Past Solutions to High Level Martial Ennui

[Zuras]

A common complaint in D&D is that martial and half-caster characters become weak at high levels relative to full-caster characters. In earlier editions of D&D this was exacerbated by the Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards issue, as Wizards gained higher level spell slots and their lower level ones scaled with level as well, meaning a high level wizard not only had twice as many first level slots for Magic Missile, his first level Magic Missile spells did twice as much damage. 5th edition D&D fixed some of these problems, replacing caster-level scaling of spells with upcasting, and giving martials a few abilities with non-linear scaling (Action Surge improves quadratically with extra attack, Expertise and Reliable Talent make a mockery of bounded accuracy), but its basic design following the Adventuring Day concept means that a fully rested Wizard is simply going to devastate any single encounter and completely outshine a martial or half-caster if they don't need to save any spells for later.

I see lots of threads talking about potential solutions, mostly involving nerfing spell-casters, so I wanted to start a thread (rather than hijack an ongoing discussion of another proposed solution) to discuss actual solutions that have worked in the past, both in 5e and previous editions of D&D. By solutions, I am specifically talking avoiding players feeling unhappy at higher levels because their martial character doesn't feel as powerful or significant to the story and the party's success as the full caster characters, whether this is done by nerfing casters, buffing martials, or solutions completely unrelated to game rules (maybe the Wizard's player has to buy the group a pizza every time they cast Wish).


Past Solutions to high-level caster dominance, plus their potential applicability to 5e--these are the ones I'm aware of, I'd love to hear more.

Encounter Design/Attrition: The intended solution for 5e is to simply follow the same adventuring day construct as at lower levels, forcing the caster PCs to either expend higher level spells to overcome threats before the big boss fight, or knowingly hold back on their magical nukes, giving martial characters a chance to shine in the earlier battles. You do this by increasing the number of encounters between long rests, either by sending enemies in waves, enforcing time pressure, or increasing the time required between long rests. Anti-magic/wild magic zones or magic immune monster for some of the encounters can also do the job, but this can also come off as heavy handed. Personally this has worked well in 5e campaign games I've run, where the DM is deeply familiar with the PCs capabilities and how they approach problems, but has fallen flat when trying to balance games at conventions or high level one-shots.

Casters and Henchman: Another solution is just to roll with the fact that full casters seem "better", and have all the PCs play full casters while using henchmen rules for the martials in the party. I know that some 1st edition groups played this way. In 5e this means borrowing or home-brewing some henchman rules, but that's not too bad.

Politics/Cohorts: BECMI/AD&D also buffed higher level martials by effectively making them literally more popular at high levels. A high level fighter would just naturally attract followers and the opportunity to build a keep, while a Wizard would attract some apprentices but have a much harder time building a personal army. BECMI in particular made high level fighters especially effective at leading armies, as well as presenting situations like tournaments and jousting where you aren't just allowed to fireball your opponent or turn them to stone, keeping skills in hand-to-hand combat relevant through politics. Additionally, in AD&D some martial classes (the Ranger in particular) had the chance to get the coolest potential followers, like werebears and even (if I remember) young dragons. Consistent rules like that would be hard to formulate, but there's no reason you can't have a rough rule of thumb as a DM that the martials get cooler followers. In my experience Barbarians and Rangers suffer worst at high levels, and its not hard to see either of those classes attracting powerful nature spirits to their cause, for example.

Magic Items: Speaking of DMs solving imbalance problems by giving out cool stuff, another solution throughout D&D has been giving lagging characters cool magic items. First edition really codified this, as the most powerful possible weapons were generally intelligent swords that had a wide range of powers and were effectively usable mostly (sometimes only) by fighters. This generally requires significant DM work in crafting unique magic items, and runs risks in accidentally creating overpowered ones, but it usually works pretty well. You can argue it only papers over the problem, and can also lead to characters more defined by their equipment than their abilities, but magic item bribery does a good job of keeping players happy.

[Xervous]

The main problem that people seem too keen on dancing around is what the game wants to be at a given level.

If a wizard gets mass fly/teleport at level N and can say “bugger your long twisty road through the haunted forest, I want the party to bypass this non-obstacle” where are the other options that allow classes like the barbarian or fighter to casually dismiss things that the party has narratively outgrown? Or even just engage with the things that the high levels promise beyond putting pointy sticks in nearby creatures which they’ve been doing since level 1?

Either high level is just +numbers and different monster sprites like some 16 bit Jrpg, or going up in level means the scope and form of challenges and hazards are expected to change. The former calls for casting to be pared back, the latter demands something for progressing martial concepts.

[mr_stibbons]

May I introduce you to D&D 4th edition?

As much as people poo poo it, putting martial classes on the same systemic mechanical progression as casters does the job at keeping martial characters on par in combat. The tome of battle works similarly to this, but in general, the track record of designers creating a martial or partial caster progression that keeps up with a full casters is dismal. Just give martial a bunch of fancy anime sword tricks on the same progression, and stop trying to be cute.

Also, the more abstract powerful, and mythic skill system does a lot of work, instead of leaving skills heavily up to "whatever the DM feels is reasonable". Skills challenges provided a systemic way for martial classes to handle stuff like breaking through a magically warded door, or sneak past supernatural guards.

[DragonBaneDM]

May I introduce you to D&D 4th edition?

As much as people poo poo it, putting martial classes on the same systemic mechanical progression as casters does the job at keeping martial characters on par in combat. The tome of battle works similarly to this, but in general, the track record of designers creating a martial or partial caster progression that keeps up with a full casters is dismal. Just give martial a bunch of fancy anime sword tricks on the same progression, and stop trying to be cute.


You're not wrong! At every level, I remember Rangers and Fighters being just as terrifying and impactful as the Sorcerer and Wizard in our 4E party.

[Xervous]

You're not wrong! At every level, I remember Rangers and Fighters being just as terrifying and impactful as the Sorcerer and Wizard in our 4E party.

4e did choose the increasing numbers with texture swaps approach, but that’s not often the main target of complaints.

[stoutstien]

Honestly high level minions/army building is really the only big breaking point. Curve that and the difference is small enough that most players could reasonably play most classes without feeling left out.

[Man_Over_Game]

May I introduce you to D&D 4th edition?

As much as people poo poo it, putting martial classes on the same systemic mechanical progression as casters does the job at keeping martial characters on par in combat. The tome of battle works similarly to this, but in general, the track record of designers creating a martial or partial caster progression that keeps up with a full casters is dismal. Just give martial a bunch of fancy anime sword tricks on the same progression, and stop trying to be cute.

It doesn't really have to be anime. Simply giving each player the same rate of progression in each area of gameplay (Combat/Utility/WhateverElse) with the same resource recharging rate (Short Rest, Long Rest, etc) is what solved this problem.

You can't balance random superpowers with more random superpowers, it doesn't create any semblance of balance (Looking at you, Mutants & Masterminds).

You balance one power that solves a problem to another power that someone gets that can solve a similar problem. It's a methodical process that requires everything to progress at the same pace. If something somehow jumps ahead, isolating the anomaly this way makes it easy to redirect it back on course.

5e's "Extra Attack at Level 5" vs. "Better spells every 2 levels" doesn't do that, and can't even resemble it. Adding more army rules or weird Martial mechanics won't fix it either.

It'd be like making a garden when there's a bunch of salt in your soil. You can find ways to make things work around it, but you'll never actually fix the problem.


For a perfect solution, you'd need a spell slot system that even Martials can use. That would work.

We already have the groundwork for it with staples like the Bladesinger shielding effect or the Paladin's Divine Smite, so it clearly doesn't need to be too complex. The hard part is figuring out how a Fighter can cast Dimension Door cast 3 times a day. The rest is about specifics.

Would it be fun? Would people play it? Would it be DnD? I dunno.
DnD started out with Druid apprentices dueling each other for their levels between 12-14 before becoming an intern for the Master Druid in the hopes he promotes you when he retires so you can take his job. THEN you're level 15, and become level 16 when YOU retire. Things change, but 4e has shown us that too much of it can be easily rejected.

As an aside, the LotR version of 5e is an example of how you make martials line up with casters in this kind of engine.

Their answer was to make martials have a tiny bit of versatility (much more than we have now), you nerf the crap outta casters, and make that the norm.

It works well.

[Bosh]

One balancing factor for high levels martials in TSR-D&D that often gets overlooked is just how amazing their saving throws were. They could shrug off most magic.

[mr_stibbons]

4e did choose the increasing numbers with texture swaps approach, but that’s not often the main target of complaints.

It was more than just damage scaling. Basically all 4e martials had access to AOE attacks, a ranged of debuffs, bonus movement, forced movement, self healing and other utility effects as part of their base kit, and these effects also grew in potency as you levelled.

[jas61292]

One balancing factor for high levels martials in TSR-D&D that often gets overlooked is just how amazing their saving throws were. They could shrug off most magic.

This could practically be its own topic, but the way save proficiencies are done in 5e is one of the things that really irks me. Every class has different abilities. There are 4 different possible hit dice. The proficiencies in weapons and armor vary hugely by class. Skills also vary a lot with different classes getting different amounts, and some also getting tools or other bonuses.

But for some reason, every class must have exactly 2 save proficiencies. And one must be Str, Int or Cha, while the other must be from Dex, Wis, or Con. Why???

Why can't the martial characters, that are all about that power fantasy that often involves shaking off powerful detrimental effects, have some more proficiencies. That would be a huge buff to their power and viability. Or, even lacking that, why can't they at least have saves that fit their lore and mechanics. Barbarians use Str and Con, and so they get Str and Con saves. But Rangers and Monks, who use Dex and Wis, can't have Dex and Wis saves because they are both in the "good" save category.

Its honestly really frustrating. They mastered the idea that each class can be designed separately from the others in a lot of ways, but this one way they decided to stick to rigidly, and I think it is to the game's detriment.

If I was designing things, I would probably have most martial classes get significantly more saves. Maybe something like 3 from the start, based entirely on thematics and mechanics, and not any "strong" or "weak" qualifier, with an additional save gained at some point by the start of each new tier. By the time they hit the top tier of the game, they would not have any obvious weakness, which I think plays very well into the fantasy that people want for these characters. Meanwhile, casters would likely stay at 2, maybe getting a third later on.

But yeah, that could be an entire topic of its own.

[stoutstien]

This could practically be its own topic, but the way save proficiencies are done in 5e is one of the things that really irks me. Every class has different abilities. There are 4 different possible hit dice. The proficiencies in weapons and armor vary hugely by class. Skills also vary a lot with different classes getting different amounts, and some also getting tools or other bonuses.

But for some reason, every class must have exactly 2 save proficiencies. And one must be Str, Int or Cha, while the other must be from Dex, Wis, or Con. Why???

Why can't the martial characters, that are all about that power fantasy that often involves shaking off powerful detrimental effects, have some more proficiencies. That would be a huge buff to their power and viability. Or, even lacking that, why can't they at least have saves that fit their lore and mechanics. Barbarians use Str and Con, and so they get Str and Con saves. But Rangers and Monks, who use Dex and Wis, can't have Dex and Wis saves because they are both in the "good" save category.

Its honestly really frustrating. They mastered the idea that each class can be designed separately from the others in a lot of ways, but this one way they decided to stick to rigidly, and I think it is to the game's detriment.

If I was designing things, I would probably have most martial classes get significantly more saves. Maybe something like 3 from the start, based entirely on thematics and mechanics, and not any "strong" or "weak" qualifier, with an additional save gained at some point by the start of each new tier. By the time they hit the top tier of the game, they would not have any obvious weakness, which I think plays very well into the fantasy that people want for these characters. Meanwhile, casters would likely stay at 2, maybe getting a third later on.

But yeah, that could be an entire topic of its own.

To be fair monks end up with Prof in all saves including death.
Overall though I do agree ST get funky near the end but it's pretty easy to apply some hot patches here or there to address it.

[jas61292]

To be fair monks end up with Prof in all saves including death.
Overall though I do agree ST get funky near the end but it's pretty easy to apply some hot patches here or there to address it.

Monks do get that, true. And Rogues, as well as a few various subclasses of other classes get one extra proficiency at higher levels. But that is not nearly enough.

Now, that said, despite what I said in my last post, if I was actually designing a new system for this, I probably wouldn't just make it all giving out more proficiencies as you level. Monks getting all saves with one feature is more like what I would want, though at a much earlier level. I'd love it if each martial class got something to make them good at all their saves, without necessarily having to just give out proficiencies at different levels like a new form of ASI.

Monk does this, as does Paladin with their aura (though I'm not a fan of it being an aura, personally). They also attempted something like this for fighters with Indomitable, but it fails miserably due to it not being enough to help weak saves. Having each class with such a feature that actually works, whether it be an always on bonus, a powerful but limited use effect, or a more situational but strong one (something like giving Barbarians massive save bonuses, but only when raging), would go a long way towards rounding out these characters, so they feel more complete.

[Deathtongue]

I don't think giving martials better saving throws or even making them better at combat is going to solve the underlying problem.

Imagine if all T3+ martials were given the ability of 'whenever the current XP for the combat encounter falls below Deadly, you can instantly end and win the encounter'. That still wouldn't solve the perceived problems of legendary warriors still not being able to travel to the Cloud City of Eus or shatter the Bone Spire unless they had spellcaster help or the DM gave them Convenient Plot Coupons.

[Xervous]

It was more than just damage scaling. Basically all 4e martials had access to AOE attacks, a ranged of debuffs, bonus movement, forced movement, self healing and other utility effects as part of their base kit, and these effects also grew in potency as you levelled.

Structurally that’s all just window dressing. At the end of the day everyone was in the same ballpark for interacting with the world. Ranger and rogue were not only relevant, but supreme because they did a great job of winning the combat segments and did so at all levels. Surgeless healing, slide-trip builds, radiant mafia, warlords etc. Every class was concerned only with combat, plus the occasional utility feature that snuck in over a combat utility. There was no escalating counterplay of negative energy effects and immunities, illusions and illusion piercing effects, ability damage hazards and the related mitigations. It’s a kill-them-dead-with-numbers all the way through. The GM isn’t worrying about Passwall invalidating his dungeon, whether or not the wizard will pull out Detect Thoughts, Detect Evil and Scrying all in one session, or giving the fighter a way to deal with swarms.

[Sorinth]

Monks do get that, true. And Rogues, as well as a few various subclasses of other classes get one extra proficiency at higher levels. But that is not nearly enough.

Now, that said, despite what I said in my last post, if I was actually designing a new system for this, I probably wouldn't just make it all giving out more proficiencies as you level. Monks getting all saves with one feature is more like what I would want, though at a much earlier level. I'd love it if each martial class got something to make them good at all their saves, without necessarily having to just give out proficiencies at different levels like a new form of ASI.

Monk does this, as does Paladin with their aura (though I'm not a fan of it being an aura, personally). They also attempted something like this for fighters with Indomitable, but it fails miserably due to it not being enough to help weak saves. Having each class with such a feature that actually works, whether it be an always on bonus, a powerful but limited use effect, or a more situational but strong one (something like giving Barbarians massive save bonuses, but only when raging), would go a long way towards rounding out these characters, so they feel more complete.

In order to keep things different between classes rather then just handing out static bonuses you can have outright immunity to certain things. Put Mindless Rage in the base class for Barbarian and possibly even Rage Beyond Death and they will fill that fantasy of being an unstoppable killing machine. A better worded Stillness of Mind is another option where you just end effects. For Fighter's I'm often tempted to just turn Indomitable into Legendary Saves.

[stoutstien]

In order to keep things different between classes rather then just handing out static bonuses you can have outright immunity to certain things. Put Mindless Rage in the base class for Barbarian and possibly even Rage Beyond Death and they will fill that fantasy of being an unstoppable killing machine. A better worded Stillness of Mind is another option where you just end effects. For Fighter's I'm often tempted to just turn Indomitable into Legendary Saves.

I've moved indomitable to be +1/2/3 to all saves and checks(credit to Max in that one)

barbarian I like the idea of increasing the number of condition immunities as they level up rather than increasing saves. I'm almost tempted to just have different immunities the barb can pick from to pair with rage at different level points. Has a more eat the damage and shrug off the rider feeling. Of course rage needs a slight rework to begin with so might as well.

[Sorinth]

I don't think giving martials better saving throws or even making them better at combat is going to solve the underlying problem.

Imagine if all T3+ martials were given the ability of 'whenever the current XP for the combat encounter falls below Deadly, you can instantly end and win the encounter'. That still wouldn't solve the perceived problems of legendary warriors still not being able to travel to the Cloud City of Eus or shatter the Bone Spire unless they had spellcaster help or the DM gave them Convenient Plot Coupons.

I understand your point but there's a big difference between the DM giving them plot coupons as you say, and the DM allowing the players to come up with and enact a plan. So for example if they wanted to travel to the Cloud City of Eus maybe the Ranger would maybe go into the wilds and tame a flying mount, the Barbarian wouldn't bother trying to tame a flying beast they would just force it to submit, the Paladin would Summon Mount, the Fighter might try to requisition a Griffon from his old army buddies, and a Rogue might steal an Airship, etc... Letting player creativity drive the path forward is much different then the oh look you've stumbled upon a bunch of potions of flying so now everyone can easily get to the Eus.

[Catullus64]

One thing that I think contributes to the feeling of power disparity (and I do say feeling, because I ultimately think that, vis a vis this particular problem, 5e is still the best place D&D has ever been) is that there's little sense of cost to flashy, world-altering magics to which high-level caster PCs have access, any more than there is a cost to doing your extra-fancy sword trick once or twice per day. There's sometimes a cost in cash, which high-level PCs are rolling in. Very rarely do spells have material components that money can't buy. And spell slots, no matter the level, come back with a single long rest. Compare that to early-period D&D, where a high-level Mage might have to spend weeks to fully recover all of his spell slots.

