On the 5e Martial/Caster Disparity

[Lupine]

So, many (most?) of us on the forum agree that in 5e, casters are notably stronger than martials, if not in combat, than certainly outside of combat, due to their extreme versatility and wide range of "toolbox" abilities available to them, alllowing them to circumvent many of the encounters martials would have to overcome at any level. For example a rogue of any level cannot cross a chasm, wheras a wizard of 5th level can cast fly on the party heavy, and have them ferry people over, and later level wizards can cast fly on the whole party.
This versatility is balenced around limited caster resources, with the idea that a caster can't magic away everything with leveled spells, or they'll run out for fights. However, this runs into issues due to the massive number of spell slots that casters get (hence, the "martials grow linearly, casters grow exponentially." adage), and a reality that most dungeon encounters are made in such as way that they tax HP primarily, something which unduely hits the martials.
This is where I'm starting from.

So, obviously, with those assumptions and mechanics, it's fair to say that Martials and Casters are not well balanced. Lets make the assumption that players at a table want them to be (not all players care). I'd like this thread to be a way to discuss and debate potential "fixes" and houserules for this desire. I will periodically go through and add new ideas to this original post in spoiler bubbles, put in order from least to most RAW departing.
WITHIN RAW
Exactly what it says on the tin: don't do anything, and just deal with it.
The idea here is that the DM would change the encounters in ways that specifically target casters. Make AOE effects which target saves martials are better at, such as str and dex. Have monsters target magic users whenever possible.
The pro of this is that it successfully damages martials less than casters, within RAW.
The cons are that the caster could feel targetted by the DM, and that designing these encounters takes more work on the DM's side. The ugly con is that building encounters designed to circumvent a caster's spell list can induce learned helplessness in caster players-- the idea that nothing they pick matters, so why should they even try?
LEAST DEPARTING
The idea on this one is that martials have a chance of whatever they do just not working. While it's true of casters also, with the number of spells which save for half, there is little risk of a caster being simple unable to deal damage. So, this would increase the chance of spell, regardless of pick, just failing. It could be more frustrating, but then again, its simply putting casters at the same frustration as martials. . The mechanic could be simple or complex. On the simple side, roll a d20. If it's below the spell's level, the spell fails. On the complex side, you add your prof bonus to the roll, and subtract from the roll the number of spells you've cast since your last long rest.
The pros for this is that it only effects martials, and also encourages casters to make the choice of either nuking before the number of spells cast gets too high, or burning slowly, using their lower level spells to minimize the chance of failing later.
The cons for this is that it raises bookkeeping on casters, potentially slowing down combat (though mods could be calculated between turns), and it raises caster frustration.
The idea for this is to make it so that casters have to think about what spells they can cast, when. I got this idea from one of the fire emblem games, where casting spells cost your character health. The mechanic is that whenever a spell is cast, you take damage. I see three ways to do this

You take the square of the spells level, and lose that much health. It starts small, with level one spells costing only 1 health, but can get extreme, with level 9 spells costing 81. Makes high level spells dangerous to cast.
You mutiply the level of your previously cast spell with the level of the currently cast one, and lose that much health
Every time you cast a spell, you take damage equal to the sum of all spells you have cast so far.


To pro of this idea is that it quickly makes casters consider what level spell to cast, making them want to keep things low level, to conserve health. The health drain hits the exponential power of the casters with a quadratic cost.

The cons of this idea are that it wouldn't fit in all settings or themes (ie, bloodmagic could be too dark for many), and that it would indirectly buff half casters, who have d10 HD, but also have spells. Additionally, depending on which one you take, it could require casters to have positive con mods, something they didn't need before.
MOST DEPARTING

Anyway, kinda spitballing here. Think any of these are good ideas? Or maybe you have a new idea you'd like me to put up for debate?

[noob]

With spellcasting costing hp I was thinking healing spells could spend as much hp as the hp you grant to creatures.
So healing spells would be a way to redistribute hp between encounters and not a way to cast spells forever.
You could still drink a lot of life potions to recharge party hp and that would enable actually having limited resources and making gold useful.

[Lupine]

...not a way to cast spells forever.

The casting of spells would still be spell slot depenent. It would just cost health in addition

[PhoenixPhyre]

I disagree with the premises entirely, at least at the "as played" level. I've been running games across all the tiers with a wide variety of people. And not once have I felt like class has made a significant difference in who has the most influence on the narrative and whether people don't have the influence they want to have. In combat or out of combat.

The real solution here is for DMs to do a few things.
1) Throw away the Guy at the Gym mentality and let non-spells do cool things. This means not chasing high DCs just to "challenge" characters. If all your DCs are in the range [10, 20], with maybe a couple DC 25 things, that's fine.
2) Enforce the "no hidden rules" rule. Spells do exactly and only what they say. No getting creative, no incorporating real-world physics. No "it doesn't say I can't" shenanigans. This also means enforcing things like targeting, components, action economy, no weasel-wording/word-programming of commands, etc.
3) Don't plan scenarios that depend on spells as solutions. In fact, don't plan solutions at all. And if the party comes up with an idea that sounds even remotely plausible, let them try.
4) Teach the principle that you don't need a button on your character sheet to let you interact with things.

