonus to the rolls) and if any of them succeed, the check is passed?

i.e., a character without proficiency rolls once. They pass the check if they roll above the DC, and fail if they roll below.

A proficient character with a +2 proficiency bonus rolls twice. They pass the check if either die is above the DC, and only fail if both are below.

A proficient character with a +4 proficiency bonus rolls four times. They pass the check if any of those four dice is above the DC, and only fail if all four are below. Etc.

Advantage and disadvantage add or subtract one die from the total dice rolled. If disadvantage reduces the total dice rolled to 0, the skill check uses the creature's passive score for the skill. Expertise could either add the creature's proficiency bonus to their rolls, or add another die to the total rolled.

Dienekes

2020-07-06, 11:38 AM

Let me know how it goes. I've been playing around with using multiple dice to draw contrasts between levels for a while now, but this was the only version I could come up with that was simple enough to fit 5e's simplified design format.

As far as difficulty goes, I'd say that:

Autosuccess: Anything a civilian could reliably do.
x1: A civilian needs training or magic to reasonably succeed against (such as jumping a 10ft gap).
x2: A warrior needs training or magic to reasonably succeed against (such as jumping a 30ft gap).
x3: These are incredible feats that normal beings couldn't attempt (such as jumping a 100ft gap).

This does simplify things a lot more, as you effectively have this scale:

Civilian - X - X - Godly

With only two steps of "heroic" in between. That's a lot easier than DC 5 - 30 with a step every 5 points. Heck, you could just make that "Heroic" and "Superheroic" and people would kinda already have a feel for how much dice to use.

For a frame of reference, a max-level character making a Godly skill check (x3 rolls) without Expertise or some kind of artificial stat increase only has a maximum of a 61% chance of success on Godly attempts, which is kinda exactly what I'd expect. However, normal "heroic" attempts are still a minor risk at 85%.

Compare this to an untrained hero with no bonus, a single DC 15 roll is succeeded 25% of the time, and would pass a Godly version less than 3% of the time.

You could probably even allow other skills to play a part, like rerolling a failed roll if another skill is applicable, with a number of rerolls available for each applicable skill. So if you're skilled in both Acrobatics and Athletics, you will probably succeed on scaling the walls of the Abyss. Literally climbing your way out of hell is one way of casting your own Revive.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. But unless I misread something, your system works like this: You are asked to perform a check. If there is no Advantage given, you roll 3 d20s and compare the results to what is necessary to succeed on the check. For the easiest such skill it's 1 DC 15, for the hardest it's 3 DC 15 results.

This works very well for Godly cases. An untrained peasant with no modifier would need to roll three DC 15s, which is .25^3=.0156, less than 2% chance to jump across the chasm.
But on the easier side of things, they would get three attempts to make the simple checks that are supposed to be still difficult to succeed at. But that's way easier than I think you realize. That's roughly a 5/20 chance to succeed on one die. 175/400 to succeed on two dice. And 4625/8000 to succeed on three dice. So a greater than 50% chance to succeed on something that should only be reasonable for trained or magically enhanced people. That's pretty easy.

Composer99

2020-07-06, 11:50 AM

A modified proficiency system I'm developing does something similar, expanding on prior homebrew.

- you can have proficiency, expert proficiency (expertise), master proficiency (mastery), and epic proficiency, or be untrained (no proficiency)
- proficiency corresponds to 5e RAW proficiency, while each grade of proficiency above that adds 2 to your proficiency bonus
- tasks can have a property called complexity, which comes in grades matching the grades of proficiency (complexity, expert complexity, etc.)
- if a task has complexity, anyone lacking the corresponding grade of proficiency has disadvantage on a check to attempt it, and the DC increases by 5 for each grade of complexity above your level of proficiency (for instance, an untrained character making a check to attempt a DC 10 task with expert complexity has disadvantage, and the task has a DC of 20 for them).
- proficiencies should come with "tricks" you can do at each grade, that characters without that proficiency can't do; for instance you can adapt epic skill uses from 3.5 to epic proficiency tricks;
- characters have ways to advance their proficiencies, from class features to feats to periodic bonus proficiencies

While anyone can interact with this system, if trying to bridge the gap between martial and caster characters, one would give martials more ways to do so.

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-06, 12:55 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong here. But unless I misread something, your system works like this: You are asked to perform a check. If there is no Advantage given, you roll 3 d20s and compare the results to what is necessary to succeed on the check. For the easiest such skill it's 1 DC 15, for the hardest it's 3 DC 15 results.

This works very well for Godly cases. An untrained peasant with no modifier would need to roll three DC 15s, which is .25^3=.0156, less than 2% chance to jump across the chasm.
But on the easier side of things, they would get three attempts to make the simple checks that are supposed to be still difficult to succeed at. But that's way easier than I think you realize. That's roughly a 5/20 chance to succeed on one die. 175/400 to succeed on two dice. And 4625/8000 to succeed on three dice. So a greater than 50% chance to succeed on something that should only be reasonable for trained or magically enhanced people. That's pretty easy.

Maybe, but civilians aren't the ones making skill checks. The thing is, there already is a "civilian level" of difficulty, which is an auto-success if you're proficient. A level 1 untrained character has notably different powers than a civilian, and that level 1 character has roughly a 50% chance of making that DC 15 if he is allowed 3 attempts at it, which I'd say is pretty fair.

And the other things is...why not? Maybe jumping that cliff to safety made that random peasant realize he could accomplish great things? After all, anyone can harm a Dragon 5% of the time.

Also, you're describing someone attempting something 3 times. Most scenarios wouldn't have a "heroic" thing allow 2 failures and a third attempt. That's the opposite problem, where allowing multiple chances for success supports the underdog (and so Advantage is better when you're likely to miss). There's not much difference between doing that in my version, or doing that in the normal example of a DC 15 (which is roughly the same across both versions in regards to scale).

What if instead of requiring multiple successes to pass a check (thereby requiring multiple uses of a skill to pass anything but a practically guaranteed check, if I'm understanding your system right?), you just had the creature roll multiple dice depending on their proficiency bonus (instead of adding the proficiency bonus to the rolls) and if any of them succeed, the check is passed?

i.e., a character without proficiency rolls once. They pass the check if they roll above the DC, and fail if they roll below.

A proficient character with a +2 proficiency bonus rolls twice. They pass the check if either die is above the DC, and only fail if both are below.

A proficient character with a +4 proficiency bonus rolls four times. They pass the check if any of those four dice is above the DC, and only fail if all four are below. Etc.

Advantage and disadvantage add or subtract one die from the total dice rolled. If disadvantage reduces the total dice rolled to 0, the skill check uses the creature's passive score for the skill. Expertise could either add the creature's proficiency bonus to their rolls, or add another die to the total rolled.

Same problem as above.

Overall, using your highest roll basically means random chance is more valuable than your stats. Using your lowest roll means your stats are more valuable than the roll. Stats (proficiency, attributes, whatever) grow with level and investments, and so basing your success off of the lower roll puts more power in the character who invested towards it. If you want to contrast the difference between the levels by using multiple dice, each dice has to determine failure, not success.

Yours does have the distinct advantage of rewarding players for being a higher level (effectively making your Random Chance scale off of your Proficiency), but this puts less weight on things like attributes (as someone with a +1 Proficiency bonus over you is much more likely to succeed with that extra die). It does get kind of obnoxious rolling 6d20 before counting how Expertise plays into it.

I haven't done the math on your outcome, though, and it could be interesting to see the results of either way.

ZRN

2020-07-06, 01:40 PM

At the end of the day, spellcasters have a full subsystem's worth of abilities, with considerable potential for growth and expansion. Non-casters get their class features and basic game systems - that's it. If they want any more variety, they need to get access to spells. There's only so much that can be done in face of this.

I have two issues with this argument. The first is minor: feats and “class abilities” potentially cover a lot of options, so there’s not really a system-level problem there. If you replaced the battlemaster maneuvers with plainly supernatural abilities like “turn invisible” and “jump over a mountain” they could still be class features rather than spells but wouldn’t have the limitations people are concerned about here. (For that matter, most warlock invocations fit this description.)

The second is broader: just because spells are specific and exception-based doesn’t inherently make them more powerful. If ALL martial characters were inherently better at certain aspects of the base systems (skills, etc) it wouldn’t be impossible to balance that against spellcasters’ very limited and specific powers. The real problem is that SOME martial classes get almost no non-combat benefits, even to those core shared systems.

Tvtyrant

2020-07-06, 01:48 PM

Add in followers as a class feature maybe. A half caster gets 1 follower, full mundanes top out at 4. There would be options like Spymaster, Quartermaster, Squire, Seneschal, that all do different things.

Spymaster lets you effectively scry and gather information.

Quartermaster lets you buy items or services in the field.

Squire is basically an Iron Defender.

Seneschal maintains a base for you and lets you hire services for massive price reductions.

Scout lets you survive in wilderness more easily, find whatever you are looking for.

etc.

Wryte

2020-07-06, 02:29 PM

The second is broader: just because spells are specific and exception-based doesn’t inherently make them more powerful.

This is one reason I tend to find the idea that martial are at a significant loss against spellcasters for utility to be overstated. Spells are inherently constrained by what their descriptions say they can do, but skills are only constrained by how creative a player can be with them. A lot of spells only come out stronger than a comparable skill check when dealing with an overly-restrictive DM that plays rules over rulings and refuses to let anything that doesn't have explicit rules in a book actually be effective.

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-06, 02:44 PM

This is one reason I tend to find the idea that martial are at a significant loss against spellcasters for utility to be overstated. Spells are inherently constrained by what their descriptions say they can do, but skills are only constrained by how creative a player can be with them. A lot of spells only come out stronger than a comparable skill check when dealing with an overly-restrictive DM that plays rules over rulings and refuses to let anything that doesn't have explicit rules in a book actually be effective.

But at the same time, a DM who is more open for allowing skills to do unorthodox things is also likely to allow those same things with spells. You might have 4 skills, but I have 10 spells, so who comes out ahead?

That kind of mentality only supports skills if:

1: The players are constantly using skills, to the point where the shear number would be too expensive for spell slots to keep up (and that's a lot if you're trying to dwindle the resources of a level 5 caster, not to mention if you have more than that).
2: The DM is one that considers there to be an imbalance between spells and skills, and made the decision to restrict spells and be lenient with skills in an attempt to fix that imbalance.

Problem with #1 is that rolling that many skills can be kind of obnoxious. Problem with #2 is that a caster may feel it's unfair for something like Invisibility to be strictly worse than a Stealth Check, and so it's rewarding more combat-oriented spells from those casters to avoid any scenario where they can be nerfed by DM fiat.

MaxWilson

2020-07-06, 03:27 PM

I saw this a little late. I think it has more to do with the very "wishy-washy" developer language he uses in explaining things. They're usually very "up to interpretation" and don't get far into complicated details for the most part. I think part of it that he's held onto this ideal that tables should be allowed to modify things as they see fit, and setting hard lines on these kinds of things diminishes that.

"Ah, but you see here, the LEAD DESIGNER said 4 years ago that melee attacks can't be used while Hiding, so I don't get attacked with Advantage!"

Problem is, the alternative means we're stuck figuring out for ourselves exactly how many encounters we should have to balance certain classes where that sorta thing matters. At the same time, he can't really acknowledge there's a fault in the code he's responsible for, likely required by WotC. Or if it's not forced, just from common sense. It would not make anyone happy if some bigwig from Microsoft acknowledged that there was legal spyware in a Windows 10 update package.

It's more than wishy washy language. It was explicitly an discussion of how he personally manages spotlight balance with an large number of players, and someone challenged his method by saying essentially "doesn't the DMG require you to use more encounters than that?" and his answer was nope, it doesn't.

Warwick

2020-07-06, 03:52 PM

Sneak Dog

2020-07-06, 05:24 PM

This is one reason I tend to find the idea that martial are at a significant loss against spellcasters for utility to be overstated. Spells are inherently constrained by what their descriptions say they can do, but skills are only constrained by how creative a player can be with them. A lot of spells only come out stronger than a comparable skill check when dealing with an overly-restrictive DM that plays rules over rulings and refuses to let anything that doesn't have explicit rules in a book actually be effective.

Spells go from erupting earth in a 10 ft. radius at level 5 to making a 100 ft. radius structure-shattering earthquake at level 15.
Skills go from +3 proficiency at level 5 to +5 proficiency at level 15.

Bounded accuracy makes skills bad at high level, but spells aren't subject to bounded accuracy. They range from waking you when someone tresspasses your alarm spell to making wishes come true.

Personally, I'd figure out stuff for martials to do which isn't subject to bounded accuracy. On the other hand, this'd require a lot of effort.
If I was lazy, I'd subject spells to bounded accuracy. Keep the damage spells roughly where they are, probably lowering their area of effect to be skirmish size, but changing the utility spells to be close to what a skill can achieve at those levels.

Baptor

2020-07-07, 01:48 AM

I may be just an old DM from them "AD&D" days here, but I got a simple suggestion fer ye...

Put back in AD&D Magic Resistance. :smallcool:

For those of you that don't know, in AD&D many creatures, especially at high levels, had magic resistance. It wasn't like today, where it just gives advantage on saving throws. No, no. AD&D magic resistance gave a percentage chance that any spell simply had no effect on them.

So a fiend, for example, might have 50% magic resistance. This meant anytime any spell cast by anyone, regardless of level, targeted or included the fiend, there was a straight 50/50 chance it simply fizzled and didn't work on them at all. Some creatures had very high MR. Illithids had 90%!

This really helped in AD&D. I remember many fights where magic-users had to simply buff the fighters because they couldn't do squat to the monsters. They absolutely depended on the martial classes to save their butts.

If you want a taste of that, play Baldur's Gate 2. By the end of that your mages will be doing nothing but buffing the martials and the occasional summons.

Just a thought. Do it, or not. Might be cooler if you did. :smallwink::smallcool::smallbiggrin:

Willie the Duck

2020-07-07, 07:55 AM

I may be just an old DM from them "AD&D" days here, but I got a simple suggestion fer ye...

Put back in AD&D Magic Resistance. :smallcool:

As a grognard, I have fond memories of this. However, like the previous suggestions about bringing back spell disruption, there is a limitation on this limitation: it only effects what the casters do towards their enemies/once initiative is rolled. A significant portion of what a spellcaster brings to the table is what they do in non-combat situations and/or in buffing up their side.

Eldariel

2020-07-07, 08:10 AM

If you want a taste of that, play Baldur's Gate 2. By the end of that your mages will be doing nothing but buffing the martials and the occasional summons.

Just a thought. Do it, or not. Might be cooler if you did. :smallwink::smallcool::smallbiggrin:

Well, that was one way to go about it. In BGII specifically, the other option was simply casting Lower Resistance a couple of times and then raining arcane "end" on the enemy. If you were e.g. solo Mage, this was by far your best bet (well, summons/gates/etc. were decent too). I do think this edition has the worst incarnation of magic resistance thus far. It's an absolutely ridiculous system that makes no narrative sense and just punishes the same spells also punished by Legendary Resistance (effectively, you simply won't use those spells later on). Combined with Concentration, this edition has by far the smallest pool of viable spells for higher levels of play, which leads to sameyism.

I much prefer 3e version of Magic Resistance over 2e though: it specifically made the difference between spells that produce mundane effects (i.e. most conjuration CC) and spells that are wholly magical. You thus had a small array of spells you could deploy against enemy resistant to magic, or then you could try to go over and beyond the magic resistance (True Casting, Assay Resistance) to punch through with some haymaker. And SR also applied to fighting summons and antimagic fields and such. It was actually a pretty cool mechanic, though the numbers were ****ed due to the number buffing available to the PCs (and certain spells that were a tad too good).

I find a version of 3e's system fit into bounded accuracy would actually be excellent (probably with the extension of perhaps applying to magically animated creatures and summons in that they have to beat the SR to attack or attack with disadvantage or some such). Bounded accuracy basically fixes all the issues 3e magic resistance had, and that was by far the most logical version of the effect and also somewhat interactive at that. It wasn't arbitrary (except with a certain category of not-very-Conjuration Conjuration blast spells, but that was a flaw in the spells), it fit into the narrative and it was effective without being overpowering. I think it would actually suit 5e perfectly if the system were built with it (of course, fiddling with the numbers would be difficult now that the system is in place since you'd basically need to customize it for every monster).

Tanarii

2020-07-07, 08:24 AM

As a grognard, I have fond memories of this. However, like the previous suggestions about bringing back spell disruption, there is a limitation on this limitation: it only effects what the casters do towards their enemies/once initiative is rolled. A significant portion of what a spellcaster brings to the table is what they do in non-combat situations and/or in buffing up their side.
Agreed, that does seem to be the majority of complaints. Which is why 1/3 of my suggestions were about "plot" wrecking spells.

Of course, the #1 root cause for non-combat caster domination is 5 MWDs or severely skewed to Easy (ie no resources expected to be used) non-combat encounter days. Players absolutely will conserve their resources for harder encounters if they think the adventuring day will have 3 Deadly encounters, or 4-5 Hard ones.

And if spells get used for Medium or harder non-combat encounters ... great! The system is working as intended. Non-combat encounters expected to be resolved with no resources are Easy encounters.

Reading through this forum, it seems like most folks forget the game is encounter oriented. And I say that as someone that loves the exploration pillar. It took me a while to realize that most exploration is just an extended encounter, sometimes wrapped around other encounters, often in the form of an informal skill challenge.

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-07, 08:55 AM

For those of you that don't know, in AD&D many creatures, especially at high levels, had magic resistance. It wasn't like today, where it just gives advantage on saving throws. No, no. AD&D magic resistance gave a percentage chance that any spell simply had no effect on them.

I dunno, it doesn't seem like a great mechanic in the first place for a strategy game. Taking on a punishment for an action is one thing, but making that punishment as random chance or "Your turn does nothing" doesn't really seem all that...interactive? Fun? It's not like Saving Throws are hard to resist in the first place in 5e, and most spells that don't fizzle on a fail don't do anything more than just damage (which is what everyone else does, too).

I get that that's how attacks work, but you can attack several times each round without any real cost. Most resources for attacks are also activated after you know the attack is successful. Having something like "50% chance of auto-fail" on casting a spell on the target, on top of trying to hit the target with a saving throw spell, on top of the fact that most bosses have Legendary Resistances...What exactly is something like an Enchantment Wizard supposed to do? Conjure stuff (assuming that's what he prepped for).

Don't get me wrong, it'd definitely be a targeted nerf for casters, but I think that hard "Yes, you are allowed to play" and "No, you are not allowed to play" methods aren't the way to go. Extra costs, punishments, yes, but not denial.

When you tell a player he can't do something (as opposed to telling him that doing something hurts him), he'll just have fewer options to choose from, and now your "addition" to the game actually made his game a lot smaller.

Willie the Duck

2020-07-07, 09:02 AM

Reading through this forum, it seems like most folks forget the game is encounter oriented. And I say that as someone that loves the exploration pillar. It took me a while to realize that most exploration is just an extended encounter, sometimes wrapped around other encounters, often in the form of an informal skill challenge.

What really pops out at me from reading this forum is a decided resistance to use alternate rest/heal mechanics (either the ones in the DMG or a self-crafted one) even though the 5MW/easy-mode seems to be the 2 of the top 5 complaints about the edition.

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-07, 09:11 AM

What really pops out at me from reading this forum is a decided resistance to use alternate rest/heal mechanics (either the ones in the DMG or a self-crafted one) even though the 5MW/easy-mode seems to be the 2 of the top 5 complaints about the edition.

I think the concerns for that are mostly because players don't want the game to slow down, and I think there's this mentality that having a heal after a night's sleep is easy to set expectations for. Planning a week to heal all of your HP instantly feels really arbitrary in comparison, and having a single night's rest for a Short Rest puts a huge damper on dungeons and other high-octane scenarios.

Players want to heal when it makes sense, and DMs don't want to sacrifice narrative pacing for a balance concern. Both are valid concerns, I think the only bad response is assuming every solution has those problems. I myself have a couple solutions, but implementing a houserule for something like sleeping or healing can just simply be too much work, since it's warping a core concept in most players' heads. Having the book tell you how to heal between rests when you have other ideas is one thing, but having your DM tell you what a nap means mechanically and enforcing it is another.

It's kind of interesting, thinking about it. In 5e's simplicity, where the developers designed it from the ground up to allow tables to make work to create houserules for their personal games, I see most players cling to that simplicity as a comfort. We enjoy this simplicity not by building on it, but by sleeping on it. It's so much easier when it's not work. It's fairly easy to recognize this, since "houseruling" a solution is almost a bad word here, like creating your own solution to a problem makes you less credible than someone who expertly maneuvers around the problem.

"That's not a problem at my table, because our DM is actually good" is something I've seen a few times on controversial threads. I don't mean that experience or talent doesn't work for them, but it doesn't work for those that still have the problem. Rules are in place for the assumption that a community will collapse without them, so one table may be stronger with more rules than another.

1: Short Rest is 4 hours, long rest is 32.

This makes a Long Rest a decision rather than an accident, as they'll have to rest in town or a fortification to get the rest they need. 4 hours on a Short Rest is guaranteed on a night's rest, but also allows players to rest between major encounters, allowing them to attempt several encounters in the same day. The whole point of the "Gritty Realism" concept of a 1-week Long Rest is simply just to make it an active choice to heal rather than something that happens before you need it. Spending at least 1 day in safety is exactly what would be needed for that kind of mentality, and any longer is unnecessary.
The biggest issue with this solution is that the timings may feel unnatural to some tables, and it may feel too restrictive to allow high-octane scenarios.

2: Hit Dice are now used to fuel HP and Spell Slot regen you'd normally get from sleeping. So you roll all of your remaining Hit Dice, start expending your Hit Dice for either HP or spell slot levels (Hit Dice spent for spell slots don't gain your Constitution modifier), until you have no more HP or slots to fill. Then you regain half of your maximum Hit Dice as normal and spend those until your HP and Spell Slots are full.

This makes additional rest an organic choice rather than a forced one, as the players' resources will dwindle over time to cover the tax of adventuring. At most, a noncaster with these rules only takes 2 days of rest to be at max HP after a hard week and 0 HP, and 4 days to get his Hit Dice capacity to be full. As long as you aren't consistently using up more than half of your life total's worth in spell slots or HP each day, you'll generally stay at full capacity.
The biggest issue with this solution is more rules/work.

Tanarii

2020-07-07, 05:48 PM

Sindeloke

2020-07-07, 07:59 PM

Baptor

2020-07-07, 09:23 PM

I find a version of 3e's system fit into bounded accuracy would actually be excellent (probably with the extension of perhaps applying to magically animated creatures and summons in that they have to beat the SR to attack or attack with disadvantage or some such). Bounded accuracy basically fixes all the issues 3e magic resistance had, and that was by far the most logical version of the effect and also somewhat interactive at that. It wasn't arbitrary (except with a certain category of not-very-Conjuration Conjuration blast spells, but that was a flaw in the spells), it fit into the narrative and it was effective without being overpowering. I think it would actually suit 5e perfectly if the system were built with it (of course, fiddling with the numbers would be difficult now that the system is in place since you'd basically need to customize it for every monster).

I agree with just about everything you said, especially this part. One reason I come here is to suggest an idea just so someone like you can say, "yes, and here's a better version of that idea." Thank you sage, I think I shall tinker with some numbers. I may just bring back spell resistance!

greenstone

2020-07-07, 10:42 PM

Off-the-wall idea (taken from a note in the Primeval Thule book):

There can only be one arcane class in the party at any one time.

Kane0

2020-07-08, 12:03 AM

Off-the-wall idea (taken from a note in the Primeval Thule book):

There can only be one arcane class in the party at any one time.

Now i'm imagining a campaign setting where two known casters that meet each other's gaze are honor bound to duel to the death, typically by magical means but in some cases tearing off their robes and going for the throat.

Willie the Duck

2020-07-08, 08:03 AM

Now i'm imagining a campaign setting where two known casters that meet each other's gaze are honor bound to duel to the death, typically by magical means but in some cases tearing off their robes and going for the throat.

I was picturing more like a child trying to push the similar poles of two magnets together. Two casters can't be in the same party because no matter how hard you push them together, they just slip through your fingers and one goes flying (or one flips, becoming a barbarian, and then they latch together).

Dienekes

2020-07-08, 12:43 PM

Yes, and that's definitely the easiest solution.

But another is to embrace the idea that part of the non-combat challenges should include expending resources.

Of course, that points out another issue: tougher challenges are designed to take resources. Combat or non. So part of "fixing" martials, if you believe that's necessary, is to give them resources that can be used in multiple pillars for tougher challenges. About half the martial are either very low resource or combat-oriented resources.

Hmm, that's interesting.

The first thing I thought about was giving Barbarians a "Burst of Rage" ability. Where they can go into a Rage to give themselves some means of dealing with social or exploration problems. But it uses a Rage.

You'd probably need to increase the number of Rages a Barbarian gets a day, but get rid of Persistent Rage and probably unlimited rages at 20. But that's level 20, balance is more a suggestion at level 20.

C-Dude

2020-07-08, 05:10 PM

Perhaps making all martials 1/3 casters, all 1/3 --> 1/2, all 1/2 --> 2/3 casters would be enough to allow the martials to keep up (especially at higher tiers) and increase the number of buttons they have (in combat and out) ...

It would be a simple maybe even elegant adjustment, but may ruin some thematics for magic free PCs - this could be fixed by reskinning the spells as maneuvers/skills.

Thoughts?

I agree that people often overlook the effectiveness of a creative "power re-flavoring". Making a list of 'toe-stepping' spells and re-branding them as martial maneuvers would work rather well. After all, the game already has established resource management with spell slots, why not tap into that mechanic rather than trying to reinvent the wheel?
I'd probably take it one step further, though, and mash the martial classes together with the caster classes.
Every time the player levels, they gain attributes/features based on their martial class, and spells/techniques based on their caster class.

That way casters benefit from the features that are martial exclusive and martials get flexible resources that are caster exclusive. That makes the question of physical training versus magic a largely narrative point, though, and requires that the Game Master and Players both agree to flavor the ability usage based on their source of power.
For instance, if the Rogue gets Fireball from this arrangement, its use is actually the character preparing and launching a prefabricated explosive rather than an incantation of arcane power.

Dienekes

2020-07-08, 05:51 PM

I agree that people often overlook the effectiveness of a creative "power re-flavoring". Making a list of 'toe-stepping' spells and re-branding them as martial maneuvers would work rather well. After all, the game already has established resource management with spell slots, why not tap into that mechanic rather than trying to reinvent the wheel?
I'd probably take it one step further, though, and mash the martial classes together with the caster classes.
Every time the player levels, they gain attributes/features based on their martial class, and spells/techniques based on their caster class.