If you want to transcend the limits described by Xervous' signature:

"Martials’ concepts don’t evolve past the mundane
High levels aren’t just lower levels with bigger numbers
Martials have the tools they need for relevance
Pick 2"

I think a good approach is not to focus on the relative utlility of magical vs. nonmagical characters, but rather the cost-to-utility ratio. Casters can do world-altering miracles, but those miracles incur such a physical, temporal, and possibly moral cost that they can be used very infrequently. Non-magical characters (I try to fight shy of the word "Martials" because I consider it limiting) only ever get better at doing things they could theoretically have done from level 1, but can do them longer, more reliably, and with a bit more flair. As it is now, there's not much gravity to throwing down a dreadful, mighty spell any more than there is to a Fighter dropping his Action Surge.

[Cicciograna]

It was more than just damage scaling. Basically all 4e martials had access to AOE attacks, a ranged of debuffs, bonus movement, forced movement, self healing and other utility effects as part of their base kit, and these effects also grew in potency as you levelled.

I would like to add something to what Xervous had to say about this.

In my opinion, this is the wrong approach to tackling the issue. You don't want everybody to be able to do everything. Casters are so powerful in every context because they can do everything, if not better, at least as well as those who should be the absolute masters in it. I don't really need to bring examples, but at high level every one of the pillars of D&D is almost trivialized by one or two spells that make the casters save the day. Now imagine if EVERYBODY, every single class, had access to such solutions.

D&D is a communal game. You don't want your character to be able to do everything, because while that can boost the ego, after a while it becomes an exercise in May Sue-ism. Ideally - at least in my view of the game - you would want the party to be a combination of talents that wins the day, not just a single uberpowerful individual who would end up monopolizing the game.

In my opinion, there are 2+1 issues that keep the casters on top: 1) spellcasters get too many spells much variety in spell selection; and 2) spells are too powerful. Addressing first point 2 a toning down of the spells would be in order to limit what the spellcasters can do with them: to be honest, the concentration limit already does a lot to address this concern, and in general it's not anymore a save-or-die and save-or-suck fest like it was in 3.5 Edition; but still, spells that trivialize situations are still there. And frankly, my main concern is that spellcasters get to pick from too many of them. When a Wizard can potentially know every spell in the game and change its tactical assets every day, when a Cleric can select their spells from the whole spell list, then you know you will have player who will potentially be able to trivialize any situation. There is no specialization, no niche filled by the primary spellcasters.
From this point of view, I confess I really was a fan of the specialized casters introduced towards the late 3.5 Edition, the Beguiler, the Dread Necromancer, the Warcaster and such. Current specializations of the Wizard class are not really that much, you attach a handful of ribbon abilities (or god-like powers, looking at you, Diviner - and I know that, I am playing one in a CoS campaign and I feel GOD whenever I invoke my Portent) but at the end of the day they are all the same uberpowerful chassis. This ought to end. A Diviner should be and feel different from an Illusionist, which should be and feel different from an Evoker. This would mean: 1) limiting the access to spells of different schools; 2) providing meaningful spell choices for each school (but still keeping in mind a power cap for the spells); and 3) giving REAL class features to the Wizard, rather than simply "you get extra spells".

Finally, the "+1" that I was mentioning earlier is that mundanes often get ribbon abilities that do not pertain to combat (or that are badly worded and thus either are useless or trivialize one of the pillars of D&D). D&D mainly centers around combat, that's true, but it would be nice to have hardcoded rules to make characters be helpful (without trivializing challenges) for other stuff too. The idea of martials rallying followers would actually be pretty interesting, and yes, it would make for a better appeal for the Fighter class, rather than simply "you are good at hitting things with a stick".

[Xervous]

Some spells are without a doubt too powerful and most lists are exceptionally broad. But let me propose another environment. In this alternate reality the game text acknowledges that not all classes are created equal, it outright tells GMs and players that casters need to be served more obstacles to flexing their power and the Martials need more slow pitches to swing at IF you want to evenly distribute the means and opportunity to mechanically impact the flow of the game.

In this world the designers convey their intent that fighters satisfy the “along for the mechanical ride” type players and wizards satisfy the “bag of mechanical tools and planning” players. In this world if someone complains that fighters don’t change much at all they’d be pointed to the passages on how the game intends for GMs to compensate for player desires with these unequal classes.

In this world proposing something like fighter that changed in scope to have level appropriate options you would no longer be working off the intent of what makes a fighter a fighter.

Having looked through this lens, is the real issue that the game has unequal classes, or is it that the game fails to impress upon the GM and players how they’re expected to use and handle these differences?

[Sorinth]

I think a good approach is not to focus on the relative utlility of magical vs. nonmagical characters, but rather the cost-to-utility ratio. Casters can do world-altering miracles, but those miracles incur such a physical, temporal, and possibly moral cost that they can be used very infrequently. Non-magical characters (I try to fight shy of the word "Martials" because I consider it limiting) only ever get better at doing things they could theoretically have done from level 1, but can do them longer, more reliably, and with a bit more flair. As it is now, there's not much gravity to throwing down a dreadful, mighty spell any more than there is to a Fighter dropping his Action Surge.


Since the problem is more with some particular spells it might be better to just make changes to the material cost of just those spells. As you say money is no object, so Simulacrum's 1500gp cost is nothing, the only real cost is the 12hr casting time and that's only if you really need one right now. If on the other hand it was more like crafting a magic item from Xanathar's where you need a component from a level appropriate CR encounter then it becomes a different story. They become more like one-shot magics

Now whether you want to have special material costs for those "problem" spells but otherwise leave it unchanged, or move them out of the regular spell lineup and into some special Ritual magic, personally either works for me.

[Catullus64]

Some spells are without a doubt too powerful and most lists are exceptionally broad. But let me propose another environment. In this alternate reality the game text acknowledges that not all classes are created equal, it outright tells GMs and players that casters need to be served more obstacles to flexing their power and the Martials need more slow pitches to swing at IF you want to evenly distribute the means and opportunity to mechanically impact the flow of the game.

In this world the designers convey their intent that fighters satisfy the “along for the mechanical ride” type players and wizards satisfy the “bag of mechanical tools and planning” players. In this world if someone complains that fighters don’t change much at all they’d be pointed to the passages on how the game intends for GMs to compensate for player desires with these unequal classes.

In this world proposing something like fighter that changed in scope to have level appropriate options you would no longer be working off the intent of what makes a fighter a fighter.


There would be downsides of course. Some people who like mundane characters would feel like the text is infantilizing their preferred classes by framing them as requiring plot contrivances and plot armor to stay relevant. Likewise, people who like magic-users might be put off by text which seemingly menaces them with more plot complications and obstacles.

It's certainly not impossible to conceptualize and simulate a world that possesses dramatic, world-shaking magic where martial prowess and mundane skills are nonetheless uniquely valuable. I don't think the game should give up on realizing that vision organically through its systems, rather than explicitly saying that such a world has to be imposed by DM fiat.


Since the problem is more with some particular spells it might be better to just make changes to the material cost of just those spells. As you say money is no object, so Simulacrum's 1500gp cost is nothing, the only real cost is the 12hr casting time and that's only if you really need one right now. If on the other hand it was more like crafting a magic item from Xanathar's where you need a component from a level appropriate CR encounter then it becomes a different story. They become more like one-shot magics

Now whether you want to have special material costs for those "problem" spells but otherwise leave it unchanged, or move them out of the regular spell lineup and into some special Ritual magic, personally either works for me.

This quote is from Sorinth; not sure how to do attribution quotes on a second quotation.

That, to me, seems like a solution with a lot of potential. Have casters get powerful spells as baseline that are still basically iterations on lower-level concepts (bigger heals and fireballs) but have the world-altering High Magic be an event rather than a class feature, albeit an event that still requires spellcaster classes as the keystone. It would be a good parallel to the "have Fighters and Rogues attract followers and social power" approach followed by BECMI and the like.

[Grod_The_Giant]

There's one more solution that hasn't really been touched on here: making martials more impactful.

5e is decently balanced in terms of combat if you stick to the expected number of rests. That number doesn't always match up with the actual flow of gameplay, but that's not really a class issue. If you fiddle with the structure of rests to get it right (personally, I'm fond of "you can only long rest in town"), you won't really have a problem there. Casters will have more options in a fight, but that's okay--some people like simple characters and others don't.

5e--and D&D more generally--is not balanced in terms of problem-solving. Casters simply have far more ways to interact with the world than non-casters do, and those abilities scale with level in a way that skills simply can't touch. There are three main ways to fix this.
[list]
You can give up and say "that's just how it is, fighters kill things with swords and wizards get giant magic toolboxes. It's a team game, not a competition." Tables that don't find the martial/caster disparity are generally using this technique without thinking about it.
You can remove magic's utility options, so they don't really have extra tools compared to martials. That's what 4e did, and it certainly did the job, but it can feel unsatisfying and leave you with the pallette-swap issue that's already been mentioned.
You can invent new, dramatic toys for martials to play with, and basically turn high-level fighters into superheroes. While it's certainly the hardest option, I'd argue that it's the most fun.

Take, for example, the Myth (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?307285-The-Myth-Tier-1-quot-Mundane-quot-Challenge-Accepted!) class I wrote for 3.5. It's broken as hell, because it was meant to stand alongside 3.5 casters playing at their full broken-as-hell potential, but it's an example of what that might look like. Spellcasters get to teleport? The Myth gets to Hulk-leap for miles. Spellcasters get crazy divinations? The Myth gets to stroke their chin, say "based on what I know of the target, they'd be doing this right now" and be right. Spellcasters can kill a man from halfway across the world? The Myth gets to shoot an arrow at you from the same distance.

Goofy? Sure. Effective? Absolutely.

For an example of this applied across an entire system, look at Exalted. Rather than spellcasting being its own separate thing, each skill has its own huge list of "spells," and every character has the same number of spells known. A wizard might be able to make a ship fly, but the party's face can walk into town, give a speech, and watch as the population overthrows the king for her.

For an example of this applied to 5e, check out the "Mythic 5e" section in my Grimoire (https://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/359663). It's the same basic idea--everyone gets access to the skill system, so if we attach crazy powers to the skill system everyone gets to play.

[Xervous]

There would be downsides of course. Some people who like mundane characters would feel like the text is infantilizing their preferred classes by framing them as requiring plot contrivances and plot armor to stay relevant. Likewise, people who like magic-users might be put off by text which seemingly menaces them with more plot complications and obstacles.


Which is presumably why WotC left out the text, but we still have the classes and the ghosts of those design intents all the same. Do they evade blame by not acknowledging this and leave me as the bad guy for stating this is how you provide equal opportunity for the different classes? Or are they to blame for leaving it up to players to bumble into these issues with no inkling or guidance on known hazards?

[Catullus64]

Which is presumably why WotC left out the text, but we still have the classes and the ghosts of those design intents all the same. Do they evade blame by not acknowledging this and leave me as the bad guy for stating this is how you provide equal opportunity for the different classes? Or are they to blame for leaving it up to players to bumble into these issues with no inkling or guidance on known hazards?

It seemed to me that you were positing that caster-mundane disparity is primarily a problem of dissonance between mechanics and framing; and that if the framing were altered to fit the mechanics, the problem would be addressed. I think instead that caster-mundane disparity is a tangible problem (although, as I've said before, not a huge one in the grand scope of the game) regardless of how the game frames it. I think that shifting the framing to overtly normalize that disparity is unsatisfactory as a solution for the reasons articulated. Even if you include text about how the DM can adjust for this tendency if they desire, you're still making it an uphill battle against the game systems to achieve that balance, and sending a potentially discouraging message to people on both sides of the aisle, of either "you're one of the pauper classes who needs DM assistance to be on par with others" or "you're one of the privileged classes, so get ready for the DM to hammer you with extra obstacles."

[sambojin]

Then you get other silly classes like the druid. Super powerful at levels 2-13, still powerful later, they just feel weaker than they did before (not really though).

And, I hesitate to say, the full caster problem isn't only a late game one. Right where martials are feeling like they're really coming online, at around level 5-8, with extra attack and an ASI/feat or three, is exactly where full casters simply have so many options at their disposal that they could outshine them if they wanted to. They're often just being polite about it. Maybe not DPR-tastic, but no slouches in that area, but with an entire grab-bag of things to do.

I actually think a double "ASI" at 4th and 8th, or one feat/ASI if feats are used (no double feats), would solve a lot of this.

Will fighters have WAYYYY too many feats/stats? Yep. And they can bridge out into skills and magic and whatever combat style if they want.
(Doesn't break subclasses too much, just compounds the effects of them)

Will Rogues have the sorts of proficiencies and options and theming that will make DMs cry? Yep, but they're meant to.
(AT still want this, but become uber magicy if they want, without it being a "you have to be")

Will Rangers be "that sort of Ranger, that you wanted to be, not the one you got". Yep.
(Meh, maybe gloomstalkers would think "but that's my schtick, being good at stuff", every other ranger would go "look, keep it, I'm not even that sort of Ranger")

Will Barbs have all kinds of weird abilities and incomparable wisdom, toughness or strength? Yep, go you super-primitive-awesome-thing!
(So, everything is rage based? Not anymore)

Will Monks be happily MAD, or just a bit magical in their options, without blowing Ki every time they wanted to do something "special/ spiritual or less punchy"? Yep.
(It's either this or +Wis mod or +proficiency mod Ki per short rest, and this is heaps more flexible)

And screw Pallies, they don't get that. They're plenty powerful enough anyway, even single classed. Maybe the extra one at 8th, just to keep them in the class, rather than sorc'ing/lock'ing out for smiteyness early on.
(Look, Pallies are already good. Keeping them in the class until level 8 is kind of hard though).

Then, you'd be happy with the extra dribble of power at later levels, because the "you" bit of playing that character, all at your own option, is just as strong or stronger than any multiclassing or full castering can give you. Which is sort of the intention 😎

[truemane]

Just a note from a different direction. In real-life, I almost exclusively DM people who either don't role-play a lot, or who are there mostly for the story and social interactions. So it's almost unheard for me to hear any complaints or concerns about relative power level or optimization or tiers or any of that. I've had basically that same experience while DM'ing casual Adventure's League tables. Even the people who fancied themselves real system-savvy power gamers would get eaten alive by a table of even average Playgrounders (I remember one guy playing a Warlock casting Darkness and looked up at me and said "And I have... Devil's Sight!" like he just solved the Riemann hypothesis. There was an audible gasp from the table. I let him have him moment. Everyone was very impressed. It was fine).

And my experience isn't conclusive, of course, but I think it's important to remember that we, here, on this forum, don't necessarily represent the default mode of play. In my experience (which is far from conclusive), a a sizeable portion of the people playing 5E are just like that guy. They see 'hitting stuff with swords' as the Fighter's job and 'hitting groups of stuff with Fireballs' is the Wizard's job and they see something like Darkness + Devil's sight as such a devious and Machiavellian bit of system-mastery that it will gleefully be their go-to move for levels and levels of play, to general acclaim and praise.

The complaints I get from my casual non-caster players at high level is that, even though they don't feel left behind or out-matched, there are only so many Cool Things the rules say they can do. I usually give them a ton of leeway in terms of narrative combat. Anyone with high Strength and the Athletics skill will find me super generous as to what an Athletics check can accomplish. But they know all that stuff is outside the rules. What they'd like is a way to reflect who awesome they are in the rules themselves.

It's tricky because, in order to really give them that, 5E combat would have to be granular to a level that would defeat the entire design philosophy behind it (a philosophy that, on balance, in my opinion, was an excellent direction to take D&D and works astoundingly well for the kinds of players I see playing the game [and I know that's a bit chicken and egg]). Once you give a Fighter a rule for breaking someone's sword, then you're tacitly admitting that no one else can do that. But once anyone can do it, you have to find a way to make (some) Fighters better at it, which then makes everyone else retroactively crappy at it, and you can only invoke Advantage/Disadvantage so many times, but anything more persnickety than that just walks us back to 3.5 again.

I don't know what the answer is. I think some work on the saving throws, as mentioned up-thread, could help. Saving Throws is one of the few parts of 5E that I find of dubious merit, conceptually, and also poorly executed. Some different ways to short-change or avoid effects or other rules would be helpful. Maybe some auto-crit rules or insta-kills. A some more debuffs for 'hamstringing' or the like. I remember the old 'Heroic Fray' rule from 2E whereby a Fighter (and only a Fighter) got one attack per round PER level when fighting enemies of less than one HD each. It was fun that, every now and again, the Fighter got to activate super Saiyan mode and just go ham on a pile of Mooks.

[Unoriginal]

I don't think giving martials better saving throws or even making them better at combat is going to solve the underlying problem.

Imagine if all T3+ martials were given the ability of 'whenever the current XP for the combat encounter falls below Deadly, you can instantly end and win the encounter'. That still wouldn't solve the perceived problems of legendary warriors still not being able to travel to the Cloud City of Eus or shatter the Bone Spire unless they had spellcaster help or the DM gave them Convenient Plot Coupons.

PCs can't do anything without the DM giving them Convenient Plot Coupons.

if the group needsro go to X, and one of the casters has a spell to go to X, then it's a Convenient Plot Coupon. The caster didn't somehow free themselves from the control tge DM has over the world.

[sambojin]

@truename Kind of a thing that my double ASI or feat+ASI suggestion *could* fix. Except, if you don't want to choose Resilient (whatever), you don't have to. The world is your oyster, and you a pearl of your own creation, that does more than roll to attack.

But you are right. We do tend to have the benefit of a rules and interaction savvy player base here at GitP to compound, expand, and perfect our thoughts from, even knowing it's always "if the DM approves" at every table.

[Xervous]

PCs can't do anything without the DM giving them Convenient Plot Coupons.

if the group needsro go to X, and one of the casters has a spell to go to X, then it's a Convenient Plot Coupon. The caster didn't somehow free themselves from the control tge DM has over the world.

But did the GM make X accessible via spell Y intentionally or was he not fully aware that spell Y would short circuit the Journey to X detail?

[LordShade]

Heroic Fray was awesome. And it wasn't just creatures of 1 HD--it was creatures with 10 fewer hit dice than the fighter. So a 25th-level fighter could heroic fray on hill giants. Awesome.

2e's High-Level Campaigns book also had some interesting powers for 10+ characters. The mage and cleric ones were pretty useless (understandably), but fighters had things like Bravery, Challenge, temporary ability score boots, and bonded weapons. Rogues had Shadow Step and Shadow Flight, and abilities that have become core in later editions, like Evasion. Rangers got access to wizardly scrying devices (probably homage to Aragorn using the palantir) and the ability to use wizard scrolls and magic items eventually.