[MrStabby]

So, many (most?) of us on the forum agree that in 5e, casters are notably stronger than martials, if not in combat, than certainly outside of combat, due to their extreme versatility and wide range of "toolbox" abilities available to them, alllowing them to circumvent many of the encounters martials would have to overcome at any level. For example a rogue of any level cannot cross a chasm, wheras a wizard of 5th level can cast fly on the party heavy, and have them ferry people over, and later level wizards can cast fly on the whole party.
This versatility is balenced around limited caster resources, with the idea that a caster can't magic away everything with leveled spells, or they'll run out for fights. However, this runs into issues due to the massive number of spell slots that casters get (hence, the "martials grow linearly, casters grow exponentially." adage), and a reality that most dungeon encounters are made in such as way that they tax HP primarily, something which unduely hits the martials.
This is where I'm starting from.

So, obviously, with those assumptions and mechanics, it's fair to say that Martials and Casters are not well balanced. Lets make the assumption that players at a table want them to be (not all players care). I'd like this thread to be a way to discuss and debate potential "fixes" and houserules for this desire. I will periodically go through and add new ideas to this original post in spoiler bubbles, put in order from least to most RAW departing.
WITHIN RAW
Exactly what it says on the tin: don't do anything, and just deal with it.
The idea here is that the DM would change the encounters in ways that specifically target casters. Make AOE effects which target saves martials are better at, such as str and dex. Have monsters target magic users whenever possible.
The pro of this is that it successfully damages martials less than casters, within RAW.
The cons are that the caster could feel targetted by the DM, and that designing these encounters takes more work on the DM's side. The ugly con is that building encounters designed to circumvent a caster's spell list can induce learned helplessness in caster players-- the idea that nothing they pick matters, so why should they even try?
LEAST DEPARTING
The idea on this one is that martials have a chance of whatever they do just not working. While it's true of casters also, with the number of spells which save for half, there is little risk of a caster being simple unable to deal damage. So, this would increase the chance of spell, regardless of pick, just failing. It could be more frustrating, but then again, its simply putting casters at the same frustration as martials. . The mechanic could be simple or complex. On the simple side, roll a d20. If it's below the spell's level, the spell fails. On the complex side, you add your prof bonus to the roll, and subtract from the roll the number of spells you've cast since your last long rest.
The pros for this is that it only effects martials, and also encourages casters to make the choice of either nuking before the number of spells cast gets too high, or burning slowly, using their lower level spells to minimize the chance of failing later.
The cons for this is that it raises bookkeeping on casters, potentially slowing down combat (though mods could be calculated between turns), and it raises caster frustration.
The idea for this is to make it so that casters have to think about what spells they can cast, when. I got this idea from one of the fire emblem games, where casting spells cost your character health. The mechanic is that whenever a spell is cast, you take damage. I see three ways to do this

You take the square of the spells level, and lose that much health. It starts small, with level one spells costing only 1 health, but can get extreme, with level 9 spells costing 81. Makes high level spells dangerous to cast.
You mutiply the level of your previously cast spell with the level of the currently cast one, and lose that much health
Every time you cast a spell, you take damage equal to the sum of all spells you have cast so far.


To pro of this idea is that it quickly makes casters consider what level spell to cast, making them want to keep things low level, to conserve health. The health drain hits the exponential power of the casters with a quadratic cost.

The cons of this idea are that it wouldn't fit in all settings or themes (ie, bloodmagic could be too dark for many), and that it would indirectly buff half casters, who have d10 HD, but also have spells. Additionally, depending on which one you take, it could require casters to have positive con mods, something they didn't need before.
MOST DEPARTING

Anyway, kinda spitballing here. Think any of these are good ideas? Or maybe you have a new idea you'd like me to put up for debate?


Well I am often tempted to opine on this, although my concerns are not always the same as others.

I kind of have a couple of main points.

The first is that the big part of the disparity is when one class can step on the toes of another. Invisability, whether intended to or not, often steps on the toes of the rogue or other character that has invested in stealth. Even if it doesn't have a massive practical impact the feel of a stealthy character changes when being able to go unseen somewhere is no longer something special to them. Spider climb, knock, find familliar and many other spells let a caster do what another character has as their specialty.

Now of course this isn't the only way - there is still an issue if the casters can do thirty times as many things as a martial even if none of them overlap, but I think that fixing the overlap should be the priority.