That way casters benefit from the features that are martial exclusive and martials get flexible resources that are caster exclusive. That makes the question of physical training versus magic a largely narrative point, though, and requires that the Game Master and Players both agree to flavor the ability usage based on their source of power.
For instance, if the Rogue gets Fireball from this arrangement, its use is actually the character preparing and launching a prefabricated explosive rather than an incantation of arcane power.

I believe you have successfully reverse engineered 4e.

This does go to the problem of verisimilitude in the game. There are apparently a fairly large percentage of players who dislike when the mechanics of all the classes feel the same. Casting a spell shouldn’t be the same as throwing a vial. At least to them (I actually enjoyed 4e for what it was).

That said, I don’t believe it is inherently true that to create nominal balance everyone must use the same subsystem. That is merely the easiest method to obtain balance. Personally I found the game the most interesting when WotC were willing to try wildly different methods and subsystems trying to obtain balance. It’s how we got ToB, Wilders, and the factotum all hanging out at roughly equal standings while playing very different from each other.

C-Dude

2020-07-08, 07:06 PM

I believe you have successfully reverse engineered 4e.

This does go to the problem of verisimilitude in the game. There are apparently a fairly large percentage of players who dislike when the mechanics of all the classes feel the same. Casting a spell shouldnÂ’t be the same as throwing a vial. At least to them (I actually enjoyed 4e for what it was).
Huh... I hadn't thought of it, but yeah, it would be like 4e. The premise that everyone needed powers to be balanced was heavily played in that edition.
It never bothers me when something mechanically identical is given a different narrative framework. I suppose that's because from a game design standpoint there are a limited number of mechanics available to exploit (based on the complexity of the system) and they will quickly run out before ways to explain them can. Having tried my own hand at development, I can respect that an engine is groaning at its gills with its mechanics and I can cut its creators some slack for reusing an existing mechanic.

That said, I don’t believe it is inherently true that to create nominal balance everyone must use the same subsystem. That is merely the easiest method to obtain balance. Personally I found the game the most interesting when WotC were willing to try wildly different methods and subsystems trying to obtain balance. It’s how we got ToB, Wilders, and the factotum all hanging out at roughly equal standings while playing very different from each other.True, I'm following the shortest route for the logic here. If Martials are comparable with Martials and Casters are comparable with Casters, but Martials and Casters are not comparable with each other, the fastest (and easiest) house rule to address the issue is to combine them. That way, the equivalencies already established hang on to their balance while the inequalities are washed out.
It works because the inequalities are washed out, but has the unfortunate side-effect of washing everything out.

The matter then becomes how much work the Game Master is willing to put in to reintroduce the flavor sapped by the action. Do you copy spell progressions like Da Newt suggested and try to filter the spell list so that martial characters are never using abilities that are mechanically identical to the casters? Do you restrict the resource usage mechanics by class (so, say, Fighters use their techniques by leeching the Druid's mechanics, Berserkers leech Warlock mechanics, Rogues leech Wizard mechanics, and so forth in that fashion)? Or do you let players go wild with the "1 Martial level per level, 1 Caster level per level" and end up with Mad Paladins (Berserker Cleric), Confused Paladins (Rogue Cleric), Double Holy Paladins (Paladin Cleric), or something equally broken?

[...Maybe Paladin isn't the best example as they're already half-caster.]

Let's try that again.
Warlord (Fighter Bard) - Techs are used on the party, possibly while attacking.
Dragoon (Fighter Sorcerer) - Flexible tech usage, burn tech slots for more, lesser techs.
Strategist (Fighter Wizard) - The "Roy Greenhilt". Selectable techs, but require rests to swap
Warden (Fighter Druid) - Rather than wild-shape, selectively shuffle attributes. Fist of the Bear!
Crusader (Fighter Cleric) - Basically a paladin. Oops.
Ravager (Fighter Warlock) - Force highest tech slot usage first.

Granted, that all has the potential to spiral wildly out of control, but isn't that part of the fun of house rules? I don't imagine a full team of developers would pursue an option like this for a new edition, but for a table that's struggling with the balance of power this might be an easy (and amusing) fix.

Tanarii

2020-07-08, 07:07 PM

5e Star Wars did force and tech powers as point fueled "spells", refreshing on a long and short rest respectively. Various classes and subclasses are full, 2/3, 1/2, or 1/3 "casters". For example Engineer is a full tech "caster".

They also expanded the maneuver system and used it for multiple classes and subclasses.

The Monk is pretty much the same. The Operative (Rogue) is really similar base class, with a tech subclass. The fighters all get limited maneuvers, with subclasses that are effective Brute, short-rest Tech instead of EK, and full maneuver Battlemaster. The Guardian (Paladin) is a force caster, and the Scout (Ranger) is a tech user. Barbarian has cyborg, force caster and war chief.

It definitely looks like they took some time to think about where something additional could be done, and effective use of tech as powers.

Hytheter

2020-07-08, 09:40 PM

On that note, I've always found the Rage clause that you have to attack or get attacked to keep it going to be really destructive and inhibiting. It straight up prevents any consideration of using Rage as a utility to walk through environmental hazards, make a series of athletic checks to climb walls or cross rivers, or basically anything else that "gets really strong and sturdy" would normally be obviously useful for in non-combat challenges. At the very least you should be able to keep it up by making a Str or Con check every turn as well.

Yeah, just letting Rage run its course without needing to attack people would really open up its out of combat potential. Arguably you can do it by just hitting yourself but that seems cheesy and artificial to me.

Personally I'd give an explicit "str intimidation" ability to them so they have some social power too.

edit: double post, completely forgot I already posted in the thread...

This does go to the problem of verisimilitude in the game. There are apparently a fairly large percentage of players who dislike when the mechanics of all the classes feel the same. Casting a spell shouldn’t be the same as throwing a vial. At least to them (I actually enjoyed 4e for what it was).

I never played 4e so I may be off-base, but my impression is that the problem isn't just that the mechanics are the same in the moment but that they all use the same resource system as well. If the Wizard can use the Fear Spell 1/encounter and the Sorcerer can use Dragon fear 1/encounter and the Fighter can use Scary Attack 1/encounter and the Barbarian can use Scary Rage 1/encounter... yeah, those are all going to feel the same. But if the Wizard uses the Fear Spell 1/encounter and the sorcerer uses Dragon Fear by spending 2 Mana and the Fighter uses Scary Attack at will but can't target the same creature twice and the Barbarian uses Scary Rage only when entering Rage... suddenly they all feel rather different even if they all have the same effect of frightening an enemy within 30ft if it fails a Wis save.

ezekielraiden

2020-07-08, 11:56 PM

Off-the-wall idea (taken from a note in the Primeval Thule book):

There can only be one arcane class in the party at any one time.

Doesn't really fix that much of the problem. Warlock isn't particularly broken compared to martials (it's still more powerful, but not nearly as much as a fully-juiced Wizard), so you're throwing out some baby with that bathwater. Doubly so because now you can't have ATs or EKs. And then, IMO the final nail in the coffin, is that you aren't even throwing out all the bathwater: Druid and Cleric are still both viable options, and Land Druids are very nearly 1:1 with Wizards (less potentially versatile, but they get 100% spell list access, so...) When you can still have 3/5 of a party be distinct full casters and another be a really solid half-caster (Paladin), it doesn't really seem like you've done much besides inconvenience caster fans.

Yeah, just letting Rage run its course without needing to attack people would really open up its out of combat potential. Arguably you can do it by just hitting yourself but that seems cheesy and artificial to me.

Personally I'd give an explicit "str intimidation" ability to them so they have some social power too.
Wouldn't hurt, that's for sure.

I never played 4e so I may be off-base, but my impression is that the problem isn't just that the mechanics are the same in the moment but that they all use the same resource system as well. If the Wizard can use the Fear Spell 1/encounter and the Sorcerer can use Dragon fear 1/encounter and the Fighter can use Scary Attack 1/encounter and the Barbarian can use Scary Rage 1/encounter... yeah, those are all going to feel the same. But if the Wizard uses the Fear Spell 1/encounter and the sorcerer uses Dragon Fear by spending 2 Mana and the Fighter uses Scary Attack at will but can't target the same creature twice and the Barbarian uses Scary Rage only when entering Rage... suddenly they all feel rather different even if they all have the same effect of frightening an enemy within 30ft if it fails a Wis save.
I have never gotten a clear answer as to why it all feels "samey" when, y'know, the allegedly-not-samey 3rd edition did 90% of things as either spells, or mechanics as if they were spells, which all have essentially the same overall structure (type/school/descriptors, target/s, area/s of effect, duration, etc.) with particular variations depending on the specific nature of the spell. Literally the same way 4e powers do (not all powers have targets, not all powers have the same duration, etc.) Just look at how riddled with spell-based not-actually-a-spell mechanics Pathfinder is.

But I also really don't get why "you can do this once every five minutes or so" (the "real meaning" of once-per-encounter) is what makes them "feel the same" when they may easily do completely different things other than having something to do with being scary and how frequently they can be used.

Like, is frequency of use really so COMPLETELY defining that if the effects are in any other way analogous, it's going to feel "samey"? Because if so, there's your problem. If "you can use this once a fight" means there can only be one mechanical expression for any given concept, you have just expressly stated that magic IS the only game in town and anyone who doesn't get access to it isn't allowed to play the same game as everyone else.

OldTrees1

2020-07-09, 12:14 AM

Just did the math on an interesting way to change the ability check math.

What if we used adv for everyone, a minimum of level/3 (round up) on the die, and replace proficiency with +level/3 (round up).
1st level: 1d20 (minimum 1) + 3 (from a 16) + 1 (from level/3)
20th level: 1d20 (minimum 7) + 5 (from a 20) + 7 (from level/3)

DCs range from 5 to 32.

1st
20th

DC 19
49%
100%

DC 20
43.75%
87.75%

DC 24
9.75%
69.75%

DC 25
0%
64%

Not the route I would take, but an interesting outcome.

Kane0

2020-07-09, 12:47 AM

OldTrees1

2020-07-09, 12:55 AM

I have never gotten a clear answer as to why it all feels "samey" when, y'know, the allegedly-not-samey 3rd edition did 90% of things as either spells, or mechanics as if they were spells, which all have essentially the same overall structure (type/school/descriptors, target/s, area/s of effect, duration, etc.) with particular variations depending on the specific nature of the spell. Literally the same way 4e powers do (not all powers have targets, not all powers have the same duration, etc.) Just look at how riddled with spell-based not-actually-a-spell mechanics Pathfinder is.

It was an aggregation critique from multiple different critiques.

One example (please take these questions as rhetorical examples to avoid derailing):
Why does my At-Will Fighter have Daily powers?
Why does my At-Will Warlock have Daily powers?
Why does my At-Will Rogue have Daily powers?
If I can understand how to design classes with drastically different recharge times, then why couldn't WotC be bothered to even try? And just in case you are confused on why this matters, go to Wizard and change all the 3rd level spell slots from Once per Long to One time only. Changing the recharge of a class impacts how they play and how they feel to play.
Then the "samey" critique entered when WotC's justification was they wanted a unified powers progression pattern that they could just stamp onto each class / mold each class into. So we lost the diversity just to make it easier on the WotC devs.

Hytheter

2020-07-09, 01:31 AM

But I also really don't get why "you can do this once every five minutes or so" (the "real meaning" of once-per-encounter) is what makes them "feel the same" when they may easily do completely different things other than having something to do with being scary and how frequently they can be used.

Like, is frequency of use really so COMPLETELY defining that if the effects are in any other way analogous, it's going to feel "samey"? Because if so, there's your problem. If "you can use this once a fight" means there can only be one mechanical expression for any given concept, you have just expressly stated that magic IS the only game in town and anyone who doesn't get access to it isn't allowed to play the same game as everyone else.

The resource usage system has a serious impact on how you ration those resources, the options you have at a given moment, the choices you have to make and the circumstances you need to consider. Even if the abilities themselves are different in the moment, using the same method of resource management will lead to a similar feel of play at a broader tactical level.

Consider the at-will/encounter/daily setup. In a fight you have decision points: Should I use my daily power now or save it for later in the day? Should I use an encounter power now or save them all for later in the fight? Which encounter power should I use now, and which should I save for later? That's not a bad system for making tactical decisions, but if every class is using it then you're basically making the same core set of decisions no matter what.

But let's say Sorcerers have a mana system. They can use any of their abilities by spending mana, spend more mana to enhance those abilities, and once per day they can use an "ultimate" version of any power they have. Now the decision tree changes. Instead of worrying about which powers you'll be able to use later you have to worry about how many powers you can use. Should I pour all my mana into this one attack or should I conserve some? Should I use my daily effect now, but also, how should I use it?

Of course, having different abilities is important too. Have different abilities on different timers and no-one will ever complain that classes feel the same. If you have different abilities but everyone's on the same timer it will feel samey on a tactical level. If you only have different timers and everyone has a lot of overlapping or analagous abilities it will feel samey on a momentary level. I would wager though that the tactical level saminess is felt more because it's more pervasive - you don't use Scary Attack every turn but you are always making decisions about how to use your abilities.

ezekielraiden

2020-07-09, 02:24 AM

So, @Hytheter, since you don't have any specific experience with 4e, I thought I'd go through and do some looking at the specific kinds of powers you speak of. I'll be looking at those belonging to Fighters, Wizards, and the Dragonborn alternate racial power (since "Dragonfear," the specific name, is a racial ability for some Dragonborn that don't have a breath weapon). I won't be doing Sorcerer simply because I'm already flagging after looking over Fighter and Wizard.

Let's start by taking a look at the Fighter-specific powers with the Fear keyword that I'm able to find. (With the loss of the official Compendium this is harder, but not impossible.) There are exactly seven such powers from, AFAICT, the entirety of 4e; all but one of them is an Encounter power, so we'll focus on those just for apples-to-apples comparisons, but I'll include the daily (noted as such) because Wizard and Sorcerer have far more daily Fear powers. Note that, when I say "for a full round," I mean through the end of the Fighter's next turn, and I am assuming that, if an attack roll is required, it hits. If effects are different based on hitting or missing, I'll note that. These powers are:
Single Out (lvl 2 utility): Need Intimidate training, 25 foot range. Makes a single target grant combat advantage (CA) to you (you get a +2 to attack rolls against them as long as you can see them) for a full round.
Daunting Onslaught (lvl 3 melee attack): Physically smack someone. Any enemy adjacent to it or to you takes -2 penalty to hit for a full round.
Menacing Strike (lvl 7 melee attack): Physically smack someone for (relatively) high damage, and for a full round, look so big and scary you can cause people to back off if they stop near your target.
Fearsome Threat (lvl 10 utility): Need Intimidate training. Shout a nasty threat; all enemies within 15 feet grant CA to you and your allies for a full round, unless they try to hit you (the effect expires whether they hit or miss).
Grim Presence (lvl 10 utility): Needs Intimidate training. You become so scary-looking, any weak-willed enemies (defined as having Will defense less than or equal to 12+your level) stagger five feet away from you.
Menacing Surge (lvl 13 attack with any weapon): You rush forward super fast (up to your speed +10 feet), then smack every enemy in a 10' square adjacent to you. Hit or miss, for a full round, any enemies standing next to you takes -2 to hit.
Howl of Defiance (lvl 22 daily utility): Reaction, triggered by an enemy dealing damage to you. Sets a generic mark on all enemies within 25 feet, which lasts for the rest of the fight unless you fall unconscious (or it gets overridden). An enemy marked this way grants CA to you until the mark ends.
There's a mix of personal movement, forced movement, debuffs, and damage here. Some of these aren't attacks at all, some are. Some soften enemies up (for yourself or others), some reduce enemy offense. Note that all of the attacks target AC, not one of the non-AC defenses like Will or Fortitude.

On to the Wizard. There are significantly more such powers, but about half of them are Daily powers, and one is an At-Will. I'll use A, E, and D to specify. Note the difference between "creatures" and "enemies"--the former includes allies and yourself, the latter is only people you're fighting against. And since it comes up a lot, "save ends" means the target must succeed on a saving throw, which means getting 10 or more on a plain d20 roll (unless the creature has special modifiers for saving throws).
Dread Presence (lvl 1 E attack): Necrotic/nethermancy power. Attacks Will on all creatures in a 25' square adjacent to you, dealing light damage and inflicting slow. Makes a zone of bad for a full round that deals damage to creatures that end their turn there.
Scare (lvl 1 A attack): Psychic/nethermancy power. Attacks any creature in a 15' square adjacent to you, light damage. Anything hit by it can't make OAs against you for a full round.
Daunting Presence (lvl 2 E utility): For a full round, you get +5 to Intimidate checks, and adjacent enemies take -2 to attack rolls that target you.
Grim Shadow (lvl 3 E attack): Necrotic/nethermancy. Attacks Will on all creatures in a 15' square adjacent to you, dealing moderate damage and inflicting -2 to attacks for a full round. Hit or miss, all targets take -2 to Will defense for a full round.
Phantom Foes (lvl 7 E attack): Guaranteed affects a 25' square area, centered on a point within 50', slowing all creatures inside. For a full round, the first time each target makes an attack, it must make a saving throw (get 10 or more on 1d20); if it fails, you can redirect the attack to any other valid creature nearby. If it hits one of the target's allies, it takes more damage.
Face of Death (lvl 9 D attack): Targets creatures in a 15' square centered within 50'. If hit, the target is immobilized (save ends), and on the first failed save, it is instead helpless (save ends); even if it succeeds on a save, it becomes slowed (save ends). A missed target has all the same effects, but isn't made helpless if it fails its first save.
Phantasmal Killer (lvl 9 D attack): Targets a single creature within 50'. Target is haunted by an illusion (save ends), and while haunted, it can't make OAs and you're allowed to make a secondary attack for moderate damage, ignoring concealment. Every time the target takes damage, though, it can save again.
Visions of Ruin (lvl 9 D attack): Creates a 15' square zone of illusory safety (surrounded by illusory horrors) centered within 50'. Creatures hit within that zone see visions of ruin (save ends). While they can see these visions, a target cannot willingly leave the zone, nor can it see targets outside the zone. If a target is forced to leave while affected, it takes moderate damage and the effect ends for it. Creatures partly in and partly out of the zone can't move into squares outside the zone. Even if the attack misses, however, the "can't willingly leave and can't see out" effect still applies for a full round.
Improved Dread Presence (lvl 13 E attack): Identical to Dread Presence above, just more damage.
Evard's Dreadful Mist (lvl 15 D attack): Primary attack hits a 25' square centered within 100'. Targets hit are immobilized (save ends), targets missed are slowed (save ends). Hit or miss, a zone of obscuring mist fills the targeted area, blocking line of sight. Secondary attack is an opportunity attack triggered by any creature entering the zone or starting its turn there, hitting Reflex and dealing moderate damage. Requires a minor action to sustain the zone each round after the first.
Phantasmal Horror (lvl 17 E attack): Attacks Will of a single enemy within 50'. Target is stunned (save ends) on a hit, and while stunned, you get a +4 power bonus to damage rolls against it. On a miss, the target is merely dazed (save ends).
Wrath of Battle (lvl 19 D attack): Affects enemies in a 25' square within 50'. Each target slides up to 15', then makes an attack (as a free action) against a second target of your choosing. Any creature affected by this that misses its attack takes moderate damage. This attack just works, it doesn't require an attack roll.
Mind of Rage (lvl 25 D attack): Single target within 100' is affected by mind of rage (save ends), which also ends if you or any ally attacks or deals damage to the target. While affected, the target charges another creature of your choosing as a free action, with a +4 power bonus to attack and damage. Further, when an ally of the target ends its turn adjacent to the target, the target makes a melee basic attack against that target as a free action.
Phantasmal Dread (lvl 27 E attack): Attacks Will, deals reasonably strong damage to a single enemy within 100'. If hit, that enemy cannot willingly move closer to you for a full round. Hit or miss, the target takes -4 to attack rolls against you for a full round, unless it moves at least 25' further away from you than where it started.
Supreme Dread Presence (lvl 27 E attack): Again, just extra damage, nothing fancy.
Quite a diverse array of affects, here. The only really common threads seem to be illusions, and getting enemies to mess each other up, but even those are relatively weak commonalities. Some things scare enemies away, some root them in place, many create zones that persist for some amount of time.

And now the Dragonfear racial power (which, being a racial power, doesn't have a level--you just get it at first level). Targets all enemies within 25' (50' at 21st level). Attacks Will, inflicts -2 to attacks and causes enemies to grant CA to you and your allies for a full round.

Dragonfear is somewhat similar to some of the Fighter abilities, to be sure, but plenty do something entirely unrelated. It certainly looks nothing like any of the Wizard powers.

Even if the abilities themselves are different in the moment, using the same method of resource management will lead to a similar feel of play at a broader tactical level.
I thought achieving this exact thing was the whole point of improving the experience of martial (non-spellcaster) characters: letting them get a similar, but not identical, experience of tactically-rich play compared to spellcasters.

That's not a bad system for making tactical decisions, but if every class is using it then you're basically making the same core set of decisions no matter what.
Isn't that at least a step up from one group (casters) making meaningful decisions, and the other group (non-casters) not making meaningful decisions? Sure, diversity is great, but when the whole problem--repeatedly and what this thread is attempting to solve--is "how do we help non-casters make meaningful decisions?", it seems a little odd to quibble that we've achieve the thing we sought to!

But let's say Sorcerers have a mana system. They can use any of their abilities by spending mana, spend more mana to enhance those abilities, and once per day they can use an "ultimate" version of any power they have. Now the decision tree changes. Instead of worrying about which powers you'll be able to use later you have to worry about how many powers you can use. Should I pour all my mana into this one attack or should I conserve some? Should I use my daily effect now, but also, how should I use it?
4e actually did do this, and it was a pretty significant flop. This is how Psionic classes worked in 4e: instead of having at-will, encounter, and daily powers, you exclusively had at-will powers. These powers had basic effects which could be Augmented by spending Power Points, which were doled out at (approximately) the rate characters would get more Encounter and Daily powers. A slightly-augmented power was equivalent to an Encounter, and a significantly-augmented power was equivalent to a Daily. The problem with this design is that it makes alpha-striking even more problematic, AND it means you would always just pick the at-will powers that had the best effects and never ever use anything else. It was a neat idea, but it ultimately ended up not particularly good.

Of course, having different abilities is important too. Have different abilities on different timers and no-one will ever complain that classes feel the same. If you have different abilities but everyone's on the same timer it will feel samey on a tactical level. If you only have different timers and everyone has a lot of overlapping or analagous abilities it will feel samey on a momentary level. I would wager though that the tactical level saminess is felt more because it's more pervasive - you don't use Scary Attack every turn but you are always making decisions about how to use your abilities.
So, just to be really, really clear here: Are you in fact saying that the problem is letting non-casters get to make the same kinds of tactical decisions that casters get to? Or are you saying something else and I've misunderstood? Because if that is what you're saying...well. As noted, that simply proves the problem is insoluble. Making martial characters have real tactical decisions (such as when to expend resources) means making them "samey" and thus unacceptable, but leaving them as they are is no more acceptable (and I would argue less). We are thus stuck: we can't eliminate non-casters, we can't dummy them out by turning them into casters at high level, and we can't give non-casters the same kinds of tactical choices as casters. The only option is for people who like playing non-casters to play some other game, because D&D is now fundamentally Casters & Caddies.

Further: What other "timers" could there possibly be? Recharge mechanics? That can't be right, people openly hated how "MMO-like" 4e was, recharge mechanics would be actually cooldowns, not just something people can squint incredibly hard and pretend are cooldowns. And with the emphasis on lightning-fast combats in 5e, stockpiling resources to spend later is out the window as well. (It has been drilled into me, by numerous posters across multiple forums, that expecting any fight in 5e to last more than 4 rounds is silly/poor design, and expecting even one fight per character level to last more than 6 rounds is borderline insane.)

Hytheter

2020-07-09, 07:53 AM

Fear stuff

Ok, so the abilities aren't all super similar. But that's not the point I'm making anyway. I'm not talking about the abilities themselves but to a broader level of play, the way those abilities are rationed and how that affects which abilities actually get used in a given moment. D&D is largely a game of attrition - resource management is a big part of that, and the part that (I hypothesise) makes people feel like every class is the same.

Having the abilities themselves be meaningfully different is obviously a good thing, but it's only one possible axis for differentiation. Resource management is another axis, one that impacts gameplay on an ongoing basis rather than a momentary one. And people evidently care about that.

Maybe I should be using "strategic" vs "tactical" as a distinction? I don't know if that's accurate though.

So, just to be really, really clear here: Are you in fact saying that the problem is letting non-casters get to make the same kinds of tactical decisions that casters get to? Or are you saying something else and I've misunderstood? Because if that is what you're saying...well. As noted, that simply proves the problem is insoluble. Making martial characters have real tactical decisions (such as when to expend resources) means making them "samey" and thus unacceptable

I'm really just telling you my impression of why people think 4E seems samey. :P

But to answer the question anyway: Ideally classes (not necessarily just casters vs martials) should all be making different kinds of decisions from each other, at both the momentary level (my ability is different to yours) and at the resource management level (my ability recharges differently to your ability) while being roughly equivalent in depth and capability. Within reason of course; some abilities will have similar effects or recharge in similar ways, and some classes or subclasses could well end up simpler than others, which is good for supporting different levels of player engagement (but there should be simple AND advanced classes on both sides of the caster/martial divide). Basically as you say:

I thought achieving this exact thing was the whole point of improving the experience of martial (non-spellcaster) characters: letting them get a similar, but not identical, experience of tactically-rich play compared to spellcasters.

But while leveraging the resource management axis. That's the axis 4E falters on. 5E is better on that front but not perfect and obviously falters in other ways as well.

Further: What other "timers" could there possibly be? Recharge mechanics? That can't be right, people openly hated how "MMO-like" 4e was, recharge mechanics would be actually cooldowns, not just something people can squint incredibly hard and pretend are cooldowns. And with the emphasis on lightning-fast combats in 5e, stockpiling resources to spend later is out the window as well. (It has been drilled into me, by numerous posters across multiple forums, that expecting any fight in 5e to last more than 4 rounds is silly/poor design, and expecting even one fight per character level to last more than 6 rounds is borderline insane.)