The Dark Sun rules also gave a host of progression options past level 20. Fighters' options were unremarkable unfortunately, getting the ability to use siege weapons and manage mass combat. Thieves were much more interesting, getting illusion spell access up to level 7, in addition to permanent Dexterity boosts (cap of 23 I believe) and access to 5-6 new thief skills. I allowed high-level characters to draw abilities from both sources.

And from a mechanical perspective, fighters were never lackluster in 2e. High-level combat often featured mobs of enemies with percentage-based magic resistance, elemental immunities, and strong saving throws. Offensive magic usually fared poorly, and summons were not particularly strong. Wizards and clerics can do all kinds of fancy reality-bending stuff, but at the end of the day, you need someone to go in there and actually kill the monster. That was always a fighter.

[Catullus64]

To expand on a previously mentioned solution, I think it would be a good idea to cordon off "High" Magic (spells that can solve a whole type of problem just by existing, rather than just being bigger combat spells) into some kind of separate Ritual magic system. Accomplishing one of these spells would be a whole sub-plot of a campaign, or at least a whole session's activity; you might have to quest for artifacts or rare ingredients, find the special locations and celestial phenomena at/during which they can be cast, and probably do some sort of perilous skill challenge or puzzle for the casting itself. Casting the ritual itself is still something that only the spellcasters can do (imagine a feature in the class writeup that simply reads "Wizardly/Druidic/et al High Magic: You can perform rituals of high magic for your class, see Page X), but martial characters participate just as much in the activities and encounters necessary to prepare it, or can have a role in defending/assisting the casters during the ritual itself.

Divination
Locate Creature
Private Sanctum
Commune
Commune with Nature
Contact Other Plane
Greater Restoration
Legend Lore
Planar Binding
Raise Dead
Reincarnate
Scrying (At least some of the wider-range applications)
Teleportation Circle (Already kind of this due to the nature of the spell)
Guards & Wards
Forbiddance
Magic Jar
Planar Ally
Word of Recall (Establishing the sanctuary, not speaking the Word)
Magnificent Mansion
Plane Shift
Regenerate (At least, the regrowing limbs part)
Resurrection
Sequester
Simulacrum
Teleport
Clone
Demiplane
Astral Projection
Gate
Imprisonment
True Polymorph
True Resurrection
Wish

[Unoriginal]

But did the GM make X accessible via spell Y intentionally or was he not fully aware that spell Y would short circuit the Journey to X detail?

The DM is the one that allows Y to 'short circuit' X, whether it was planed in advance or not.

Be it flight, teleportation, plane-hoping or anything else, it is the DM who decides if the key fits the door.

And it's not hard to justify that if X can easily be reached with/beaten by Y, those who want X to be protected will take as many measures against Y as they're able and think is necessary.

[Xervous]

The DM is the one that allows Y to 'short circuit' X, whether it was planed in advance or not.

Be it flight, teleportation, plane-hoping or anything else, it is the DM who decides if the key fits the door.

And it's not hard to justify that if X can easily be reached with/beaten by Y, those who want X to be protected will take as many measures against Y as they're able and think is necessary.

So in other words it falls to the GM to mitigate all the Ys while ensuring that other characters have the opportunity to engage with the Xs along desired avenues.

[Zuras]

And from a mechanical perspective, fighters were never lackluster in 2e. High-level combat often featured mobs of enemies with percentage-based magic resistance, elemental immunities, and strong saving throws. Offensive magic usually fared poorly, and summons were not particularly strong. Wizards and clerics can do all kinds of fancy reality-bending stuff, but at the end of the day, you need someone to go in there and actually kill the monster. That was always a fighter.


I forgot to note this as one of the features of 1e and 2e—Wizards were pretty garbage at taking out Demon Lords or other really powerful monsters compared to a fighter to hit it with a +3 sword. When Raistlin took out Takhisis it was obviously with a plot coupon—under the actual rules Caramon would have had a much better chance of killing a god.

[Morty]

I'll say what I always do - D&D has absolutely no consistency when it comes to what a class actually gives you. Closest it got was 4E, and even there it was uneven. A fighter is moderately good at doing one thing in combat and mediocre out of it. A druid can't replace a fighter's damage output in combat, but it does have several strong combat roles and an insanely versatile toolbox out of it. A paladin has a simple combat niche that's at least as good as the fighter's (turning things into fine red paste with Smite), but also has spells, healing and auras.

To phrase it another way - let's say I have 100 points to build a character. If I put 50 of those into combat and 50 elsewhere, I should expect a balanced character. If I go 75/25, I should expect to be better at combat at the expense of utility. But a fighter is effectively a 50/25 character, with 25 points being nowhere to be found. A druid or wizard is 50/75. Or 50/100, really. Paladins and bards are probably as close to 50/50 as 5E gets.

[Unoriginal]

So in other words it falls to the GM to mitigate all the Ys while ensuring that other characters have the opportunity to engage with the Xs along desired avenues.

The whole reason for it to be a DM is to arbiter which Ys (not only spells, but all abilities, equipment, relationships with NPCs, etc) are solutions to which Xs (any opposition, difficulty or challenge the PCs encounter, from the locked door to the Ancient Gold Dragon possessed by an evil god).

A static work like a video game or a Choose Your Own Adventure has everything that is possible to do already written and taken into account for the outcomes, without forgetting the fact the player can retry the same levels/storyline again and again to explore other methods and paths. The Xs are already pre-determined and so are the Ys you can use, to the point that one of the most common form of video game humor is pointing out how the game doesn't let you use a specific Y to solve an X when it logically should, or requires a specific Y to solve a specific X when the logic isn't apparent to anyone but the one who wrote that section of the game.

A TTRPG is much more open-ended and reactive. A DM has to determine what the Xs are, generally will have a few Ys ready for the players to find and use, and when presented with possible Ys they didn't think of has to determine which work.

So what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if a character has an Y that let them solve this particular X directly from their character sheet, or if they have to use one of the Ys for this particular X the DM made exist in the world. Both are equally under the DM's control.


To use an example: if WotC published a lvl 16+ adventure with a BBEG whose entire plan can only be foiled by using Disintegration at the right time, I think we can all agree that it would be a pretty bad adventure, as those who don't have Disintegration factually cannot accomplish as much as those who have it, and the writer stacked the deck.

If WotC published a lvl 16+ adventure where you can bypass half a dungeon by using Disintegration at the right time, however, then you now have a useful spell and worthwhile spell slot investment, as even if the encounters you could have gotten by taking the longer path might have been interesting or otherwise beneficial you're progressing toward the goal and it has its own benefits, and the writer wanted to open that possibility.

To me, "having a spell that let you solve X" is equivalent to the second scenario: you're avoiding Z interactions with the world in order to go faster, but you're still ending up at the same place that people who don't have that spell and you're just as much under the control of the writer/DM as those who took the other path(s).

Most people who talk about casters having more tools/power/"agency" than martials on this forum seems to act as if it was the first scenario, but also many of those who say that argue that the casters should feel awesome for having the deck stacked in their favor, or even that it's normal they have the deck stacked in their favor because that's the point of magic.

[verbatim]

And from a mechanical perspective, fighters were never lackluster in 2e. High-level combat often featured mobs of enemies with percentage-based magic resistance, elemental immunities, and strong saving throws. Offensive magic usually fared poorly, and summons were not particularly strong. Wizards and clerics can do all kinds of fancy reality-bending stuff, but at the end of the day, you need someone to go in there and actually kill the monster. That was always a fighter.

While offensive magic and summons are pretty good in 5e, I suppose it bears mention that the following means of negating caster spells don't have a counterpart for negating martials (or if they do they are far less common on enemies):


Legendary Resistances
Counterspell
Magic Resistance



I think that if martials had kept the maneuvers from the original 5e UA the power difference would have been less drastic, but now that we're here I kind of like the idea of extra ASI's as a homebrew'd band-aid until the next edition.

[truemane]

@truename Kind of a thing that my double ASI or feat+ASI suggestion *could* fix. Except, if you don't want to choose Resilient (whatever), you don't have to. The world is your oyster, and you a pearl of your own creation, that does more than roll to attack.

But you are right. We do tend to have the benefit of a rules and interaction savvy player base here at GitP to compound, expand, and perfect our thoughts from, even knowing it's always "if the DM approves" at every table.
I agree that double ASI's could mitigate a lot of the issue, potentially giving non-casters more options and more things to do without just increasing the numbers on the things they can do already. I think the scope and nature of Feats might need some work for that to be a baked-in solution. But then, if that's the answer, we're once again walking back down the hill toward 3.5


The Dark Sun rules also gave a host of progression options past level 20. Fighters' options were unremarkable unfortunately, getting the ability to use siege weapons and manage mass combat.

[...]

And from a mechanical perspective, fighters were never lackluster in 2e. High-level combat often featured mobs of enemies with percentage-based magic resistance, elemental immunities, and strong saving throws. Offensive magic usually fared poorly, and summons were not particularly strong. Wizards and clerics can do all kinds of fancy reality-bending stuff, but at the end of the day, you need someone to go in there and actually kill the monster. That was always a fighter.
2E was still about 75% 1E. and 1E was still about 75% wargame. So it was assumed that, around 9th level, everyone settled down and got a castle and a small army so you could start having proper wargames with armies facing each other like Gygax intended. So it made sense to make the Fighters better at mass combat. That wouldn't work now, I don't think. The whole hobby is very different.

I agree with the bit about high-level magical combat. However, that was caused mostly by the way that Saving Throws scaled and spell DC didn't. Which was its own problem. Past a certain point, you had to assume that every creature would make its saving throw against every spell, every time. Which lead to ignoring a lot of the more interesting options available. Why waste an 8th level slot on a Save-or-Suck which had a 5% of doing anything, when you could just cast a damage spell. 95% chance of half-damage or not, damage was damage. That, more than anything, is what turned Wizards into Blasters.

But then, you take that away, and you have the issues 3.5 had.

No easy answers.


To expand on a previously mentioned solution, I think it would be a good idea to cordon off "High" Magic (spells that can solve a whole type of problem just by existing, rather than just being bigger combat spells) into some kind of separate Ritual magic system. Accomplishing one of these spells would be a whole sub-plot of a campaign, or at least a whole session's activity [...]
I agree with this in theory. Back in my 2E and 3.5 days I had a whole thing with Wish and Resurrection that made them plot events rather than Class Abilities. The only tricky part I've found is that it's only fun to make it dramatic once or twice. And after that it's just a hassle that you have to get through to do the thing the game says you can do]. Things can only cost 'drama' so often. After that, it's just going to cost time or money. Which solves some problems, but causes others unless you're careful.

[GeneralVryth]

Kind of a long the additional ASI bit, I have always thought 5e was missing a sub-system. For the sake of describing it, I will call it "Legend" (another good name may be "Legendary Feats"). The idea with Legend is you would get a certain amount of points or feats (or whatever you want to call it), to spend on more narrative abilities. Non-casters would get more of these as a way to address power differential in other pillars if they choose to spend it that way.

Legend can be spent in the following ways:
Like a traditional ASI/Feat (in its original incarnation it was meant to replace ASIs)
Acquiring superhuman tricks (a martial literally jumping a mountain or cleaving part of a forest in a single blow)
Gaining social status/influence (leading a company of mercs, being able to requisition assets or favors, like maybe access to flying steeds)
Procuring magic items (what it says on the tin)
Learning greater magic rituals (spells that run on a greater timescale that could take days/weeks/months to complete but can accomplish things like creating permanent magical effects like wards, or portals between locations etc..., another category would be war magic rituals, things like a ritual to spend a minute casting Fireball over a much longer range without using a spell slot to allow a spell caster to act like a siege engine)

The primary goal is spending Legend gives you the option of doing some guaranteed things on a longer time scale, or that a PC might do with downtime. The ASI option in the original conception was a way to kind of opt out of the system if you just wanted to remain something of a ordinary grunt or spell caster. Obviously you would need to spend some time to balance such a system, especially since many of the things are stuff that in theory a DM should/could give out. But the point is to give PCs some minimum amount of access to these things with DMs able to add more at their discretion (or as just plain rewards).

One nice thing about it in the caster debate is it opens the door to the idea of more powerful spell effects (or a place where overpowered spells could go) that are more akin to magic items that should be granted by a DM instead an option a player can rely on being there. Which is useful from a world building perspective as well.

[Gignere]

Kind of a long the additional ASI bit, I have always thought 5e was missing a sub-system. For the sake of describing it, I will call it "Legend" (another good name may be "Legendary Feats"). The idea with Legend is you would get a certain amount of points or feats (or whatever you want to call it), to spend on more narrative abilities. Non-casters would get more of these as a way to address power differential in other pillars if they choose to spend it that way.

Legend can be spent in the following ways:
Like a traditional ASI/Feat (in its original incarnation it was meant to replace ASIs)
Acquiring superhuman tricks (a martial literally jumping a mountain or cleaving part of a forest in a single blow)
Gaining social status/influence (leading a company of mercs, being able to requisition assets or favors, like maybe access to flying steeds)
Procuring magic items (what it says on the tin)
Learning greater magic rituals (spells that run on a greater timescale that could take days/weeks/months to complete but can accomplish things like creating permanent magical effects like wards, or portals between locations etc..., another category would be war magic rituals, things like a ritual to spend a minute casting Fireball over a much longer range without using a spell slot to allow a spell caster to act like a siege engine)

The primary goal is spending Legend gives you the option of doing some guaranteed things on a longer time scale, or that a PC might do with downtime. The ASI option in the original conception was a way to kind of opt out of the system if you just wanted to remain something of a ordinary grunt or spell caster. Obviously you would need to spend some time to balance such a system, especially since many of the things are stuff that in theory a DM should/could give out. But the point is to give PCs some minimum amount of access to these things with DMs able to add more at their discretion (or as just plain rewards).

One nice thing about it in the caster debate is it opens the door to the idea of more powerful spell effects (or a place where overpowered spells could go) that are more akin to magic items that should be granted by a DM instead an option a player can rely on being there. Which is useful from a world building perspective as well.

Something along this line is maybe instead of a new system just bake it into high level martials that they get epic boons at certain levels. If high level fighters/barbarians can pick up 1-3 epic boons I think most people will stick around.

[LordShade]

I agree with the bit about high-level magical combat. However, that was caused mostly by the way that Saving Throws scaled and spell DC didn't. Which was its own problem. Past a certain point, you had to assume that every creature would make its saving throw against every spell, every time. Which lead to ignoring a lot of the more interesting options available. Why waste an 8th level slot on a Save-or-Suck which had a 5% of doing anything, when you could just cast a damage spell. 95% chance of half-damage or not, damage was damage. That, more than anything, is what turned Wizards into Blasters.

But then, you take that away, and you have the issues 3.5 had.

No easy answers.

Interesting point. Yes, interesting options were invalidated--but 2e had 3000 wizard spells, so even if 30% of the options were garbage (debatable, those spells could still be used to good effect in other encounters), there were still thousands of useful and interesting spells.

Moreover, maybe it's a feature disguised as a bug. In high-level play, wizards' utility toolkit kept getting bigger and bigger. But they lacked damage. Fighters had damage in spades, but had no utility, mobility, or specialized defensive options. Perhaps the designers never thought that far and didn't understand the implications of the mechanical systems they created, but in practice, fighters and spellcasters worked neatly together in high-level play. Each type needed the other type to solve combat encounters, and of the two, fighters were the more indispensable. This was because there were all kinds of magical items that could simulate spellcaster effects (a ring of spell storing could house up to 8th-level spells, and be used by anyone), but very few items that provided reliable damage independent of class features. Plenty of items that enhanced reliable damage based on class features (like magic swords making weapon specialization and fighter APR better) but almost nothing that let the wizard do the damage of a fighter.

Incidentally, where non-combat is concerned... I vastly prefer 2e's system of nonweapon proficiencies to 3e's system of point-spend skills and 5e's system of a very small number of general skills. NWPs provided a better descriptor of what a character could do, and since they were more plentiful, you could happily burn a slot on basketweaving if it fit your character's background. This also made fighters a lot more usable in roleplaying and exploration situations, because they had pretty detailed skill descriptions of what they could accomplish in these types of situations.

What I didn't like was the lack of improvement in skills as you leveled--if running a 2e game today, I'd probably use a version of 5e's proficiency bonus, but only for NWPs.

[Unoriginal]

I'll add this, which I want to call the Teleporting Gandalf Law:

"If Gandalf can teleport Frodo to Mount Doom with minimal effort, then the story won't be about the journey to Mount Doom, it will be about something else."



Or in other words: what one of the adventurers can do effortlessly isn't what the adventure is about.

[kazaryu]

I've been considering, for a while, trying to create a system that somewhat mirrors caster spell slot progression to (help) address this issue. something like a 'talent' system (name is more a placeholder). the idea being that martials have their own scaling resource they can call on. half casters would scale slower, and 1/3 martials (i.e. bladesinger, sword bards...basically casters that get access to extra attack) would scale slower still. but full, non-martail casters wouldn't be able to touch (with the exception of through a feat perhaps. to keep it in parallel with things like magic initiate).


The idea would be to get extra abilities themed around skills. sot hat martials actually are better at skills than casters. But the abilities, rather than being 'semi-significant effect that can only occur 1/LR' would fllw the martial design where the relative strength (in a narrative sense) of the ability is smewhere along a sliding scale from 'ubiquitously applicable, but somewhat weak' to 'rather niche, but really powerful'.

an example of the latter might be 'against your attacks, constructs of force have 20AC and 100hp per square foot'. or, in other terms, 'you are actually able to break constructs of force'. super duper niche. but ridiculously strong if it ever comes up. and example of the former might be 'your jump distance is buffed in some way'.

obviously the idea is still in its infancy. but the idea would be to have several few 'talent trees' that martials can spec into as they level. with full martials like fighter and barbarian having access to more talents than say, paladins. 1/3 casters would likely still get full access to the talent trees, after all, casters don't lose access to any of their magic when they go gish.