The second point is that putting an onus on the DM is sually a bad solution. A DM can fix balance almost always; it doesn't mean it is worth the cost to the game. As a DM I can boost stats and save bonuses and lower AC to even out combat encounters, I can have a campaign that is entirely combat based, I can have every rest interupted by an attack that happens to have all the tools to find the party, disable the alarm spells, get rid of Leomund's tiny hut before beginning the attack. It doesn't mean I should. To do these things says a LOT about the world and it takes away my freedom as a DM to set a campaign in any other type of world. Not every plot evolves at a break-neck pace where the party cannot rest for fear of failure. Simply "playing round" class imbalance is tollerable for small disparities but can be very damaging to the game for larger ones. At its worst, this kind of adjustment never brings the classes closer together - it just alternates which put the other into the shade; either one character type dominates or the other does.

In addition to your point on "learned helplessness" there is the issue of agency. If you give your players the freedom to interact witht the world in a fairly open manner, then they can/will arange things to their advantage. If spellcasting resources need to be conserved, then spellcasters often have the tools to avoid using them; this may be by having charisma as a primary stat, it may be by having the fly spell, pass without trace, a divination spell or some other means for avoiding resource intensive combats. Martials rule when no one can spare resources, casters rule when resources are expended... but you skip all the encounters that would mean you can't spend resources on every encounter you actually face. So, either you grant casters agency to come up with a strategic plan that lets them use all their spells that they invested in, and they take the spotlight in every encounter... or you don't let them and you start to run a game that is a bit railroady and lacking in agency for the players.

A third point, which doesn't really follow from anything you said but I find tends to be useful to say in these discussions is that spell slots are not much of a limitation. A situation needing great strength is a time for the barbarian in the party to shine... unless it is really important in which case it is time for the wizard to cast Bigby's Hand. The Barbarian gets to be the understudy who does all the unimportant strength checks but whenever anything is important enough to the plot/survival/interests of the party to spend resources on, the wizard gets to do it. A resource limitation doesn't mean the caster doesn't do it but rather it is their choice about when to do it and when to give another character permission to do their thing.

I find arguments like "well it is a high level spell slot, the caster can only do that a couple of times per day" particularly unconvincing. So the caster only trivialises two encounters per day, rendering them less dramatic and interesting for everyone else... still not OK. Add to that that they still get to chose where to use resources - they trivialise two encounters per day but always the most dramatic, high profile, high stakes encounters. I am not usually a big fan of the short rest mechanic but I will say that it helps force resources be used for what is in front of the players rather than hording them for the most effective time.



I must admit I am not a big fan of your proposed fixes for a few reasons.

On the fatigue side... I just don't think this is fun. I think balance is important to the game but only because it is more fun when everyone gets to play the same game together. Having casters basicaly sit out fights is no more fun than the fighter player going "well hypnotic pattern has stopped most of my enemies, I guess I just slowly hack away - I know I won't take more damagethis fight than I can heal with hit dice so no point spending resources on using my own cool abilities... better save may action surge for the 2% chance our next rest gets interupted instead".

On the Bloodcost side... Well casters are the center of attention in fights. You don't fix casters always being in the spotlight by making the party pay even more attention to them as they are at risk of dying. You want the other characters to get to shine. Also, there is a risk that it just means more and more pressure for rests rather than the casters actually doing without the spotlight on them.



For me the issue is not so much power, as versatility. I am aware that these are both somewhat undefined and versatility is kind of a form of power.

I think that class spell lists are too broad - not that they have too many spells, but that their spells cover too many different purposes. You can be a single class and use spells for: a) single target damage, b) group damage, c) summoning creatures, d) protecting creatures, e) resricting movement, f) healing creatures, g) single creature debuff, h) mass debuff, i) incapaciatation of a single creature, j) mass incapacitation, k) transport, L) information gathering, m) influencing NPCs... and so on. One character can pick from too many different functions and step on a lot of toes that way.

Greater specialism would require not doing everything (and what you do do would be forgiven as it is also your focus - if your illusionist is as good as passing unseen as the rogue then that's probably fair enough) but it would lead to more distinctive and diverse characters as your abjuration wizard wouldn't have fireball and polymorph and wall of force... just like every other Wizard and they wouldn't have banishment and shield either.

I think that there is a lot that is elegant about 5th edition design but I wish they had put more features into the subclasses and fewer into the main class. One example of this is in things like subclass spell lists - cleric domains are awesome, but they should be (to me) most of what they are casting not a small part that stops growing at level 9. Moving more spells to domains or even moving all to domains but allowing a cleric two domains instead of one would be a bit of a fix.

I also think that 3rd edition vancian casting was interesting for managing this a bit better (OK, the balance between caster and warriro in 3rd was even worse but I am talking about a very specific feature). If you wanted to be able to do something, other than the theme of your class (like healing as a cleric) it cost you a spell slot. You commited to the allocation of that slot up front. Being able to turn invisible as a wizard required not just allocation of a discovered spell in your spellbook but also a spell slot, whether or not you used it. It was a real incentive to leave being unseen to the rogue. In 5th... well as long as you can spare one of your spells known it isn't really a cost to you to be able to do that if the stakes are high enough.