Well, obviously there's the speed of recharge to consider. Your encounter/SR vs daily/LR. Sometimes its because one ability is more powerful. Sometimes it's about sustainability vs nova potential, like in Warlocks VS Wizards. (of course the game could stand to be a little more realistic about encounters per day...) But in 5E most abilities are all or nothing at each rest. I guess it's simpler that way, but you could also have resources that you only get some of back on each rest. Like you have 3 per day but get one back each time you short rest - Arcane Recovery and the Sorcerer Capstone do this. You could go longer scale and have abilities that recharge over longer times scales like on a daily (I think only Hit Dice do, currently) or even longer basis. You better bet my once a year spell will knock your socks off. :P (effectively 1 per campaign could be interesting, actually). You could also have abilities with both encounter and daily recharge uses - a Warlock can use borrowed power to cast magic twice per short rest, but she can also dig into her own magical power for additional castings three times per long rest.

There's also flexible vs rigid ability use. That's basically your AW/Encounter/Daily VS (certain instances of) SR/LR but also 3E spontaneous VS "specific spell in each slot" prepared. I personally think Encounter/Daily would a great way of doing the Wizard - it has a similar feel to classic prepared casters but in a much simpler manner that isn't as clunky, and the lack of flexibility helps balance out the versatility.

You can also vary the "chunkiness" of resources. By that I mean spell points or ki VS spell slots. A lv 10 Warlock that had one short rest slot of each level from 5 down would feel very different from just the two 5s.

Cooldowns and in battle recharge does often lean gamey but the presentation can make it work. Maybe the Fighter has to spend the turn without moving to regain his footing and get in the proper stance. The paladin can say a quick prayer to get another Smite Slot. Bless? What's that? Maybe the dumb Time Wizard idea I mentioned below (im editing a lot :P) just gets a spell back every 12 seconds aka two rounds "like clockwork" - sounds plausible if convoluted. If battles are typically too short for a cooldown you could intentionally design around the idea that getting a second use is kind of a bonus, or something you don't generally do unless you really need it a second time.

Stockpiling could definitely work depending on the rate of acquisition and the costs required. Say a Fighter gains one "Momentum" from hitting with an attack and can spend Momentum to fuel Techniques. At low levels that means probably only getting one or two techniques off in a fight, but as the fighter gets more attacks the ability naturally scales, allowing them to use more techniques or stronger ones. If techniques have good action economy (bonus action?) or Momentum economy (Techniques should probably build momentum too) then it shouldn't be too stifling even if a battle only lasts three rounds.

Plus, you can also just have the stock build over longer periods. Maybe Rage increases every time the Barbarian takes damage, but he doesn't just calm down after lunch - let the Rage build all day for explosive results! You can use resting as a stockpile mechanic too. The cleric prays at dawn and during each short rest, then he can "cash in" each prayer for a channel divinity or save up three for a miracle.

Any stockpiling mechanic can also double as a recharge mechanic too. Maybe the Fighter always gets some momentum whenever initiative is rolled and is replenished (or increased? Maybe a level based cap?) by attacking.

Maybe a caster can gather energy instead of casting, allowing increasingly devastating spells the longer they charge. A first turn Fireball might be nice, but a third turn Fireball really piles on the pain - assuming you don't drop the charge!

A stranger approach would be to use time as a resource. If you really love finicky bookkeeping mechanics and asking the DM what time it is you could have a Time Wizard that recharges spells or spell slots on a minute/hourly/12 hourly/daily basis (or some combination thereof). Have a caster spend months or years of their lifespan to cast? Probably not suitable for this game, but it might be viable if they also have a limited capacity to reverse the effect essentially being a daily system but letting them overcast by spending their lifespan. Specific times of day? Might as well make the time mage as annoying as possible. :P I should stop using it as an example... But what about a druid who depends on the tides, the change of seasons, the weather, the phase of the moon, other celestial and natural events?

Health and Hit Dice. A lot of people seem to dislike the idea, but it's definitely viable at least from a gameplay perspective. I personally like it in concept as a supplement or emergency supply for a less costly resource, or as a risky super move. Cast with your life force! Swing your sword so hard it tears your muscles or breaks your bones!

Maybe a caster requires a blood sacrifice to cast. No problem in combat but could pose interesting dilemmas out of combat. Bag of rats? Sure, why not? In combat it means using an attack on a noncombatant instead of an opponent so as long as it's not overly powerful it should be fine.

As I mentioned before, maybe it's enemy limited. Feints and dirty tricks are potent the first time but intelligent enemies won't be fooled twice. The commanders battle cry just doesn't quite get you pumped up the second time around. If he saves against your fear effect that's it, he's mastered that fear and won't be intimidated by you anymore.

That's all I can think of right now, but I think you can get a good amount of variance just with different combinations of these ideas.

Tanarii

2020-07-09, 08:53 AM

All in the presentation.
And maybe the progression.
Apparently. Every time I hear "every power was do damage plus a minor effect" I feel like the person never tried actually playing the system, and just skimmed the books.

I think the thing that stood out more was they nerfed the loving heck out of "plot wrecking" spells via their Ritual system.

C-Dude

2020-07-09, 12:34 PM

Stockpiling could definitely work depending on the rate of acquisition and the costs required. Say a Fighter gains one "Momentum" from hitting with an attack and can spend Momentum to fuel Techniques. At low levels that means probably only getting one or two techniques off in a fight, but as the fighter gets more attacks the ability naturally scales, allowing them to use more techniques or stronger ones. If techniques have good action economy (bonus action?) or Momentum economy (Techniques should probably build momentum too) then it shouldn't be too stifling even if a battle only lasts three rounds.

Stockpiling actually sounds like a really good way to approach this, if a system like Tanarii mentioned (from that Star Wars adaptation) were to be used. You flag all martial classes as either 1/3 or 1/2 progression for unlocking spell slots (well, tech slots), but make the way they refresh them different.

Fighters would refresh a level 1 slot with each attack (as you described). They must use two level 1 slots to refresh a level 2, and two level 2s to refresh a level 3.

Barbarians would refresh a slot each time they take damage. They must fill up all their level 1 slots before they start filling the level 2s, and all the 2s before they can fill their 3s. Using a low-rank tech means it needs to be refreshed again before the higher techs.

Rangers start the day with their highest slots ready, but no others. They must trade in the higher slots for multiples of the lower slots, at a rate of 1 to 2. Rangers refresh one of their high slots on short rests.

Rogues, conversely, refresh a slot each time they act with advantage. Like Barbarians, they must fill in the low-level slots before they can fill in the high-level ones.

Monks have Ki already.

For the martial classes, these "tech" slots would exhaust on a long rest, meaning that the Martials have more prowess late in the day while the Casters have more prowess early in the day.
Then it's simply a matter of assembling tech lists for each class that are appropriate, by picking and re-flavoring from the magic lists.

Skylivedk

2020-07-09, 04:03 PM

snip, an long and thorough comparison of 4e fear based powers on the Wizard and a Fighter.
Thank you! For someone who never played 4e this was tremendously helpful.

So, just to be really, really clear here: Are you in fact saying that the problem is letting non-casters get to make the same kinds of tactical decisions that casters get to? Or are you saying something else and I've misunderstood? Because if that is what you're saying...well. As noted, that simply proves the problem is insoluble. Making martial characters have real tactical decisions (such as when to expend resources) means making them "samey" and thus unacceptable, but leaving them as they are is no more acceptable (and I would argue less). We are thus stuck: we can't eliminate non-casters, we can't dummy them out by turning them into casters at high level, and we can't give non-casters the same kinds of tactical choices as casters. The only option is for people who like playing non-casters to play some other game, because D&D is now fundamentally Casters & Caddies.

Further: What other "timers" could there possibly be? Recharge mechanics? That can't be right, people openly hated how "MMO-like" 4e was, recharge mechanics would be actually cooldowns, not just something people can squint incredibly hard and pretend are cooldowns. And with the emphasis on lightning-fast combats in 5e, stockpiling resources to spend later is out the window as well. (It has been drilled into me, by numerous posters across multiple forums, that expecting any fight in 5e to last more than 4 rounds is silly/poor design, and expecting even one fight per character level to last more than 6 rounds is borderline insane.)

There is plenty of other recharge mechanics possible. Both those yet to be invented, but also a lot yet to be stolen!

Stockpiling actually sounds like a really good way to approach this, if a system like Tanarii mentioned (from that Star Wars adaptation) were to be used. You flag all martial classes as either 1/3 or 1/2 progression for unlocking spell slots (well, tech slots), but make the way they refresh them different.

Fighters would refresh a level 1 slot with each attack (as you described). They must use two level 1 slots to refresh a level 2, and two level 2s to refresh a level 3.

Barbarians would refresh a slot each time they take damage. They must fill up all their level 1 slots before they start filling the level 2s, and all the 2s before they can fill their 3s. Using a low-rank tech means it needs to be refreshed again before the higher techs.

Rangers start the day with their highest slots ready, but no others. They must trade in the higher slots for multiples of the lower slots, at a rate of 1 to 2. Rangers refresh one of their high slots on short rests.

Rogues, conversely, refresh a slot each time they act with advantage. Like Barbarians, they must fill in the low-level slots before they can fill in the high-level ones.

Monks have Ki already.

For the martial classes, these "tech" slots would exhaust on a long rest, meaning that the Martials have more prowess late in the day while the Casters have more prowess early in the day.
Then it's simply a matter of assembling tech lists for each class that are appropriate, by picking and re-flavoring from the magic lists.

Thanks for some good suggestions!

I definitely can get behind different abilities and recharge mechanics. Matter of fact: I love it. Thanks!

Callak_Remier

2020-07-09, 08:53 PM

Scaling feats, a selection of tier 3+ feats martial's only. Reality warping ****, Done. I am tired of this subject, I am tired of people ignoring spell restrictions when talking about spell casters powers, I am tired of people advocating for hamfisted nerfs that will only end in noone picking those classes. ( which noone will use anyway, so its redundant and repetitive)

I am tired of people using ridiculous theorycrafting bull**** like Simulacrum chains for unlimited wishes, being held up as anything more than, idiotic fantasy which has no actual bearing on the game.

I am tired of never playing tier 3 4 and 5, because of a percieved problem. It's a game where creativity drives the story, people say human fighters aren't boring, prove it then Lean the fuxk into DM Fiat territory and make it your story.

Rant over.

ezekielraiden

2020-07-10, 04:17 AM

Having the abilities themselves be meaningfully different is obviously a good thing, but it's only one possible axis for differentiation. Resource management is another axis, one that impacts gameplay on an ongoing basis rather than a momentary one. And people evidently care about that.
That's my point: Non-casters get locked out of ongoing meaningful decisions. 3rd edition's Fighter bonus feats were sometimes meaningful, but not ongoing choices, you made the choice once and were stuck. Thing is, it feels like every attempt to address the problem gets shot down. Hence why I mentioned both the HUGELY negative response to 4e allegedly having "cooldowns" (even though they were resources, not cooldowns), and the negative response from actual 4e fans to the Power Points/Augmentable powers structure.

Ideally classes (not necessarily just casters vs martials) should all be making different kinds of decisions from each other, at both the momentary level (my ability is different to yours) and at the resource management level (my ability recharges differently to your ability) while being roughly equivalent in depth and capability. Within reason of course...
So, serious question: why is it then that every spellcaster using the same mechanic is fine? As people have been so keen to remind us, even the spellcasters that start as martials (EK, AT, certain Monks) end up using spells with slots etc. Heck, even the Warlock is still using fundamentally the same mechanics, to the point that they had to kludge in "I'm not saying they're spell slots, but they're spell slots" for spell levels 6-9. Isn't that exactly the kind of samey-ness you're critiquing?

Why is avoiding samey-ness necessary for the classes that have always been locked out of ongoing, meaningful choices, but largely ignored for everyone else?

But while leveraging the resource management axis. That's the axis 4E falters on. 5E is better on that front but not perfect and obviously falters in other ways as well.
Not intending to sound like a broken record, but again: 4e did try to vary up the resource management axis, and it was met with a pretty resounding "meh" bordering on "nah." Instead of being a fun alternate way to make interesting choices, it largely removed choice. And that's the serious problem you must contend with here. At risk of tautology, different resource systems work differently. That means they may have incompatible play-experience. And testing that sort of thing is really, really hard--because you want to know the community reaction, and that's difficult to do even with extensive internal playtesting.

Like you have 3 per day but get one back each time you short rest - Arcane Recovery and the Sorcerer Capstone do this.
First, that's not really how Arcane Recovery works (since it's one short rest per day). Second, and more importantly, there's a serious flaw with most of this kind of thing: it encourages the already-problematic "nova strike" behavior, where you blow as many resources as you can as soon at the start of the fight. This is a problem in D&D, because it has a tendency to make combats more swingy, AND it excludes other kinds of resource-spending, because blowing away half the opposition in round 1 shortens the fight and reduces the number of targets etc. etc.

This is what I meant by having "incompatible play-experience": having a large pile you can burn through quickly but which slowly regenerates, while someone else starts with no pile and must slowly earn, gets you a situation where the start-with-a-large-pile gal burns everything in 1-2 turns, eviscerating an encounter, so the starts-with-nothing-and-builds-up guy doesn't get to do anything cool. And then the starts-with-a-large-pile gal is going to ask, both because it's rational and because it's powerful, that whatever the thing is which gives back their large starting pool (generally, a long rest in 5e) happens more often. Which leaves the starts-with-nothing-and-builds-up guy in the position of either accepting that he just contributes less, or asking the party to do a tactically inadvisable thing in order to personally contribute more.

You better bet my once a year spell will knock your socks off. :P (effectively 1 per campaign could be interesting, actually).
This is even worse, as it taps into a problem often seen in video games: either you trivialize one encounter that really shouldn't be (and how on earth would you balance around "maybe they have their only-ever-usable-once, incredibly powerful spell, maybe they don't"?), or you have players that sit on it forever and thus never actually use the power granted to them. I'm certain you'll have played at least one RPG where you've loaded up on healing items, damage items, etc. and then never used or sold them because "well what if I *NEED* them next time?" It's extremely hard to break players out of that kind of thinking. (My current group of players included.)

You could also have abilities with both encounter and daily recharge uses - a Warlock can use borrowed power to cast magic twice per short rest, but she can also dig into her own magical power for additional castings three times per long rest.
This might work, but...I honestly don't get how that's meaningfully different from just having spell slots in general. It certainly doesn't seem a lot different from having a mixture of daily and encounter abilities. (In fact it's really basically the same??)

There's also flexible vs rigid ability use. That's basically your AW/Encounter/Daily VS (certain instances of) SR/LR but also 3E spontaneous VS "specific spell in each slot" prepared. I personally think Encounter/Daily would a great way of doing the Wizard - it has a similar feel to classic prepared casters but in a much simpler manner that isn't as clunky, and the lack of flexibility helps balance out the versatility.
Believe it or not, the 4e Wizard actually did have unusual flexibility. They would learn two daily powers--spells, properly, since Wizard powers are called spells--each level that grants one (and two utilities at utility-granting levels). However, they would only have access to a restricted set of these spells at any one time, and could prepare any set of their daily spells they wished (though each spell could only be prepared once).

You can also vary the "chunkiness" of resources. By that I mean spell points or ki VS spell slots. A lv 10 Warlock that had one short rest slot of each level from 5 down would feel very different from just the two 5s.
Mmm...not real sure if that would work well, solely because the limited number of spells known would risk this being pretty boring. But maybe I'm wrong, it would need some testing to know for sure.

Cooldowns and in battle recharge does often lean gamey but the presentation can make it work. Maybe the Fighter has to spend the turn without moving to regain his footing and get in the proper stance. The paladin can say a quick prayer to get another Smite Slot.
The main problem with this one is just that taking a turn to do nothing feels pretty bad. Playtesting has a tendency to reveal weaknesses like this, but some can (as with 4e's PP powers) slip past you anyway. And, as noted, the dreaded, "You turned it into an MMO!" problem, which despite being not actually true, was a serious millstone around 4e's neck. Making it actually true would be a huge, huge risk.

Stockpiling could definitely work depending on the rate of acquisition and the costs required. Say a Fighter gains one "Momentum" from hitting with an attack and can spend Momentum to fuel Techniques. At low levels that means probably only getting one or two techniques off in a fight, but as the fighter gets more attacks the ability naturally scales, allowing them to use more techniques or stronger ones. If techniques have good action economy (bonus action?) or Momentum economy (Techniques should probably build momentum too) then it shouldn't be too stifling even if a battle only lasts three rounds.
Ironically, this is how WoW works--specifically with Rogues and Feral (Cat) Druids (because cat form is basically becoming a Rogue)--so you'd better be prepared for those "you turned it into a paper MMO" complaints loudly shouting down all the good you've accomplished. More importantly, though, if Techniques both "spend" and "build" momentum, wouldn't it be easier to just have a rising count? E.g. "you attacked this turn, you have 1 momentum and that lets you use abilities that require 1 momentum; next round you'll have 2 and that will enable 2-momentum actions."

(I mention this mostly to show that I'm not just an enormous naysayer, I really do see that there are options. It's just that the intensely, aggressively ANGRY response to 4e being even kinda-sorat LIKE WoW mechanics strongly implies that it's a major risk to do anything that actually copies MMO mechanics, even if you work very hard to nail the presentation.)

Skipping some of your other ideas as they are, well, mostly just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. Nothing wrong with that, but in a lot of cases my criticisms above still apply: the people who start with a large pool will alpha-strike and push for five minute workdays; the people who have to build up to cool things will consistently feel left out; and forcing people to wait/delay/do nothing while they recharge will rightfully feel bored half of the time, which is pretty clearly undesirable. The one that I will directly comment on is that "Time mage" thing: that's just a big no from me. That goes even worse into the problems that affect D&D's balance, because there's no way to meaningfully "punish" people who tap into it excessively, but there will be constantly reasons to expend those resources. You'll be creating a situation where the Time Mage always has good reason to spend allegedly-precious resources, but you have little to no means to stop them because punishing players for doing what is both intelligent and powerful is (rightfully) disliked game design.

In fact, that's really an important principle here: You must always approach every resource mechanic from the perspective of, "How would people abuse this?" Because they will--guaranteed. If degenerate strategies exist, they WILL be exploited. A lot. Not everyone will do so, naturally. But you must expect that, if people are given the opportunity and the costs are easily ignored, handwaved, or difficult to enforce, people will regularly take the opportunity.

Health and Hit Dice. A lot of people seem to dislike the idea, but it's definitely viable at least from a gameplay perspective.
Part of the reason it's disliked is that is extremely abusable, even in systems that have specifically geared for keeping it balanced. The WoW Warlock, for example, was incredibly busted back in Burning Crusade, because it could cast from hit points...and also heal from doing damage, meaning maximizing your Int (damage stat) and health pool was all you really needed to be amazing, while other casters had to worry about mana regen and had few to no reliable means to heal themselves if things went pear-shaped. And, it's worth noting, the more the Warlock became balanced, the less it relied on casting-from-health. These things can be entertaining, but they're even more difficult to balance than the system we already have, and as this and other threads demonstrate, we have an already ongoing, systemic balance problem as it is. Throwing in another mechanic that's notoriously hard to balance will likely make things worse.

Maybe a caster requires a blood sacrifice to cast. No problem in combat but could pose interesting dilemmas out of combat. Bag of rats? Sure, why not? In combat it means using an attack on a noncombatant instead of an opponent so as long as it's not overly powerful it should be fine.
Believe it or not, it was the 4e official rules that introduced the "bag of rats" concept, albeit not by any official name. It just had as a rule that if a power required you to attack something, it had to actually be a threat to you, not just any creature you could say you were attacking.

As I mentioned before, maybe it's enemy limited. Feints and dirty tricks are potent the first time but intelligent enemies won't be fooled twice.
How does this differ from encounter powers? You can't use them more than once in a given fight, and this may be justified by exactly that line of thought. Which, again, circles around to one of my points: many of your "alternatives" don't really strike me as being meaningfully different. They're either Encounter (and/or Daily) powers with a different coat of paint, or the spell slot system with a different coat of paint (whether it be 3.5e or 5e).

Stockpiling actually sounds like a really good way to approach this,<snop> Fighters would refresh a level 1 slot with each attack (as you described). They must use two level 1 slots to refresh a level 2, and two level 2s to refresh a level 3.
Just so we're clear here: This means that it takes 2 successful hits to get a level 2 slot, four to get a level 3 slot, eight to get a level 4 slot, etc.? So you need 2^(n-1) successful attacks to get one nth level slot? That's...not at all promising. Even to get a 5th-level slot, that would require 2^4=16 successful attacks. You would maybe get to use one 5th-level slot per day at any kind of reasonable level. (Most combats are 4 rounds or less; at 9th level, you don't have three attacks per Attack Action; therefore, it would take more than a single fight just to save up for a single 5th-level slot.) That sounds very nearly unplayable--and exactly the kind of problem I have with these build-up-resources mechanics. They're slow and ponderous, while spellcasters get to do what they want, when they want, no questions asked. Even if these slots were very powerful, it preserves far too much of the pro-caster bias.

Barbarians would refresh a slot each time they take damage. They must fill up all their level 1 slots before they start filling the level 2s, and all the 2s before they can fill their 3s. Using a low-rank tech means it needs to be refreshed again before the higher techs.
Many of the same problems as above, except now you're making it so that getting more low-level slots is a bad thing--it means it takes you longer to access your best abilities. That...sounds like a bad plan. Besides, in how many fights does a single character take damage more than 5 or 6 individual times without, y'know, biting the dust?

Rangers start the day with their highest slots ready, but no others. They must trade in the higher slots for multiples of the lower slots, at a rate of 1 to 2. Rangers refresh one of their high slots on short rests.
This, actually, could work--in part because you're whittling down, rather than building up. I'd want more playtesting to see it in action...but you've got a real idea here, one I find actually somewhat compelling.

Rogues, conversely, refresh a slot each time they act with advantage. Like Barbarians, they must fill in the low-level slots before they can fill in the high-level ones.
Which...would be the worst of both Fighter and Barbarian mechanics above. You don't always act with advantage in combat, so you're going to have some rounds where you don't actually advance at all, slowing things down even more and potentially preventing the access of even 4th level slots (depending on the specific number of them available), along with the aforementioned "more low-level slots is a curse, not a blessing."

For the martial classes, these "tech" slots would exhaust on a long rest, meaning that the Martials have more prowess late in the day while the Casters have more prowess early in the day.
So. How do we then deal with the serious problem of the five-minute workday? Because now you're actively pitting long-rest-based characters against these build-up-tech characters. You've created a new incentive for spellcasters to blow all their spells at once: if they do, their technique-based allies will sacrifice less for taking a short rest early on, so they'll be more likely to agree to it. We really don't need to create more incentives for the powerful, has-lots-of-resources classes to dump all those resources ASAP so they can rest more often. That is, in fact, exactly the opposite of what we want.

Thank you! For someone who never played 4e this was tremendously helpful.
My pleasure. I know that for many 4e is borderline "black box" territory, and that there is a lot of misinformation about it. I strive to be informative first, and second to dispel oft-repeated but poorly-justified claims/assumptions about it. Given that it is unique among WotC(/Paizo) editions of D&D for being praised by fans of non-caster classes for how it treats said classes, it's got lessons for any effort to address the gap.

AdAstra

2020-07-10, 05:52 AM

I pushed this in the other thread, but to reiterate here, I don’t believe it’s possible to address the out of combat imbalance without reducing the versatility or power of the more flexible casters. If casters stay at the Wizard level of kitchen sink, then the only way to give martials parity would be to either let them be way stronger at specific things, which can easily be taken too far and edges into niche-locking a la shadowrun, or give the martials so many abilities that it starts to just look like spellcasting, in addition to having issues with making the abilities feel natural.

Forcing casters to specialize more would also allow for stronger theming and allow you to more effectively express more concepts, such as a pyromancer or teleportation master. You could probably keep do-everything mages like the classic Wizard, but you would need to substantially curtail the level of effects you can produce, making them into jacks-of-all-trades rather than masters of all.

Warlush

2020-07-10, 08:28 AM

Composer99

2020-07-10, 09:18 AM

Casters "dominating" or "trivializing" encounters is a DM problem. In my 5 years of playing casters I have never once been able to trivialize anything. Our DMs know every player's abilities, scores, saves, and spells known.
Then get this, they customize each encounter to match the party's abilities, ensuring a challenging and exciting game for all involved! WHAT A CONCEPT!!!!!
You guys should try it. It's way easier and more fun than reinventing the wheel.

(1) That does nothing for people who want, say, their fighter or barbarian to have the means to interact more with saving throws or imposing conditions other than prone or grappled, without having to become spellcasters.

(2) That does nothing for pick up groups or playing published modules (where at least part of the point of using such content is not to have to spend time tinkering with encounters).

(3) Your table culture is not every table culture, and it is incorrect to presume that what you value in encounter building is a universal principle of the game. For instance, I liked that I could strategically reshape the ambush my wizard found himself in with sleep - but I think the party fighter ought to have a similar capacity, if the player wants to use it.

(4) There are already examples from previous editions of D&D of martials getting Nice Things. I am sure examples from D&D-adjacent games can be found as well. So there's no need to reinvent the wheel to give them more Nice Things.

(5) One of the ostensible design goals of this edition was, if memory serves, a certain degree of modularity, so there could be, for instance, options for Nice Things for martials. Here we are, six years in, with nothing like it in sight officially published.

Condescendingly and unconstructively lecturing us for "doing it wrong" (a) should be left to the other main thread on the topic, since the premise of that thread was "is there a problem?" whereas the premise of this thread is "for those who agree there is a problem, how to solve it?", and (b) is not a solution, for the reasons above, as well as any others that other contributors might share.

C-Dude

2020-07-10, 12:35 PM

Just so we're clear here: This means that it takes 2 successful hits to get a level 2 slot, four to get a level 3 slot, eight to get a level 4 slot, etc.? So you need 2^(n-1) successful attacks to get one nth level slot? That's...not at all promising. Even to get a 5th-level slot, that would require 2^4=16 successful attacks. You would maybe get to use one 5th-level slot per day at any kind of reasonable level. (Most combats are 4 rounds or less; at 9th level, you don't have three attacks per Attack Action; therefore, it would take more than a single fight just to save up for a single 5th-level slot.) That sounds very nearly unplayable--and exactly the kind of problem I have with these build-up-resources mechanics. They're slow and ponderous, while spellcasters get to do what they want, when they want, no questions asked. Even if these slots were very powerful, it preserves far too much of the pro-caster bias.
I didn't say successful hits. I said attacks. It doesn't matter if the attack is successful or not, it refreshes a tech slot. You can then swap the techs in place of your regular attacks-per-round, but the techs themselves do not refresh level 1 slots, they build up to level 2 slots. It's just another way of reflecting the earlier mentioned momentum gauge.