Also, this idea would go alongside making the skill system a bit less....open ended. coming up with examples of how people can use their skills at given difficulties. Since, skills are the primary way that most non-casters have to interact with non-combat encounters. and the system itself is...pretty weak, and reliant on the DM. so i think, overall, giving martials better access to skills, and fleshing out the skill system a bit better could go a long way into fixing this.

[SharkForce]

so, the two editions I'm at all familiar with where warriors were as valuable as spellcasters are AD&D 2nd edition and 4th edition. others are much more familiar with 4th than I am, and also I hate their solution which feels to me as basically "everyone is a combat specialist and nobody is a utility specialist", so I'll leave that one alone for others.

now, the AD&D 2nd edition thing, that's gonna cause you a lot of problems, because there are a *ton* of things that interact here.

for starters, fighters weren't just pretty good at fighting, they were amazing. they were especially amazing if you buffed them. haste was a spell that doubled the attacks of multiple targets. not "get an extra attack", literal double their attacks. strength actually increased their strength. enlarge increased weapon damage by 10% per level.

if your wizard (or cleric) ignored the potential power available from buffing the warriors, you were a fool. yes, that was the wizard doing their thing too when they give a huge damage buff, but it is the wizard doing their thing while the fighter gets to be awesome too, because let's be real here: the same buffs on a wizard would be almost inconsequential.

so what made fighters such excellent targets for buff spells? first of all, as fighters gain levels, they get accurate. not, like, "I hit more often than not" accurate, but actually needing to ask if a 3 hits because if the target doesn't have higher AC than was typical there was a very real chance it was a hit. secondly, and this has been mentioned already, their saving throws got to be very good, which meant that they were actually likely to be able to use all those actions. additionally, their damage was huge. it may not feel that big compared to now, but it is important to understand something: a creature with 150-200 HP in fifth edition would quite possibly have fewer than 50 HP in AD&D 2nd edition. if it had more, it probably wasn't by much. beholders were generally in the 40-60 HP range. dragons might, *MIGHT* have more than 100, but probably not by much, and usually only if we're talking a really old dragon. lastly, their damage was consistent not only because they hit often, but also because of how magic resistance works, and this is a huge thing to change.

you see, in 2nd edition AD&D, magic resistance doesn't mean anything so minor as advantage on the saving throw (which could be gotten around by simply targeting a weak save so they still have a bad chance to make the save). if a target had 50% magic resistance, that means there is a 50% chance of your spell just not working on them, and there was very little you could do about it. some monsters had 80%, 90%, or even 100% magic resistance (golems famously were just immune to all magic with only a few exceptions which you usually didn't *want* to find out about because it usually made them more dangerous instead of less dangerous). it works against a lot more spells than you'd expect as well... there is no "well I'll create a wall of force and block them off since that's hitting the environment and not the creature", because 100% magic resistance means it can walk right through your wall of force and punch you in the face. fighters were important because they were needed. there were enemies that you simply were not realistically going to be able to do anything to at all as a wizard.

and let's talk a bit more about the wizard too, because this is an important factor. wizards had 1d4 hit points per level, and it wasn't as easy to get a constitution bonus (and also, your constitution bonus wouldn't go as high as a fighter's could). you couldn't wear armour (it wasn't a matter of training, it shut off your ability to cast spells even if you were a fighter/mage), your dexterity didn't improve armour when casting spells as I recall, and your spells didn't just go off on your turn, they took time to cast. if someone else won initiative and hit you before your turn, the spell was gone. not *maybe* gone, to be clear. gone. you lose. you get nothing. no saving throw, no skill check, it's gone. wizards were squishy, and in a fight you were basically dead if someone didn't keep the enemies off of you. a 5d6 breath weapon was painful for a level 10 fighter, but it stood a legitimate chance of *killing* a level 10 wizard. multiclassing was an option, but it put you behind on experience and you'd still be much squishier than a single-classed fighter (you still couldn't wear armour if you wanted to cast spells, your HP would be based on half the roll of each of your hit dice so a 5/5 fighter/wizard would have half of 5d4 + half of 5d10 hit points, plus any potential con bonus, and would be adventuring with a group of level 6-7 characters)

because there was also no armour except what spells could give you your only defence came from spells, and every spell you cast eats into your abilities for the day, not to mention taking 10 minutes per spell level to prepare them again. and while we're on the subject of preparing spells, you had to actually prepare your spells. if you decided you had 2 magic missiles, that's what you have. not 2 spell slots that you can freely use for several different spells you know, you had exactly 2 magic missiles, no more and no less. oh, and no cantrips for damage/utility after you run out of spells either (there were optional rules, but I believe those still limited the number of cantrips you get, and none of them provided any meaningful damage. if you didn't want to use spells in a given round, you throw darts or use a sling or something like that).

and there are likely a few things that I'm simply forgetting to mention as well.

so basically, it isn't going to be a simple thing to implement if you want to use 2nd edition's method. a lot of the things that made it work are things that would be considered "anti-fun" or "unfair" if you introduced them to a 5th edition game. simply put, wizards made a lot of things easier or better, but they weren't a requirement to solve non-combat problems, whereas if you wanted a good solution to many combat problems, your options were to bring warriors or pray that you get REALLY lucky. even with all the expansions adding new spells, it was much simpler and easier to give the warrior a strength spell in the morning, cast enlarge at the start of the fight, and consider whether it's worth aging them by a year with a haste spell if things start to look *really* bad. a party of 5 wizards would do just fine until they run into something that eats wizards for lunch (probably literally) and then they'd be about as useful as the commoners you hired to carry a torch for you (and much *less* useful than an actual hireling, which the game had rules for... so you could play a wizard and have 3-4 non-wizard hirelings who could be warriors so that if everyone actually does want to play wizards you can still have warriors in the party, they'll just be NPC mercenaries).

as far as how to bring that into 5th edition, I couldn't help you there. the best advice I can give is that in an entirely different game I play called Earthdawn, warriors are far more effective in combat relative to magicians than D&D has it, and even so nobody seems to complain when I bring a magician to a game that I'm dragging down the party. personally, I think there is a lot more room to make warriors the masters of combat at higher levels without making spellcasters feel weak.

(one thing I will say I like about 5th edition warriors... at least they get more options than 2nd edition. I mean, don't get me wrong, as I've already said 2nd edition warriors were plenty powerful... but even when they released kits they were all pretty similar. especially the three different flavours of "your <class> is basically the same as every other <class> except you're an arrogant snob". much less variation than what subclasses can offer, and frankly I'd say even feats do more to improve fighter variety than anything 2nd edition had to offer).

[Tvtyrant]

Just a note from a different direction. In real-life, I almost exclusively DM people who either don't role-play a lot, or who are there mostly for the story and social interactions. So it's almost unheard for me to hear any complaints or concerns about relative power level or optimization or tiers or any of that. I've had basically that same experience while DM'ing casual Adventure's League tables. Even the people who fancied themselves real system-savvy power gamers would get eaten alive by a table of even average Playgrounders (I remember one guy playing a Warlock casting Darkness and looked up at me and said "And I have... Devil's Sight!" like he just solved the Riemann hypothesis. There was an audible gasp from the table. I let him have him moment. Everyone was very impressed. It was fine).

And my experience isn't conclusive, of course, but I think it's important to remember that we, here, on this forum, don't necessarily represent the default mode of play. In my experience (which is far from conclusive), a a sizeable portion of the people playing 5E are just like that guy. They see 'hitting stuff with swords' as the Fighter's job and 'hitting groups of stuff with Fireballs' is the Wizard's job and they see something like Darkness + Devil's sight as such a devious and Machiavellian bit of system-mastery that it will gleefully be their go-to move for levels and levels of play, to general acclaim and praise.

The complaints I get from my casual non-caster players at high level is that, even though they don't feel left behind or out-matched, there are only so many Cool Things the rules say they can do. I usually give them a ton of leeway in terms of narrative combat. Anyone with high Strength and the Athletics skill will find me super generous as to what an Athletics check can accomplish. But they know all that stuff is outside the rules. What they'd like is a way to reflect who awesome they are in the rules themselves.

It's tricky because, in order to really give them that, 5E combat would have to be granular to a level that would defeat the entire design philosophy behind it (a philosophy that, on balance, in my opinion, was an excellent direction to take D&D and works astoundingly well for the kinds of players I see playing the game [and I know that's a bit chicken and egg]). Once you give a Fighter a rule for breaking someone's sword, then you're tacitly admitting that no one else can do that. But once anyone can do it, you have to find a way to make (some) Fighters better at it, which then makes everyone else retroactively crappy at it, and you can only invoke Advantage/Disadvantage so many times, but anything more persnickety than that just walks us back to 3.5 again.

I don't know what the answer is. I think some work on the saving throws, as mentioned up-thread, could help. Saving Throws is one of the few parts of 5E that I find of dubious merit, conceptually, and also poorly executed. Some different ways to short-change or avoid effects or other rules would be helpful. Maybe some auto-crit rules or insta-kills. A some more debuffs for 'hamstringing' or the like. I remember the old 'Heroic Fray' rule from 2E whereby a Fighter (and only a Fighter) got one attack per round PER level when fighting enemies of less than one HD each. It was fun that, every now and again, the Fighter got to activate super Saiyan mode and just go ham on a pile of Mooks.

I remember when 3.5 was just starting to phase out there were a lot of attempts to fix the balancing due to the issues in the mechanics. Legend pushed for everyone to act like a full caster, no one played it. 4E made everyone act like Tome of Battle, it wasn't that popular. Pathfinder fixed next to nothing and was very popular by comparison.

5E is the most popular edition ever, because it roughly works and is easy to learn and play. I think it is important to realize that any balancing done has to leave it just as simple or it will be less popular.

[LordShade]

@Sharkforce - agree with everything you said. Reading it makes me wonder how the designers put together such a ramshackle, modular system full of legacy appendages from 1e/OD&D with virtually no editing, balancing or consideration of how various optional rules systems would work together, and yet somehow the game was still super fun and satisfying no matter what kind of character you made.

I would give you a bonus rep if I could for the Earthdawn reference. Didn't play it much, but did roll an elementalist once. Remember feeling pretty useless in battles compared to the air dancing troll and obsidiman warriors, but was a fun game anyway.

[Morty]

I don't think "fighters are boring beatsticks but they're very good at it and wizards will melt if something looks at them funny" is a sustainable long-term solution.

[PhoenixPhyre]

@Sharkforce - agree with everything you said. Reading it makes me wonder how the designers put together such a ramshackle, modular system full of legacy appendages from 1e/OD&D with virtually no editing, balancing or consideration of how various optional rules systems would work together, and yet somehow the game was still super fun and satisfying no matter what kind of character you made.

I would give you a bonus rep if I could for the Earthdawn reference. Didn't play it much, but did roll an elementalist once. Remember feeling pretty useless in battles compared to the air dancing troll and obsidiman warriors, but was a fun game anyway.

I have a hunch that most of the issue was that it was really hard to get together with other eggheads and optimize the crap out of things (and thus find all the breakpoints) before the internet really took off. Because unless you're embedded deeply in optimization culture (ie these forums), the whole martial/caster thing barely raises its head except in the most extreme places (ie scenario designers who enforce the One True Way/Spell to solve this issue).

Most of it comes from assuming that only magic has the right to be cool, so anything cool must be from a spell. Kill that off by letting people do cool things regardless of where it comes from and you get 90% of the way there. Enforce the actual written restrictions on spells and don't let them do more than they say they do and you get another chunk of the way. Enough so that unless you're chasing challenge or actively looking for disparity, it basically falls beneath the noise floor.

Edit: the key is that perception really is most of reality here. If you perceive that martials are weak, you'll find plenty of places that confirm that. If you don't have that fixed mindset and aren't looking for those gaps, they don't show up. If you have the opposite mindset, you'll see that as well (cf all the people who claimed that the 3e monk was too strong).

[LordShade]

I don't think "fighters are boring beatsticks but they're very good at it and wizards will melt if something looks at them funny" is a sustainable long-term solution.

2e was around for a long time and some of us still love it. Maybe we're just grognards.

Personally, I like the design philosophy behind making everything unbalanced so that things end up balanced. It's the same philosophy behind games like DOTA 2 and Fall from Heaven 2. Making everything do 1d8 damage per 5 levels with different kinds of reskins is simply uninteresting to me.

[Morty]

2e was around for a long time and some of us still love it. Maybe we're just grognards.

Personally, I like the design philosophy behind making everything unbalanced so that things end up balanced. It's the same philosophy behind games like DOTA 2 and Fall from Heaven 2. Making everything do 1d8 damage per 5 levels with different kinds of reskins is simply uninteresting to me.

But that's not what anybody is suggesting. And 2E's solution is to boil down interactions between fighters and wizards to one thing and one thing only - wizards dump buffs on fighters, fighters go and wreck face. Not very varied if you ask me.

[Sorinth]

as far as how to bring that into 5th edition, I couldn't help you there. the best advice I can give is that in an entirely different game I play called Earthdawn, warriors are far more effective in combat relative to magicians than D&D has it, and even so nobody seems to complain when I bring a magician to a game that I'm dragging down the party. personally, I think there is a lot more room to make warriors the masters of combat at higher levels without making spellcasters feel weak.

One option is to have more creatures with limited magic immunity like the Rakshasa. No reason for example that Adult Dragons couldn't be immune to spells 3rd level and Ancient ones immune to 5th level spells or lower. It would make buffing the martial a more optimal strategy as the spellcasters would have a limited number of options to deal damage. Similarly more elemental immunities instead of resistances hurt spellcasters without impacting martials much.

You don't want to make spellcasters to be useless, but if half the battles the enemies (Or subset of the enemies) were immune to lower level spells then it's harder for the spellcaster to have the right spell. That said Warlocks especially would need a way to punch through those magic defences since they are cantriping so much.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One option is to have more creatures with limited magic immunity like the Rakshasa. No reason for example that Adult Dragons couldn't be immune to spells 3rd level and Ancient ones immune to 5th level spells or lower. It would make buffing the martial a more optimal strategy as the spellcasters would have a limited number of options to deal damage. Similarly more elemental immunities instead of resistances hurt spellcasters without impacting martials much.

You don't want to make spellcasters to be useless, but if half the battles the enemies (Or subset of the enemies) were immune to lower level spells then it's harder for the spellcaster to have the right spell. That said Warlocks especially would need a way to punch through those magic defences since they are cantriping so much.

But the big issue, as I see it, isn't combat at all. In combat, they're fairly evenly matched. Or at least within normal ranges. And going down that path means that you're hardening the martial == combat only mentality which is the core of the problem.

[Notafish]

I've never had a campaign go past Level 9, so I've never encountered the truly game-breaking differences between martials and casters as a player or a DM. At lower levels, I feel that there are still a lot of issues with balance,(in terms of time rather than utility, mostly), and martials at lower levels might change things at higher levels as well. At early levels, casters have a good chance of hogging the spotlight due to needing to consider all their options or adjudicate spell outcomes. Rogues have their Cunning Action to play with (and Sneak Attack is good fun), and monks/battlemasters can make use of a limited number of bonus action tricks, but most martial characters have few choices to make besides picking targets for their attacks in combat.

If it's not clear already, I think the Rogue is the fun martial class, and the other non-casters would be well-served with more Cunning-Action-style options for bonus actions that can be used at will, ideally without competing with other class features. Buffing everyone at level 3 would entail reconfiguring encounter balance, but even changing Extra Attack at level 5 to Extra Action could make the martial classes more interesting.

Might not do much for power balance, but it might stave off the ennui at the table.

[Grod_The_Giant]

@Sharkforce - agree with everything you said. Reading it makes me wonder how the designers put together such a ramshackle, modular system full of legacy appendages from 1e/OD&D with virtually no editing, balancing or consideration of how various optional rules systems would work together, and yet somehow the game was still super fun and satisfying no matter what kind of character you made.
Because the primary design goal was a game that "feels like d&d," complete with all the usual sacred cows, and a side note of "approachable." 4e's release was such a ****show that they didn't dare make any major changes to the formula-- and without major changes, you're never going to have d&d fighters and d&d wizards interacting with the world in comperable ways.

Don't forget, 5e was designed with one ear hooked up to the internet--the poor developers must have been drowning in pushback against every idea they threw out there.

#

Seriously, though, if you want to see a system where "everyone can do crazy stuff in and out of combat," check out Exalted. It's appropriately 300% nuts, and it's not even close to being "balanced," but nothing does "crazy noncombat abilities" like it. (It also will make you tear your eyes out at the complexity, and is FUN AS HELL once you get it rolling).

[Morty]

Seriously, though, if you want to see a system where "everyone can do crazy stuff in and out of combat," check out Exalted. It's appropriately 300% nuts, and it's not even close to being "balanced," but nothing does "crazy noncombat abilities" like it. (It also will make you tear your eyes out at the complexity, and is FUN AS HELL once you get it rolling).

If you want a version of Exalted that doesn't make your hair go grey with complexity, Exalted: Essence finished a Kickstarter recently. But in general, yes, D&D could learn a lot from Exalted when it comes to letting all character types do something cool.

[TaiLiu]

So in other words it falls to the GM to mitigate all the Ys while ensuring that other characters have the opportunity to engage with the Xs along desired avenues.
Yeah, agreed. There's a qualitative difference between mundane skills and utility spells that doesn't feel very good. Many utility spells just say you can do something in exchange for a spell slot, but you always have to roll for a skill, and very often you don't know what the DC is. It'd be nice if they just picked one or the other.


One option is to have more creatures with limited magic immunity like the Rakshasa. No reason for example that Adult Dragons couldn't be immune to spells 3rd level and Ancient ones immune to 5th level spells or lower. It would make buffing the martial a more optimal strategy as the spellcasters would have a limited number of options to deal damage. Similarly more elemental immunities instead of resistances hurt spellcasters without impacting martials much.

You don't want to make spellcasters to be useless, but if half the battles the enemies (Or subset of the enemies) were immune to lower level spells then it's harder for the spellcaster to have the right spell. That said Warlocks especially would need a way to punch through those magic defences since they are cantriping so much.