[Morphic tide]

I disagree with the premises entirely, at least at the "as played" level. I've been running games across all the tiers with a wide variety of people. And not once have I felt like class has made a significant difference in who has the most influence on the narrative and whether people don't have the influence they want to have. In combat or out of combat.
Have you run a campaign with nobody able to cast Cure Wounds? Or used flying enemies when the party has only a Ranger to do ranged damage? Never had a travel crunch the Wizard handwaved away with Teleport taking out two-thirds or more of the trip or casting Fly to bypass a terrain feature? Hell, have you never seen an encounter half over on round one from a Fireball?

Spellcasters can still bend narratives in fashions utterly unavailable to the martial characters and still have great privilege in their necessity for keeping the game going, they just stopped being able to dictate the course of it outright. They still have enormous spotlight-stealing potential by the inherent nature of how dense their output is, and the skill system can't support the martials getting to do cool things because of Bounded Accuracy throwing bonus-based outmoding in the trash, there's no openly-available degrees of proficiency to limit applications, and the mode of variance on 1d20 makes it so it's always a crapshoot about doing anything with a skill check.

[Damon_Tor]

You could:
1. Remove spell slots as a concept
2. increase casting times from 1 action to "a number of actions equal to the spell level."
3. Rebalance bonus action/reaction spells because they're unlimited use (Example: shield is now +2 to AC instead of +5, does not stack with a physical shield)

Wizards could still cast fireball... but on round three on combat after 18 seconds of casting (during which time ha can have his concentration broken.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

1) Have you run a campaign with nobody able to cast Cure Wounds? 2) Or used flying enemies when the party has only a Ranger to do ranged damage? 3) Never had a travel crunch the Wizard handwaved away with Teleport taking out two-thirds or more of the trip or casting Fly to bypass a terrain feature? 4) Hell, have you never seen an encounter half over on round one from a Fireball?


1) Yes. It worked fine.
2) Yes. It worked fine.
3) That's never come up, because honestly, being the party's taxi driver isn't that meaningful. If they want to get somewhere, they've always been able to, even if one person can teleport or not. Because, believe it or not, those things just aren't that useful in 99% of campaigns I've played. Travel is either handwaved already or there are multitudes of alternate routes.
4) I've seen this happen about as many times as I've seen the paladin smite a single enemy into oblivion or the monk keep the beholder BBEG stunned from 100% to 0%, including cleaning up the minions beforehand[1]. I don't see the difference.



Spellcasters can still bend narratives in fashions utterly unavailable to the martial characters and still have great privilege in their necessity for keeping the game going, they just stopped being able to dictate the course of it outright. They still have enormous spotlight-stealing potential by the inherent nature of how dense their output is, and the skill system can't support the martials getting to do cool things because of Bounded Accuracy throwing bonus-based outmoding in the trash, there's no openly-available degrees of proficiency to limit applications, and the mode of variance on 1d20 makes it so it's always a crapshoot about doing anything with a skill check.

Yeah. I don't see this at all. I see people bending narratives by who they are (both as players and as characters), not what they can do. The ones who want to take charge of narratives find ways of doing that, spells or no spells. The ones that don't...don't. Even with spells in hand.

Heck, in one campaign with a wizard, a rogue, a fighter, and a druid, the fighter took the lead 99% of the time and the druid was basically a random dice roll as to what she did.

In a campaign (1-20) with a druid, a warlock, a rogue, and a monk, the warlock and rogue basically split the spotlight, because that's what the party wanted, and none of that had to do with magic particularly. The druid was monumentally ineffective most of the time, despite being the only one with substantial utility magic.

In my current campaigns:
1) Ranger/sorcerer/druid/barbarian: The ranger and the druid take charge, but that's mainly because they're older and very alpha personalities. The barbarian has actually had the most plot impact, however. By creating a backstory that got woven in (his wife, kids, and their family farm has played a significant role). The others? Yeah, they take charge of tactical stuff but it has almost nothing to do with their characters' capabilities or spells.

2) Sorlock (caster-heavy)/sorlock (melee-heavy)/paladin (smite-heavy)/bard. Of them, the only ones who uses any kind of significant "utility" magic are the melee sorlock (detect magic invocation mainly) and the bard. Spotlight hogging...none of them, really. The bard is probably the least aggressive in claiming spotlight time, on purpose.

Player matters way more than anything else. There are very few, if any, cases where people are just hard locked out based on their class. And unless players decide on their own to hyper-over-specialize to the point where they're useless in anything else, the system lets everyone contribute pretty darn well.

[1] Yes, I saw that happen. The monk's player never let me forget about it either. And I've seen martials[2] dominate fights more often than casters, really.
[2] including those who could cast spells but didn't in that case.

[MrStabby]

1) Yes. It worked fine.
2) Yes. It worked fine.
3) That's never come up, because honestly, being the party's taxi driver isn't that meaningful. If they want to get somewhere, they've always been able to, even if one person can teleport or not. Because, believe it or not, those things just aren't that useful in 99% of campaigns I've played. Travel is either handwaved already or there are multitudes of alternate routes.
4) I've seen this happen about as many times as I've seen the paladin smite a single enemy into oblivion or the monk keep the beholder BBEG stunned from 100% to 0%, including cleaning up the minions beforehand[1]. I don't see the difference.