Many of the same problems as above, except now you're making it so that getting more low-level slots is a bad thing--it means it takes you longer to access your best abilities. That...sounds like a bad plan. Besides, in how many fights does a single character take damage more than 5 or 6 individual times without, y'know, biting the dust?The point here is that the slots don't empty at the end of an encounter, they empty at the end of the day. Every time the Barbarian takes damage, they get a tech slot. If they hold back from using the low-level techs, once they are all set up they can fill their high-level ones really quickly. I do admit this sort of thing would require giving Barbarians another class feature, allowing them to take damage on a skill check to roll again or gain advantage (thereby improving their out-of-combat functionality AND helping them fill their tech levels).
Additionally, maybe it needs to not be damage, but rather the threat of damage. If the barbarian evades an attack or completely negates its damage, they should still get credit for their techs from it.

This, actually, could work--in part because you're whittling down, rather than building up. I'd want more playtesting to see it in action...but you've got a real idea here, one I find actually somewhat compelling.
Thanks! I was bound to have at least one good idea! :smallsmile:

Which...would be the worst of both Fighter and Barbarian mechanics above. You don't always act with advantage in combat, so you're going to have some rounds where you don't actually advance at all, slowing things down even more and potentially preventing the access of even 4th level slots (depending on the specific number of them available), along with the aforementioned "more low-level slots is a curse, not a blessing."Herein lies another subtlety of the language. I didn't say "Advantage in combat". I said "Advantage". Any action a rogue takes during the day with advantage (ANY action) will refresh one of their level 1 tech slots. If they save up their tricks, they get to nova during one fight of the day. Or they can do little things all day, with boosts from their level 1 techs.
I will admit Rogue and Barbarian have a problem that I didn't see when I was coming up with the idea, though, and that is that the lower level techs will quickly outnumber the higher level ones as they level (so it becomes harder to get high-level slots refreshed as they become more powerful). The only alternative I can think of is to set it up so that for every 2-3 techs they refresh in level 1, they refresh one in level 2, and so on in that fashion... though that brings them towards Fighter in an uncomfortable way (considering the cries of "same-y" heard up-thread).

So. How do we then deal with the serious problem of the five-minute workday? Because now you're actively pitting long-rest-based characters against these build-up-tech characters. You've created a new incentive for spellcasters to blow all their spells at once: if they do, their technique-based allies will sacrifice less for taking a short rest early on, so they'll be more likely to agree to it. We really don't need to create more incentives for the powerful, has-lots-of-resources classes to dump all those resources ASAP so they can rest more often. That is, in fact, exactly the opposite of what we want.Except it increases the duration between long rests, because tech players won't want to be forced to dump their resources on a trivial fight or waste them (both of which will come as those resources reset to empty on a long rest). The caster's attrition is meant to be counteracted by the martial's stockpile so that encounter choices remain at roughly the same level throughout the day, but the players who make them shifts.

5eNeedsDarksun

2020-07-10, 04:47 PM

Kane0

2020-07-10, 05:18 PM

So gut the spells

Edit: or the easy access to them

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-10, 05:31 PM

The more I think about this, the more I'm not sure there is a simple way to rebalance the classes. When I just consider the Pass Without Trace spell, that's a complete gamechanger for an entire group, castable at level 3. It encompasses both the combat and exploration pillar and is superior to high dex, proficiency and even Rogue expertise at low levels. Some spells are just too powerful, even taking into account limited uses.

Fix skills.
Make attacks have more options.

Not perfect, but seems like a good start.

Fact is, if you nerfed spellcasting, someone is going to complain. Who'd complain about more martial options or a better skill system?

Kane0

2020-07-10, 06:10 PM

Fact is, if you nerfed spellcasting, someone is going to complain. Who'd complain about more martial options or a better skill system?

At some point you just have to roll up your sleeves and get it done for the benefit of the game, no matter the outcry.

KorvinStarmast

2020-07-10, 08:23 PM

At some point you just have to roll up your sleeves and get it done for the benefit of the game, no matter the outcry. Somewhere in the back of my brain is a comment from a dev that this is what they tried so hard to do with 4e, and the outcry was sufficient to get them back to the 'roll up the sleeves' stage again.

So gut the spells

Edit: or the easy access to them We have a poster here whose sig used to say that "balancing a part of the game by making it annoying to use isn't a best practice" or something like that.

I like the spell, pass without a trace, but it represents an opportunity cost in an adventure day where using that second level spell is a hard decision to make since it means another spell can't be used either earlier or later in the day. In the 5 minute adventure day, or a session where resources do not get stressed, it's close to an "I Win" button for movement to contact without being detected.

Someone made an interesting suggestion further up: no more than one arcane caster in a party. I can't see the devs making that a hard and fast rule, but I think that might be a good table rule. Depends on the players. (Hmm, or that might be in that other thread about screwed martials ...)

Kane0

2020-07-10, 08:55 PM

We have a poster here whose sig used to say that "balancing a part of the game by making it annoying to use isn't a best practice" or something like that.
Someone made an interesting suggestion further up: no more than one arcane caster in a party. I can't see the devs making that a hard and fast rule, but I think that might be a good table rule. Depends on the players. (Hmm, or that might be in that other thread about screwed martials ...)

Yeah that’s Grod’s Law.

The immediate response to that idea broke it down IMO, not the right approach.

As i stated previously in this thread, I would rather curb what an individual caster has access to and spread that around a bit, including to martials.
A character can have a primary and two secondary strengths and not be one-note, there’s no need for the mage to be able to mind control and summon and nuke and turn people to newts and provide shelter, then change it all up tomorrow because they want to play something almost completely different.

Asisreo1

2020-07-10, 09:26 PM

It might just be better to go straight to the source if you want to nerf casters. Rebalance each problematic or game-breaking spell.

Rather than forcecage being a no-save, make it a save to be shunted out. Or you could make the force spells require a large amount of damage to be destroyed.

Wish can replicate all spells 5th-level and lower. It's still massive versatility, but it isn't nearly as game-breaking and sorta fits in-line with other 9th level spells. Maybe up to 6th or 7th level.

Simulacrum and Clone can only have one instance of each. And simulacrum be 1/4 the hp and clone be half. They're still extremely powerful spells but they don't have implications of raising an army of martials.

Teleports across long distances have a chance to fail and put the caster in a state of lethargy if they do. Making teleportation too risky to be totally reliable but still available when needed.

Instead of having spells incapacitate, have them just make the target have disadvantage. That is, unless the target saves at the beginning of the turn, in which case keep it as is.

It might be a bit more work, but I think removing the "brokeness" of the spells would be better, as well as more manageable for new DM's than having all characters have reliable ways to screw your entire adventure up.

ezekielraiden

2020-07-10, 10:43 PM

I didn't say successful hits. I said attacks. It doesn't matter if the attack is successful or not, it refreshes a tech slot. You can then swap the techs in place of your regular attacks-per-round, but the techs themselves do not refresh level 1 slots, they build up to level 2 slots. It's just another way of reflecting the earlier mentioned momentum gauge.
Okay so...that really wasn't clear from the description given, but if I'm getting this right:
You must attack 4 times (whether or not you hit) in order to obtain two level 1 slots.
You must use two level 1 slots to obtain a level 2 slot.
You must use two level 2 slots to obtain a level 3 slot.
Etc.

This still means you have to have a constant influx of extra level 1 "slots acquired" (hopefully we come up with a better term for this), because each level N slot has to sit on a pyramid of previous-level slots. It takes six attacks to generate one 2nd level slot: two regular attacks per 1st level slot, and then expending those 1st level slots. It takes 14 attacks (successful or otherwise) to generate a 3rd level slot: you had to spend two level 2 slots, each of which required six attacks (two 1st level slots and four attacks to generate those slots). It takes 30 attacks to generate a 4th level slot, and in general, we can recursively define the amount as 2(N+1) where N is how many slots were required for the previous level. (Counting 1st level as coming from "zeroth level" regular attacks, of course.) This quickly becomes impossible even for groups that fight many combats per day with a large number of rounds each (compared to the typical 3-5 that 5e generates, from what evidence I can gather). You need to make 126 attacks just to generate a single 6th level slot. Even for an 11th level Fighter in ideal circumstances (making 3*(rounds+1) attack rolls per fight via Action Surge, never being denied any attacks due to lacking targets in range etc.), at an average of 4 combat rounds per fight, you would need at least 7 combats per day just to generate that singular 6th level slot.

Unless I have (again) radically misunderstood your statements here, this is completely untenable. To get a 9th level slot (presuming we use the same "cap at 9" of spells) you have to make over a thousand attacks in a single day. Even if a Fighter makes five per round from some kind of bonus action or the like, that's over 200 rounds of combat--completely untenable even for the most combat-happy group. (If you're curious, the formula is 2^(n+1)-2, where n is the level of the slot, and regular attacks are "zeroth" level slots.)

And this is a (rather, another) problem with designing alternate resource schedules. It can seem like something is completely tenable and realistic, until you actually crunch the numbers and realize it would take ages to achieve things.

The point here is that the slots don't empty at the end of an encounter, they empty at the end of the day. Every time the Barbarian takes damage, they get a tech slot. If they hold back from using the low-level techs, once they are all set up they can fill their high-level ones really quickly. I do admit this sort of thing would require giving Barbarians another class feature, allowing them to take damage on a skill check to roll again or gain advantage (thereby improving their out-of-combat functionality AND helping them fill their tech levels).
Additionally, maybe it needs to not be damage, but rather the threat of damage. If the barbarian evades an attack or completely negates its damage, they should still get credit for their techs from it.
This may help, but again, if it works anything like the Fighter formula above, being attacked/making a save even 62 times a day (fifth-level slot: 2^(5+1)-2), whether or not one takes damage, is somewhat unlikely. That would require, even if we assume 8 combats per long rest, being subject to attacks/saves 8 times every combat. That is just not realistic for most groups.

Thanks! I was bound to have at least one good idea! :smallsmile:
I am honestly trying not to be a ****ty naysayer here, so I hope I'm not coming across as one. I am openly skeptical, but willing to listen and evaluate. I hope that I have been reasonably respectful of your proposals.

Herein lies another subtlety of the language. I didn't say "Advantage in combat". I said "Advantage". Any action a rogue takes during the day with advantage (ANY action) will refresh one of their level 1 tech slots. If they save up their tricks, they get to nova during one fight of the day. Or they can do little things all day, with boosts from their level 1 techs.
I will admit Rogue and Barbarian have a problem that I didn't see when I was coming up with the idea, though, and that is that the lower level techs will quickly outnumber the higher level ones as they level (so it becomes harder to get high-level slots refreshed as they become more powerful). The only alternative I can think of is to set it up so that for every 2-3 techs they refresh in level 1, they refresh one in level 2, and so on in that fashion... though that brings them towards Fighter in an uncomfortable way (considering the cries of "same-y" heard up-thread).
Whether it's in or out of combat doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned. Getting advantage on even 62 rolls a day, let alone over a thousand, is just not realistic for most groups.

Except it increases the duration between long rests, because tech players won't want to be forced to dump their resources on a trivial fight or waste them (both of which will come as those resources reset to empty on a long rest). The caster's attrition is meant to be counteracted by the martial's stockpile so that encounter choices remain at roughly the same level throughout the day, but the players who make them shifts.
Here's a subtlety of the language back at you: It should increase the duration of long rests. But it won't. That's the problem.

We have already had--we currently have--a situation where, in theory, long-rest-based classes SHOULD be accepting that, some of the time, they just run out of juice and have to rely on their short-rest-based/non-rest-based friends. But because that is boring, most players in that position will complain, and they will have perfectly reasonable justification for doing so: "I want to play my character, I want to enjoy the process of being a cool wizard, not sit around plinking at things." It doesn't matter that cantrips are pretty good now (once they scale up, anyway). It doesn't matter that the game is specifically designed so that this SHOULD happen at least SOME of the time in order to keep things balanced. These players will, pretty regularly, request a faster turnover of long rests, because they can do so, and because it really is helpful to the group if they get what they're asking for.

So now you have created a situation where there really is a clear, specific, and direct benefit for taking long rests quickly...which now openly (as opposed to implicitly) shafts the "anti-long-rest" characters in the party. You now have the casters saying, "Well look, we don't know how many fights we might have today. But we do know that, if we rest now, I get all my spells back. It's clearly a more direct benefit to the group that I get my spells than that we wait and hope you get your techs." I do, of course, believe that it is better to have such discussions openly--but that doesn't actually solve the problem, it just makes the problem obvious.

Casters "dominating" or "trivializing" encounters is a DM problem. In my 5 years of playing casters I have never once been able to trivialize anything. Our DMs know every player's abilities, scores, saves, and spells known.
Then get this, they customize each encounter to match the party's abilities, ensuring a challenging and exciting game for all involved! WHAT A CONCEPT!!!!!
You guys should try it. It's way easier and more fun than reinventing the wheel.
I, on the other hand, have seen this repeatedly. I have had multiple DMs throw in the towel because it became impossible for them to balance things correctly due to either crushing certain characters while challenging others, or never even getting to challenge some characters because the others breezed through it. I have even had a DM sour on the very idea of DMing, because he thought he'd figured out how to do balanced encounters for 5e and then ran for a new group (that included me) only to completely gorram DESTROY us because our group wasn't his previous group.

It really isn't as simple as you make it sound.

Fix skills. Make attacks have more options. Not perfect, but seems like a good start. Fact is, if you nerfed spellcasting, someone is going to complain. Who'd complain about more martial options or a better skill system?
Who complained about the Book of Nine Swords? There's your answer.

It might just be better to go straight to the source if you want to nerf casters. Rebalance each problematic or game-breaking spell. <snop> It might be a bit more work, but I think removing the "brokeness" of the spells would be better, as well as more manageable for new DM's than having all characters have reliable ways to screw your entire adventure up.
This helps, but it is only a half measure. 5e already did a fair amount of this with introducing the Concentration mechanic and cutting back on several spells, and arguably 3rd edition (and the 3.5e update) was an attempt to do the same. Each time it has failed both because playtesters (and designers, importantly) don't actually want to make deep enough cuts to matter,* and because bringing casters down closer to non-caster power levels doesn't address the problems of versatility (non-casters have little to none), resources (non-casters have very few), and the aforementioned 5MWD problem (non-Warlock casters have a valid argument that their resource schedule is more important than that of non-casters.)

And, as others have said, even if you do do this, and make cuts deep enough to matter, the fanbase is likely to riot. As much as the same-resource-schedule thing might be a factor in the response to 4e, I'm pretty dang sure the wholesale restriction of the power of magic was much more to blame. It's just a lot easier to claim that Fighters were Wizards (even though they weren't) than to say that Wizards had been brought down to Fighter levels.

*I would even argue that many of your examples aren't deep enough cuts to matter, but that's a discussion for a different topic IMO.

5eNeedsDarksun

2020-07-11, 01:07 AM

Fix skills.
Make attacks have more options.

Not perfect, but seems like a good start.

Fact is, if you nerfed spellcasting, someone is going to complain. Who'd complain about more martial options or a better skill system?

You are correct regarding the complaining. Though boosting martials just makes the issue of 5e set to 'easy' even worse, leading to more balancing.

C-Dude

2020-07-11, 02:53 AM

I am honestly trying not to be a ****ty naysayer here, so I hope I'm not coming across as one. I am openly skeptical, but willing to listen and evaluate. I hope that I have been reasonably respectful of your proposals.Certainly. I did not intend to sound defensive (though reading my response, I could have had a better lead-in). You've been perfectly cordial, thank you for your honesty and your criticism.

Okay so...that really wasn't clear from the description given, but if I'm getting this right:
You must attack 4 times (whether or not you hit) in order to obtain two level 1 slots.
You must use two level 1 slots to obtain a level 2 slot.
You must use two level 2 slots to obtain a level 3 slot.
Etc.

This still means you have to have a constant influx of extra level 1 "slots acquired" (hopefully we come up with a better term for this), because each level N slot has to sit on a pyramid of previous-level slots. It takes six attacks to generate one 2nd level slot: two regular attacks per 1st level slot, and then expending those 1st level slots. It takes 14 attacks (successful or otherwise) to generate a 3rd level slot: you had to spend two level 2 slots, each of which required six attacks (two 1st level slots and four attacks to generate those slots). It takes 30 attacks to generate a 4th level slot, and in general, we can recursively define the amount as 2(N+1) where N is how many slots were required for the previous level. (Counting 1st level as coming from "zeroth level" regular attacks, of course.) This quickly becomes impossible even for groups that fight many combats per day with a large number of rounds each (compared to the typical 3-5 that 5e generates, from what evidence I can gather). You need to make 126 attacks just to generate a single 6th level slot. Even for an 11th level Fighter in ideal circumstances (making 3*(rounds+1) attack rolls per fight via Action Surge, never being denied any attacks due to lacking targets in range etc.), at an average of 4 combat rounds per fight, you would need at least 7 combats per day just to generate that singular 6th level slot.
I wasn't honestly expecting any tech slots above level 3, since I was working under the assumption that martials would unlock them at the 1/3 caster rate. Indeed the system falls apart if the highest slot is much higher than 3rd level, because it is inherently exponential... as you've demonstrated, even the 1/2 caster rate is too high for this method of resource generation.

I was also picturing that player fighters might spar with their teammates after short rests, filling some of their slots at the cost of their friends' hp (hits with wooden practice weapons still hurt! If they're holding back, they won't pump up the adrenaline needed to use their techs!). Then again, depending on the table composition, that might lead to cheese like say... beating up a tree [Durkon would be pleased].

Still, I was hoping that having tech slots up to level 3 would be enough to give the martials some out-of-combat utility. Martials are already designed for combat with their regular attacks, but the techs could let them do cool things out of battle like those described up-thread (like, say, letting a rogue sneak perfectly by mimicking invisibility, or letting a barbarian leap 30 feet as a special action).

The fighter idea feels like it wants to have merit... there must be a way to make their multiple attack actions pump up more flexible techs at a more appropriate rate.
Having techs count as regular attacks would give the fighter an inexhaustible supply of L1s, which is treading on that at-will power territory of 4e again: there'd be no reason to make regular attacks, ever.
On the other hand, making them a 1-1 upgrade exchange will just make the fighter ramp up in waves: here's three attacks, then three L1s, then three L2s, then three L3s... oops, back to three attacks. Actually that might not be so bad if the max slot rank stays low, say 4-5, though it doesn't help with the sleepy casters and their long rests.

Coming up with thematic recharge mechanics for the other two (Barbarian and Rogue) is proving a much more difficult challenge.
For the Barbarian, tying it directly to rage means adopting a Ranger approach (where the high slots fill and the player has to distribute them down). It might also frustrate the player because I'd imagine their barbarian can't actually USE techs while they're raging. Finally, it has the problem of breaking at level 20 when rages become unlimited. Then again, the house-rule could leave the rage limit at its L19 benchmark.

For the Rogue, it's a matter of coming up with something thematically appropriate. Advantage was a low-hanging fruit because it implies the accessibility of the sneak attack in combat, and out-of-combat it calls to stacking the deck in their favor at any given opportunity. The problem here, though, is that advantage doesn't come up enough for the recharge to work. Preventing the long rest from resetting the Rogue might help... their slots could be filled by advantage and remain so until used (for so long as the campaign shall run). But that does little to address the 5-minute workday quandary presented by the casters... or the gain of L1 slots harming their access to higher-level techs (unless they adopt a trade-up approach, two L1s for an L2 and so on). It also would make Rogues feel slow, their big guns locked out, sometimes for several sessions at a time.

...What if advantage gave a number of L1 techs equal to the number of sneak attack dice the Rogue has? At an exchange rate of 2-1 to upgrade them (traded, not used like Fighters), that'd make a level 3 rogue get an L2 slot for each advantage action, and a level 20 rogue get an L4 slot for each advantage action. If their max is only L5, they get a highest level charge after only two actions. If they go all the way to L9, it takes 32 advantage actions... still a bit high over the course of one day, but a lot closer than the first draft!
Also... perhaps this is evidence that Rogue techs shouldn't go that high.

So here are my proposed revisions:

* Fighter
+ Attacks generate L1 techs, L1 techs generate L2 techs, et cetera.
+ The Fighter's utility comes in waves, a typical fighter will take a turn to make attacks, then a turn to use L1 techs, then a turn to use L2 techs, and so on. Upon using their highest tech rank, they drop back to regular attacks.
+ Fighters looking for utility out of combat would do well to fill in their extra tech slots during combat so they can be used in dungeoneering and in towns, to bypass or enhance their skill checks (Heroic leaps, inspiring words and the like).
+ Fighter techs should be an even mix of utility and extra damage. Utility techs like Message, Guidance, and Protection from Energy should be paired with offensive techs like Shatter (changed to slashing damage, localized on weapon) and Thunderwave (Shockwave, sonic or crushing damage).

* Barbarian
+ Entering a Rage refills all max-rank techs.
+ Techs can be traded down a level at a rate of 1 for 2. For instance, an L5 becomes two L4s.
+ Barbarians (probably) cannot use techs while raging, or at least they'd need a list reduction during rages.
+ The Barbarian tech list should mostly focus on utility out of combat, such as Alarm (mental only, radius around Barbarian), Fear, Jump, Knock (well, Bash), or Longstrider.

* Rogue
+ Acting with advantage refills a number of L1 techs equal to your sneak attack dice
+ Acting with advantage does this even when out of combat
+ Rogue combat techs should focus on control (such as Hold Person or Grease), while their utility techs should help them fulfill their role as dungeoneers (such as See Invisibility, Misty Step, and Secret Chest)

* Ranger (If converting from half-caster to martial)
+ After an extended rest, refill all max-rank techs.
+ After a short rest, refill one max-rank tech.
+ Trade down techs for those one level lower at a rate of 1 for 2 (as Barbarian).
+ If using this scheme for recharge, re-flavor the Ranger version of their spells as exertions of physical prowess (turn them into techs).

* Monk
+ Ki points = Tech level cost. A L5 tech costs 5 ki.

For balance purposes, we assume that max tech rank is 5 and tech slots are unlocked at the 1/2 progression rate. Tech slots may or may not transfer their recharge rates to spell slots and vice versa (leaning towards no; techs should probably be tracked separately for multi-class characters).

SpawnOfMorbo

2020-07-11, 05:18 AM

AdAstra

2020-07-11, 07:22 AM

I do wonder if we could modify the recharge "rate" of spells to better avoid 5 minute work days and allow caster resources to be balanced to the sort of encounter-rate that most DMs use, or preferably, create a system that allows you to adjust the rate to whatever type of campaign you want.

Gritty rest variant does alright with this, but it's kinda annoying in some cases, since it also affects HP and non-spellcasting abilities, often ones that are far more limited in use to begin with.

I think having casters only recharge a portion of their spells per rest seems like a good way to set it up. Casters are still forced to ration, but taking a Long Rest still has a benefit for everyone. For example, let's say on a long rest, a conventional full caster can recharge spell slots of a total level equal to their class level plus their proficiency bonus. So a 5th level caster that expended all their slots and took a long rest could recover 2 3rd level slots and 1 2nd level slot, or 1 3rd level slot, 2 2nd level slots, and 1 1st level slot. So you can burn through your slots in one day, but it might take you several to recharge back to full, longer if you keep using slots.

This system could be adjusted, depending on what kind of recharge rate you want, though it would probably need to be tweaked for the half casters and the Warlock.

djreynolds

2020-07-11, 06:52 PM

Mjolnirbear

2020-07-12, 02:53 PM

1. Hit points. I give out max HP at my table than this silly die portion.

The difference a 20th level barbarian has 240hp at my table. The wizard has 120hp.

At some AL tables, 20th level wizards have 82hp and barbarian has 145hp. (Assuming max hp at 1st)

The barbarian gets 7 out 12, 58%.
The wizard gets 4 out of 6, 66%
The fighter get 6 out of 10, 60%
Cleric gets 5 out 8, 62%

That's clearly unfair from 2nd level on.

Is it fixing issues... no.... but it's a start.

2. Speed does not increase. My movement as a 1st level dwarven fighter with an 8 strength is 25ft in plate armor.... the same as a 20th level dwarven fighter with even a belt of giant strength. I'm not more dangerous even over short distances.

All PCs, even monks, should get a bonus to speed for every 5 points in athletics.... +5 to speed. A fighter at 17th level with an 11 athletics check will get +10 to speed if unencumbered.

3. Yes cantrips are silly... because the wizard or cleric who needed a decent dex or strength no longer even need one (toss out GFB and BB). And the damage increases by character level.... not class as extra attack does. Cantrips are very strong, a wizard can use shocking grasp or firebolt and needs only intelligence to do so.

Cantrip power should stop at 5th character levels (aside a warlock with eldritch blast and this requires 17 levels for 4d10)

4. Acrobatics... it's purpose is... what? Nothing? A.C. bonus may not work and mobile feat is good for avoiding AoO.

Well here is an idea... every 5 ranks in this (in the champion's case his/her rank is rounded up from 8 to 10)... how about an extra reaction... period. 10 ranks... 2 reactions.

5. Take those weapon feats that were created... like fell handed, etc... and give these out for free every 5 levels of a class proficient in martial weapons

To me this shows a fighter or paladin or barbarian or ranger or even war cleric maybe who started with proficiencies at 1st level .... are better at 15th level with there weapons...
There are 4 of them... spear and blade and fell handed and flail... 5th 10th 15th ... maybe 20th. But 10 levels of paladin and you can get spear and blade.... not bad.

6. Martials exist IMO to have a constant in the realm of the possible and probable..... casters from level one break the rules of this realm.

Maybe fighters deep down really fear casters and get huge bonuses to their perception check that allows them when a caster casts a spell... they can use their reaction at the moment of casting to take the dodge action... doesn't work for all spells... but what do fighters know.... other than to run when a wizard starts to wiggle their fingers.

I'm only gonna comment on the cantrips... You realise, don't you, that cantrips aren't a caster's strength?

The at-will damage of a caster is below that of a fighter, excepting only warlock, and that exception was built in on purpose.

In fact, very few casters rely on cantrips at all. Here are the times a caster relies on cantrips:

1. When a caster has run out of spell slots or is preserving them for some reason. Because spells are almost universally a better use of a caster's actions
2. When you're a warlock, because warlocks don't have many spell slots like other casters.
3. When you have a specific build: arcane trickster or eldritch knight with SCAG cantrips, or Artillerist (I'd happily save all Artillerist spells for cannons), or some other niche build (maybe quickened booming blade builds). Note that most examples in this slot involve SCAG.