But the big issue, as I see it, isn't combat at all. In combat, they're fairly evenly matched. Or at least within normal ranges. And going down that path means that you're hardening the martial == combat only mentality which is the core of the problem.
I agree with PhoenixPhyre's assessment. In The Lesser Key of Sargon, Michael Obermeier argues that martial combat supremacy has already been achieved: almost nothing is immune to magical slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning damage, which the martial classes can perform well at will.

But I'd also argue that I don't think there's a super large discrepancy between spellcasters and non-spellcasters in terms of actual in-session utility. (Though it does exist, and it does feel bad.) I feel like a lot of the most extraordinary forms of utility have been placed at the end of tier 2 and beyond. Teleportation circle is a 5th level spell, and teleport is a 7th.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If you want a version of Exalted that doesn't make your hair go grey with complexity, Exalted: Essence finished a Kickstarter recently. But in general, yes, D&D could learn a lot from Exalted when it comes to letting all character types do something cool.
I have heard good things about Essence.

If you want a d&d version, the Mythic Powers in my Grimoire are...sort of the same idea? I certainly stole a lot of ideas from Exalted charms. In a nutshell, you pick a sunset of skills you're proficient in and unlock increasingly powerful abilities. So, like...

Investigation
You can take the Search action as a bonus action. When you spring a trap, you may use a reaction to roll a new Intelligence (Investigation) check to spot that trap. If you succeed, you do not trigger the trap.

Beginning at 5th level, by spending one minute examining a scene, you can reconstruct the exact physical actions taken there within the last twenty-four hours. You can determine how many times someone was stabbed by the pattern of blood splatters, how long a thief lurked in one place by the depth of their footprints, and so on. An Investigation check might be required if one of the parties attempted to hide evidence of their presence or actions.

Beginning at 11th level, you can reconstruct physical actions from up to a week ago. When you do, you can also determine the emotions each participant was feeling at the time.

Beginning at 17th level, you can reconstruct physical actions from up to a year ago. By spending one hour meditating on a scene, you can mentally reenact history, replaying the scene from the perspective of a participant as though you were there at the time. While doing so, you can examine evidence that is no longer present, and recreate fine movements so exactly that you could read what a participant was writing at the time.

[Sorinth]

But I'd also argue that I don't think there's a super large discrepancy between spellcasters and non-spellcasters in terms of actual in-session utility. (Though it does exist, and it does feel bad.) I feel like a lot of the most extraordinary forms of utility have been placed at the end of tier 2 and beyond. Teleportation circle is a 5th level spell, and teleport is a 7th.

Although I can understand why spells like Teleport get listed in these discussions, I'm not sure I've ever felt awesome or cool using spells like Teleport. It feels more like it's your job to have these spells for the party, much like a Cleric has to have healing spells and Revivify. The expectation is that you will have them and it's more about enabling the party as a whole to go on and/or continue with an adventure then something cool that your character can do that nobody else can.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But I'd also argue that I don't think there's a super large discrepancy between spellcasters and non-spellcasters in terms of actual in-session utility. (Though it does exist, and it does feel bad.) I feel like a lot of the most extraordinary forms of utility have been placed at the end of tier 2 and beyond. Teleportation circle is a 5th level spell, and teleport is a 7th.

I agree that it's not super huge unless the DM (or scenario writer) decides to make it huge. Usually by the mindset that says that the only way to have significant impacts is via spells. Or by planning too far in advance/too linearly (so sequence breaking becomes a big visible issue). I actually like when people have teleport--it lets me write bigger scenarios that span more, which lets me explore more of the setting[1]. My current party got a helm of teleportation pretty early (level 9-ish) and have used it to great effect. But that's one thing--those "utility" spells generally are pretty easily replaced by magic items or just being creative. The party has also relied just as much on some gryphon mounts they acquired. Not so much because I planned for them to acquire them, but because they made friends with a group of people who in-setting were known for gryphon mounts. That's been almost more of a plot-enabler than teleport.

And anyway, I don't consider "being a walking taxi driver" to be all that much of a special thing. Sure, you can go lots of places faster. But that's good for the whole party, not some kind of unique influence on the narrative. And can be done in many other ways (and not all campaigns find it useful at all). And really, those spells are the ones that come up a lot.

Edit: swordsaged by Sorith while I was distracted.

[MrStabby]

A common complaint in D&D is that martial and half-caster characters become weak at high levels relative to full-caster characters. In earlier editions of D&D this was exacerbated by the Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards issue, as Wizards gained higher level spell slots and their lower level ones scaled with level as well, meaning a high level wizard not only had twice as many first level slots for Magic Missile, his first level Magic Missile spells did twice as much damage. 5th edition D&D fixed some of these problems, replacing caster-level scaling of spells with upcasting, and giving martials a few abilities with non-linear scaling (Action Surge improves quadratically with extra attack, Expertise and Reliable Talent make a mockery of bounded accuracy), but its basic design following the Adventuring Day concept means that a fully rested Wizard is simply going to devastate any single encounter and completely outshine a martial or half-caster if they don't need to save any spells for later.

I see lots of threads talking about potential solutions, mostly involving nerfing spell-casters, so I wanted to start a thread (rather than hijack an ongoing discussion of another proposed solution) to discuss actual solutions that have worked in the past, both in 5e and previous editions of D&D. By solutions, I am specifically talking avoiding players feeling unhappy at higher levels because their martial character doesn't feel as powerful or significant to the story and the party's success as the full caster characters, whether this is done by nerfing casters, buffing martials, or solutions completely unrelated to game rules (maybe the Wizard's player has to buy the group a pizza every time they cast Wish).


Past Solutions to high-level caster dominance, plus their potential applicability to 5e--these are the ones I'm aware of, I'd love to hear more.

Encounter Design/Attrition: The intended solution for 5e is to simply follow the same adventuring day construct as at lower levels, forcing the caster PCs to either expend higher level spells to overcome threats before the big boss fight, or knowingly hold back on their magical nukes, giving martial characters a chance to shine in the earlier battles. You do this by increasing the number of encounters between long rests, either by sending enemies in waves, enforcing time pressure, or increasing the time required between long rests. Anti-magic/wild magic zones or magic immune monster for some of the encounters can also do the job, but this can also come off as heavy handed. Personally this has worked well in 5e campaign games I've run, where the DM is deeply familiar with the PCs capabilities and how they approach problems, but has fallen flat when trying to balance games at conventions or high level one-shots.

Casters and Henchman: Another solution is just to roll with the fact that full casters seem "better", and have all the PCs play full casters while using henchmen rules for the martials in the party. I know that some 1st edition groups played this way. In 5e this means borrowing or home-brewing some henchman rules, but that's not too bad.

Politics/Cohorts: BECMI/AD&D also buffed higher level martials by effectively making them literally more popular at high levels. A high level fighter would just naturally attract followers and the opportunity to build a keep, while a Wizard would attract some apprentices but have a much harder time building a personal army. BECMI in particular made high level fighters especially effective at leading armies, as well as presenting situations like tournaments and jousting where you aren't just allowed to fireball your opponent or turn them to stone, keeping skills in hand-to-hand combat relevant through politics. Additionally, in AD&D some martial classes (the Ranger in particular) had the chance to get the coolest potential followers, like werebears and even (if I remember) young dragons. Consistent rules like that would be hard to formulate, but there's no reason you can't have a rough rule of thumb as a DM that the martials get cooler followers. In my experience Barbarians and Rangers suffer worst at high levels, and its not hard to see either of those classes attracting powerful nature spirits to their cause, for example.

Magic Items: Speaking of DMs solving imbalance problems by giving out cool stuff, another solution throughout D&D has been giving lagging characters cool magic items. First edition really codified this, as the most powerful possible weapons were generally intelligent swords that had a wide range of powers and were effectively usable mostly (sometimes only) by fighters. This generally requires significant DM work in crafting unique magic items, and runs risks in accidentally creating overpowered ones, but it usually works pretty well. You can argue it only papers over the problem, and can also lead to characters more defined by their equipment than their abilities, but magic item bribery does a good job of keeping players happy.

I tried a lot of different solutions to this; the problem is that what works for me won't always work for my players. Honestly, I have found the best solution to be the most obvious. Allow players to roll up a new character. Seriously.

If a player values the high level out of combat problem solving abilities of a particular class more than the beating things with a sharp piece of metal features of their current class, then let them switch. If someone values being a ranger more than being a wizard, then let them play a ranger. The disruption to a storyline of one character swapping out for another is no worse than character death and most campaigns don't play with that particular protection on.






Honestly high level minions/army building is really the only big breaking point. Curve that and the difference is small enough that most players could reasonably play most classes without feeling left out.

I can't agree with this at all. Teleportation, pass without trace, invisibility, polymorph, plane shift, wish, fly, darkness, silence, fabricate, divinaion, skywrite... there are loads and loads of things that casters can do to leave martials feeling left out. It is really a differen type of game that only some characters get to play.


I don't think "fighters are boring beatsticks but they're very good at it and wizards will melt if something looks at them funny" is a sustainable long-term solution.

Yeah, I agree with this. I mean balance is good... but balance that is also fun for everyone is better. Sronger but mechancally one dimensional isn't fun for a lot of people and whilst some people do enjoy character generation others prefer playing the game than spending their time rolling up new characters every session.




One option is to have more creatures with limited magic immunity like the Rakshasa. No reason for example that Adult Dragons couldn't be immune to spells 3rd level and Ancient ones immune to 5th level spells or lower. It would make buffing the martial a more optimal strategy as the spellcasters would have a limited number of options to deal damage. Similarly more elemental immunities instead of resistances hurt spellcasters without impacting martials much.

You don't want to make spellcasters to be useless, but if half the battles the enemies (Or subset of the enemies) were immune to lower level spells then it's harder for the spellcaster to have the right spell. That said Warlocks especially would need a way to punch through those magic defences since they are cantriping so much.

I think this is a dangerous road that would exclude a lot of options. Your thematic caster is completely dead. More fire immune enemies means your fire-mage concept is unplayable. More charm immune enemies means the enchanter is unplayable. This kind of hard exclusion forces players to build optimised characters rather than thematic characters. Every caster then becomes pretty homogenous with the need to pick that one good buff spell or that one good control spell that doesnt need a save. I get that a level limit on spells via limited immunity is a bit different but it runs into similar issues, and I don't like the idea of telling players they can only really interact with a subset of the encounter I have chosen. Tactial choices that make some things tougher is fine - outright immunity to certain spells or effects is less good.

If "buffing the martial" becomes optimal and if you make the gap between suboptimal and optimal large, then it dicourages people from playing casters any other way and a narrower range of good options is not what I want to see.

It may have to come to something like this, but I would hope casters could remain fun.

[Sorinth]

I can't agree with this at all. Teleportation, pass without trace, invisibility, polymorph, plane shift, wish, fly, darkness, silence, fabricate, divinaion, skywrite... there are loads and loads of things that casters can do to leave martials feeling left out. It is really a differen type of game that only some characters get to play.

...

I think this is a dangerous road that would exclude a lot of options. Your thematic caster is completely dead. More fire immune enemies means your fire-mage concept is unplayable. More charm immune enemies means the enchanter is unplayable. This kind of hard exclusion forces players to build optimised characters rather than thematic characters. Every caster then becomes pretty homogenous with the need to pick that one good buff spell or that one good control spell that doesnt need a save. I get that a level limit on spells via limited immunity is a bit different but it runs into similar issues, and I don't like the idea of telling players they can only really interact with a subset of the encounter I have chosen. Tactial choices that make some things tougher is fine - outright immunity to certain spells or effects is less good.

If "buffing the martial" becomes optimal and if you make the gap between suboptimal and optimal large, then it dicourages people from playing casters any other way and a narrower range of good options is not what I want to see.

It may have to come to something like this, but I would hope casters could remain fun.

It's ironic that on the one hand you say these spells allow casters to be the only ones to interact/play but then also say that immunity forces those casters to only interact/play a subset of encounters. Seems like no matter what some players will interact with only a subset of encounters.

Your concern is valid, but all I can say is there needs to be a difference between specialists and generalist. I would have no problems with a Pyromancer themed character being able to penetrate fire immunity to a degree, or a real Enchanter penetrating charm immunity. But the Necromancer probably shouldn't be able to Dominate Monster as easily as the Enchanter or blast as well with a Fireball as someone dedicated to that.

[MrStabby]

It's ironic that on the one hand you say these spells allow casters to be the only ones to interact/play but then also say that immunity forces those casters to only interact/play a subset of encounters. Seems like no matter what some players will interact with only a subset of encounters.

Your concern is valid, but all I can say is there needs to be a difference between specialists and generalist. I would have no problems with a Pyromancer themed character being able to penetrate fire immunity to a degree, or a real Enchanter penetrating charm immunity. But the Necromancer probably shouldn't be able to Dominate Monster as easily as the Enchanter or blast as well with a Fireball as someone dedicated to that.

I don't think there is anything odd about saying that a situation where some subset of players can't contribute is bad - be they players of casters or of martial characters. It is just the same standard applied to both.

But absolutely agree that there should be some additional specialist support and that generalists should not be as good as they are in all their areas. My personal game I am working on uses different stats for different spell types so if you are a wizard you would use one stat for your DC for enchantments and another stat for your fireballs which promotes specilaisation.

[Hytheter]

The complaints I get from my casual non-caster players at high level is that, even though they don't feel left behind or out-matched, there are only so many Cool Things the rules say they can do. ... What they'd like is a way to reflect who awesome they are in the rules themselves.

I have to say this isn't where I thought your post was going. You had me thinking "yeah, fair enough, the playerbase at large probably doesn't think about this stuff." But I think the fact that even these players find themselves feeling like they don't have enough cool tricks in their arsenal is telling.


It's tricky because, in order to really give them that, 5E combat would have to be granular to a level that would defeat the entire design philosophy behind it (a philosophy that, on balance, in my opinion, was an excellent direction to take D&D and works astoundingly well for the kinds of players I see playing the game [and I know that's a bit chicken and egg]). Once you give a Fighter a rule for breaking someone's sword, then you're tacitly admitting that no one else can do that. But once anyone can do it, you have to find a way to make (some) Fighters better at it, which then makes everyone else retroactively crappy at it, and you can only invoke Advantage/Disadvantage so many times, but anything more persnickety than that just walks us back to 3.5 again.

I definitely get that. I think the Battle Master provides a good approach to this sort of thing - Trip Attack isn't cool because nobody else can knock enemies prone but because nobody else gets to do a weapon attack and its associated damage at the same time. In other words you can make them better at the trick by letting them get extra stuff on top if it rather than by just adding a bonus.

[SharkForce]

I don't think "fighters are boring beatsticks but they're very good at it and wizards will melt if something looks at them funny" is a sustainable long-term solution.

allow me to refer you to this:


I would give you a bonus rep if I could for the Earthdawn reference. Didn't play it much, but did roll an elementalist once. Remember feeling pretty useless in battles compared to the air dancing troll and obsidiman warriors, but was a fun game anyway.

in combination with my earlier observation that when I bring a magician to those games, nobody complains that I'm bringing the party down.

this is not because my experience is wildly different in that game; my magician is certainly not bringing the same level of contribution to combat as the warriors, or even close to it. rather it is something very simple: earthdawn actually *believes* it is a three-pillar game, and D&D does not. or at least, not any more.

earthdawn has disciplines (something like a class, but not exactly the same) that are simply not focused on combat. at all. you can be a troubadour and focus on the social portion of the game. you can be a scout and focus on the exploration part of the game. you can be a magician and focus on bringing utility wherever it is needed. you can be a warrior and focus on combat. all of these are viable choices.

in contrast, D&D for all its talk of using 3 pillars... really it isn't. you can have a class like fighter that is basically entirely a combat-focused class. but then we go look at another class that is supposed to offer increased capabilities in... let's say exploration. so we have rogues, which have considerably more in the way of exploration abilities. they have much better access to exploration-oriented tool and skill proficiencies, can get expertise in them, and eventually never roll poorly on them. they can also be much better at the social aspect of the game as well. do they pay a major price in combat effectiveness for that? well, frankly... not much of one. with a bit of effort, a rogue can be perfectly capable in combat, can even excel in combat, without losing out on exploration at all, and without losing out much in social abilities if that is their preferences.

you literally could not introduce a class that was a specialist in exploration at the expense of combat without a massive outpouring of nerd rage. why? because D&D does not believe it is a game about exploration. it says it is, but where's the support for that? the entire *concept* of rituals essentially says "it isn't worth spending resources on these social or exploration abilities, only combat is important enough to always cost resources".

so, it is very simple: it is perfectly fine to have someone be a god in combat, as long as everyone else has their time to shine too. it is perfectly acceptable for pure combat characters to contribute more than anyone else in combat if contribution in other areas is given value.

my magician in earthdawn isn't great at combat. in terms of dealing damage, my strongest attack is usually around half the damage of *one* of the *3-5* attacks that a high circle warrior can dish out. but that's fine, because I'm providing the flaming weapon spell or boosting the warrior's initiative to go before the enemies get a turn so they can just remove one or two from the fight, or maybe I'm improving their shield to provide better defence, or casting a spell that harries opponents so that they're easier to hit... and when the fight is over and it comes time to heal up, I'm the one providing magical food that increases healing. my elementalist is the one that can track the enemies to wherever they came from. my versatility side-trip into nethermancy means that I can turn into a bat and scout their camp without drawing attention. it's my ability to cast crunch climb to help us get safely over the walls of their little fort.

it is perfectly fine that my human elementalist has paid for his effectiveness outside of combat by being less effective in combat, because the game genuinely acknowledges that contributions in areas other than combat are valued and worthwhile.

if D&D REALLY IS a three-pillar game, then it is perfectly fine for the wizard that can cast fly and invisibility and levitate and dimension door and suggestion (and so on) to look at the fighter in combat and simply accept that the fighter is really, really good at combat, and that their specialization in one area has really paid off when it comes time to solve problems in that area... because that wizard will know that when it comes time to get the party up a cliff, or across an underground river, or whatever else, the wizard will still have a time to shine.

as it stands, in D&D most everyone must be basically equal in combat for anyone to accept it as being effective at all. oh, it's not a perfect equality or anything. but it's pretty close. meanwhile, any difference in any other scenario is basically just written off as not being important.

and that is why I say there's plenty of room for the warrior types to simply be more effective in combat. that should be their job. that's *why* you bring a fighter instead of a wizard, because the fighter isn't just some chump that could be replaced by a summoned monster or by polymorphing someone into a giant ape. when you get into a fight, you are glad that you have specifically a fighter, because it isn't essentially the same as having someone who isn't as narrowly specialized.