I think there is a key difference in one and not in the other. A paladin taking down the best part of the fight in one turn is just like a spellcaster trivialising the encounter - I won't argue that.

I think the monk is a bit different. The monk still relies on the other players to work. The monk stuns them but the other players damage is important to winning the fight. it is still a group effort. The monk doesn't throw out the tension either - every turn, every Con save still matters. Well maybe not every turn but it takes a turn or two to know who has won the fight - there is still pressure and relevance to the actions of the other players in clearing up the minions before the beholder comes round.

I accept that it is maybe a matter of degree here and it comes down to tollerance of issues. One player doing more than others is fine up to a point - but different people will have different thresholds for where it becomes a problem. As I usually DM it is something I am a bit hyper sensitive to; as a player I care a lot less.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think there is a key difference in one and not in the other. A paladin taking down the best part of the fight in one turn is just like a spellcaster trivialising the encounter - I won't argue that.

I think the monk is a bit different. The monk still relies on the other players to work. The monk stuns them but the other players damage is important to winning the fight. it is still a group effort. The monk doesn't throw out the tension either - every turn, every Con save still matters. Well maybe not every turn but it takes a turn or two to know who has won the fight - there is still pressure and relevance to the actions of the other players in clearing up the minions before the beholder comes round.

I accept that it is maybe a matter of degree here and it comes down to tollerance of issues. One player doing more than others is fine up to a point - but different people will have different thresholds for where it becomes a problem. As I usually DM it is something I am a bit hyper sensitive to; as a player I care a lot less.

And spellcasters still require the enemies to fail all their saves. The bard in my 2nd current party has been either hot or cold, while the more martial-types have been much more steady. Facing a huge group of mooks and they all fail their saves? Hypnotic pattern for the win. But that still depends on everyone else to actually clean them up. But otherwise, she's done more damage with her rapier than with her spells. And outside those few fights where it's been clutch (which IMO isn't an issue at all), her biggest assistance has been via bardic inspiration and (especially) cutting words. Spells? Useful, but mostly as buffs.

Spellcasters suck at actually ending properly-constructed fights. There just aren't the save-or-lose spells anymore (a very good thing). Even fireball, which is great at softening up hordes, isn't all that great[1] and still requires lots of work from everyone else.

[1] I had a sorcerer once who specialized in fireball. Not fire magic, fireball. So I started throwing in hordes of mooks for him to nuke. They were basically zero-threat and weren't even in the difficulty budget, but he got a kick out of nuking large groups. The rest of the group was way more useful. I'd say that that same player when he was on his rogue (of the sniper variety) was way more effective in combat overall than the sorcerer was. And equally ineffective out of combat. At that same table, the cleric was useless both in and out of combat (but the player got way better once he started playing a barbarian), while the paladin and the bard (who also played a barbarian at one point) were driving the train. Because that's who they were as players. Basically nothing to do with their actual character capabilities. The other two were along for the ride by their own choice.

[MrStabby]

And spellcasters still require the enemies to fail all their saves. The bard in my 2nd current party has been either hot or cold, while the more martial-types have been much more steady. Facing a huge group of mooks and they all fail their saves? Hypnotic pattern for the win. But that still depends on everyone else to actually clean them up. But otherwise, she's done more damage with her rapier than with her spells. And outside those few fights where it's been clutch (which IMO isn't an issue at all), her biggest assistance has been via bardic inspiration and (especially) cutting words. Spells? Useful, but mostly as buffs.


I just don't get why this is relevant at all. Does it sudenly suck less that a fight is over without you meaningfully contributing because an enemy might have passed their save? Is it a better designed game if the caster achieves nothing of note or if the martial character achieves nothing of note in a combat?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I just don't get why this is relevant at all. Does it sudenly suck less that a fight is over without you meaningfully contributing because an enemy might have passed their save? Is it a better designed game if the caster achieves nothing of note or if the martial character achieves nothing of note in a combat?

Neither. I'm saying that on that parameter, the two are already balanced. There's very little difference here--anyone, given the right encounter, can trivialize a single encounter. Caster or not. But no one, no matter how well played, can trivialize every encounter. Or even most of them. At least unless the DM is only throwing single types of fights at the party (usually big solos, 1x/day, in a white room).

[MrStabby]

Neither. I'm saying that on that parameter, the two are already balanced. There's very little difference here--anyone, given the right encounter, can trivialize a single encounter. Caster or not. But no one, no matter how well played, can trivialize every encounter. Or even most of them. At least unless the DM is only throwing single types of fights at the party (usually big solos, 1x/day, in a white room).

As you say, it depends on what the DM throws at the party. Like I said, the DM can balance the game around the different classes; it is just often worse as a result for needing to do so.