So the first example you almost never see, the second is intentionally built to have fighter-like at-will damage, and the third requires niche builds or SCAG cantrips. None of these examples glorify normal cantrips usage. Certainly none of them are powerful examples of what the caster can do with its options. Even warlocks would rather use a spell slot for faerie fire or Fireball than Agonizing Eldritch Blast if they have the option (they just rarely have the luxury of casting 'real' spells.

Even abilities that buff spells (clerics, dragon sorcerers, evocation wizards) aren't enough to make cantrips the primary option unless you're a warlock or you have a niche build (like an artillerist/storm sorcerer with Quicken).

I won't bother discussing your other ideas as I simply have no thoughts on them. But nerfing cantrips isn't nerfing casters; it's nerfing fun, much like two-weapon fighting in general or throwing weapons are nerfed and unnecessarily sub-par.

It is also always a better idea to buff the sub-par rather than nerf the powerful. It's better to make martials more fun than making casters less fun.

djreynolds

2020-07-12, 06:31 PM

Skylivedk

2020-07-13, 01:19 AM

It's a good point on cantrips.

Fighters only have really at will damage... they just have a sword.

We never be able to really close the gap between casters and martials.

I think though that a lifetime spent really living in heavy armor and depending on certain skills should make a martial better at these skills.

An increase in HP is one way. As shown before the numbers very from 58% to 66.7%... that's a big difference. 8%

An increase of speed is warranted. As your strength increases your speed should increase.

Even a fighter in light armor should be faster than a fighter in heavy armor... right?

Skills could be a way to showcase this. We've seen skill feats in the UA.

I like:
5 feet per +1 strength
- 5 for medium armour
- 10 for heavy armour

Extra attack also gives extra AoO. They can be spread at own risk (allows for better lockdown from Martials).

Int gives extra languages/tool proficiencies (not much of a martial boost, but I'd still want it).

If not a redo of the entire skill system, then new skill unlocks for Martials in each tier. Half-casters will be 1 or 2 tiers behind.

Remove some spells/make them NPC only. Planar Binding, Simulacrum, Awaken, Clone, Wish, Scrying, maybe a few others.

Mjolnirbear

2020-07-13, 08:31 AM

More encounters.

If I were rebuilding this part of the game, maneuvers would be available to all martials, and they would get out-of-combat utility. Things like bonuses to intimidation, insight, or persuasion. Possibly something about leadership (though maybe not, it's basically down to role-play at that point). Practical abilities like awareness of danger, quickness to react (initiative anyone?), and useful rituals (like Alarm).

It's a good point on cantrips.

Fighters only have really at will damage... they just have a sword.

We never be able to really close the gap between casters and martials.

I think though that a lifetime spent really living in heavy armor and depending on certain skills should make a martial better at these skills.

An increase in HP is one way. As shown before the numbers very from 58% to 66.7%... that's a big difference. 8%

An increase of speed is warranted. As your strength increases your speed should increase.

Even a fighter in light armor should be faster than a fighter in heavy armor... right?

Skills could be a way to showcase this. We've seen skill feats in the UA.

I like:
5 feet per +1 strength
- 5 for medium armour
- 10 for heavy armour

Extra attack also gives extra AoO. They can be spread at own risk (allows for better lockdown from Martials).

Int gives extra languages/tool proficiencies (not much of a martial boost, but I'd still want it).

If not a redo of the entire skill system, then new skill unlocks for Martials in each tier. Half-casters will be 1 or 2 tiers behind.

Remove some spells/make them NPC only. Planar Binding, Simulacrum, Awaken, Clone, Wish, Scrying, maybe a few others.

I'm not sure we're approaching the problem in the best way.

1. Martials are great at combat. It's one of the tenets of this edition that martials have top tier damage. That they can fight all day long. But
2. Martials have extremely limited non-combat options in comparison to casters. And
3. The most powerful combat feats are already most useful to martials.

I don't think we need to make martials better at combat. I mean I don't object particularly to martials getting fun thinks like more hit points or better Armour or damage or speed, but it doesn't solve the problem, because martials are already pretty awesome that way. And we don't really need to improve on that. The balance is pretty fine-tuned and we don't want to end up like rangers with exploration: i.e. Obviating the need for the exploration piller.

I also don't know that skills are the way to go. Skills are pretty universal; everyone uses them. 5e flirts with KISS ideals, and making skills do different things for martials vastly complicates matters.

So if we're improving the balance between casters and martials, we need for martials to have

1. More decisions and choices
2. Ways to contribute beyond damage dealing

1. Create intuitive rules for social and exploration pillars.

This is missing from the game. Crucially, the best interactions (in some cases the only ones) are with casters. Casters get enchantment and illusions to manipulate social stuff and teleportation or flight or scrying to intersect with exploration.

But if instead we had rules for combat and exploration, we could then give martials abilities to interact with those rules. For instance, rogue and paladin gain abilities that intersect with social rules, while rangers and barbarians can interact with exploration rules. With such rules, and martials being updated to use those rules, martials would have a more complete way to engage the game. We could then evaluate the spells casters get to interact with these rules and eliminate ones that, like current rangers, eliminate the need to interact with that pillar at all.

2. Options
Martials lack choices. This isn't (necessarily) a bad thing, especially given the system knowledge needed to play a caster without slowing the game down by asking the DM questions. But at the bare minimum, even sorcerers get to switch out a spell once per level. The recent class and subclass options UA filled a road of potholes that had been ignored to that point. But once you've picked your fighting style and subclass and expertise, martials choices mostly involve picking a target for an attack. Even switching weapons offers no meaningful choices

2a) so we give martials choices. The easy place to start is a resource like maneuvers, with maneuvers expanded to include more pillars. The goal is not to make martials better at combat, but give them a little variety. Imagine an Intimidation maneuver. A simple and easy way for a martial to interact with a pillar.

2b) martials get a feat. Feats are excellent ways to get additional options. It's modular, self-contained, adaptable. The problem is the best feats are combat feats. Martials don't need more combat feats (we can add some if we're doing this anyways, but martials are already awesome at combat).

Sooo... A minor change to the Feat structure would be to seperate current feats by pillar. Then fill out the Social and Exploration feats, and give martials one extra pick.

3. Tweak all the things

What other dials could we fiddle with after updating the pillars, granting more ways for martials to interact with said pillars, and giving martials more choices besides "I Attack".

First, comb through the spell list. Do we really need Knock anymore except as a sop to wizard superiority? Is Pass Without Trace now a good Exploration option or is it too much? Should Spider Climb or Fly be higher level spells?

Here too is where I'd decide if skills needed work. Currently skills are almost completely social and exploration. Is it good at doing this? Expansion of skills in combat could be useful, such as expanding on grappling, or incorporating feints and bluffs.

Recast all classes to intersect with at least two pillars. Many casters are set; druids/exploration, bards/social, warlocks/any role they want. But clerics, artificers and wizards are kinda all over the place. You'd think clerics would be social, because priests deal with people, but clerics don't really tend the flock in a concrete way. You'd think artificers would be exploration, but most infusions are about combat. Wizards are supposed to be a utility knife of sorts, how does utility knife count as a pillar?

TD;DR:
1. Recast rules for social and exploration
2. Insert class abilities into martials to interact with said pillars
3. Rejig/revamp maneuvers and feats to allow martials more choices, some of which must be social/exploration abilities
4. Fine tune spells, skills and casters to better match having access to at least two pillars and not overshadow martials

SpawnOfMorbo

2020-07-14, 01:45 AM

I forgot to drop this earlier, but, 13th Age gives everyone cool things, plays rather well with minis or theater of the mind, and is typically balanced (class versus the game).

https://www.13thagesrd.com/

Best way to play it is to have a table where you place your minis approximately where they would be in relation to each other and don't sweat the small distance details.

+Edit+

Also the skill system is basically what 5e wanted to do, but stopped halfway. 5e's skill system is both free form and ridged and it makes me giggle.

Xervous

2020-07-14, 07:59 AM

+Edit+

Also the skill system is basically what 5e wanted to do, but stopped halfway. 5e's skill system is both free form and ridged and it makes me giggle.

Though I suspect this to be a typo the first thing that comes to mind being both of malleable form and capable of having ridges is Playdoh wherein it takes the shape of whoever last grasped it, which is a great analogy for how the skill system uh... behaves. Feels like a half truth to say it works.

SpawnOfMorbo

2020-07-15, 12:18 AM

Though I suspect this to be a typo the first thing that comes to mind being both of malleable form and capable of having ridges is Playdoh wherein it takes the shape of whoever last grasped it, which is a great analogy for how the skill system uh... behaves. Feels like a half truth to say it works.

Leave Play-Doh out long enough and you get 5es system. You can still move it a bit... But it isn't Play-Doh as it doesn't play as play doh is sold to play as.

5e's skill system has plenty of flaws but the most serious is that you have to pick out specific skills... And not know what they actually do until you roll. Not if you pass or fail, but what your character can do with Arcana prof. Like, how much knowledge does prof get you? If the system is going to be so ridged, why is the result trying to be freeform?

Part of this is because 5e is a combat focused RPG. Notice with the skill checks... The ones relating to combat have specific concrete results. Weird, right?

If my character is trained in history... Why is it all history? Why not an area of expertise? Why is it that **I, the player** determine what I roll? I want to intimidate using my intelligence or strength (explaining what a vat of acid does to the body textbook style or showing off my muscles)? That's what my character would do... But then again I don't know the end result at all because there isn't one.

13th Age works so much better because it knows what it is and is what it is. Not perfect, but so much better.

At the end of the day, I'm tired of having to make excuses as to why I play 5e and needing to homebrew stuff to make it half way playable. I love the base of 5e but like the skill system, I'm not sure they knew what they really wanted from the system (outside of nostalgia and making money).

Mjolnirbear

2020-07-15, 10:05 AM

Part of this is because 5e is a combat focused RPG. Notice with the skill checks... The ones relating to combat have specific concrete results. Weird, right?

If my character is trained in history... Why is it all history? Why not an area of expertise? Why is it that **I, the player** determine what I roll? I want to intimidate using my intelligence or strength (explaining what a vat of acid does to the body textbook style or showing off my muscles)? That's what my character would do... But then again I don't know the end result at all because there isn't one.

Because you only get four skill picks so the difference between history: chult and history: calimshan is pointless; you don't choose the roll, you decide your character's action and the DM tells you what to roll; choosing non-standard ability is a variant in the DMG; NO ONE knows the result of the roll, that's why you are rolling; and like all D&D, the DM will determine the result based on your roll. If you succeed, your target is intimidated.

I'm really not sure what, exactly, your complaint is, here. That there is no pre-populated list of DCs with what DC is required for which result? Perhaps without using comparison to a game other than D&D (there are enough confusions with the game everyone is on these boards to discuss; adding a game which is less well understood fails to properly clarify your argument for many people.

Skylivedk

2020-07-16, 02:52 AM

I'm not sure we're approaching the problem in the best way.

1. Martials are great at combat. It's one of the tenets of this edition that martials have top tier damage. That they can fight all day long. But
2. Martials have extremely limited non-combat options in comparison to casters. And
3. The most powerful combat feats are already most useful to martials.

I don't think we need to make martials better at combat. I mean I don't object particularly to martials getting fun thinks like more hit points or better Armour or damage or speed, but it doesn't solve the problem, because martials are already pretty awesome that way. And we don't really need to improve on that. The balance is pretty fine-tuned and we don't want to end up like rangers with exploration: i.e. Obviating the need for the exploration piller.

I also don't know that skills are the way to go. Skills are pretty universal; everyone uses them. 5e flirts with KISS ideals, and making skills do different things for martials vastly complicates matters.

So if we're improving the balance between casters and martials, we need for martials to have

1. More decisions and choices
2. Ways to contribute beyond damage dealing

1. Create intuitive rules for social and exploration pillars.

This is missing from the game. Crucially, the best interactions (in some cases the only ones) are with casters. Casters get enchantment and illusions to manipulate social stuff and teleportation or flight or scrying to intersect with exploration.

But if instead we had rules for combat and exploration, we could then give martials abilities to interact with those rules. For instance, rogue and paladin gain abilities that intersect with social rules, while rangers and barbarians can interact with exploration rules. With such rules, and martials being updated to use those rules, martials would have a more complete way to engage the game. We could then evaluate the spells casters get to interact with these rules and eliminate ones that, like current rangers, eliminate the need to interact with that pillar at all.

2. Options
Martials lack choices. This isn't (necessarily) a bad thing, especially given the system knowledge needed to play a caster without slowing the game down by asking the DM questions. But at the bare minimum, even sorcerers get to switch out a spell once per level. The recent class and subclass options UA filled a road of potholes that had been ignored to that point. But once you've picked your fighting style and subclass and expertise, martials choices mostly involve picking a target for an attack. Even switching weapons offers no meaningful choices

2a) so we give martials choices. The easy place to start is a resource like maneuvers, with maneuvers expanded to include more pillars. The goal is not to make martials better at combat, but give them a little variety. Imagine an Intimidation maneuver. A simple and easy way for a martial to interact with a pillar.

2b) martials get a feat. Feats are excellent ways to get additional options. It's modular, self-contained, adaptable. The problem is the best feats are combat feats. Martials don't need more combat feats (we can add some if we're doing this anyways, but martials are already awesome at combat).

Sooo... A minor change to the Feat structure would be to seperate current feats by pillar. Then fill out the Social and Exploration feats, and give martials one extra pick.

3. Tweak all the things

What other dials could we fiddle with after updating the pillars, granting more ways for martials to interact with said pillars, and giving martials more choices besides "I Attack".

First, comb through the spell list. Do we really need Knock anymore except as a sop to wizard superiority? Is Pass Without Trace now a good Exploration option or is it too much? Should Spider Climb or Fly be higher level spells?

Here too is where I'd decide if skills needed work. Currently skills are almost completely social and exploration. Is it good at doing this? Expansion of skills in combat could be useful, such as expanding on grappling, or incorporating feints and bluffs.

Recast all classes to intersect with at least two pillars. Many casters are set; druids/exploration, bards/social, warlocks/any role they want. But clerics, artificers and wizards are kinda all over the place. You'd think clerics would be social, because priests deal with people, but clerics don't really tend the flock in a concrete way. You'd think artificers would be exploration, but most infusions are about combat. Wizards are supposed to be a utility knife of sorts, how does utility knife count as a pillar?

TD;DR:
1. Recast rules for social and exploration
2. Insert class abilities into martials to interact with said pillars
3. Rejig/revamp maneuvers and feats to allow martials more choices, some of which must be social/exploration abilities
4. Fine tune spells, skills and casters to better match having access to at least two pillars and not overshadow martials

I agree that out of combat is more important to fix than in combat, but I also find martial combat way too repetitive. I've just started looking at the combat system of Mythras where the base layer itself seems a lot more exciting.

Besides that, I know I haven't reposted all of my out of combat option suggestions on the last post, but so far they include:

- remove a lot of the utility/world altering spells from the individual casters

- give specific non-combat perks to Martials (heroic, epic and legendary perks which could, or could not, be based on the skills they have proficiency in; delay with a tier or two for half casters)

- allow Martials a wider access to the noon-combat perks that are currently feat/level/class/subclass gated

- change the skill system to be less random and have a higher progression (either with lower DC and multiple dice like suggested by MOG or by doubling proficiency and expertise)

- make combat more interactive for Martials (more reactions for AoO, better base options for alternate uses of attack, grapple progression, interactions between imposed conditions and attacks)

- give Martials unique resource mechanics (ie. Rogues get luck points for pulling off crazy ability checks, Barbarians charge rages from taking/giving damage, Fighters regain superiority dice from AoOs or defeating enemies [NEW])

SpawnOfMorbo

2020-07-20, 12:54 PM

Because you only get four skill picks so the difference between history: chult and history: calimshan is pointless; you don't choose the roll, you decide your character's action and the DM tells you what to roll; choosing non-standard ability is a variant in the DMG; NO ONE knows the result of the roll, that's why you are rolling; and like all D&D, the DM will determine the result based on your roll. If you succeed, your target is intimidated.

I'm really not sure what, exactly, your complaint is, here. That there is no pre-populated list of DCs with what DC is required for which result? Perhaps without using comparison to a game other than D&D (there are enough confusions with the game everyone is on these boards to discuss; adding a game which is less well understood fails to properly clarify your argument for many people.

When you do something, that you are trained to do, you generally know WHAT you can do.

This isn't how 5e works.

I'm 5e you have to guess if your character might be able to do something at all. If the action is even possible.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/decipherScript.htm

With this you know how well you have to do in order to succeed. You can train your character to have a specific proficiency in deciphering texts. You know what a DC 20 gets you, DC 25 gets you, and DC 30 gets you.

In 5e, if you rolled and hit a DC 15 (changing the DC based on the different systems)... You don't know what that means until after the DM tells you.

This is just how non-combat skills work in 5e. I know 5e is a combat game now, but dang.

Imagine playing Mario and not knowing how long his power ups will last. Sometimes the Starman lasts for 15 seconds, sometimes it lasts for 5 seconds, sometimes it just doesn't work at all (but you get the visuals).

The utter lack of consistency is annoying.

Easy, Hard, and Impossible don't tell you what you can and can't do. Just how difficult it will be to do what you don't know you can or can't do.

AdAstra

2020-07-20, 05:45 PM

When you do something, that you are trained to do, you generally know WHAT you can do.

This isn't how 5e works.

I'm 5e you have to guess if your character might be able to do something at all. If the action is even possible.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/decipherScript.htm

With this you know how well you have to do in order to succeed. You can train your character to have a specific proficiency in deciphering texts. You know what a DC 20 gets you, DC 25 gets you, and DC 30 gets you.

In 5e, if you rolled and hit a DC 15 (changing the DC based on the different systems)... You don't know what that means until after the DM tells you.

This is just how non-combat skills work in 5e. I know 5e is a combat game now, but dang.

Imagine playing Mario and not knowing how long his power ups will last. Sometimes the Starman lasts for 15 seconds, sometimes it lasts for 5 seconds, sometimes it just doesn't work at all (but you get the visuals).

The utter lack of consistency is annoying.

Easy, Hard, and Impossible don't tell you what you can and can't do. Just how difficult it will be to do what you don't know you can or can't do.

This approach has its own serious issues. For example, Decipher Script is unclear as to whether it includes codes or actual ciphers, despite the fact that it almost certainly should. Is the exclusion deliberate? In a more generic system it’s usually easier to tell. In addition, the suggested DCs make zero sense. What the heck is a “standard text” as compared to “the simplest messages”? A page, a book, a sentence? The system also makes no distinction between languages, unless they are “intricate, exotic, or very old writing”. Does Elvish count as Intricate? Why would a person trained in deciphering script be equally proficient in deciphering all script, as opposed to having a few specialties as real world linguists tend to have?

If I actually used the suggested DCs at all, they would be telling me that a character who only knows dwarvish trained in Decipher Script would need a DC30 to decipher any ancient dwarvish, but only a DC 20 to read a gnoll greeting card and know what it means.

Worst of all, if you actually tried to do something about these nonsense results, you’d be directly contravening the book, which despite any claims of rule 0, is still something people are loathe to do. And you risk getting complaints that you’re “messing with player expectations” and “making the results of their actions unpredictable”.

Being more specific can often be more confusing, and 3/3.5 has this in droves.

heavyfuel

2020-07-20, 06:00 PM

Who'd complain about more martial options

So, so many people... :smallsigh:

We have a poster here whose sig used to say that "balancing a part of the game by making it annoying to use isn't a best practice" or something like that.

Yeah that’s Grod’s Law.

I don't think Grod's Law means "no nerfing". You can nerf spells without making them annoying to use.

Barny

2020-07-20, 06:26 PM

heavyfuel

2020-07-20, 06:51 PM

They should not be in a competition to compare who has the highest dmg meter

Most people who think Caster vs Martials is a problem aren't talking about damage.

If you look at casters as a sniper rifle whose sole purpose is dealing damage, I suggest you actually take a look at the effect of some non-damaging spells.

Barny

2020-07-20, 07:01 PM

Most people who think Caster vs Martials is a problem aren't talking about damage.

If you look at casters as a sniper rifle whose sole purpose is dealing damage, I suggest you actually take a look at the effect of some non-damaging spells.

lol, why don't you take my leg/arm analogy to say that I think casters are longer than melee?

Kireban

2020-07-20, 07:31 PM

Kane0

2020-07-20, 07:36 PM

I don't think Grod's Law means "no nerfing". You can nerf spells without making them annoying to use.
The way i read Grod’s law was
“You cannot/should not balance mechanics by making them convoluted/difficult to use”

Snipers are much stronger than assault rifles in gun power and accuracy, so is there a need to balance them on the tactical team

Except the premise is that one of those guns can also cook your food, unfold into a tent and has a built in screwdriver set.

heavyfuel

2020-07-20, 07:41 PM

The way i read Grod’s law was
“You cannot/should not balance mechanics by making them convoluted/difficult to use”

As have I, which is why I don't think you broke Grod's law when you said "gut spells"

AdAstra

2020-07-20, 11:00 PM

Will you do anything to rebalance your body because your leg is longer than your arm?
Snipers are much stronger than assault rifles in gun power and accuracy, so is there a need to rebalance them on the tactical team?

The answer is no! If your story and encounters are interesting but challenging enough, PCs will experience it as a group/ a body/ a tactical unit.
They should not be in a competition to compare who has the highest dmg meter, unless your sessions/story/encounters are too simple/boring that they don't have any other memorable moments at all.

If each player plays as one member of said team, then generally, yes, there's an expectation that the sniper be balanced with the guy with an assault rifle. The guns themselves need not be balanced, but the people, guns and all, ideally should. This is also a nonsensical metaphor, since while most sniper rifles have more power and accuracy, they also generally have a lower rate of fire and are a good deal heavier. A sniper is not universally better than an assault rifle, and is in fact worse at the vast majority of tasks, which is why sniper rifles have always been niche items, especially compared to assault rifles. If anything, the assault rifle is the Wizard equivalent in this metaphor, since it's better suited to more tasks.

The way i read Grod’s law was
“You cannot/should not balance mechanics by making them convoluted/difficult to use”

Except the premise is that one of those guns can also cook your food, unfold into a tent and has a built in screwdriver set.
Funny enough, a Vickers machine gun can be used to boil water for food/drinks, is long enough that you could pitch a shelter half over it to make for a particularly crappy tent, and was as standard carried with a variety of tools, including screwdrivers, in a satchel that you could easily strap to the tripod if you wanted.

Bosh

2020-07-20, 11:18 PM

I remember the yawning balance gap in 3.5ed. Compared to that 5e's issues are relatively minor. The single biggest thing that narrowed the balance gap was the concentration mechanic which was one of 5e's best ideas.

So more can be done to hit casters with the nerf bat. A lot can be done spell by spell. For example the knock spell can open a lock BUT it makes a loud noise. Scatter a whole bunch more of that kind of BUT on otherwise powerful spells and balance would improve by a good bit.

For skills I'd really like them to nail down exactly what skills do. Spells say what they DO. Skills are a bunch of hand waving. I like OSR games so I don't mind a good bit of hand waving but you get problems if one class's power is build on specifically nailed down rules (spells) and another is build on having big numbers to add ro hand wavey stuff (skills).

The problem is if you dump a whole bunch of rule info about every single skill on starting players and DMs it's just too much. If you try to make simple rules that cover everything you end up abstracting out a lot of the fun of D&D.

So here's what I'd do: keep ability checks as a hand wavey fallback for when there are no specific rules but replace skills with SPECIFIC abilities that have effects that are as nailed down as spells.

Players would start with a few but get more as they level up, same as with spells. Some examples off the top of my head:

Move silently: hit X DC with a dex check and you are 100% silent. NOTHING can hear you.

Hide in shadows: just having a shadow to stand in makes you lightly obscured.

Knowledge skills: hit X DC and you can ask certain question of the DM and get answers, like reading a sitch in Apocalype World. What questions you can ask depend on the skill used.

Climb: get a climb speed.

Eye for illusions: DM rolls a int check behind the screen for you every time you see an illusion and if you pass X DC you know they're wrong.

Ear for lies: blah blah DC you know when others are lying.

Oathspeaker: if you speak an oath and speak the truth others KNOW you're speaking truthfully if you pass X DC...

Etc. etc. etc.

Nail down more specifically the cool things that mundane PCs can do with skills. Nail them down as tightly as spells are nailed down.

Of course don't make rules for everything, keep ability checks just give players cool discreet things to super-charging their ability checks.

Hytheter

2020-07-21, 01:55 AM

So here's what I'd do: keep ability checks as a hand wavey fallback for when there are no specific rules but replace skills with SPECIFIC abilities that have effects that are as nailed down as spells.

...

Of course don't make rules for everything, keep ability checks just give players cool discreet things to super-charging their ability checks.

I've had a similar idea, and I think it's a good model. Instead of "oh you can roll +x in these situations I guess" skills could be interesting capabilities in their own right like spells or feats.

Skylivedk

2020-07-21, 02:20 AM

It feels as if the main reason for all this martial vs caster mambo jambo is that the martials are way too used to dominate the tir1 and 2.
Make the lovely GWF, SS, CE, PAM and sentinal feats with a limited amount of uses per rest. These feats make Martial way too strong in the lower levels.
Are you being sarcastic? I really can't tell because the entire thread is about giving Martials more options not less.

Will you do anything to rebalance your body because your leg is longer than your arm?
Snipers are much stronger than assault rifles in gun power and accuracy, so is there a need to rebalance them on the tactical team?

The answer is no! If your story and encounters are interesting but challenging enough, PCs will experience it as a group/ a body/ a tactical unit.
They should not be in a competition to compare who has the highest dmg meter, unless your sessions/story/encounters are too simple/boring that they don't have any other memorable moments at all.
They should still all have ways of participating and feeling valuable across the different tiers of play. They currently don't.

I remember the yawning balance gap in 3.5ed. Compared to that 5e's issues are relatively minor. The single biggest thing that narrowed the balance gap was the concentration mechanic which was one of 5e's best ideas.

So more can be done to hit casters with the nerf bat. A lot can be done spell by spell. For example the knock spell can open a lock BUT it makes a loud noise. Scatter a whole bunch more of that kind of BUT on otherwise powerful spells and balance would improve by a good bit.