[Sorinth]

I don't think there is anything odd about saying that a situation where some subset of players can't contribute is bad - be they players of casters or of martial characters. It is just the same standard applied to both.

But absolutely agree that there should be some additional specialist support and that generalists should not be as good as they are in all their areas. My personal game I am working on uses different stats for different spell types so if you are a wizard you would use one stat for your DC for enchantments and another stat for your fireballs which promotes specilaisation.

It's not odd, it's just a different way to see things. In the end it's still a team game, so if certain situations are ill suited to specific characters that's not a problem so long as other situations are the reverse. So if half the fights the spellcaster has to buff the martials because their other tricks don't work all that well and the other half of fights the martials have to protect the spellcasters because their tricks don't work that well then I don't really see a problem. In fact I think it's probably a good thing that the spotlight shifts between players because if everyone can interact equally well in every situation then the "better/optimized" player will always have the spotlight on them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's not odd, it's just a different way to see things. In the end it's still a team game, so if certain situations are ill suited to specific characters that's not a problem so long as other situations are the reverse. So if half the fights the spellcaster has to buff the martials because their other tricks don't work all that well and the other half of fights the martials have to protect the spellcasters because their tricks don't work that well then I don't really see a problem. In fact I think it's probably a good thing that the spotlight shifts between players because if everyone can interact equally well in every situation then the "better/optimized" player will always have the spotlight on them.

I dislike serial spotlights. I prefer if everyone can contribute to everything, with specializations providing benefit but not allowing domination. Because I don't want to play 1/X of the time, I want to play all the time.

And yes, this applies out of combat. I dislike games where the targets are set so only the face can contribute in social stuff. And characters who have min-maxed hard enough to only have a narrow band they can interact with (and then dominate the things they can do). I don't want any Loads, in anything. In fact, I prefer when challenges are designed so that as many characters as possible must contribute to win through. I think that ones that can be solved by one person aren't really challenges at all.

[Bosh]

I don't think giving martials better saving throws or even making them better at combat is going to solve the underlying problem.

Imagine if all T3+ martials were given the ability of 'whenever the current XP for the combat encounter falls below Deadly, you can instantly end and win the encounter'. That still wouldn't solve the perceived problems of legendary warriors still not being able to travel to the Cloud City of Eus or shatter the Bone Spire unless they had spellcaster help or the DM gave them Convenient Plot Coupons.

A lot of stuff could be done in that area, martials really need some "amazing feats of strength and skill" or what have you that allows them to do amazing things out of combat but you can also do that by smacking casters upside the head with the nerf bat, which is probably an easier solution.


This could practically be its own topic, but the way save proficiencies are done in 5e is one of the things that really irks me. Every class has different abilities. There are 4 different possible hit dice. The proficiencies in weapons and armor vary hugely by class. Skills also vary a lot with different classes getting different amounts, and some also getting tools or other bonuses.

But for some reason, every class must have exactly 2 save proficiencies. And one must be Str, Int or Cha, while the other must be from Dex, Wis, or Con. Why???

Why can't the martial characters, that are all about that power fantasy that often involves shaking off powerful detrimental effects, have some more proficiencies. That would be a huge buff to their power and viability. Or, even lacking that, why can't they at least have saves that fit their lore and mechanics. Barbarians use Str and Con, and so they get Str and Con saves. But Rangers and Monks, who use Dex and Wis, can't have Dex and Wis saves because they are both in the "good" save category.

Its honestly really frustrating. They mastered the idea that each class can be designed separately from the others in a lot of ways, but this one way they decided to stick to rigidly, and I think it is to the game's detriment.

If I was designing things, I would probably have most martial classes get significantly more saves. Maybe something like 3 from the start, based entirely on thematics and mechanics, and not any "strong" or "weak" qualifier, with an additional save gained at some point by the start of each new tier. By the time they hit the top tier of the game, they would not have any obvious weakness, which I think plays very well into the fantasy that people want for these characters. Meanwhile, casters would likely stay at 2, maybe getting a third later on.

But yeah, that could be an entire topic of its own.

At the VERY least give some martials half save profs (jack of all trades style) at higher levels.

[TaiLiu]

Although I can understand why spells like Teleport get listed in these discussions, I'm not sure I've ever felt awesome or cool using spells like Teleport. It feels more like it's your job to have these spells for the party, much like a Cleric has to have healing spells and Revivify. The expectation is that you will have them and it's more about enabling the party as a whole to go on and/or continue with an adventure then something cool that your character can do that nobody else can.

And anyway, I don't consider "being a walking taxi driver" to be all that much of a special thing. Sure, you can go lots of places faster. But that's good for the whole party, not some kind of unique influence on the narrative. And can be done in many other ways (and not all campaigns find it useful at all). And really, those spells are the ones that come up a lot.
Yeah, I mostly mentioned teleportation spells just cuz other people did: I agree that a lot of the time it just functions like a fast travel button. (Which is incredible to have in a lot of stories, but it feels like a lot of published adventures don't really take advantage of time constraints.) I do think the shorter range teleportation spells like misty step and dimension door are really cool mobility options, but the longer ranged ones aren't nearly as impressive.


I agree that it's not super huge unless the DM (or scenario writer) decides to make it huge. Usually by the mindset that says that the only way to have significant impacts is via spells. Or by planning too far in advance/too linearly (so sequence breaking becomes a big visible issue). I actually like when people have teleport--it lets me write bigger scenarios that span more, which lets me explore more of the setting[1]. My current party got a helm of teleportation pretty early (level 9-ish) and have used it to great effect. But that's one thing--those "utility" spells generally are pretty easily replaced by magic items or just being creative. The party has also relied just as much on some gryphon mounts they acquired. Not so much because I planned for them to acquire them, but because they made friends with a group of people who in-setting were known for gryphon mounts. That's been almost more of a plot-enabler than teleport.
I think the fact that so many adventures are like railroad tracks really limits the potential utility of utility spells, too. When sequence breaking happens, the DM is incentivized to push people back onto the tracks.

[Asisreo1]

I feel like everyone is kinda overstating casters in high-level scenarios. The more utility spells they take, the less combat spells they can have. Combat spells ordinarily aren't that good unless you have the perfect one, but the chances of you having that diminishes when your spells prepared or known are occupied by out-of-combat situational spells.

Also, spells with "guaranteed effects" are usually not guaranteed. Teleport has an uncomfortably high chance of failure. The DM can outright deny Plane Shift.

If spells with material components are "very cheap" at high-levels for appropriately high-level spells, it might be because "lifestyle expenses" aren't being used to their potential. 1500gp is not alot when your adventurers can't live a modest life for 5 years with that money.

[jas61292]

If spells with material components are "very cheap" at high-levels for appropriately high-level spells, it might be because "lifestyle expenses" aren't being used to their potential. 1500gp is not alot when your adventurers can't live a modest life for 5 years with that money.

The money issue is a weird one, and I'm sure it varies a ton by table. I know that there are people on the internet who very much claim that 1500 gp is absolutely nothing by the time it becomes relevant for spell components, but I have never experienced that in my games. Sure, it would never be so expensive that I would not spend it once if I needed it, but I see some people talk about it as if they could do a simulacrum a day and never run low on cash, and that is totally alien to me.

At the same time, on the issue of lifestyle expenses, my group honestly rarely even uses those. Perhaps the lower amount of treasure we get tends to offset this, but I can't help but feel that if what other people see as cheap seems somewhat expensive to me without taking into account lifestyle expenses, there is no way that they could possibly be taking them into account either.

Ultimately though, I think the idea of expensive components is one that needs an overhaul. I really liked the idea presented in this thread of making powerful spells like these more of a narrative ritual thing, with necessary parts that you simply cannot just buy. It would allow for casters to still be necessary for such things to happen, but put a limit on their ability to do so that actually matters.

[Gignere]

The money issue is a weird one, and I'm sure it varies a ton by table. I know that there are people on the internet who very much claim that 1500 gp is absolutely nothing by the time it becomes relevant for spell components, but I have never experienced that in my games. Sure, it would never be so expensive that I would not spend it once if I needed it, but I see some people talk about it as if they could do a simulacrum a day and never run low on cash, and that is totally alien to me.

At the same time, on the issue of lifestyle expenses, my group honestly rarely even uses those. Perhaps the lower amount of treasure we get tends to offset this, but I can't help but feel that if what other people see as cheap seems somewhat expensive to me without taking into account lifestyle expenses, there is no way that they could possibly be taking them into account either.

Ultimately though, I think the idea of expensive components is one that needs an overhaul. I really liked the idea presented in this thread of making powerful spells like these more of a narrative ritual thing, with necessary parts that you simply cannot just buy. It would allow for casters to still be necessary for such things to happen, but put a limit on their ability to do so that actually matters.

The simulacrum a day usually refers to casting simulacrum with wish, so it removes the need for the expensive material.

[jas61292]

The simulacrum a day usually refers to casting simulacrum with wish, so it removes the need for the expensive material.

While that may be true, I do still think some people legitimately feel that 1500 gp a day at that level is practically nothing. Its really table dependent.

That being said, Wish itself is a whole 'nother broken mess that should totally be removed from being a simple cast. Won't get too into it, but I've always thought that Wish was not only an awful piece of game design, but a stupid and lazy capstone power (both mechanically and thematically) for an arcane caster.

[Gtdead]

There isn't any solution IMO. Not just because martials are too one-dimensional to be fixed, but also because the goal post is changing constantly. My opinion is that martials should have a lower level cap, not being able to progress past T3 (they can still multiclass past that). Caster damage output can be decreased in the meantime so they will have an actual niche and they will be needed, but there is no point for a martial higher than lvl 10 (I'd say 5 but I'm trying to be generous here).


My reasoning:

1) What is power actually? Can martials be more powerful than spell casters?

This is a game about simulating a fantasy. Combat is fun and it's a huge part of the fantasy. However, because we can't have slaves in real life to be the DM for our personal fantasy 4 hours per week, we decided that the usual way to play it is that every party has a quest with an objective that must be completed. If you want high level fighters to be WAY better at fighting (just like they are at lower levels), you need to give wizards all the key abilities that will enable the party to succeed, otherwise no one will play them. This in the end makes casters more powerful because without them there is no campaign, even if the caster himself does absolutely nothing in combat. There is an opinion that the DM is responsible to give access to the party. I disagree. The DM may allow the party to find a plot item to progress, but I care about design, and these items exist because of magic and spellcasters, not because of the DM. The point here is to find a role for high level martials, not to judge if the DM tries to makes the game fun for everyone, because frankly, martials seem like losers in DnD (more on that in point #5).

2) So now the question is: What is a "high level martial" anyway? What defines him? It's way too abstract. Is it damage? And if that's the case, why in 5e, martials don't scale in a manner that makes sense for the whole length of the game, and some of them don't get anything worthwhile past lvl 5? Is it defense? ..no it's not, martials aren't better at surviving. Is it the "legendary warrior" status? Most of the warriors in history or fiction, who attain this title, do so either because they were super smart or because they were super brutal in their decisions. Not because they were the best duelers or had the highest personal kill count.

What is the point of playing a caster? Access to spells. You have a list of spells, and the more levels you gain, the more of them you unlock. If you like the spells, you will play one, if not you won't.
What is the point of playing a martial? If you ask an optimizer, he will tell you that martials don't have the best damage, or the best defense. Most of them don't have much utility, some of them are completely irrelevant in some pillars.

3) So why people play them? I don't think I've ever been in a party without a martial. My answer is Simplicity:

If I nerf casters to the ground, make them completely irrelevant in combat other than buffing the martial, and make Barbarian the most important character once initiative is rolled, will people that usually play this class, continue playing it? If they know that only their decisions will determine if the party will survive another day? My personal opinion is that no, Barbarian's popularity will diminish in this crowd. Of course we will see a Barbarian in every group, but it won't be due to enjoyment, but due to being the enabler that allows the party to have combat in the game. Also no one is going to allow the "chaoteec eveel" edge lord playing this class. Only the mechanically adept (powergamers?) will play it so they can carry. In MMOs, having reliable players playing tank makes things easy in raiding. You can swap out a dps or a healer, but the tank needs to be the most informed in tactics and always be online when needed because usually he gets priority in loot so he's not easily replaceable (and aside from that, you can't trust a random person to know the tactics). Every piece increases both his tanking ability and makes the healer's job easier etc. Tanking is the most important role in WoW and from my experience, the hardest to fill.

4) At high levels, damage seems to be the least important thing, not mechanically, but for player enjoyment. However having the option to do damage is very enjoyable:

Usually (certainly not all the time, but more often than not), whenever someone describes the experience of reaching Tier4, it goes something like this "Wizard was too powerful, the Fighter was getting bored near the end". What did the wizard do and was so powerful? I mean what are the options? Control, utility and outthinking the competition. You can't really have fun by spamming disintegrates at this level mostly because the enemy will just use legendary resistances but also because disintegrate isn't impressive. Fighter probably did more damage than the wizard, yet the player was bored. How can you increase the utility, control and out of combat ability of a martial class without making spellcasting completely irrelevant? It's not possible because it's the reason we have spells in the first place. If I could create a fighter that could planeshift the party, forcecage the big bad, create a simulacrum and throw a meteor swarm at the enemy horde, I'd probably never ever think about playing casters.. what would their point be?

5) Lastly, WotC should take a hint from their own design and be done with the current "High level martial" concept. They need to redefine what it means and shift the paradigm to something that makes sense:

Check the published monsters and try to find a non legendary humanoid martial over CR 9. You may find a rogue or a ranger/paladin, but no warrior type. Do the same for spell casters and you can find up to CR 18. My view is that WotC doesn't know what to do with the high level warrior types conceptually. I'm not big on DnD fiction works so I'm not sure how they handle the "legendary warrior" concept, but ingame, there is an obvious problem.

Level 20 spellcasters are as good at casting as the highest CR spellcaster in existence (and probably better because player spell selection is generally better than the published monster spell selection).
Level 20 martials aren't the best bruisers by a long shot. They have no chances winning while dueling other high CR bruiser monsters.

Edit: So many typos

[MrStabby]

I feel like everyone is kinda overstating casters in high-level scenarios. The more utility spells they take, the less combat spells they can have. Combat spells ordinarily aren't that good unless you have the perfect one, but the chances of you having that diminishes when your spells prepared or known are occupied by out-of-combat situational spells.

Also, spells with "guaranteed effects" are usually not guaranteed. Teleport has an uncomfortably high chance of failure. The DM can outright deny Plane Shift.

If spells with material components are "very cheap" at high-levels for appropriately high-level spells, it might be because "lifestyle expenses" aren't being used to their potential. 1500gp is not alot when your adventurers can't live a modest life for 5 years with that money.

I think you have a bit of a point in terms of the more utility spells, the fewer combat spells a character has. I think this is why people complain about the spells known casters a lot less that the prepared casters in this context. With prepared spells you can swap out for the challange ahead and keep some core spells on your list - which wouldn't be that much of an issue if it were not for these classes also having the best divination/information gathering capabilities with which to prepare for the next day.

Your best utility casters are probably clerics, druids and wizards. Wizards cast rituals from their book and don't even need to prepare them. Clerics get more spells than anyone else so can spare some of them for utility more easily. Druids get wildshape which has huge utility applications and as their combat abilities are more concentration focussed than most they can have the slots for utility left over.

The original sorcerer in the PHB is, to my mind, a really well designed class for this. Your spells known are so tight that you cannot dominate everything but have to make choices about what you want to be good at.

[stoutstien]

I tried a lot of different solutions to this; the problem is that what works for me won't always work for my players. Honestly, I have found the best solution to be the most obvious. Allow players to roll up a new character. Seriously.

If a player values the high level out of combat problem solving abilities of a particular class more than the beating things with a sharp piece of metal features of their current class, then let them switch. If someone values being a ranger more than being a wizard, then let them play a ranger. The disruption to a storyline of one character swapping out for another is no worse than character death and most campaigns don't play with that particular protection on.







I can't agree with this at all. Teleportation, pass without trace, invisibility, polymorph, plane shift, wish, fly, darkness, silence, fabricate, divinaion, skywrite... there are loads and loads of things that casters can do to leave martials feeling left out. It is really a differen type of game that only some characters get to play.


Well I would put wish in the category of spells used to build army's seeing how it's the corner stone of one of the most egregious example. The rest aren't really that bad. Sure they are powerful but hard to make another player feel 100% superfluous.

[MrStabby]

Well I would put wish in the category of spells used to build army's seeing how it's the corner stone of one of the most egregious example. The rest aren't really that bad. Sure they are powerful but hard to make another player feel 100% superfluous.

So if you were playing a ranger, adept at surviving in the wilderness and leading a party safely through the wilds, keeping them fed and finding good places to shelter... you wouldn't feel at all superfluous when the wizard skips over 3 weeks of wilderness travel by just teleporting the party back home?

Or you are playing a thief, a great climber and infiltrator - trying to steal a particular magic item. You won't feel superfluous as you scale the walls and gently pry open the windows only to find someone used scry or a scouting familliar and dimension door to nip in, grab the item and depart?

I mean it is a matter of taste; these would not feel good for me. Indeed this is from personal experience that they don't. I just no longer play non-casters if there are casters in the party.

[Asisreo1]

I think you have a bit of a point in terms of the more utility spells, the fewer combat spells a character has. I think this is why people complain about the spells known casters a lot less that the prepared casters in this context. With prepared spells you can swap out for the challange ahead and keep some core spells on your list - which wouldn't be that much of an issue if it were not for these classes also having the best divination/information gathering capabilities with which to prepare for the next day.

Your best utility casters are probably clerics, druids and wizards. Wizards cast rituals from their book and don't even need to prepare them. Clerics get more spells than anyone else so can spare some of them for utility more easily. Druids get wildshape which has huge utility applications and as their combat abilities are more concentration focussed than most they can have the slots for utility left over.