But this is why balance isn't a sufficient criterion for rules being good. Fun is the more appropriate criterion. One person or another at the table not contributing much on any given encounter might be balanced in a given game if it alternates between players, but anyone sitting out an important encounter is not fun.

As a DM I can stick 90% plane in an antimagic field and casters will be less powerful than warriors - it doesn't mean that the game is better for that fact. A closer baseline of power under more typical circumstances lets me create settings that don't need specific content to manage casters that I might not want to have.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As you say, it depends on what the DM throws at the party. Like I said, the DM can balance the game around the different classes; it is just often worse as a result for needing to do so.

But this is why balance isn't a sufficient criterion for rules being good. Fun is the more appropriate criterion. One person or another at the table not contributing much on any given encounter might be balanced in a given game if it alternates between players, but anyone sitting out an important encounter is not fun.

As a DM I can stick 90% plane in an antimagic field and casters will be less powerful than warriors - it doesn't mean that the game is better for that fact. A closer baseline of power under more typical circumstances lets me create settings that don't need specific content to manage casters that I might not want to have.

My experience was with a setting that doesn't have specific content to manage casters. I don't do anything like that. Just ensuring diversity of encounters and playing spells straight is enough. And I'd do that anyway.

So for my experience, the baseline is already there. I've seen it go wrong, but that was by doing the things I warned against. Especially holding non spells to a realism standard while letting magic do way more than written.

[quinron]

1) Throw away the Guy at the Gym mentality and let non-spells do cool things. This means not chasing high DCs just to "challenge" characters. If all your DCs are in the range [10, 20], with maybe a couple DC 25 things, that's fine.
2) Enforce the "no hidden rules" rule. Spells do exactly and only what they say. No getting creative, no incorporating real-world physics. No "it doesn't say I can't" shenanigans. This also means enforcing things like targeting, components, action economy, no weasel-wording/word-programming of commands, etc.
3) Don't plan scenarios that depend on spells as solutions. In fact, don't plan solutions at all. And if the party comes up with an idea that sounds even remotely plausible, let them try.
4) Teach the principle that you don't need a button on your character sheet to let you interact with things.

These are probably the best advice points I've seen on this topic, and all of them - at least as I read them - point at one fact about this game (both 5e and prior): non-casters have to buff skills and succeed on dice rolls to overcome obstacles; casters usually just get to cast spells to ignore them. Ostensibly the limited spell slots are supposed to prevent that from becoming an imbalance, but one class being limited as a balancing mechanic tends to lead GMs to think that they should somehow limit other classes. That's where "guy at the gym" comes from in the first place.

Your fighter gave up the ability to cast spells, thereby sacrificing a lot of versatility; in return, it feels fair that they be allowed to jump a 25-foot gap once in a while without it costing them anything.

[Man_Over_Game]

I disagree with the premises entirely, at least at the "as played" level. I've been running games across all the tiers with a wide variety of people. And not once have I felt like class has made a significant difference in who has the most influence on the narrative and whether people don't have the influence they want to have. In combat or out of combat.

The real solution here is for DMs to do a few things.
1) Throw away the Guy at the Gym mentality and let non-spells do cool things. This means not chasing high DCs just to "challenge" characters. If all your DCs are in the range [10, 20], with maybe a couple DC 25 things, that's fine.


That's my vote. If DC 30 is the highest skill check someone can go, then imagine that as the most ridiculous thing they can do with that check. Stealth makes you undetectable through even magic, Medicine lets you create new life. Get weird with it.

But that doesn't so much bridge the gap so much as gives everyone a tool. I'm not a fan of telling players what they can't do (in regards to spells), since stifling creativity and storytelling for streamlining isn't guaranteed to make people have more fun. Telling people "No", when they ask for something reasonable, is never fun, and is something most DMs would advise against. It's not like Fighters get more skills than Druids, yet the Druid can Speak With Animals while the Fighter gets nothing comparable. So instead, I say you should give tools to the players that don't have as many (Martials).



My suggestion:
Players say what they want to do, they roll, and then they decide if they want to "Commit" to it. "Committing" to a roll means they spend Hit Dice to cover the difference needed. They roll all of their Hit Dice, spend the highest ones to cover the cost, and they succeed (or fail if the total wasn't enough). Whether they Commit or not, they then roleplay what their final result was.

Heroes in video games and stories do not have to guess how far they can jump, how fast they can run, or how big of a boulder they can throw. The thing that they mess up on is how fatiguing doing so is to them. And since Martials have a higher value of Hit Dice (and Roll High systems are massively biased towards dice with high variance [like a 1d12]), the solution sways more towards Martials than any others.

The reason players don't attempt weird solutions is because they're afraid of failure and the game not meeting their expectations (The game doesn't tell me how far I can throw a boulder, so I guess I better not bother). Tell them that it's a success when they want it to be, or they describe failure when it isn't, and you'll see them take a lot more risks.