For skills I'd really like them to nail down exactly what skills do. Spells say what they DO. Skills are a bunch of hand waving. I like OSR games so I don't mind a good bit of hand waving but you get problems if one class's power is build on specifically nailed down rules (spells) and another is build on having big numbers to add ro hand wavey stuff (skills).

The problem is if you dump a whole bunch of rule info about every single skill on starting players and DMs it's just too much. If you try to make simple rules that cover everything you end up abstracting out a lot of the fun of D&D.

So here's what I'd do: keep ability checks as a hand wavey fallback for when there are no specific rules but replace skills with SPECIFIC abilities that have effects that are as nailed down as spells.

Players would start with a few but get more as they level up, same as with spells. Some examples off the top of my head:

Move silently: hit X DC with a dex check and you are 100% silent. NOTHING can hear you.

Hide in shadows: just having a shadow to stand in makes you lightly obscured.

Knowledge skills: hit X DC and you can ask certain question of the DM and get answers, like reading a sitch in Apocalype World. What questions you can ask depend on the skill used.

Climb: get a climb speed.

Eye for illusions: DM rolls a int check behind the screen for you every time you see an illusion and if you pass X DC you know they're wrong.

Ear for lies: blah blah DC you know when others are lying.

Oathspeaker: if you speak an oath and speak the truth others KNOW you're speaking truthfully if you pass X DC...

Etc. etc. etc.

Nail down more specifically the cool things that mundane PCs can do with skills. Nail them down as tightly as spells are nailed down.

Of course don't make rules for everything, keep ability checks just give players cool discreet things to super-charging their ability checks.

I like the specified skill applications. I don't see how that helps Martials particularly since most of them don't get significant skill bonuses as part of their class chassis. Some subclasses give something and Barbarians get an upgrade at level 18 (talk about being late to the party). Rogues of course do and Rangers to a very very small degree as well.

Hytheter

2020-07-21, 02:51 AM

I like the specified skill applications. I don't see how that helps Martials particularly since most of them don't get significant skill bonuses as part of their class chassis. Some subclasses give something and Barbarians get an upgrade at level 18 (talk about being late to the party). Rogues of course do and Rangers to a very very small degree as well.

That's a fair point - I already feel martials should get more skills than they do currently, no matter which form they come in.

Barny

2020-07-21, 03:44 AM

If each player plays as one member of said team, then generally, yes, there's an expectation that the sniper be balanced with the guy with an assault rifle. The guns themselves need not be balanced, but the people, guns and all, ideally should. This is also a nonsensical metaphor, since while most sniper rifles have more power and accuracy, they also generally have a lower rate of fire and are a good deal heavier. A sniper is not universally better than an assault rifle, and is in fact worse at the vast majority of tasks, which is why sniper rifles have always been niche items, especially compared to assault rifles. If anything, the assault rifle is the Wizard equivalent in this metaphor, since it's better suited to more tasks.

Why do you skip my arm/leg metaphor, and just focus on the detail of the sniper/AR metaphor? This changes the meanning of my analogies completely.

The main point of my analogies is to highlight the relationship between melee and caster related to a adventure group, like arm/leg to a body or sniper/AR to a tactical team.

Therefore, they are not in a competitive position at all. If it's a competition game, then we need to make a balance of power.

But 5e is a roleplay cooperation game, where I don't see the strong need for balancing.
Just like in the lord of the ring's adventure, someone can play as powerful Gandalf, and someone can act as powerless Frodo... Do we need to nerf Gandalf, and buff Frodo? or buff the fighter Aragorn?

They should still all have ways of participating and feeling valuable across the different tiers of play. They currently don't.

Please see my reply above.

Hytheter

2020-07-21, 03:56 AM

But 5e is a roleplay cooperation game, where I don't see the strong need for balancing.
Just like in the lord of the ring's adventure, someone can play as powerful Gandalf, and someone can act as powerless Frodo... Do we need to nerf Gandalf, and buff Frodo? or buff the fighter Aragorn?

The Lord of the Rings is a story, not a game. I don't want to play a useless character who achieves one significant thing and otherwise largely sits and gapes in awe of the mighty wizards and warriors around them. I don't want to be the weak link of the party only able to contribute because the story is written to allow it. These things work fine for a narrative written by a singular authour to entertain an audience, but in D&D each character is controlled by a separate real person for whom the entertainment is derived from playing the game. Time spent doing nothing while more capable characters take care of everything is time spent not actually playing, and I have other things to do with my time.

Bosh

2020-07-21, 05:47 AM

General comment: a lot of people on this thread seem to want to rip the guts out of the game in order to fix the problem. The problem certainly exists, it sucks to have to stand around scratching your butt out of combat while the casters are doing crazy shenanigans but the problem isn't THAT big, at least at lower levels. It's NOTHING like the yawning gulf of class imbalance that existed in 3ed.

For IN COMBAT stuff things moooooostly work out if you just make it a bit harder to take long rests. Do that and combat is roughly balanced or at least balanced enough to fix with some relative tweaks (nerfing overpowered spells, give more spells interesting drawbacks, etc.). Yeah, out of combat stuff has problems but that could be fixed with making skills more concrete and useful, fix the skill system and most of the rest is pretty OK.

I've had a similar idea, and I think it's a good model. Instead of "oh you can roll +x in these situations I guess" skills could be interesting capabilities in their own right like spells or feats.

Yeah, the main thing is not to load a huge amount of skill rules on 1st level players, just like how first level casters get only a handful of spells is good design. Give them a tiny handful of very very specific skills with very nailed down ways to use them and have everything else default to ability checks.

What it comes down to is that with RPG rules you really have a choice:
1. Incomplete: have only rules for specific things.
2. Abstract: just abstract away all the messy details.
3. Inexact: have a lot of the system be based on ass-pulls by the DM.
4. Complex: giant mountain of rules.

None of them are perfect, all require some compromises but by FAAAAR my favorite is #1. Give very specific rules for stuff that's important and let the DM handwave their way through the rest. Kind of like in combat or magic, the basic stuff is covered by specific rules that are not really open for interpretation and the DM can deal with any weird **** that comes up.

Skills is the odd man out because it's so hand-wavey. What I'd like to see is skills narrowed waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down to one specific thing they do that can be adjudicated without hand wavey and let the DM cover the stuff that falls in between the more narrow skill rules with ability checks or whatnot.

I like the specified skill applications. I don't see how that helps Martials particularly since most of them don't get significant skill bonuses as part of their class chassis. Some subclasses give something and Barbarians get an upgrade at level 18 (talk about being late to the party). Rogues of course do and Rangers to a very very small degree as well.

That's kind of the problem. Just disgraceful that fighters got so shortchanged on skills ever since skills became a thing. Rain down enough skills on the martials to give them fun things to do when they don't want to hit stuff.

MeimuHakurei

2020-07-21, 05:48 AM

The Lord of the Rings is a story, not a game. I don't want to play a useless character who achieves one significant thing and otherwise largely sits and gapes in awe of the mighty wizards and warriors around them. I don't want to be the weak link of the party only able to contribute because the story is written to allow it. These things work fine for a narrative written by a singular authour to entertain an audience, but in D&D each character is controlled by a separate real person for whom the entertainment is derived from playing the game. Time spent doing nothing while more capable characters take care of everything is time spent not actually playing, and I have other things to do with my time.

Not to mention that in these kinds of stories (LotR, Avengers etc.) the stronger party members have various reasons to act suboptimally or are just quietly staying out of the direct action. Player characters have no reason to just disappear into the background and let the lesser party members do their thing.

Hytheter

2020-07-21, 06:00 AM

Yeah, the main thing is not to load a huge amount of skill rules on 1st level players, just like how first level casters get only a handful of spells is good design. Give them a tiny handful of very very specific skills with very nailed down ways to use them and have everything else default to ability checks.

I think that speaks to another issue too: you normally don't get new skills over your career. The numbers slowly tick up on the stuff you can already do but your skill-based capabilities don't generally expand or improve in any notable way. It'd be nice if martials picked up some new tricks over time like casters pick up new spells.

Skylivedk

2020-07-21, 07:40 AM

First things first: I love how constructive this debate is getting. We naturally have different perceptions of the gap we have to cross, but I'm happy to see so many good suggestions.

It's in that vein, I'll comment on the things below, so please don't take it personally if I disagree with your points.

Why do you skip my arm/leg metaphor, and just focus on the detail of the sniper/AR metaphor? This changes the meanning of my analogies completely.

The main point of my analogies is to highlight the relationship between melee and caster related to a adventure group, like arm/leg to a body or sniper/AR to a tactical team.
And I think your analogy is being put in the blender, because it:
A) doesn't illustrate the true relationship between casters and martials according to your fellow forum posters (me included)
B) flips the roles in terms of versatility: as mentioned, Martials are more akin to back-loaded muskets and casters are more like automatic rifles rigged with zooms, red dots and a jet pack ;-)

Therefore, they are not in a competitive position at all. If it's a competition game, then we need to make a balance of power.

But 5e is a roleplay cooperation game, where I don't see the strong need for balancing.
Just like in the lord of the ring's adventure, someone can play as powerful Gandalf, and someone can act as powerless Frodo... Do we need to nerf Gandalf, and buff Frodo? or buff the fighter Aragorn?
I'd hate the everliving daylight out of someone forcing me to play Sam or Ron (Harry Potter) just because I wanted to be cool without using magic.

The idea of rebalancing is based on us wanting to be able to continuously do epic things in our not-only magic elf game without playing Mother May I or hoping our GMs happen to have done a ton of prep on how to balance a barely scaling at-will skill system with the ever increasing flexibility and power of spell-casting.

I've compared the Sorcerer to the Barbarian previously in this thread to show this point and the Battle Master to the Hexblade for the same reason. Those points have yet to be countered in the slightest.

Please see my reply above.
Seen and as you can see in my reply it's not about competition, it's about player agency and character growth. That's also why I'm not suggesting removing all the buttons from spell casters (just a few plus maybe make a few of them more costly to press).

The Lord of the Rings is a story, not a game. I don't want to play a useless character who achieves one significant thing and otherwise largely sits and gapes in awe of the mighty wizards and warriors around them. I don't want to be the weak link of the party only able to contribute because the story is written to allow it. These things work fine for a narrative written by a singular authour to entertain an audience, but in D&D each character is controlled by a separate real person for whom the entertainment is derived from playing the game. Time spent doing nothing while more capable characters take care of everything is time spent not actually playing, and I have other things to do with my time.

And even in the stories, it doesn't work that well. Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality easily and with a smirk shows how useless a character Ron is. Sam annoyed me a ton and in X-Men, Angel is a joke next to Jean Grey and Storm (especially prior to the Apocalypse buffs).

That's a fair point - I already feel martials should get more skills than they do currently, no matter which form they come in.
We seem to concur on quite a few of these points. LudicSavant's houserule of giving Martials expertise in a skill somewhere in tier 1 and 2 suits me very well. I'd probably also give them all a skill more.

General comment: a lot of people on this thread seem to want to rip the guts out of the game in order to fix the problem. The problem certainly exists, it sucks to have to stand around scratching your butt out of combat while the casters are doing crazy shenanigans but the problem isn't THAT big, at least at lower levels. It's NOTHING like the yawning gulf of class imbalance that existed in 3ed.
It's definitely smaller at lower levels. It's extremely apparent in tier 3 with experienced players. I've yet to see a single player (and I've played since the release of 5e) be fully content with the mechanical framework of Martials from late tier 2/early tier 3. Quite tellingly my table has thrown all kinds of (especially out of combat) goodies at Martials without even approaching something that made them outshine the full-casters.

For IN COMBAT stuff things moooooostly work out if you just make it a bit harder to take long rests. Do that and combat is roughly balanced or at least balanced enough to fix with some relative tweaks (nerfing overpowered spells, give more spells interesting drawbacks, etc.). Yeah, out of combat stuff has problems but that could be fixed with making skills more concrete and useful, fix the skill system and most of the rest is pretty OK.
I have to disagree. As mentioned dozen of times: Martials are not better at skills than casters. Quite the opposite actually since casters usually have ways of improving skill rolls which Martials don't (or if they do it's very very expensive and/or inflexible).

I do agree that giving interesting drawbacks and nerfing certain skills is a maybe necessary step. As is, my Hexblade could solo most dragons and a bunch of other "difficult" monsters (that were not of the spellcasting variant) from level 13. Sickening Radiance and Forcecage. As a martial that kind of power would mean a very singular focus and not being able to do much all else. For the Hexblade, there was still plenty of juice left to spy on enemy factions on several different continents, change face Arya-style, go toe to toe with a melee fighter of equal level (and win) and still have resources left over. It was frankly not even close.

As a caster "sacrificing" (using quotation marks since the sacrifice was next to nothing when you have spells) utility for combat meant being on par in combat and still have tons of utility. For a martial they can barely trade and if they do, they are behind on their main schtick.

What it comes down to is that with RPG rules you really have a choice:
1. Incomplete: have only rules for specific things.
2. Abstract: just abstract away all the messy details.
3. Inexact: have a lot of the system be based on ass-pulls by the DM.
4. Complex: giant mountain of rules.

None of them are perfect, all require some compromises but by FAAAAR my favorite is #1. Give very specific rules for stuff that's important and let the DM handwave their way through the rest. Kind of like in combat or magic, the basic stuff is covered by specific rules that are not really open for interpretation and the DM can deal with any weird **** that comes up.

Skills is the odd man out because it's so hand-wavey. What I'd like to see is skills narrowed waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down to one specific thing they do that can be adjudicated without hand wavey and let the DM cover the stuff that falls in between the more narrow skill rules with ability checks or whatnot.

I'm not sure that complex has to mean rule heavy. It could also mean combination heavy. Chess and go are not that rule heavy. They're both pretty complex.

That's kind of the problem. Just disgraceful that fighters got so shortchanged on skills ever since skills became a thing. Rain down enough skills on the martials to give them fun things to do when they don't want to hit stuff. agreed!

Not to mention that in these kinds of stories (LotR, Avengers etc.) the stronger party members have various reasons to act suboptimally or are just quietly staying out of the direct action. Player characters have no reason to just disappear into the background and let the lesser party members do their thing.
Yeah, quite often you're just bungee jumping in that suspension of disbelief. Not a fan of hope the authors of any of the mentioned works handle this.

I think that speaks to another issue too: you normally don't get new skills over your career. The numbers slowly tick up on the stuff you can already do but your skill-based capabilities don't generally expand or improve in any notable way. It'd be nice if martials picked up some new tricks over time like casters pick up new spells.
Preach!

Sneak Dog

2020-07-21, 08:01 AM

A blunt approach popped in my mind. Very blunt. It's based on the premise that combat is mostly balanced, but the rest isn't.

At levels 1, 6, 12, 18 pick an ability score, for up to four total.
Every second character level on which you do not gain access to a new spell level, you gain a cumulative +1 to all ability checks involving those ability scores.

This totals out at +10 for a battlemaster fighter, +8 for an eldritch knight and +5 for a wizard. Now it breaks bounded accuracy for skills like a twig, makes high-level characters able to perform impossible tasks in a reasonable fashion, while being biased towards non-spellcasters.
Mostly it needs guidance DC's for GM's so non-casters are actually able to access this increased power with some level of reliability. (Similar to how spells spell out the things they do, and leave some room for interpretation.)

Bosh

2020-07-21, 08:46 AM

I'd hate the everliving daylight out of someone forcing me to play Sam or Ron (Harry Potter) just because I wanted to be cool without using magic.

The idea of rebalancing is based on us wanting to be able to continuously do epic things in our not-only magic elf game without playing Mother May I or hoping our GMs happen to have done a ton of prep on how to balance a barely scaling at-will skill system with the ever increasing flexibility and power of spell-casting.

Yup, a whole lot of fantasy media has characters that top out at quite low levels in D&D terms (the old Gandalf is 5th level argument). Higher level PCs are basically demigods. It's a bit silly seeing people tie themselves up in pretzels having PCs that are both demigods in power level and also mundane.

Seen and as you can see in my reply it's not about competition, it's about player agency and character growth. That's also why I'm not suggesting removing all the buttons from spell casters (just a few plus maybe make a few of them more costly to press).

Concentration already fixed so many issues compared to 3.5ed. Nobody much is complaining about it now. Same could be done with other stuff done for balancing.

We seem to concur on quite a few of these points. LudicSavant's houserule of giving Martials expertise in a skill somewhere in tier 1 and 2 suits me very well. I'd probably also give them all a skill more.
As long as it's not at first level, get enough dips in 5e as it is...

It's definitely smaller at lower levels. It's extremely apparent in tier 3 with experienced players. I've yet to see a single player (and I've played since the release of 5e) be fully content with the mechanical framework of Martials from late tier 2/early tier 3. Quite tellingly my table has thrown all kinds of (especially out of combat) goodies at Martials without even approaching something that made them outshine the full-casters.

In-combat balance holds up OK (especially compared to 3.5e) it's just the out of combat stuff that needs work for the most part.

I have to disagree. As mentioned dozen of times: Martials are not better at skills than casters. Quite the opposite actually since casters usually have ways of improving skill rolls which Martials don't (or if they do it's very very expensive and/or inflexible).

I know, that's why upthread I said: "Just disgraceful that fighters got so shortchanged on skills ever since skills became a thing. Rain down enough skills on the martials to give them fun things to do when they don't want to hit stuff."

A big part of fixing 5e's skill system would be to make martials be better at skills than casters.

I do agree that giving interesting drawbacks and nerfing certain skills is a maybe necessary step. As is, my Hexblade could solo most dragons and a bunch of other "difficult" monsters (that were not of the spellcasting variant) from level 13. Sickening Radiance and Forcecage. As a martial that kind of power would mean a very singular focus and not being able to do much all else. For the Hexblade, there was still plenty of juice left to spy on enemy factions on several different continents, change face Arya-style, go toe to toe with a melee fighter of equal level (and win) and still have resources left over. It was frankly not even close.

Yeah, Hexblades specifically are a big source of problems so much 5e cheese seems to revolve around them.

As a caster "sacrificing" (using quotation marks since the sacrifice was next to nothing when you have spells) utility for combat meant being on par in combat and still have tons of utility. For a martial they can barely trade and if they do, they are behind on their main schtick.

Right, 5e casters are often too damn flexible. I'd like to see wizards go back to full Vancian and having a bunch of powerful infiniate use cantrips always rubbed me the wrong way. The sort of fantasy I like has magic being something more precious than a constant always-on source of zapping.

I'm not sure that complex has to mean rule heavy. It could also mean combination heavy. Chess and go are not that rule heavy. They're both pretty complex.

Chess tactics are complicated but the actual rules are dead simple and very very abstract. This makes Chess a wonderful board game but terrible as a representation of medieval warfare.

Preach!

Yup, a few martial sub-classes get useful out of combat powers as they gain levels but a lot of them get sweet ****-all and the ones that do get stuff often get some pretty thin gruel.

Kyutaru

2020-07-21, 09:21 AM

So here's what I'd do: keep ability checks as a hand wavey fallback for when there are no specific rules but replace skills with SPECIFIC abilities that have effects that are as nailed down as spells.
This is exactly what the Star Wars RPG with 3.5 rules did. They don't have spells, they have skills. All Force powers are just skills that you roll that have a specific effect depending on how well you passed the skill check. Non-magical skills worked the same way with specific effects being possible for Hacking or Piloting. Martials already have tools to use, the problem is those tools tend to be roleplay-restricted and judged by the DM. If I say to the DM I want to "jump onto the table, grab the chandelier, spin into the enemy hoard, and sweep them with my boot" then the DM is generally not going to rule that a Whirlwind Attack. Martials get cheated too often because the rules aren't explicit enough about what they can do and DMs are too limited in their imagination when it comes to allowances.

Heck you can even apply such a system to spells as they did with the Force. Maybe your Dominate spell is now a skill called Mind Control and depending on how well you roll you can affect animals, friends, enemies, or giant dragons. Using the skill would cost you spell points. This is actually similar to how Psionics already work, which is no big wonder since the same company prints D&D and Star Wars.

AdAstra

2020-07-21, 11:24 AM

Why do you skip my arm/leg metaphor, and just focus on the detail of the sniper/AR metaphor? This changes the meanning of my analogies completely.

The main point of my analogies is to highlight the relationship between melee and caster related to a adventure group, like arm/leg to a body or sniper/AR to a tactical team.

Therefore, they are not in a competitive position at all. If it's a competition game, then we need to make a balance of power.

But 5e is a roleplay cooperation game, where I don't see the strong need for balancing.
Just like in the lord of the ring's adventure, someone can play as powerful Gandalf, and someone can act as powerless Frodo... Do we need to nerf Gandalf, and buff Frodo? or buff the fighter Aragorn?

Please see my reply above.

Your arm and leg do not have feelings, and real-world militaries do not care about having fun. Characters in a piece of media (mostly) don't care about being important OR having fun, they care about whatever actual goals they have. Players in a game, on the other hand, do have feelings, and are here to have fun.

Generally, having more flexibility allows you to more effectively participate in more parts of the game. Generally, having more power makes you more likely to have an effect on the parts of the game you choose to interact with.

C-Dude

2020-07-21, 01:07 PM

So more can be done to hit casters with the nerf bat. A lot can be done spell by spell. For example the knock spell can open a lock BUT it makes a loud noise. Scatter a whole bunch more of that kind of BUT on otherwise powerful spells and balance would improve by a good bit.

...

Of course don't make rules for everything, keep ability checks just give players cool discreet things to super-charging their ability checks.

Don't want to break/nerf the casters, but rather want to give the martials a few extra options to choose from, especially in social/dungeoneering situations since they're already well designed for combat.

It's been mentioned here and in other threads that replacing the game's spells with spell skill checks might help, and I admit that's an interesting approach. However, I think another mentality might work just as well, without changing the feel of the existing system too much.

Here is a list of spells that easily reflavor into heroic acts of strength/dexterity/constitution:
L1
Alarm (Ranger, Berserker)
Alter Self (Fighter, Monk) - Aquatic Adaptation only, hence L1. "Controlled Breathing"
Bane (Fighter, Berserker) - "Frightful Presence"
Charm Person (Rogue)
Command (Fighter)
Comprehend Languages (Monk)
Detect Poison/Disease (Monk)
Expeditious Retreat (Monk, Rogue)
Fear (Barbarian)
Grease (Rogue)
Heroism (Fighter)
Jump (Barbarian) - Self only
Longstrider (Barbarian)
Message (Fighter, Ranger) - Up to L1 from Cantrip
Resistance (Fighter, Monk) - Up to L1 from Cantrip

L2
Aid (Ranger, Fighter)
Arcane Lock (Rogue)
Augury (Monk)
Barkskin (Ranger, Monk) - Self only, no visual effect
Calm Emotions (Rogue, Monk)
Darkvision (Rogue, Monk) - Self only
Enhance Ability (Fighter, Barbarian) - Self only
Find Traps (Rogue)
Gust of Wind (Fighter) - "Dramatic Weather"
Hold Person (Rogue, Fighter) - Constitution saving throw. "Hamstring"
Invisibility (Rogue, Ranger) - "Find Cover"
Knock (Barbarian) - "Bash it Open"
Lesser Restoration (Monk)
Locate Object (Rogue, Monk)
Mending (Fighter, Ranger) - Up to L2 from Cantrip. "Quick Fix"
Misty Step (Rogue) - "Shadow Hop"
Pass without Trace (Rogue)
Protection from Poison (Monk)
Suggestion (Rogue, Ranger)
Warding Bond (Monk)
Zone of Truth (Fighter)

L3
Beacon of Hope (Fighter) - Self only. "Hopeful Outlook"
Bestow Curse (Rogue) - Touch Range [Apply with attack]. "Ability Poison"
Blink (Rogue) - "Elusive Weaving"
Clairvoyance (Rogue) - "Peeping Bug"
Counterspell (Fighter, Berserker) - Ability = Strength. "Disruption"
Freedom of Movement (Berserker, Monk) - Self only, hence L3.
Haste (Monk) - Self only
Knock (Rogue) - No sound effect. "Force Lock"
Protection from Energy (Fighter)
Sending (Rogue) - "Connections"
Water Walk (Monk)

L4
Arcane Eye (Ranger, Monk) - "Extraordinary Perception"
Banishment (Monk)
Blight (Rogue) - Touch Range [Apply with attack]. "Blighting Poison"
Compulsion (Fighter)
Confusion (Rogue) - "Throw Voice"
Death Ward (Barbarian) - Self only. "Refuse Death"
Locate Creature (Fighter)
Secret Chest (Rogue)

L5
Antimagic Field (Berserker) - Self only, hence L5
Arcane Hand (Monk)
Hallow (Fighter) - Courage or Fear only. "General on the Field"
Legend Lore (Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Ranger)
Mislead (Rogue)
Modify Memory (Berserker, Fighter) - Constitution save. "Dizzying Bonk"
Passwall (Barbarian) - "Make my own door"
Telekinesis (Monk)
Giving the martial classes spell slot progression at the 1/2 rate--with or without their own methods of using/managing/replenishing their resources--and letting them choose from these reduced lists would go a long way to improving the feel of these classes. Note that most of the above abilities are only tangentially related to combat, and none of them are taken AWAY from Casters.

Sorinth

2020-07-21, 01:27 PM

That's kind of the problem. Just disgraceful that fighters got so shortchanged on skills ever since skills became a thing. Rain down enough skills on the martials to give them fun things to do when they don't want to hit stuff.

Fighters do get extra ASIs which can be used for feats like Skilled or Prodigy even the "flavour" feats provide abilities or bonuses that impact skills.

FabulousFizban

2020-07-21, 04:32 PM

maybe they should be imbalanced. 4e balanced them and everyone hated it

OldTrees1

2020-07-21, 05:00 PM

maybe they should be imbalanced. 4e balanced them and everyone hated it

And anyone that listened to the criticisms of 4E would know it was not about the balance. It was about the homogeneity. The using the AEDU template for everything. Not having A Martials, and E Martials, A Warlocks, and D Wizards. Not expanding on the options. No, only AEDU characters were permitted in 4E.

It was not criticising the balance. It was criticising throwing out the baby with the bathwater out of intellectual laziness.

Bosh

2020-07-21, 06:02 PM

maybe they should be imbalanced. 4e balanced them and everyone hated it

Nah, 4e was just as bad at the kind of balance most people are talking about in this thread. In combat 4ed wasn't really more balanced than 5e., at least until high levels. 5e isn't like 3e where martials were badly overshadowed in fights.