The original sorcerer in the PHB is, to my mind, a really well designed class for this. Your spells known are so tight that you cannot dominate everything but have to make choices about what you want to be good at.
I think prepared casters being the best utility casters are very much by design. There aren't actually many known casters, but the known casters usually have the widest variety of spells.

Bards have access to all kinds of spells. They're truly a jack-of-all-trades where they can cast healing magic, but also magic closely associated with the arcane like teleportation and illusions. With their magical secrets, they can cover every base, though they aren't as genuine replacement for both a utility arcane caster like the wizard and a cleric or druid.

Rangers are a half-caster yet they're actually very proficient in combat without the use of spells or slots. Really one spell per an adventuring day geared towards combat is enough to be excellent in battle. The rest of their spells can be allotted to utility, and their utility is actually very good. Better than the paladin for sure. The restriction is the small amount of spells known, which is the basis of the "utility vs combat" aspect of spellcasters.

Warlocks are essentially half-baked martials with extreme utility potential but their spell class list keeps them in line, as well as their limited spells known. With a few castings per short rest, warlocks can throw out fairly high level utility spells without breaking a sweat. You can use telekinesis, sending, clairvoyance, scrying, detect thoughts, invisibility, seeming and others to your heart's content. Its just that these spells are almost the limit to what you can do that aren't a bit too niche like Dream or combat focused.

Sorcerers have an interesting case. They have the fewest "spells known" of any full caster, but they have the same amount of spells known as a bard if you include cantrips. Cantrips are extremely important because they allow the caster to have a mode of utility without taking an extended amount of time or spell slots. Cantrips are also usually extremely versatile. Spells like Prestidigitation, minor illusion, dancing lights, mage hand, message, and message can all be used to great effect. Metamagic is excellent for adjusting their spells to whatever utility needs they might have. Utility metamagic is usually the cheapest. Distant clairvoyance quadruples your range from an area of about 3 sq. miles to over 12 sq. miles. Their font of magic also gives them more efficiency compared to a wizard.

[stoutstien]

So if you were playing a ranger, adept at surviving in the wilderness and leading a party safely through the wilds, keeping them fed and finding good places to shelter... you wouldn't feel at all superfluous when the wizard skips over 3 weeks of wilderness travel by just teleporting the party back home?

Or you are playing a thief, a great climber and infiltrator - trying to steal a particular magic item. You won't feel superfluous as you scale the walls and gently pry open the windows only to find someone used scry or a scouting familliar and dimension door to nip in, grab the item and depart?

I mean it is a matter of taste; these would not feel good for me. Indeed this is from personal experience that they don't. I just no longer play non-casters if there are casters in the party.
Most of those issues is DMs assuming the world evolved without knowledge such effects are possible. In a lot of ways the martial/nonmagical tactics will work more often because sometimes the low tech approach will find faults in the best systems. The BBEG expects someone to try to teleport into his lair but no one crazy enough to try to pass the bog of sadness or steal something from a wizard who has enough magical defense to stop the greediest of dragons by simply stealing the key.
Sort of someone using the clipboard tactic to avoid doing work compared to someone who has an elaborate plan to time their day to avoid any bosses. Both work.

[MrStabby]

Most of those issues is DMs assuming the world evolved without knowledge such effects are possible. In a lot of ways the martial/nonmagical tactics will work more often because sometimes the low tech approach will find faults in the best systems. The BBEG expects someone to try to teleport into his lair but no one crazy enough to try to pass the bog of sadness or steal something from a wizard who has enough magical defense to stop the greediest of dragons by simply stealing the key.
Sort of someone using the clipboard tactic to avoid doing work compared to someone who has an elaborate plan to time their day to avoid any bosses. Both work.

However it works out, it seems to be a serious sytem flaw. If you solve problems with teleport then it is a bad game for players who invested in alternative solutions. If every place a PC tries to teleport to is protected by a forbiddance spell then it is a bad game for whoever invested in the forbiddance spell.

It isn't like you can't force casters to be bad as a DM; an anti magic field covering the whole gameworld does that. The challenge isn't balancing casters - that is trivial. It is doing so such that they are still fun to play.

[Sorinth]

So if you were playing a ranger, adept at surviving in the wilderness and leading a party safely through the wilds, keeping them fed and finding good places to shelter... you wouldn't feel at all superfluous when the wizard skips over 3 weeks of wilderness travel by just teleporting the party back home?

Or you are playing a thief, a great climber and infiltrator - trying to steal a particular magic item. You won't feel superfluous as you scale the walls and gently pry open the windows only to find someone used scry or a scouting familliar and dimension door to nip in, grab the item and depart?

I mean it is a matter of taste; these would not feel good for me. Indeed this is from personal experience that they don't. I just no longer play non-casters if there are casters in the party.

Presumably the Ranger lead the party safely through the wilds to get to the adventure location. If after it's over the Wizard teleports the team home I'm not sure I would care as the Ranger. Getting back home is more often then not superfluous to begin with.

The thief example will feel just as bad whether the other person stole the item with magic or without. But I can see why you might be dissapointed if your wizard did it meaning the heist was easy and didn't involve you.

[Xervous]

If there’s only a bit of climbing and a single window in the way of stealing something, and the rogue is competent, is it unfair to assume that a number of GMs will not ask for a roll (or reliable talent makes rolling for the given DC redundant)?

[Unoriginal]

I think a thief would think any security system that was successfully foiled by a single regular familiar to be too weak to protect anything of value.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If there’s only a bit of climbing and a single window in the way of stealing something, and the rogue is competent, is it unfair to assume that a number of GMs will not ask for a roll (or reliable talent makes rolling for the given DC redundant)?

And the magic mentioned here requires major DM intervention to even work, and is kinda crappy at doing the job--
1. Scrying is quite high level, so that's a major resource being used. Two, if you include the two dimension doors needed. You're looking at a 5th level and two 4th level spells, which at anything but T4 (where a bit of safecracking isn't exactly a challenge for anyone) is most of your highest-power daily resources.
2. You can't scry somewhere you've not been, unless you're scrying a person. Which can fail. The scheme relies on a familiar to get there...but a familiar can't usually open doors or windows, especially not locked ones. Familiars are trivial to keep out. Especially non-pact of the chain ones.
3. Even the simplest of magical (or heck, mundane) alarms will be triggered by such an effort. Without really any way of counteracting them.
4. Dimension door requires you to be within 400' of the target location. So you're blocked by something as simple as a mundane wall around the compound.

Basically, if the DM sets up the scenarios so that magic is a "magic bullet", sure. Magic is overwhelming. But that's due to the DM putting their thumb on the scale. And these aren't even anti-magic precautions in general--they're just general good sense practiced by anything even remotely attempting to be secure in the real world. Don't have open doors (solving the familiar issue entirely), have intrusion alarms, and don't let unauthorized people close to the building. Throw in some basic magic-world precautions (ie an arcane lock on a door, use of the alarm spell, etc) and you've got something that your wizard really can't do unaided.

Frequently we see DMs (and especially online discussion) giving all the ambiguities to the spell-caster and none to the non-spell caster. Letting the spells do way more than they say they do (because magic) while holding non-spell things to the literal text or a cramped "realism" (whichever is more restrictive). Stop doing that (or, as is actually intended, reverse that, holding spells firmly to the text while letting non-spells do whatever makes sense in context) and you end up in a much healthier place.

And as far as "Well, spellcasters have to dominate otherwise no one would play them..." that's a consequence of wizards (in particular) being a poorly-designed class with no class fiction other than "I can do anything better than the specialists" and "I have all the spells and godlike power." And that's crappy design. The spell list needs to be cut by ~50+% (many of the spells just need to go away) and they need actual class features other than "more spells".

[Doug Lampert]

Structurally that’s all just window dressing. At the end of the day everyone was in the same ballpark for interacting with the world. Ranger and rogue were not only relevant, but supreme because they did a great job of winning the combat segments and did so at all levels. Surgeless healing, slide-trip builds, radiant mafia, warlords etc. Every class was concerned only with combat, plus the occasional utility feature that snuck in over a combat utility. There was no escalating counterplay of negative energy effects and immunities, illusions and illusion piercing effects, ability damage hazards and the related mitigations. It’s a kill-them-dead-with-numbers all the way through. The GM isn’t worrying about Passwall invalidating his dungeon, whether or not the wizard will pull out Detect Thoughts, Detect Evil and Scrying all in one session, or giving the fighter a way to deal with swarms.

That's funny, my 4th edition party passwalled several times to get past obstacles. They teleported too. They also disarmed people pretty regularly. And all of this was with PHB abilities, not DMG page 42.

Similarly for information gathering magic, you could spam the crap out of it out of combat at mid level.

[Unoriginal]

And the magic mentioned here requires major DM intervention to even work, and is kinda crappy at doing the job--
1. Scrying is quite high level, so that's a major resource being used. Two, if you include the two dimension doors needed. You're looking at a 5th level and two 4th level spells, which at anything but T4 (where a bit of safecracking isn't exactly a challenge for anyone) is most of your highest-power daily resources.
2. You can't scry somewhere you've not been, unless you're scrying a person. Which can fail. The scheme relies on a familiar to get there...but a familiar can't usually open doors or windows, especially not locked ones. Familiars are trivial to keep out. Especially non-pact of the chain ones.
3. Even the simplest of magical (or heck, mundane) alarms will be triggered by such an effort. Without really any way of counteracting them.
4. Dimension door requires you to be within 400' of the target location. So you're blocked by something as simple as a mundane wall around the compound.

Basically, if the DM sets up the scenarios so that magic is a "magic bullet", sure. Magic is overwhelming. But that's due to the DM putting their thumb on the scale. And these aren't even anti-magic precautions in general--they're just general good sense practiced by anything even remotely attempting to be secure in the real world. Don't have open doors (solving the familiar issue entirely), have intrusion alarms, and don't let unauthorized people close to the building. Throw in some basic magic-world precautions (ie an arcane lock on a door, use of the alarm spell, etc) and you've got something that your wizard really can't do unaided.

Frequently we see DMs (and especially online discussion) giving all the ambiguities to the spell-caster and none to the non-spell caster. Letting the spells do way more than they say they do (because magic) while holding non-spell things to the literal text or a cramped "realism" (whichever is more restrictive). Stop doing that (or, as is actually intended, reverse that, holding spells firmly to the text while letting non-spells do whatever makes sense in context) and you end up in a much healthier place.

Indeed.

Particularly worth noting is that people who argue for magic supremacy tend to present magic as both more practical/easy to use/available than it is (ex: "we should use skeletons as laborers") *and* something most people in the world have no idea about (ex: "people won't suspect anything about this tiny animal-shaped being I'm using as scout", even when weak magic users and whole species have powers to communicate with if not outright control or even disguise themselves into similar animals).

[MrStabby]

If there’s only a bit of climbing and a single window in the way of stealing something, and the rogue is competent, is it unfair to assume that a number of GMs will not ask for a roll (or reliable talent makes rolling for the given DC redundant)?

I think you are taking an oversimplification for the sake of brevity at face value. In reality there are more hoops to jump through (possibly involving dispell magic, light spells, mage hand etc..). The pos was inended to be evocative, to be a sketch of a scenario to point to the salient features rather than a photograph accurate in every respect.


My broad point is that there are circumstances where a handful of spells can be as effective as many levels of class features. E.g. if you need to bash a door - do you want the str20 fighter to do it or the person who can polymorph someone into a giant ape?

And as I said, the DM can "fix" things so spells don't work, and then also be undermining the player who took those spells and stopping their fun.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think you are taking an oversimplification for the sake of brevity at face value. In reality there are more hoops to jump through (possibly involving dispell magic, light spells, mage hand etc..). The pos was inended to be evocative, to be a sketch of a scenario to point to the salient features rather than a photograph accurate in every respect.


My broad point is that there are circumstances where a handful of spells can be as effective as many levels of class features. E.g. if you need to bash a door - do you want the str20 fighter to do it or the person who can polymorph someone into a giant ape?

And as I said, the DM can "fix" things so spells don't work, and then also be undermining the player who took those spells and stopping their fun.

Those "handful of spells" are many levels of class features. By definition.

And polymorphing someone into a giant ape is less effective than having the STR 20 fighter do it. The giant ape has a (relative) +1 to the check, but rarely will fit in corridors (having to squeeze unless it's a 15'+ hallway, being huge), so will be at disadvantage at best. Plus you've spent a 4th level spell and concentration to do it.

And "evocative" scenarios by definition leave out all the details, so they end up being slanted. Basically, they're strawmen. They don't actually happen unless the DM is actively putting their fingers on the scale. And "I couldn't trivialize it, so I'm not having fun" is a rather immature outlook. Things you try don't always work. Just because it's a spell doesn't mean it's a win button by definition. By that logic, the rogue's abilities should just work and any obstacles are the dm "undermining the player who took those [levels]." But that's not useful.

[Asisreo1]

However it works out, it seems to be a serious sytem flaw. If you solve problems with teleport then it is a bad game for players who invested in alternative solutions. If every place a PC tries to teleport to is protected by a forbiddance spell then it is a bad game for whoever invested in the forbiddance spell.

It isn't like you can't force casters to be bad as a DM; an anti magic field covering the whole gameworld does that. The challenge isn't balancing casters - that is trivial. It is doing so such that they are still fun to play.
every location a caster attempts to teleport to shouldn't have something like forbiddance, but surely the important places shouldn't have to deal with someone just teleporting around, especially high-level places.

I mean, if "the universal threat" is that important, some unwanted gish, djinni, celestials, and powerful ancient wizards are bound to knock on their door about the whole "destroy the universe" deal. As a villain, the least I can do is have just a little home security that keeps unwanted guests out, right?

[GeneralVryth]

I think you are taking an oversimplification for the sake of brevity at face value. In reality there are more hoops to jump through (possibly involving dispell magic, light spells, mage hand etc..). The pos was inended to be evocative, to be a sketch of a scenario to point to the salient features rather than a photograph accurate in every respect.


My broad point is that there are circumstances where a handful of spells can be as effective as many levels of class features. E.g. if you need to bash a door - do you want the str20 fighter to do it or the person who can polymorph someone into a giant ape?

And as I said, the DM can "fix" things so spells don't work, and then also be undermining the player who took those spells and stopping their fun.

What caster worth their salt is going to waste spell slots doing something that the Rogue (or Fighter in your next example) can presumably do reliably without wasting any resources? The core argument around casters making other characters pointless relies on the assumption that spell slots (usually relatively high level ones) can be used without any consequence. Which should not be an accurate assumption.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I don't think giving martials better saving throws or even making them better at combat is going to solve the underlying problem.

Imagine if all T3+ martials were given the ability of 'whenever the current XP for the combat encounter falls below Deadly, you can instantly end and win the encounter'. That still wouldn't solve the perceived problems of legendary warriors still not being able to travel to the Cloud City of Eus or shatter the Bone Spire unless they had spellcaster help or the DM gave them Convenient Plot Coupons.

Hypnotic Pattern!!! Happens before T3.

A Fighter, though, could Action Surge, use a Disengage Action, run up and Shove a BBEG off a skybridge in Sharn, and then with a Bonus Action, use the Telekinetic feat to toss the BBEG's Lieutenant off the skybrdge.

The Fighter, can then say to the assembled Hired Soldiers,
"Who, here, wants to be tossed off the bridge and who here wants to go home with their advance bonus in their pocket, unharmed?"

This can also "End an encounter" with a Short Rest resource no less.🃏
(And actually occurred during gameplay)

Magic Items and Supernatural Boons are balancing factors between the Narrative Divide that exists between Full Spell Casting Classes and non magical classes.

Odysseus had great stats, and the blessings and mystical gifts of others, to see his way home. 🃏

T3+ Martial classes should have Legendary Items, in addition to Potions of Speed. Honestly, you can give certain Legendary items out way before T3......Efreet's Chainmail isn't going to break a game, even if found by a 3rd level character.

Winged Boots, Slippers of Spider Climbing, a Cloak of ARACHNIDA...all help martial classes immensely.

Likewise, why shouldn't a Hercules like PC not be able to secure a charm that allows them to exceed normal size limitations on Grappling?

If as a DM, I will let a PC Wizard track down a particular spell, why shouldn't Martial Classes have similar opportunities?

In Magical Universes, non magical persons, need Magic items.
That is true even in gaming systems that are not D&D, in my experience.



The complaints I get from my casual non-caster players at high level is that, even though they don't feel left behind or out-matched, there are only so many Cool Things the rules say they can do. I usually give them a ton of leeway in terms of narrative combat. Anyone with high Strength and the Athletics skill will find me super generous as to what an Athletics check can accomplish. But they know all that stuff is outside the rules. What they'd like is a way to reflect who awesome they are in the rules themselves.

Firstly, I want to say, I enjoyed the entirety of this post. Well said! 🍻
Jumping only knocks one prone, if one lands in difficult terrain, and a DM is applying their discretion if they waive that rule from time to time.

Objects based off the DMG have very low hit points, so Thundarr the Barbarian literally bursting their bonds, isn't a stretch at all in 5e.

All in All, 5e seems designed to encourage DMs to adopt a High Heroic style. Sounds like, you are embracing the spirit of 5e rules, even if the rules themselves fall short of the goal sometimes.

[Unoriginal]

What caster worth their salt is going to waste spell slots doing something that the Rogue (or Fighter in your next example) can presumably do reliably without wasting any resources? The core argument around casters making other characters pointless relies on the assumption that spell slots (usually relatively high level ones) can be used without any consequence. Which should not be an accurate assumption.

Also relies on the assumption that the caster constantly has the right spells at hand no matter what's thrown at them.

[GeneralVryth]

Magic Items and Supernatural Boons are balancing factors between the Narrative Divide that exists between Full Spell Casting Classes and non magical classes.

Odysseus had great stats, and the blessings and mystical gifts of others, to see his way home. 🃏

T3+ Martial classes should have Legendary Items, in addition to Potions of Speed. Honestly, you can give certain Legendary items out way before T3......Efreet's Chainmail isn't going to break a game, even if found by a 3rd level character.

Winged Boots, Slippers of Spider Climbing, a Cloak of ARACHNIDA...all help martial classes immensely.

Likewise, why shouldn't a Hercules like PC not be able to secure a charm that allows them to exceed normal size limitations on Grappling?