This might mean you need to scale stuff past DC 30 (so DC 40 is like world-breaking stuff), but I think it'd work out well.

[quinron]

My suggestion:
Players say what they want to do, they roll, and then they decide if they want to "Commit" to it. "Committing" to a roll means they spend Hit Dice to cover the difference needed. They roll all of their Hit Dice, spend the highest ones to cover the cost, and they succeed (or fail if the total wasn't enough). Whether they Commit or not, they then roleplay what their final result was.

Heroes in video games and stories do not have to guess how far they can jump, how fast they can run, or how big of a boulder they can throw. The thing that they mess up on is how fatiguing doing so is to them. And since Martials have a higher value of Hit Dice (and Roll High systems are massively biased towards dice with high variance [like a 1d12]), the solution sways more towards Martials than any others.

The reason players don't attempt weird solutions is because they're afraid of failure and the game not meeting their expectations (The game doesn't tell me how far I can throw a boulder, so I guess I better not bother). Tell them that it's a success when they want it to be, or they describe failure when it isn't, and you'll see them take a lot more risks.

This might mean you need to scale stuff past DC 30 (so DC 40 is like world-breaking stuff), but I think it'd work out well.

I really like this mechanic. I only worry it might start hurting martials more than casters when it comes time to actually recover with those hit dice.

I think giving extra "hit dice" that can only be used for this function would be a pretty simple solution - maybe you just get free "commitment dice" equal to your highest physical modifier.

[sandmote]

I disagree with the premises entirely, at least at the "as played" level. I've been running games across all the tiers with a wide variety of people. I think it's an issue of experience. Dealing with it can easily become second nature when you've DMed enough. I'd say the point where you have no problems running a game without the party having healing spells is after the point this particular issue stops being a problem.


And not once have I felt like class has made a significant difference in who has the most influence on the narrative and whether people don't have the influence they want to have. In combat or out of combat. It sounds like your discussing the issue at the level of an entire narrative, which is the easiest level of events for every player to decide their own involvement, by their own actions, without the DM getting a workload on top of what they'd need to do anyway. And I specifically consider "learning how to account for differnet levels of character flexibility/power" to be extra workload on top of the norm. Relative to the workload of just running a game I mean; I'm fully aware every DM needs to learn to do it.

On to the actual topic:


The idea here is that the DM would change the encounters in ways that specifically target casters. Make AOE effects which target saves martials are better at, such as str and dex. Have monsters target magic users whenever possible.
The pro of this is that it successfully damages martials less than casters, within RAW.
The cons are that the caster could feel targetted by the DM, and that designing these encounters takes more work on the DM's side. The ugly con is that building encounters designed to circumvent a caster's spell list can induce learned helplessness in caster players-- the idea that nothing they pick matters, so why should they even try?

I think this is just something you need to learn as you go, and which gets easier as you go along. The way you keep it from feeling like it targets any given PC is to throw it at everyone by differnet amounts. Some encounters in tight quarters to limit the ranged attackers, some encounters against enemies on top of cliffs, in the air, or with superior mobility to limit the melee PCs. Then repeat this for most monster types.

Let the party operate at full efficiency some of the time, but if they're doing that all the time combat can become stale, so it helps in multiple ways.

I also suggest mixing up resistances. This isn't done so much in the published material to keep new DMs from accidentally messing up a party entirely, so I'll use skeletons as an example. If the rogue (with a rapier) and fighter (with a greatsword) are outshining the monk, send the party on a side quest where half the enemies are skeletons. Unarmed strikes deal double damage to these enemies, so the monk gets a chance to shine, and if the target of the sidequest isn't a skeleton themselves (like a necromancer or a mummy), it feels somewhat incidental to the rest of the party.

Going one step past the above, you can identify one damage type or status effect the spellcaster uses and simply grant a monster resistance to that. Describe the fluff differently to make clear of some variation (ex: "this troll's limbs spin around as if detached," for one with advantage on saving throws against paralysis), and treat it as a puzzle for the caster to solve. That way they feel clever rather than hampered when they use their best sub-par spell again when they encounter this sort of variant (ex: the rest of the same tribe of trolls), even after they've figured it out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1) I think it's an issue of experience. Dealing with it can easily become second nature when you've DMed enough. I'd say the point where you have no problems running a game without the party having healing spells is after the point this particular issue stops being a problem.

2) It sounds like your discussing the issue at the level of an entire narrative, which is the easiest level of events for every player to decide their own involvement, by their own actions, without the DM getting a workload on top of what they'd need to do anyway. And I specifically consider "learning how to account for differnet levels of character flexibility/power" to be extra workload on top of the norm. Relative to the workload of just running a game I mean; I'm fully aware every DM needs to learn to do it.