Meanwhile out of combat fighter were worse at skills in 4e than any other class for no reason and a lot of caster abilities could be used out of combat for various things and Combat as War shenanigans if you were a bit creative while martial class abilities were useless out of combat for the most part. And in 4e if casters were using non-daily powers out of combat to do stuff they didn't even eat into spell slots.

Bosh

2020-07-21, 10:25 PM

Fighters do get extra ASIs which can be used for feats like Skilled or Prodigy even the "flavour" feats provide abilities or bonuses that impact skills.

Yup, it's possible and I took Prodigy feat on my fighter which combined with the samurai subclass had some out of combat abilities. Helped make the character into more of a lord and less of just a beatsteak and was fun. But then the party druid kept on wanting to polymorph me into a giant ape so that I could "pull my weight" in combat. Oh well.

Don't want to break/nerf the casters, but rather want to give the martials a few extra options to choose from, especially in social/dungeoneering situations since they're already well designed for combat.

It's been mentioned here and in other threads that replacing the game's spells with spell skill checks might help, and I admit that's an interesting approach. However, I think another mentality might work just as well, without changing the feel of the existing system too much.

Here is a list of spells that easily reflavor into heroic acts of strength/dexterity/constitution:
L1
Alarm (Ranger, Berserker)
Alter Self (Fighter, Monk) - Aquatic Adaptation only, hence L1. "Controlled Breathing"
Bane (Fighter, Berserker) - "Frightful Presence"
Charm Person (Rogue)
Command (Fighter)
Comprehend Languages (Monk)
Detect Poison/Disease (Monk)
Expeditious Retreat (Monk, Rogue)
Fear (Barbarian)
Grease (Rogue)
Heroism (Fighter)
Jump (Barbarian) - Self only
Longstrider (Barbarian)
Message (Fighter, Ranger) - Up to L1 from Cantrip
Resistance (Fighter, Monk) - Up to L1 from Cantrip

L2
Aid (Ranger, Fighter)
Arcane Lock (Rogue)
Augury (Monk)
Barkskin (Ranger, Monk) - Self only, no visual effect
Calm Emotions (Rogue, Monk)
Darkvision (Rogue, Monk) - Self only
Enhance Ability (Fighter, Barbarian) - Self only
Find Traps (Rogue)
Gust of Wind (Fighter) - "Dramatic Weather"
Hold Person (Rogue, Fighter) - Constitution saving throw. "Hamstring"
Invisibility (Rogue, Ranger) - "Find Cover"
Knock (Barbarian) - "Bash it Open"
Lesser Restoration (Monk)
Locate Object (Rogue, Monk)
Mending (Fighter, Ranger) - Up to L2 from Cantrip. "Quick Fix"
Misty Step (Rogue) - "Shadow Hop"
Pass without Trace (Rogue)
Protection from Poison (Monk)
Suggestion (Rogue, Ranger)
Warding Bond (Monk)
Zone of Truth (Fighter)

L3
Beacon of Hope (Fighter) - Self only. "Hopeful Outlook"
Bestow Curse (Rogue) - Touch Range [Apply with attack]. "Ability Poison"
Blink (Rogue) - "Elusive Weaving"
Clairvoyance (Rogue) - "Peeping Bug"
Counterspell (Fighter, Berserker) - Ability = Strength. "Disruption"
Freedom of Movement (Berserker, Monk) - Self only, hence L3.
Haste (Monk) - Self only
Knock (Rogue) - No sound effect. "Force Lock"
Protection from Energy (Fighter)
Sending (Rogue) - "Connections"
Water Walk (Monk)

L4
Arcane Eye (Ranger, Monk) - "Extraordinary Perception"
Banishment (Monk)
Blight (Rogue) - Touch Range [Apply with attack]. "Blighting Poison"
Compulsion (Fighter)
Confusion (Rogue) - "Throw Voice"
Death Ward (Barbarian) - Self only. "Refuse Death"
Locate Creature (Fighter)
Secret Chest (Rogue)

L5
Antimagic Field (Berserker) - Self only, hence L5
Arcane Hand (Monk)
Hallow (Fighter) - Courage or Fear only. "General on the Field"
Legend Lore (Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Ranger)
Mislead (Rogue)
Modify Memory (Berserker, Fighter) - Constitution save. "Dizzying Bonk"
Passwall (Barbarian) - "Make my own door"
Telekinesis (Monk)
Giving the martial classes spell slot progression at the 1/2 rate--with or without their own methods of using/managing/replenishing their resources--and letting them choose from these reduced lists would go a long way to improving the feel of these classes. Note that most of the above abilities are only tangentially related to combat, and none of them are taken AWAY from Casters.

I like the basic idea you're going with here and appreciate the list for idea mining purposes but I'm not sure that giving martials what amount of spell slots would go over well. Would prefer having the difference between mundane and magical be something hardcoded into the mechanics rather than just flavor. It's a personal preference but I'd like to them FEEL different.

And a lot of these could be at-will. Warlock invocations prove that you can give a lot of fun at-will powers without breaking the game.

I like the idea of the powerful wizard who has to hoard their power vs. the fighter who can "do this all day" you just have to balance things out so that neither side feels screwed over.

I'm fine with the wizard having GREAT COSMIC POWER! but I'd like to strip out some of the flexibility that 5e wizards have, i.e. bring back strict Vancian casting, eliminate or scale back cantrips (so that wizards aren't ALSO "I can do this all day guys") and give some side effects or drawbacks to a lot of their spells so that they're more situational. For example knock opens locks BUT it's hella noisy, or alter self drops if you speak a lie (like in the Pixar Onward movie). So wizards have more raw power but have to be more careful in how they use it while fighters can be Captain America and keep on trucking.

Of course you'd need to give fighters etc. more useful stuff that they can keep on trucking WITH but I think there's other ways to give martials cool toys without giving them spell slots.

C-Dude

2020-07-21, 11:46 PM

I like the basic idea you're going with here and appreciate the list for idea mining purposes but I'm not sure that giving martials what amount of spell slots would go over well. Would prefer having the difference between mundane and magical be something hardcoded into the mechanics rather than just flavor. It's a personal preference but I'd like to them FEEL different.

And a lot of these could be at-will. Warlock invocations prove that you can give a lot of fun at-will powers without breaking the game.

I like the idea of the powerful wizard who has to hoard their power vs. the fighter who can "do this all day" you just have to balance things out so that neither side feels screwed over.

...

Of course you'd need to give fighters etc. more useful stuff that they can keep on trucking WITH but I think there's other ways to give martials cool toys without giving them spell slots.
I know referring to them as spell slots comes with some baggage; it was not my intent to say that the martials should just learn spells, or handle these abilities the same way casters do. The goal was to give them more flexibility while working within the existing mechanics, rather than having to invent an entire new list of abilities martials have that are completely separate from the casters. Since casters share the spell table, it was easiest to promote it to an "Abilities Table" and sort martially flavored abilities into their own lists. An enraged barbarian gets to ignore all magical effects because he doesn't believe in them: we use the existing mechanical hook of "Anti-magic Field" to ensure that the effect works with the game system, but limit it to the barbarian's body himself to both distinguish the effect and fit the theme of the class. The same ability can even be recycled in different ways based on class: rogues use Knock by deftly picking the lock (and so don't suffer the loud noise effect), while barbarians just smash the thing open.

I was actually trying to come up with alternative resource mechanics earlier, to distinguish the martials (that's why I said "with or without their own methods" in my previous post). You can find my attempts on the previous page of this discussion. The goal was to give martials a toolkit without making them feel like caster copy-pastes.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24606843&postcount=158

If that sort of system doesn't appeal to you, there are some alternatives that spring to mind... for instance you could let a barbarian use anything on their list while they're raging, or charge them 3 HP per level on the ability (so using an L5 would cost 15 HP, effectively an 'all day' choice at level 20 but deadly at level 1). Or you could do both; maybe while raging the abilities are free, but otherwise they cost HP. Fighters and rogues could generate points (Momentum and Guile) to burn like Monks burn Ki, instead of refreshing slots. Rangers... well, they're half-caster already in 5e (blegch, where are the Belkars!); if you don't like the system I suggested in that post, you could probably just leave them be.

Mjolnirbear

2020-07-22, 12:19 AM

I like the whirling sweep idea. Let me try to expand on it.

A fighter, rogue, barbarian, or monk of at least 6th level build on their combat experience with the weapons and armor they use. (I'm initially omitting half-casters, since they're casters, but permitting 1/3 casters because that barely counts.)

Polearms: once per short rest you can knock over all enemies within reach. They make a Strength save to avoid being knocked prone. All enemies take 2d8 damage.

Maul, hammer, greatclub: once per short rest you can batter a shield to smithereens, completely destroying it. Run as a Disarm check.

Rapier, short sword, dagger: expose weakness. Once per short rest you may permanently weaken the armor of any single enemy. All weapon attacks have advantage.

Whip: once per short rest upon a successful attack you may choose instead of causing damage to begin choking your enemy. The enemy is unable to speak, cast spells, and their move is zero until they pass out (con mod in rounds) or they break free (as grapple).

Axes: on a critical hit you can sever an arm, leg, tail or tentacle.

Sword: drawing a blank, but something relatively weak since most magic weapons are swords.

The idea being making different weapons useful and giving cool stuff to do. I very much like the "spells as martial abilities" idea but agree that it can't really be spells, for flavour reasons if nothing else.

This can include improvements to "useless" weapons, like the net, the blow gun, and the sling. Maybe you craft sleep poison for the blow gun or can use the net at a better range (and it's reinforced). Your sling ammo can be ceramic bullets filled with acid or gas.

Then we could add "universal" abilities not reliant on a particular weapon. Say, automatically able to knock humanoids of a certain CR unconscious (like Destroy Undead). Automatically become proficient in vehicles or navigator's tools.

I mean, spellcasters are busy unravelling the mysteries of the Weave or working to balance Nature or deciphering their god's mysterious ways. Martials should not be twiddling their thumbs. They should get to learn things no caster can do, because being martial doesn't mean you can't learn.

It would be far less variety than spells, but easily something to build upon and close the perceived gap.

Bosh

2020-07-22, 01:01 AM

I know referring to them as spell slots comes with some baggage; it was not my intent to say that the martials should just learn spells, or handle these abilities the same way casters do. The goal was to give them more flexibility while working within the existing mechanics, rather than having to invent an entire new list of abilities martials have that are completely separate from the casters. Since casters share the spell table, it was easiest to promote it to an "Abilities Table" and sort martially flavored abilities into their own lists. An enraged barbarian gets to ignore all magical effects because he doesn't believe in them: we use the existing mechanical hook of "Anti-magic Field" to ensure that the effect works with the game system, but limit it to the barbarian's body himself to both distinguish the effect and fit the theme of the class. The same ability can even be recycled in different ways based on class: rogues use Knock by deftly picking the lock (and so don't suffer the loud noise effect), while barbarians just smash the thing open.

I was actually trying to come up with alternative resource mechanics earlier, to distinguish the martials (that's why I said "with or without their own methods" in my previous post). You can find my attempts on the previous page of this discussion. The goal was to give martials a toolkit without making them feel like caster copy-pastes.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24606843&postcount=158

If that sort of system doesn't appeal to you, there are some alternatives that spring to mind... for instance you could let a barbarian use anything on their list while they're raging, or charge them 3 HP per level on the ability (so using an L5 would cost 15 HP, effectively an 'all day' choice at level 20 but deadly at level 1). Or you could do both; maybe while raging the abilities are free, but otherwise they cost HP. Fighters and rogues could generate points (Momentum and Guile) to burn like Monks burn Ki, instead of refreshing slots. Rangers... well, they're half-caster already in 5e (blegch, where are the Belkars!); if you don't like the system I suggested in that post, you could probably just leave them be.

I think we're coming at things from a bit different directions. Will write a longer post later, work is starting momentarily.

Think a couple things are getting strung together and want to separate them out:

1. COMBAT balance: think that strictly combat balance is decent enough, at least at the first two tiers (where I've played pretty much exclusively) that it can be fixed with more tweaks than overhauls.

2. Giving martials more options in combat: not really a power boost but more an interest boost for tactically-minded players. Think this could be done with a new class (call it duelist or something) that could get a slew of combat options that'd be broad enough to cover a lot of archetypes and be multi-class friendly enough to mix with other classes. Don't think that a whole slew of new combat options need to be given to ALL martials. There are some players who are great at RPing but whose brains seem to be pretty impervious to rules. We have a player in our group who after YEARS I still have to make sure their adding proficiency to their freaking attack roll. But he's a great player otherwise and I'd hate to have a system that they bounced off of.

3. Balancing out of combat: for martials the main way that they do out of combat stuff is the skill system. But there's two problems with that. Martials (except rogues) aren't any better than casters at skills and the 5e skill system kinda sucks. Think the best way of dealing with that would be to burn down the 5e skill system and build a new one and have the new one be heavily slanted towards the martials.

4. Resources for martials: crap, work starting now. Get on with this later...

Sorinth

2020-07-22, 09:30 AM

Yup, it's possible and I took Prodigy feat on my fighter which combined with the samurai subclass had some out of combat abilities. Helped make the character into more of a lord and less of just a beatsteak and was fun. But then the party druid kept on wanting to polymorph me into a giant ape so that I could "pull my weight" in combat. Oh well.

Whether you take a flavour/skill feat instead of an ASI it's not really going to change whether you "pull your weight" in combat, so it sounds like the Druid is just being a ****.

Mjolnirbear

2020-07-22, 09:32 AM

I think we're coming at things from a bit different directions. Will write a longer post later, work is starting momentarily.

Think a couple things are getting strung together and want to separate them out:

1. COMBAT balance: think that strictly combat balance is decent enough, at least at the first two tiers (where I've played pretty much exclusively) that it can be fixed with more tweaks than overhauls.

2. Giving martials more options in combat: not really a power boost but more an interest boost for tactically-minded players. Think this could be done with a new class (call it duelist or something) that could get a slew of combat options that'd be broad enough to cover a lot of archetypes and be multi-class friendly enough to mix with other classes. Don't think that a whole slew of new combat options need to be given to ALL martials. There are some players who are great at RPing but whose brains seem to be pretty impervious to rules. We have a player in our group who after YEARS I still have to make sure their adding proficiency to their freaking attack roll. But he's a great player otherwise and I'd hate to have a system that they bounced off of.

3. Balancing out of combat: for martials the main way that they do out of combat stuff is the skill system. But there's two problems with that. Martials (except rogues) aren't any better than casters at skills and the 5e skill system kinda sucks. Think the best way of dealing with that would be to burn down the 5e skill system and build a new one and have the new one be heavily slanted towards the martials.

4. Resources for martials: crap, work starting now. Get on with this later...

I pretty much said all this on page six. And actually started working on resources on page 7.

Benny89

2020-07-22, 10:13 AM

Give them CC. That's it. The problem with casters vs martials is not AOE because most martials can deal way more single target damage than casters (not including powerbuilds like Sorlock or Nuclear Wizard).

The problem is that casters have all kinds of CC, like paralyze, slows, fear, blindness, restrain, banishment, cages/walls, charms, dominations, summons that can CC etc.

Which 99% of them targets: WIS, CHA or INT saves, so everything martials are weak against.

On the other hand martials do not get any kind of CC, like ramming, kick, stuns, restrains (not grapple), fear etc. effects that would target STR or CON saves, so what casters are weak against.

The lack of CC is a problem. For example in theory in 1v1 PvP martial vs caster - in 9/10 cases then only way a martial can win is to burst down mage in first turn with maximum Nova. Because after that caster has just too many tools to start (slowly but surely) win duel, like Flying, teleportation, summoning, hard CC (wall of Force etc.), dominate, polmymorph and so on.

Look at MMO. Casters and Melee are mostly equal in MMO PvP scenarios because it's CC that keeps them in check. Stuns from melee vs freezez/fear from casters etc.

Martials needs CC, hard CC, that's it.

heavyfuel

2020-07-22, 10:23 AM

Martials needs CC, hard CC, that's it.

Martials have the best CC ever, inflicting the "dead" condition on enemies.

You don't hear people saying the Monk is OP because it can stun opponents. I don't think the Monk is weak (it's one of the strongest martials), but it's not good enough just having CC.

Martials need out of combat options. Giving them more power in combat only alleviates, but doesn't solve, the problem.

Xervous

2020-07-22, 10:30 AM

Martials have the best CC ever, inflicting the "dead" condition on enemies.

You don't hear people saying the Monk is OP because it can stun opponents. I don't think the Monk is weak (it's one of the strongest martials), but it's not good enough just having CC.

Martials need out of combat options. Giving them more power in combat only alleviates, but doesn't solve, the problem.

CC clearly stands for caster class, they already all have the option to pick up casting.

Even if you boost Martials to the point that they resolve combat as a skill check (if not auto pass) they still lack elevated and defined means for interacting with the other two pillars.

Kane0

2020-07-22, 10:55 AM

Martials have the best CC ever, inflicting the "dead" condition on enemies.

Martials need out of combat options. Giving them more power in combat only alleviates, but doesn't solve, the problem.

I agree on an out of combat focus, but would like to point out that the dead condition is binary, only applying at 0 HP. Other conditions can be applied at any stage and make reaching Dead easier.

heavyfuel

2020-07-22, 11:08 AM

I agree on an out of combat focus, but would like to point out that the dead condition is binary, only applying at 0 HP. Other conditions can be applied at any stage and make reaching Dead easier.

My post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but, honestly, I have no problems with martials being seen as "damage dealers" and casters as "controlers".

The problem is when casters can - even if on a finite (but not super limited) resource - also deal more damage than martials AND they can crowd control AND they can get out of combat utility.

Sorinth

2020-07-22, 11:19 AM

Benny89

2020-07-22, 03:12 PM

I'm not sure what you're talking about, off the top of my head depending on class/subclass martials can apply Stun, Prone, Grapple, Restrained, Disarm, Frightened, Forced Movement, and lots of ways to impose disadvantage on opposing creatures attack(s).

Grapple does no damage and doesn't prevent caster from teleporing away. How Fighter or Barbarian can perform a Stun or Restrain or Frightened? Ranger and Paladin may to some degree with spells, but again - those are spell again. We know spells can CC. It's martial features that have CC that are lacking.

Prone does nothing really- enemy just need to get up. Disarm caster? Force Movement of caster? Why? They have tons of mobility with teleports or flying. And imposie disadvantage on attacks how will help vs caster? Wall of Force or Force Cage don't care, same as many other CC spells.

This about balancing martials vs caster so I say again- give all martial classess access to hard single target CC and maybe some bonuses to initiative.

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-22, 03:15 PM

Grapple does no damage and doesn't prevent caster from teleporing away. How Fighter or Barbarian can perform a Stun or Restrain or Frightened.

Prone does nothing really- enemy just need to get up. Disarm caster? Force Movement of caster? Why? They have tons of mobility with teleports or flying. And imposie disadvantage on attacks how will help vs caster? Wall of Force or Force Cage don't care, same as many other CC spells.

Agreed. Off the top of my head, without getting into specific subclass features, you got:

Can trade an attack to Grapple (reduces movement to 0).
Can trade an attack to Shove (knocks prone, push back 5 feet).
Tavern Brawler, Grappler, Prodigy, and Shield Master assist with Grapple/Shove. Grappler can restrain the target and yourself.
Barbarian Rage can assist with Grapple/Shove.
Monks can Stun.
Ranger can Restrain with the Ensnaring Strike spell.
I guess you can Restrain with a Net?

That's it. The rest are all subclass specific abilities.

Don't forget that Grapple/Shove aren't accessible for Dexterity-based Martials without Prodigy or some other out-of-class bonus to your skills, and the Monk/Ranger options both require you to utilize a tertiary stat to determine success (which means you're less likely to inflict a condition than a caster).

So your options for decent conditions is some Druid/Monk or Druid/Ranger Wisdom build, or a melee Strength Martial that spent a feat or two to get good at Grapple/Shove.

Bosh

2020-07-23, 02:17 AM

Whether you take a flavour/skill feat instead of an ASI it's not really going to change whether you "pull your weight" in combat, so it sounds like the Druid is just being a ****.

Yeah, but Prodigy and stuff like that don't really get at the root of what makes it hard to keep up out of combat. Hell, even rogues who are the kings of mundane out of combat stuff get rings run around them by bards.

I pretty much said all this on page six. And actually started working on resources on page 7.

WRT resources I'm not sure that mundanes NEED a lot of resources they can spend. A lot of a warlock's best stuff is "I can do this all day" stuff and they're fine power wise. "I can do this all day" is a fine niche alongside short rest and long rest focused classes as long as the at-will focused classes have some good **** they can DO all day.

"I hit it with my sword really hard" works pretty fine as an at-will combat ability from a balance perspective even though it can get really boring since (unlike in 3.5ed with how much save or lose spells ended up dominating) hitting things really really hard is a useful contribution in combat just need to give the mundanes more useful things they can contribute out of combat and/or haul the castes back down to ground. Concentration was a GREAT addition to 5e, a few more things like that could bring casters back down to the ground. Personally I'd like to see wizards (and only wizards) go back to being full Vancian, that would remove a lot of their flexibility and thus power.

Give them CC. That's it. The problem with casters vs martials is not AOE because most martials can deal way more single target damage than casters (not including powerbuilds like Sorlock or Nuclear Wizard).

The problem is that casters have all kinds of CC, like paralyze, slows, fear, blindness, restrain, banishment, cages/walls, charms, dominations, summons that can CC etc.

Which 99% of them targets: WIS, CHA or INT saves, so everything martials are weak against.

On the other hand martials do not get any kind of CC, like ramming, kick, stuns, restrains (not grapple), fear etc. effects that would target STR or CON saves, so what casters are weak against.

The lack of CC is a problem. For example in theory in 1v1 PvP martial vs caster - in 9/10 cases then only way a martial can win is to burst down mage in first turn with maximum Nova. Because after that caster has just too many tools to start (slowly but surely) win duel, like Flying, teleportation, summoning, hard CC (wall of Force etc.), dominate, polmymorph and so on.

Look at MMO. Casters and Melee are mostly equal in MMO PvP scenarios because it's CC that keeps them in check. Stuns from melee vs freezez/fear from casters etc.

Martials needs CC, hard CC, that's it.

That doesn't really help with out of combat stuff though...

Would like explicit means by which meleers can keep a casters from using certain spell components. For example an action to hold their arms to prevent somatic components, sticking a fist down their throat to prevent somatic ones, etc.

eunwoler

2020-07-23, 04:10 AM

Skylivedk

2020-07-23, 04:20 AM

Is it just me or is it a little absurd that some people think the solution is to have more encounters per day?

Clearly if people stick with a smaller number of encounters than the classes are balanced for that's an issue with class balance not encounters. People enjoy the current structuring so that's not the problem. Clearly a slighter number is a more intuitive and enjoyable adventuring day than a lengthier one; there's no reason to make the game less fun for the sake of some arbitrary original intention.

Furthermore the vast majority of games don't go past level 8 so outside of theorycrafting the actual imbalance doesn't really arise until later IMO.

What I do agree with is that it's not so fun that martials have less options than casters (not a balance issue though I will add).

Maneuvers were originally intended to be part of every martial right? Or at least every fighter subclass. I liked this. Actually, there are some additional options already in the game that people might overlook.

Disarm, Mark etc. They are some optional rules for some reason. The game is already so built up instead of reintegrating maneuvers for all just add more of these ones, options like Shove, Grapple, Disarm, Mark and that'll offer more enjoyable combat menus than what is

I like your point of adding manoeuvres to all fighters and more standard options in combat.

I fail to see what most Martials bring to the table outside of combat even in tier 2.

I fail to see why it's ok for WotC to release a game worth 20 character levels and then eschew good design between the classes for more than half of them. Most of my campaigns have made it to level 10 or above. If WotC really didn't consider those level ranges worth focusing on initially, they should have spent the design space making levels 1-10 even more fun, the XP curve flatter and then release books for the epic and legendary tiers separately.

Saying that most people don't play those levels (based on super dubious data I might add) and hence the design of them doesn't matter is just an easy cop out IMO.

eunwoler

2020-07-23, 06:04 AM

I like your point of adding manoeuvres to all fighters and more standard options in combat.

I fail to see what most Martials bring to the table outside of combat even in tier 2.

I fail to see why it's ok for WotC to release a game worth 20 character levels and then eschew good design between the classes for more than half of them. Most of my campaigns have made it to level 10 or above. If WotC really didn't consider those level ranges worth focusing on initially, they should have spent the design space making levels 1-10 even more fun, the XP curve flatter and then release books for the epic and legendary tiers separately.

Saying that most people don't play those levels (based on super dubious data I might add) and hence the design of them doesn't matter is just an easy cop out IMO.

Alright this is going to be a long comment so just a quick warning

First up, my bad I should've added, when I say most games don't go into unbalanced territory I'm not excusing the disparity, I mentioned theorycrafting because I'm surprised by the passion of people here over the imbalance when I'd imagine most people shouldn't be experiencing a visceral issue in real gameplay. It's definitely an issue at higher levels

I disagree about Martials not being valuable at lower tiers. The very fact that different classes have different stat distributions already justifies the presence of having martials alongside the casters. And even outside of class specific features, all classes are operating at a baseline level of usability because of race, backgrounds and as mentioned, stats. Now on individual classes,

Rogues of course have utility heavily emphasised in their design. Half casters have spells also.

So that leaves us with Monks, Fighters and Barbarians. When it comes to my opinion on these three classes I should prefix this by saying I don't believe all classes need to be very closely comparable in out of combat utility so long as they still a) fulfill niches in the party that are difficult for other classes to replicate and b) can still feel like they participate in a majority of the game.

the Fighter has 7 ASIs and either a level 3 or level 7 utility feature. Those 2 extra ASIs and subclass feature are the Fighter's utility. Get skill feats, get Prodigy, even get Magic Initiate if a spell is particularly valuable. That bridges a good amount of the gap. Lets say you took Samurai, versus a Wizard - now you have 3 saving throws, you're the Persuasive face of the party. 2 extra ASIs, you could get Prodigy for another skill proficiency, tool proficiency, language and an Expertise. Maybe take Magic Initiate because there's some magic you do need after all. Now that gap looks alot smaller. Not bridged entirely, but there are plenty of things you're inherently better at now than a Wizard, that you can do without expending resources, and you're useful for long enough.

The Barbarian on the other hand doesn't have those ASIs. Although she probably has the highest Strength of the party so she can do action hero things, and also has double the hitpoints of the spellcasters in the party. Which in itself is a utility feature when many of the consequences of failing certain things ends up being damage. So the Barbarian can bypass traps and whatnot by eating them up instead of magicking around it.
It even has a feature, Danger Sense, for this explicit purpose. You're the resident expert at walking through traps and spells. That's a utility you do better at will, without cost than any other class in the game.