1) Not really. I've never had these problems, even in the very first long-running (ie more than 1-shot) game of 5e I ran. Which went 1-20. Sure, there were lots of other problems, but not martial/caster. And that group had

* GOO warlock
* land druid
* AT rogue (who rarely cast spells)
* open hand monk (who mainly forgot to use ki)

The least effective character at all levels, in all parts of the game was the druid. Hands down. The monk had flashes of brilliance, but personality-wise was content to let the warlock and rogue (mostly the warlock) drive the boat. And the warlock only drove things based on his (the player's) personality. And they regularly only took 1 SR during a day, which should have hampered the warlock.

2) The narrative at all levels of generality. Everything from "how do we handle this combat" (or even "what should I do this turn") up to "what's our long-term goal". Because my players work together and talk about it. Voluminously. And they and I collaborate on where they're going next and whose stories are going to be involved. The key, I think, is that I listen to what they want (and how the characters respond to things) and then create the scenarios based on what they've said (either in words or through their characters) they want. And only for a session or two in advance in any kind of detail. The other key, I think, is that my players don't optimize for mechanical power. Because they know that, for me, the world is more important. I don't care about "challenge" or "pushing the characters". That will happen naturally. So people aren't trying to "beat" the DM or anyone else. They're engaged at the narrative level and the characters and their actions flow from that (and feed back into that).

And you'll always have to learn to account for different levels of character power. That's not an extra piece of the workload, that is the workload. Except specifically learning what these characters, right here, want and prefer. A table of people who trust each other and who work together means that the DM's mechanical balance workload is minimal, no matter what characters they run. They handle that themselves. A table of people who don't trust each other or don't work together is not worth playing at--sure, you can cobble something together, but it will be creaky and faulty at best. And this includes player-DM trust.

99% of all D&D problems can be solved by simply talking to your players and honestly listening to what they say. This one included.

[sandmote]

@PhoenixPhyre Before I start with specific replies, I would like to note that I do feel like I'm responding to a bunch of strawmen, rather than a position any actual person holds.


The monk had flashes of brilliance, but personality-wise was content to let the warlock and rogue (mostly the warlock) drive the boat. And the warlock only drove things based on his (the player's) personality. ... The other key, I think, is that my players don't optimize for mechanical power. I feel like you're explicitly telling me everyone else at the table handled the problem for you.

So, good on you and good on those players, I guess, but I don't see what would have prevented the problem if you'd had an optimized moon druid at the table instead.


Because they know that, for me, the world is more important. I don't care about "challenge" or "pushing the characters". That will happen naturally. ... They're engaged at the narrative level and the characters and their actions flow from that (and feed back into that). This isn't causal. There are plenty of people who will engage at the narrative level and have their characters and actions flow from that who also optimize. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Its the old false dichotomy of rollplayer vs. roleplayer.


So people aren't trying to "beat" the DM or anyone else. Some people who optimize are trying to "beat" the DM. That does not, however, mean people optimize exclusively to try to "beat" the DM. It's just another optional aspect of playing a tabletop game, like having a narrative, that people can include for different reasons. There are lots of ways to play tabletop games, and if you don't know how this statement ends please pretend you do, because again I feel like I'm addressing a strawman.


And you'll always have to learn to account for different levels of character power. That's not an extra piece of the workload, that is the workload. Except specifically learning what these characters, right here, want and prefer. Learning to do something isn't the same as doing it. You'll always have to deal with different levels of character power. You'll always have to adjust what you know to deal with different player/PCs and different systems. It's learning to do this in the first place you stop having to do; the principle is the same once you know it.


99% of all D&D problems can be solved by simply talking to your players and honestly listening to what they say. This one included. You forgot to bias this statistic to bring it in the ballpark of what actually happens. 99% of all D&D problems in games where there's enough "trust" for everyone else to put in lots of work to avoid problems can be solved by simply talking to the rest of the table and honestly listening to what they say. The way you wrote it still includes those cases you say "will be creaky and faulty at best," which make up far more than 1% of "all D&D problems."

Actually, I'm going to maintain that latter type of group problem you describe makes up a flat majority of "all D&D problems," using both your "trust" based delineation and every other phrasing of "no D&D is better then bad D&D," I've seen.

In conclusion, a problem still exists even if other people solved it for you personally before you remembered all the points virtually everyone's aware of apply to that problem. Also, really wishing I could respond directly to what's in your head so I know I'm not just straw manning you.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll keep it short. No one was solving problems--everyone acted how they wanted to act and no problems arose. And that same pattern has been on display in every other group. I've never had to manage the power balance, other than to veto some abusive attempts or clarify misreadings.

[faustin]

In the Lost Citadel post-apocaliptic setting,
All civilization is secluded inside the last (formely) dwarven city with hordes of undead beyond the walls. Magic has become scarce, and as broken as the world itself. Casting spells willy-nilly is a great way for characters to accumulate Woe (aka corruption) and become undead themselves.

The main caster classes are Sages, who focus on rituals to minimize spellcasting, and Warlocks who specialize in sharing their Woe with someone else (including other PCs). Needless to say, and since the setting heavily encourages them not to abuse their powers, martial classes fare better than usual.