Rage is also a feature with out of combat purpose. Perhaps you can keep tanking, with the resistances and strength saving throws, or you can make use of great Strength stats on top of advantage with Rage to break and throw things around. Furthermore utility is built into every single Barbarian subclass at some point. Like the Fighter features this also closes the gap a little. But most importantly the Barbarian is the tank of the group and that's not a niche anybody else taps into.

Monk? We don't talk about the Monk. As in, we do talk about the Monk, but I'm disappointed by how much time I have spent doing this instead of like, something productive. I hope it was an okay read though

Sorinth

2020-07-23, 08:22 AM

Grapple does no damage and doesn't prevent caster from teleporing away. How Fighter or Barbarian can perform a Stun or Restrain or Frightened? Ranger and Paladin may to some degree with spells, but again - those are spell again. We know spells can CC. It's martial features that have CC that are lacking.

Prone does nothing really- enemy just need to get up. Disarm caster? Force Movement of caster? Why? They have tons of mobility with teleports or flying. And imposie disadvantage on attacks how will help vs caster? Wall of Force or Force Cage don't care, same as many other CC spells.

This about balancing martials vs caster so I say again- give all martial classess access to hard single target CC and maybe some bonuses to initiative.

Monks can stun and are Martial characters
Battlemaster Fighter or anyone who takes the Martial Adept feat can impose Frightened (Menacing Attack) as can the Berserker via Intimidating Presence or any Fallen Aasimar via Necrotic Shroud
Anyone with the Grappler feat or a Net can impose Restrained

As for why you'd want to disarm a caster the answer is simple. Take away the Focus/Components pouch and the caster has lost access to most of their spells so no more Fly or Forcecage.

But really this isn't about a martial vs caster in a PvP battle anyways. Yes you could build a martial who doesn't have any options besides attacking and dealing damage each turn, but it's wrong to claim that all martials are like that. It's very easy to build martials who can impose conditions.

Sorinth

2020-07-23, 08:45 AM

eunwoler

2020-07-23, 08:49 AM

I'll just note that the intent behind this was to avoid the pitfalls of 4e where things were balanced but every class felt the same. I personally feel they made the right call to go with classes that feel different play wise. The main issue is that they balanced it around the wrong number of encounters per rest.

I 100% agree. To me the most odious fighter fixes are where people just give refluffed spell menus rewritten as mundane powers.
Dnd to me is alot more enjoyable than many MMOs precisely because of the class differentiation.

I think it's not just necessarily balancing around the wrong number of encounters, but that the adventuring day structure is way different from how the Devs seem to have thought it'd be. Because of time and organisational and game enjoyment based factors theres not a wide berth to how many encounters people face.

KorvinStarmast

2020-07-23, 09:01 AM

Thirdly, make spell DCs a bit lower but compensate by adding in a lot for feat support for spellcasting. Things like a feat to raise DCs for a specific spell school or that can enhance psychic damage and so on. Give incetives for being a specialist rather than a generalist.
How about "if your school is Evoker, all other school spells are saved at your DC -1" or something like that. I find that a useful idea. Not sure how to apply that to divine spells, though, just to wizard spells. Now that I think of it, not sure how to work this for sorcerers or warlocks either. Hmm, you have the germ of a good idea here, but there's a lot of braining to do before I see the end state.

Fourthly, go back to vancian casting on prepared spell classes. Having to effectively sacrifice a spell slot as well as a spell prepared slot to be able to fulfil a function raises the opportunity cost for doing what might be able to be done by another class. Yeah.But leave cantrips as is.

Fifthly, rebalance a lot of the remaining spells.
Heck, get rid of about 10-15% of them. Liposuction needed.

Sixthly, change the focus of the spell slots to give more lower level and fewer higher level effectsThis will take a lot of play testing to figure out the sweet spot for.

Seven, where possible soften the line between success and failure. For example hold person can be paralysed on a fail by 3 or more, stunned on a fail, incapacitated if they pass but by 3 or less, slowed is they pass but by 5 or less and fine if they pass by 6 or more. To me that's too fiddly. The chance to save each turn mitigates spells like HP.

Eight, give back to casters
OK

New spells
no,

features to reward specialisation
Yes!

add more good feats that add combat options.
Yes.

Eleven. Broaden combat uses for skills in the core rules.
That's not a bad idea. But I can see loopholes opening up a bit ...

Twelve. Rules for exceptional rolls on skills.
No. No thanks.

Xervous

2020-07-23, 09:38 AM

3.5e psionics had the right of it with forced specialization and specialization exclusive powers.

While not elegant, the notion of an evoker learning fireball as a 3rd level spell and glitterdust as a 3rd or 4th has a certain allure. Regrettably the lack of elegance dooms this concept.

Benny89

2020-07-23, 06:08 PM

Monks can stun and are Martial characters
Battlemaster Fighter or anyone who takes the Martial Adept feat can impose Frightened (Menacing Attack) as can the Berserker via Intimidating Presence or any Fallen Aasimar via Necrotic Shroud
Anyone with the Grappler feat or a Net can impose Restrained

As for why you'd want to disarm a caster the answer is simple. Take away the Focus/Components pouch and the caster has lost access to most of their spells so no more Fly or Forcecage.

But really this isn't about a martial vs caster in a PvP battle anyways. Yes you could build a martial who doesn't have any options besides attacking and dealing damage each turn, but it's wrong to claim that all martials are like that. It's very easy to build martials who can impose conditions.

Yeah, monks can stun. Probably that is why they are the worst martial class in game. It's not about give them CC and take away their damage. It's about both.

Disarming his focus/component pouch. First all of - using component pouch does not require equipping it. It's just there for components. So caster won't be holding it on your turn. Second- no caster will pull his focus before his turn because pulling out focus/weapon is free action. So no need to holding it after you use it. Besides - you can easly have more than one focus, they cost nothing.

Martials in 5e is just "give them more attacks" or "give them little bonus to damage per attack". That's it pretty much. "Give them hard CC?" - ok, but then they do piss-poor damage (Monks).

Paladin and Hexblade are so good martials not because they are great martials, but because they have magic to actually help them be balanced vs casters. They can give themselfs advantage, give enemies disadvantage, buff themselfs with spells, have utility on hand, great boost to defenses (Auras, immunity to fear, SOM/Darkness combo, Armor of Hexes etc.) and damage boosts (Smites, IDS, Life Drinker, Hex, Curse). And it's more fun to use a martial who has more options then "I attack, again, and again. Now I attack angry! Now I attack but more accurate!"

5e imo balanced casters really well vs 3.5 edition casters. Sadly I don't know why martials also got "balanced". Where is Power Attack for them. I know GWM is the new one, but where is one fort 1-handed weapons.

Where are martial feats/features like:

- Inhuman Reach
- Power Throw
- Combat Vigor
- Combat Reflexes
- Defensive Sweep
- Shock Trooper
- Power Critical
- Robilar's Gambit
- Improved Two-Weapon Fighting

And many more.

5e casters are imo in great position now compare to previous editions.

Part of why martials feel weak now is because 5e seperated ASI levels from Feat levels. Feats were one of biggest factors in building great martial builds in 3.5e.

Caster never really needed and still don't need feats. Sure, they can take them but why? They have spells that substitute them.

djreynolds

2020-07-23, 06:20 PM

Sorinth

2020-07-23, 10:56 PM

Yeah, monks can stun. Probably that is why they are the worst martial class in game. It's not about give them CC and take away their damage. It's about both.

Disarming his focus/component pouch. First all of - using component pouch does not require equipping it. It's just there for components. So caster won't be holding it on your turn. Second- no caster will pull his focus before his turn because pulling out focus/weapon is free action. So no need to holding it after you use it. Besides - you can easly have more than one focus, they cost nothing.

Martials in 5e is just "give them more attacks" or "give them little bonus to damage per attack". That's it pretty much. "Give them hard CC?" - ok, but then they do piss-poor damage (Monks).

Paladin and Hexblade are so good martials not because they are great martials, but because they have magic to actually help them be balanced vs casters. They can give themselfs advantage, give enemies disadvantage, buff themselfs with spells, have utility on hand, great boost to defenses (Auras, immunity to fear, SOM/Darkness combo, Armor of Hexes etc.) and damage boosts (Smites, IDS, Life Drinker, Hex, Curse). And it's more fun to use a martial who has more options then "I attack, again, and again. Now I attack angry! Now I attack but more accurate!"

5e imo balanced casters really well vs 3.5 edition casters. Sadly I don't know why martials also got "balanced". Where is Power Attack for them. I know GWM is the new one, but where is one fort 1-handed weapons.

Where are martial feats/features like:

- Inhuman Reach
- Power Throw
- Combat Vigor
- Combat Reflexes
- Defensive Sweep
- Shock Trooper
- Power Critical
- Robilar's Gambit
- Improved Two-Weapon Fighting

And many more.

5e casters are imo in great position now compare to previous editions.

Part of why martials feel weak now is because 5e seperated ASI levels from Feat levels. Feats were one of biggest factors in building great martial builds in 3.5e.

Caster never really needed and still don't need feats. Sure, they can take them but why? They have spells that substitute them.

Monks aren't the worst martials.

As for the focus not holding it until after your first turn seems like a great way to not be able to cast a spells like feather fall as reaction and instead go splat. And it doesn't actually solve anything because whether you are holding something or simply carrying it, it can still be removed from your person.

And it's pretty ironic that you claim martials lack being able to impose conditions but your list of missing feats don't actually impose any "hard CC" that is supposedly lacking.

AdAstra

2020-07-23, 11:45 PM

See all these new UA feats, just allow martials every 5 levels or 6 levels to get something like crushing, or shield thing, etc.

You just get these. Its not much but it adds to you bag of goodies, just as caster gets basically an extra spell here and there

How about that? A wizard gets a book they put spells in.... why not a fighter getting a book he puts feats into and on a long rest can study and switch out feats each day.

I'm fighting skeletons tomorrow lets open up my martial training guide and pick out and study up on useful feats and tactics for the upcoming day?

Aside from being incredibly immersion-breaking (the whole point of learning and training for things is that you remember them afterward), this doesn't really help the fighter much unless you have a wide variety of feats that are actually useful, and a good number that are useful out of combat. It just makes things more complex and forces more bookkeeping. Retraining feats I'm fine with for gameplay purposes, but adding in caster-style feat-switching just distracts from things that actually make a character more interesting and useful.

Tanarii

2020-07-24, 04:35 AM

Is it just me or is it a little absurd that some people think the solution is to have more encounters per day?Nope. The number of encounters is designed just about right for a 3-4 hour session with the typical mix of combat and non-combat, at the typical speeds for combat resolution, as far as I've seen. Personally I'm able to fit in at least 50% more in the same session length.

Here's the thing ... D&D is not a "any type of fantasy adventure" simulator. It never has been, despite what TSR tried to sell in 2e, and despite what the introductions of the WotC PHB and DMG in both 3e and 5e have tried to sell. 5e in particular is definitely NOT tuned/designed for wandering around in a sandbox maybe having one encounter a session. It's tuned/designed for AL-style adventures, hitting an adventuring site in a single session "module" with a pickup crew, and bashing it out in 4 hours. And it's excellent at that. Surprisingly so, given that's exactly what 4e was tuned for and they did they're darndest to try to look like they rejected everything 4e. (Which of course is ludicrous, lots of 4e made it into 5e.)

But what they did do was provide some guidance on how to adjust the game if you don't want to play that kind of game. Because the problem is exactly that there's a fairly large group of DMs that don't have enough encounters between each long rest, if they try to use the default rules. A fairly sizable group that is heavily represented in home-play tables and this forum. Unfortunately those necessary adjustments are also commonly rejected when folks cannot wrap their mind around the idea that "per long rest" does not have to equal "per day" or "per session".

Kyutaru

2020-07-25, 10:05 AM

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-29, 11:25 AM

To quote Milo:

"Even wizards can't do everything, he reminded himself, so there's no shame in admitting defeat. It takes a Cleric to heal... well, actually, a Wizard could just summon a monster that can heal people for him. It takes a Rogue to pick a lock... actually, that's not true, a Wizard could just cast Knock. Okay, a Rogue to sneak around... no, Wizards can cast invisibility.

Ah, screw it. So maybe Wizards can do everything. But not all at once, not all in one day, not with only one Wizard, and not all at level three.

While casters can be the best gap fillers with potent spells for combat they get looked at often as possessing all of this at once. A wizard specialized purely for battle has almost no out of combat utility either and while he can obtain said utility through memorization it will take time that the DM shouldn't be granting freely unless there's ample downtime in the adventure. The ability for casters to temporarily and limitedly exceed martials at whatever they do is something the DM can control with great ease. Even just using the martial characters as meatshield pack mules is effective since the magic items that allow this to be bypassed eat into character wealth and deny potentially better magic items.

I think that could make sense, but the thing is, a Rogue doesn't usually need to use his pick-locking skills any more than a Wizard needs to cast Knock.

I don't think I've ever had a situation where Athletics Checks couldn't have been solved by a single casting of Enlarge/Reduce or a similar spell (as most instances of multiple Athletics Checks are done fairly close to each other, time-wise).

And additionally, when it comes to utility, everyone gets roughly the same amount of skills and are roughly equally as good at those skills.

For example, say you got a Barbarian, and you got a Wizard.
You come across a boulder problem, a lock problem, a thinking problem, an animal problem, a talking problem, and a poison problem.

Of those, the Barbarian can almost definitely resolve the strength problem, and might be able to address the animal problem.
Of those, the Wizard can almost definitely address the thinking problem, and might be able to address the lock problem, strength problem, the talking problem, and the poison problem.

The issue here is that, despite the Barbarian being specialized into solving strength problems, there's no expectation that they'll be more common. Most adventures rely on a variety of different skillsets to work, and utility-based specializations aren't all that useful. That's why the Bard is still a really good utility expert, despite being typecasted into Charisma, because Charisma problems are known to be very common (and so specialization into it isn't a waste), but also because they get spells and bonuses to skills to still be relevant when Charisma isn't.

And while I can understand that having the Barbarian does make it so that the Wizard can spend more on other elements of the game, you're talking about the Barbarian alleviating 1 out of 6 problems, while the Wizard handles the 4 the Barbarian couldn't do anything about. Also, a Barbarian's inherent ability to solve certain problems (Strength) aren't that much more than a Wizard's inherent ability to solving other certain problems (Intelligence), unless we're talking about a situation where Strength-based utility is more valuable than Intelligence-based utility, which may even imply that Intelligence-based utility deserves to be even more valuable (as you don't need to be a Wizard to have Intelligence or to use Intelligence skills).

Making a caster 25% more efficient shouldn't be the utility goal of martials, and solving 4x the number of problems as martials shouldn't be the goal for casters.

It just feels like you're waiting to be picked a lot of the time as a martial, while everyone else gets to actively make decisions. At least, that's how it's felt for me.

I'm running into this situation DMing my current campaign where my Fighter doesn't feel like he really gets a voice in the decision-making process for the party, so I've tried to compensate by having the party interact with races that the Fighter has some pull with. However, this is biting me in the ass since we have a socially-inclined Bard that 's not doing as much socially as a result of my DM choices, and everyone feels like they're mostly standing around while the Fighter gets his feel of "I'm doing more than hitting people with a stick". It's been exhausting trying to make a Fighter feel well-rounded in a social setting, and I know that this wouldn't be quite the same problem had he been anything that wasn't a meatstick.

Kyutaru

2020-07-29, 11:54 AM

I think that could make sense, but the thing is, a Rogue doesn't usually need to use his pick-locking skills any more than a Wizard needs to cast Knock.

I don't think I've ever had a situation where Athletics Checks couldn't have been solved by a single casting of Enlarge/Reduce or a similar spell (as most instances of multiple Athletics Checks are done fairly close to each other, time-wise).
This is a subjective experience that has changed over the editions with Thief being an invaluable asset in the earlier years when picking locks was essential. It's similar to appealing to common sense when it's only as common as the reader believes it to be. What followed is more examples showcasing the trap people fall into with wizards in assuming they can do it all.

For example, say you got a Barbarian, and you got a Wizard.
You come across a boulder problem, a lock problem, a thinking problem, an animal problem, a talking problem, and a poison problem.

Of those, the Barbarian can almost definitely resolve the strength problem, and might be able to address the animal problem.
Of those, the Wizard can almost definitely address the thinking problem, and might be able to address the lock problem, strength problem, the talking problem, and the poison problem.
"Ah, screw it. So maybe Wizards can do everything. But not all at once, not all in one day, not with only one Wizard, and not all at level three."

Wizards can fill in any gaps, that's the versatility they bring because spellbooks are literally infinite in potential with more and more spells being added regularly through additional books or DM creations while few to no new Barbarian abilities are being added to the pool. New options exist for Barbarians to select but often in place of something existing while Wizards assemble a continually expanded hoard of knowledge. But this goes back to the quote, they can do it all but only if they prepared for that necessity. Wizard players must therefore predict the needs of the adventure and will frequently have spells prepared that DO NOTHING because the adventure didn't call for them any more than it did picking locks.

The issue here is that, despite the Barbarian being specialized into solving strength problems, there's no expectation that they'll be more common. Most adventures rely on a variety of different skillsets to work, and utility-based specializations aren't all that useful. That's why the Bard is still a really good utility expert, despite being typecasted into Charisma, because Charisma problems are known to be very common (and so specialization into it isn't a waste), but also because they get spells and bonuses to skills to still be relevant when Charisma isn't.
And yet if you asked a 2nd edition player which stat he'll be dumping, the answer is invariably Charisma. Strength meanwhile had the extremely useful advantage of breaking down doors and lifting gates and moving boulders and carrying the team on their back to jump over a pit and being the party pack mule. Charisma simply offered no tangible benefits worth the stats. This was done despite belts existing that could set your Strength to a predefined total which renders all points put into Strength a waste once found. The scenarios players find their talents useful in are only as common as the DMs make them and we've seen which they are change over the game's lifespan.

And while I can understand that having the Barbarian does make it so that the Wizard can spend more on other elements of the game, you're talking about the Barbarian alleviating 1 out of 6 problems, while the Wizard handles the 4 the Barbarian couldn't do anything about. Making a Wizard 20% more efficient shouldn't be the utility goal of martials.

It just feels like you're waiting to be picked a lot of the time, while everyone else gets to make decisions. At least, that's how it's felt for me.
The Barbarian can definitely handle one problem while the Wizard may or may not have the correct spell memorized to handle any of them. This can make the Barbarian to Wizard usefulness ratio 1:0 and make the Wizard feel useless too because he only prepared "combat spells". There is precisely one thing an invoker is talented it and it's raining elemental destruction. Not all that handy in any of the six previously mentioned cases. The Wizard may be a swiss army knife but he can't flip between tools instantly without Wish. The DM is control of what spells he knows, is aware of his spell list and the skills the party brings, and is 100% the decider of how frequent these checks become. Imagine if you could Knock once per day but there were six locked doors between you and your target... should the party wait six days to get through the dungeon? I learned this limitation all too keenly while playing the SSI Gold Box games because while having Neutralize Poison is an excellent spell for clerics to have memorized it does not eliminate the need for buying antidotes. Getting your entire party into a fight with poisonous spiders and centipedes is still going to warrant bringing backup. Restoration spells are even worse and it's better to just not get energy drained than to waste gold or spell slots on recovering from it.

Man_Over_Game

2020-07-29, 12:08 PM

This is a subjective experience that has changed over the editions with Thief being an invaluable asset in the earlier years when picking locks was essential. It's similar to appealing to common sense when it's only as common as the reader believes it to be. What followed is more examples showcasing the trap people fall into with wizards in assuming they can do it all.

"Ah, screw it. So maybe Wizards can do everything. But not all at once, not all in one day, not with only one Wizard, and not all at level three."

Wizards can fill in any gaps, that's the versatility they bring because spellbooks are literally infinite in potential with more and more spells being added regularly through additional books or DM creations while few to no new Barbarian abilities are being added to the pool. New options exist for Barbarians to select but often in place of something existing while Wizards assemble a continually expanded hoard of knowledge. But this goes back to the quote, they can do it all but only if they prepared for that necessity. Wizard players must therefore predict the needs of the adventure and will frequently have spells prepared that DO NOTHING because the adventure didn't call for them any more than it did picking locks.

And yet if you asked a 2nd edition player which stat he'll be dumping, the answer is invariably Charisma. Strength meanwhile had the extremely useful advantage of breaking down doors and lifting gates and moving boulders and carrying the team on their back to jump over a pit and being the party pack mule. Charisma simply offered no tangible benefits worth the stats. This was done despite belts existing that could set your Strength to a predefined total which renders all points put into Strength a waste once found. The scenarios players find their talents useful in are only as common as the DMs make them and we've seen which they are change over the game's lifespan.

The Barbarian can definitely handle one problem while the Wizard may or may not have the correct spell memorized to handle any of them. This can make the Barbarian to Wizard usefulness ratio 1:0 and make the Wizard feel useless too because he only prepared "combat spells". There is precisely one thing an invoker is talented it and it's raining elemental destruction. Not all that handy in any of the six previously mentioned cases. The Wizard may be a swiss army knife but he can't flip between tools instantly without Wish. The DM is control of what spells he knows, is aware of his spell list and the skills the party brings, and is 100% the decider of how frequent these checks become. Imagine if you could Knock once per day but there were six locked doors between you and your target... should the party wait six days to get through the dungeon? I learned this limitation all too keenly while playing the SSI Gold Box games because while having Neutralize Poison is an excellent spell for clerics to have memorized it does not eliminate the need for buying antidotes. Getting your entire party into a fight with poisonous spiders and centipedes is still going to warrant bringing backup. Restoration spells are even worse and it's better to just not get energy drained than to waste gold or spell slots on recovering from it.

I think you might be missing the key point.

Of the variety of problems mentioned, Barbarians can guaranteed solve 1, and possibly solve 1.

Of the variety of problems mentioned, Wizards can guaranteed solve 1, and possibly solve 3.

The issue is that the Barbarian's specialization into that one category (Strength) isn't any more constant than the Wizard's version (Intelligence). In fact, you can proactively make an Intelligence check on your surroundings (maybe even to identify a weakness in a door), while a Strength check generally needs explicit permission to be used (such as the need to carry something or to break something). Without DM Hand-holding, I predict that more Intelligence Checks are made compared to Strength Checks, for the majority of parties, as the DM does not need to make an Intelligence Problem for a player to request an Intelligence Check.

The thing that frustrates me about these debates is that there is regular defense of the value of physical skills, and there is regular mention of the cost of preparation of spells to solve a problem, but the things that almost never get directly addressed is:

The value of caster-stat skills, and whether skills should be balanced. (Should all skills be equally viable?)
Whether or not casters have similar levels of utility to martials after spells are taken away. (Why do Martials have more utility than a Caster if neither had Spells?)
The weight of the preparation cost of a spell when compared to the preparation cost of a skill. (If neither Invisibility or Stealth are useful for a particular session, which was more expensive?)

I've debated paragraphs on the topic, but I haven't really seen a decent response to these on the defense of martials.

As an aside, I thought the reason Charisma was dumped in 2e was because it didn't correlate to any combat stats, which was why most other stats were preferable?

Kyutaru

2020-07-29, 01:13 PM

The issue is that the Barbarian's specialization into that one category (Strength) isn't any more constant than the Wizard's version (Intelligence). In fact, you can proactively make an Intelligence check on your surroundings (maybe even to identify a weakness in a door), while a Strength check generally needs explicit permission to be used (such as the need to carry something or to break something). Without DM Hand-holding, I predict that more Intelligence Checks are made compared to Strength Checks, for the majority of parties, as the DM does not need to make an Intelligence Problem for a player to request an Intelligence Check.
I mean technically speaking every attack roll with a sharp piece of metal is a Strength check. Players can make three of those per round quite easily. Strength plays a part in passive benefits too such as weight capacity and the damage of melee attacks while most spells do not add proficiency or Intelligence. Grapple checks can see extreme use when players are aware of its tremendous benefit as anyone who played Knights of the Chalice should know (the monsters abuse grappling so much in it, and it's equally valuable for the player). So even without DM hand-holding, Strength checks beat out Intelligence checks unless your wizard is just demanding Curiosity checks for everything he passes.

The thing that frustrates me about these debates is that there is regular defense of the value of physical skills, and there is regular mention of the cost of preparation of spells to solve a problem, but the things that almost never get directly addressed is:

The value of caster-stat skills, and whether skills should be balanced. (Should all skills be equally viable?)
Whether or not casters have similar levels of utility to martials after spells are taken away. (Why do Martials have more utility than a Caster if neither had Spells?)
The weight of the preparation cost of a spell when compared to the preparation cost of a skill. (If neither Invisibility or Stealth are useful for a particular session, which was more expensive?)

I've debated paragraphs on the topic, but I haven't really seen a decent response to these on the defense of martials.
These could all serve to have their own topics as they would quite sidetrack the discussion if addressed and debated. But they're entirely subjective given the multitude of ways RPGs have been balanced and the different weights each placed on each of these very topics. Some work better than others but that's a personal opinion matter that won't carry over to be universally true.

As an aside, I thought the reason Charisma was dumped in 2e was because it didn't correlate to any combat stats, which was why most other stats were preferable?
Nay, the older editions were much more roleplay oriented because of how swingy and deadly combat could be. Many of the spells from 2nd edition even have NO mechanical value, simply allowing something for narrative manipulation similar to Prestidigitation or Sending. Wizards were near omnipotent in their potential because of the loose wording and long/permanent duration of effects that allowed creative minds to stretch the rules quite substantially. Can a dragon breathe in solid rock? Questions like this were pertinent. Charisma was dumped because it was an entirely subjective stat with no real benefit. It boosted the loyalty of followers by a flat number and boosted the initial reactions NPCs have of you by a similar flat number. Except numbers are quite literally meaningless beyond what the DM thinks they mean, can be lost instantly to a careless word, and there are other non-stat dependent ways of gaining favor. Plus there was the 1st level spell Friends that every Wizard ever knew and gave a massive boost to Charisma. With an NPC Reaction Modifier of -14 being distinctly unclear in effect and largely ignored by DMs, having a Charisma of 3 (or lower) was desirable. None of the mental stats in 2nd edition had combat effects, including Intelligence and Wisdom, but they still had other uses that made them worth boosting to some players. Even Wizards wanted a small amount of Strength however or they'd be unable to wear or even lift their magic items.