If as a DM, I will let a PC Wizard track down a particular spell, why shouldn't Martial Classes have similar opportunities?

In Magical Universes, non magical persons, need Magic items.
That is true even in gaming systems that are not D&D, in my experience.


I agree with the above thought entirely. I actually made a similar comment about magic items being a great equalizer back on the WotC forums during the 5e beta period. This is kind of the biggest downside of magic items being solely in the DM realm. Non-spellcasters tend to need/benefit more from magic items than spell-casters because they are usually gaining options they didn't have before (or in case of weapons it's usually a boost in multiple dimensions), where as spell casters don't tend to gain new options so much as they gain endurance.


Also relies on the assumption that the caster constantly has the right spells at hand no matter what's thrown at them.

Very true. A Wizard that knows exactly what challenges they are going to face, with unlimited prep time, and unlimited spell slots is of course going to walk over the challenges. But that should be an entirely theoretical situation it shouldn't come up in practice unless the challenge wasn't meant to be a challenge at all (in the same vein of a commoner picking a fight with any level 11+ character).

[Man_Over_Game]

Also relies on the assumption that the caster constantly has the right spells at hand no matter what's thrown at them.

Buuut I will say that you can make some estimates about how much they're able to cover.

From my experience, a caster prepares about half of their options for combat-related stuff. That's a bit of an exaggeration at some levels (A level 5 Wizard might just prepare nothing but Fireballs and cantrips for instance, and that'd still be pretty damn effective), but it errs on the side of "Less Utility", which is safer for our comparison.

A level 7 Wizard prepares about 11 spells, and let's say he knows he's going to be fighting in the Underdark.

He assigns about 6 to combat:
Wall of Fire (4), Summon Shadowspawn (3), Fireball (3), Counterspell (3), and Hold Person (2). He also packs Shield (1), because why not.

Considering he's going into the Underdark, he doesn't really need niche spells like Featherfall and otherwise doesn't know what he needs to prepare for, so he packs some generalist spells that are good in almost any situation:
Speak with Dead (3), Enlarge/Reduce (2), Spider Climb (2), Invisibility (2), Misty Step (2).

If it turns out he doesn't have a use for Misty Step, he now has more fuel for Spider Climb on his allies. If the party keeps running into giant monsters that aren't good for Fireball, that makes for a casting for Speak with Dead to gather clues or for an upcasted Hold Person. A level 3 Fireball against 5 creatures will probably deal more total damage than a Fighter will through the entire encounter (and that's after including Action Surge, Fireball with a 50% save chance deals 20 average damage), and he can cast it 5x a day at that level (due to Arcane Recovery). The spells that make a big impact are too efficient to be ignored. Since spell slots can be recycled, that means that those resources reserved for a problem that never happens simply fuel solutions for the problems that do.

The statement I see a lot of when disputes about casters comes up is the fact that casters aren't always prepared for what's to come. But let's say this guy comes across something he wasn't expecting. Is he prepared enough? Is he any less prepared than someone who doesn't have spells?

I believe a Wizard in a less-than-ideal situation still has plenty of possible answers (and we haven't even touched Cantrips yet), while a Barbarian in the same circumstance has... the Attack Action.

[Unoriginal]

Buuut I will say that you can make some estimates about how much they're able to cover.

From my experience, a caster prepares about half of their options for combat-related stuff. That's a bit of an exaggeration at some levels (A level 5 Wizard might just prepare nothing but Fireballs and cantrips for instance, and that'd still be pretty damn effective), but it errs on the side of "Less Utility", which is safer for our comparison.

A level 7 Wizard prepares about 11 spells, and let's say he knows he's going to be fighting in the Underdark.

He assigns about 6 to combat:
Wall of Fire (4), Summon Shadowspawn (3), Fireball (3), Counterspell (3), and Hold Person (2). He also packs Shield (1), because why not.

Considering he's going into the Underdark, he doesn't really need niche spells like Featherfall, and otherwise doesn't know what he needs to prepare for, so he packs some generalist spells that are good in almost any situation:
Speak with Dead (3), Enlarge/Reduce (2), Spider Climb (2), Invisibility (2), Misty Step (2).

If it turns out he doesn't have a use for Misty Step, he now has more fuel for Spider Climb on his allies. If the party keeps running into giant monsters that aren't good for Fireball, that makes for a casting for Speak with Dead or an upcasted Hold Person.


The statement I see a lot of when disputes about casters comes up is the fact that casters aren't always prepared for what's to come. But let's say this guy comes across something he wasn't expecting. Is he prepared enough? Is he any less prepared than someone who doesn't have spells?

I mean let's imagine that at some point in the Underdark, the party has to go down a deep chasm. The Wizard casts Spider Climb on themselves and those in the party who need it, but halfway down the Wizard get shoved off the wall by an hazard, trap or enemy. And the floor is covered in spiky cristals.

This Wizard is significantly less able to make that fall have lethal consequences than a Monk of the same level, or a Raging Barbarian, or a Fighter (simply because the HP difference), or even a Sorcerer who put Featherfall in their bag of tricks a few levels ago and used it three times since.



I believe a Wizard in a less-than-ideal situation still has plenty of possible answers (and we haven't even touched Cantrips yet), while a Barbarian in the same circumstance has... the Attack Action.

A Featherfall-less lvl 7 Wizard in a "falling to their death on a spiky crystal bed" situation has 0 possible answers, while a Barbarian in the same circumstances will be significantly harder to kill, plus will be significanly harder to shove off the wall.

[Man_Over_Game]

I mean let's imagine that at some point in the Underdark, the party has to go down a deep chasm. The Wizard casts Spider Climb on themselves and those in the party who need it, but halfway down the Wizard get shoved off the wall by an hazard, trap or enemy. And the floor is covered in spiky cristals.

This Wizard is significantly less able to make that fall have lethal consequences than a Monk of the same level, or a Raging Barbarian, or a Fighter (simply because the HP difference), or even a Sorcerer who put Featherfall in their bag of tricks a few levels ago and used it three times since.



A Featherfall-less lvl 7 Wizard in a "falling to their death on a spiky crystal bed" situation has 0 possible answers, while a Barbarian in the same circumstances will be significantly harder to kill, plus will be significanly harder to shove off the wall.

I mean, I feel like that's a very specific problem. Spider Climb to solve a problem (we have to get into this very steep vertical shaft) to be followed by a trap, to then have to solve the problem of fall damage (which is surprisingly difficult to interact with). I feel like a Cleric, Rogue or Ranger would be running into the same issue unless they happened to take Athletics.

If a non-combat, non-telegraphed problem is capable of killing half of your party after they've been buffed with level 2 spells, you might​ need to rethink things.

I don't mean that as snarky or sarcastic, I just mean that it seems like a rather harsh situation that I wouldn't find fun on the other side of the table, and I'd presume that I pissed off my DM if he followed through with it. That's basically a "Rocks Fall, You Die" scenario.

[Unoriginal]

I mean, I feel like that's a very specific problem. Spider Climb to solve a problem (we have to get into this very steep vertical shaft) to be followed by a trap, to then have to solve the problem of fall damage (which is surprisingly difficult to interact with). I feel like a Cleric, Rogue or Ranger would be running into the same issue unless they happened to take Athletics.

A fall isn't an uncommon issue in D&D. I just mentioned Spider Climb because it was more interesting than "Wizard falls into a hole" without a setup.

Doesn't have to be a trap, in any case. Could be any enemy smart enough to think "shoving the enemies off the wall will take care of them", or an hazard that makes a PC risk to fall even if they're Spider Climbing (ex: they're on a section with mold and the mold falls off). Or as said above it could be any situation where the PC falls into a hole in a way that is dangerous for their life".

And sure, a Cleric, Rogue or Ranger would be running into mostly the same issue, but people don't tend to talk about how Rangers are OP because they always have the needed abilities.


And that's just one thing. The Wizard you've described would also have troubles resisting a Mind Flayer using Dominate Monster on them (unless they invested in WIS, and even then...) or an Umber Hulk's Confusing Gaze, or an underwater Black Dragon, or...

[stoutstien]

I do think the difference between spell casting/magic and high level spell casting/magic needs to be made. Low level spells and magic are common and easy to grab for just about any player so the true martial/divide is much more fluid. So when you talk about casters running amok it's not really those nice low level option that are the issue because anyone can have those in some capacity.

[Asisreo1]

I do think the difference between spell casting/magic and high level spell casting/magic needs to be made. Low level spells and magic are common and easy to grab for just about any player so the true martial/divide is much more fluid. So when you talk about casters running amok it's not really those nice low level option that are the issue because anyone can have those in some capacity.
In contrast, though, the high-level options start to bleed into your combat abilities heavily.

If I'm a level 17 cleric, sure, I have access to 6+ level spells, but only once each, for a total of 4 spells above 6th-level. I'd feel uncomfortable casting Etherealness just because that means I could only cast regenerate at 8th-level. Its sorta like a spiral effect.

[mmcgeach]

I want to make my next martial be mostly Battlemaster and have the personality of a henchman. He'd start out as someone who studied battle and fighting and was in the army; someone who began to appreciate the intricacies and challenges of maneuvering armies on the field and what's required to win large scale conflicts. Then he gets a little older and gets kicked out of the military. He starts adventuring. The first time someone throws a Fireball, his mind is subtly blown. He can't get his head around how much more powerful magic spells are than a few well-trained warriors working in concert. He decides the best thing he can do is try to support and follow the best wizard he comes into contact with. Someone who commands magic like that, I mean, how could they go wrong? What could stand in their way? This would probably be the party wizard/sorcerer/etc. But he'd also be drawn to support strong NPC mages if they displayed greater magic.

After all, it's only rational.

[Reach Weapon]

As a villain, the least I can do is have just a little home security that keeps unwanted guests out, right?
Arguably, one should be more worried when they don't try to stop such intrusions; it's not like honeypots or other extensive trickery and traps aren't covered extensively in Villainy For Dummies.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The complaints I get from my casual non-caster players at high level is that, even though they don't feel left behind or out-matched, there are only so many Cool Things the rules say they can do.
Agreed.

I used to one of those guys who was deeply offended by linear fighters/quadratic wizards, but I've mellowed with age. 5e's combat balancing is, in general, fine. Some classes and strategies are stronger and some are weaker; some characters have more options and some have less; whatever. As long as everyone is in the right numerical range, the former is acceptable, and players generally self-select for the latter. My friend and I both want to play tanks; I build a Bladesinger who juggles feats and spells from every book in the game, he rolls up a Half-Orc Barbarian, and we're both happy. Player skill and what magic items the GM hands out are more important in determining who the "strongest character" is vis-a-vis killing things.

To be "successful," a class only needs to meet three criteria:

It needs to have level-appropriate ways to fight from level 1 to 20.
It needs to be fun to play from level 1 to 20.
It needs to get increasingly bad*** from level 1 to 20.

5e is pretty good at the first, and not bad at the second. Even the third manages to hold up in combat--sure, the barbarian is still just hitting things with an axe, but he's gone from hitting goblins to hitting demon lords, and he can laugh off attacks that would once have turned him into chunky salsa. Out of combat... out of combat, there isn't much mechanical support for getting more bad***. Increasing skill bonuses are more a matter of "reliably hitting hard DCs" than "reaching new tiers of power"-- there's not much a level 20 character can do that a level 1 can't with a sufficiently lucky roll. A good GM will let our barbarian pull off increasingly impossible feats of strength with a DC 15 check as he goes up in level, but... well, the onus is entirely on them, and it's far too easy to fall prey to the "guy at the gym" fallacy.

If you want to change that...? Well, you could do something like my "Mythic Powers" system and write a bunch of high-power noncombat abilities to hand out to everyone. But in all honesty, a reminder that "at level 1 the Fighter is a normal dude, at level 5 he's Conan, at level 11 he's Captain America and at level 17 he's Thor" is generally enough.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One note, just for scale--

a level 20 barbarian is stronger than a giant ape (24 vs 23 STR). And since the Giant Ape is basically the early-movie-version (ie not the inflated later versions) of King Kong, anything you could imagine King Kong doing, a level 20 barbarian should be able to do and more. He's equally strong (modifier at least) as a T-rex.

Oh, and a level 8-ish wizard (assuming some optimization) is just as smart as a lich. So at level 20 with proficiency in Arcana, the wizard knows within epsilon about as much about magic (theory and history, not necessarily actual spells) as the lich does.

A WIS 20 cleric is just as "wise" as a deva. Given Insight proficiency, he's actually better at reading people than that deva by low T3 (deva has +9 Wisdom (Insight) modifier).

A CHA 20 sorcerer is just as charismatic as that deva, and given proficiency in Persuasion, is way more persuasive (+5 for the deva vs +lots for the sorcerer).

Etc.

[Nuptup]

From this point of view, I confess I really was a fan of the specialized casters introduced towards the late 3.5 Edition, the Beguiler, the Dread Necromancer, the Warcaster and such. Current specializations of the Wizard class are not really that much, you attach a handful of ribbon abilities (or god-like powers, looking at you, Diviner - and I know that, I am playing one in a CoS campaign and I feel GOD whenever I invoke my Portent) but at the end of the day they are all the same uberpowerful chassis. This ought to end. A Diviner should be and feel different from an Illusionist, which should be and feel different from an Evoker. This would mean: 1) limiting the access to spells of different schools; 2) providing meaningful spell choices for each school (but still keeping in mind a power cap for the spells); and 3) giving REAL class features to the Wizard, rather than simply "you get extra spells".

Personally, I would be a huge fan of making each wizard school work like the eldritch knight and arcane trickster subclasses where the majority of your spells must come from your singular school of study, then allow certain spells gained through natural level progression to be from any school. This would force a bit more of a niche filling idea to the wizard, restrict on their spell selection thus reducing their overwhelming utility, allow the sorcerer to shine a bit with no such restrictions, and still allow the wizard to feel good since they can be more focused on their school being their driving force. For ones like bladesinger and warmage, give them their own full spell list or do it exactly like eldritch knight and arcane trickster, forcing warmage to take only evocation and abjuration except in the exception levels and forcing bladesinger to function similarly to arcane trickster, or even a different set of 2 paired schools.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, I would be a huge fan of making each wizard school work like the eldritch knight and arcane trickster subclasses where the majority of your spells must come from your singular school of study, then allow certain spells gained through natural level progression to be from any school. This would force a bit more of a niche filling idea to the wizard, restrict on their spell selection thus reducing their overwhelming utility, allow the sorcerer to shine a bit with no such restrictions, and still allow the wizard to feel good since they can be more focused on their school being their driving force. For ones like bladesinger and warmage, give them their own full spell list or do it exactly like eldritch knight and arcane trickster, forcing warmage to take only evocation and abjuration except in the exception levels and forcing bladesinger to function similarly to arcane trickster, or even a different set of 2 paired schools.

I've thought about something along the lines of

* All your "free" spells come from your chosen school.
* Above T1 spells (ie levels 0-2), you can't learn spells from other schools (ie from scrolls) unless you have F(spell level) other spells of that school learned. So to learn fireball as a not-evocation wizard, you'd have to know N other evocations.
* warmage/bladesinger would get limited access (ie one from school X, one from school Y)

Or maybe "spells not from your specialty take N = spell level preparation slots, not 1. So if you're not an evocator, memorizing fireball takes up 3 preparation slots.

[Nuptup]

A fall isn't an uncommon issue in D&D. I just mentioned Spider Climb because it was more interesting than "Wizard falls into a hole" without a setup.

Doesn't have to be a trap, in any case. Could be any enemy smart enough to think "shoving the enemies off the wall will take care of them", or an hazard that makes a PC risk to fall even if they're Spider Climbing (ex: they're on a section with mold and the mold falls off). Or as said above it could be any situation where the PC falls into a hole in a way that is dangerous for their life".

And sure, a Cleric, Rogue or Ranger would be running into mostly the same issue, but people don't tend to talk about how Rangers are OP because they always have the needed abilities.


And that's just one thing. The Wizard you've described would also have troubles resisting a Mind Flayer using Dominate Monster on them (unless they invested in WIS, and even then...) or an Umber Hulk's Confusing Gaze, or an underwater Black Dragon, or...

I feel like you're forgetting one of the most highly used spell that pretty much any wizard picks up early, or any of it's higher level variants. Like, yes, the wizard might not have feather fall like the sorcerer, but the wizard can very easily just wait until they get close enough to the ground, then cast Misty Step to safety, or if the 30 foot range isn't long enough to get them completely out of the spike field, literally just misty stepping onto a spike will remove all fall damage, so they will only take damage if the spike inherently causes damage that isn't related to the fall (i.e. spinning saw blade field) but that's irrelevant. Yeah, feather fall fixes the issue, but misty step fixes it just as easily, is a spell that has practical use ANYWHERE, and every spellcaster that can take it, almost always DOES take it. That's also not to mention dimension door, gate, etc which all do this even better.

[Nuptup]

I've thought about something along the lines of

* All your "free" spells come from your chosen school.
* Above T1 spells (ie levels 0-2), you can't learn spells from other schools (ie from scrolls) unless you have F(spell level) other spells of that school learned. So to learn fireball as a not-evocation wizard, you'd have to know N other evocations.
* warmage/bladesinger would get limited access (ie one from school X, one from school Y)

Or maybe "spells not from your specialty take N = spell level preparation slots, not 1. So if you're not an evocator, memorizing fireball takes up 3 preparation slots.

"Spells not from your school of study take a number of prepared slots equal to 1+half their spell level rounded up."

Examples:

Fireball/Lightning Bolt take 1+3/2=1+1.5=2.5=3 prepared slots.
Burning Hands take 1+1/2=1+.5=1.5=2 prepared slots.

I think this would work nicely, and honestly, if I every run a 5e game going forward, I might impose this as a house rule. But, that's a big if as I've moved into the PF2e space and tinker with 4e as well, leaving the only time I play 5e being when someone else runs something.

Also, this might be relevant, but if you were to run this style of "spells can take more than 1 slot's worth of preparation" rule, you'll need to change how spells are prepared as, having prepared "slots" as a wizard would no longer work. You would need a pool of spell slots that you can cast from that would then be "spent" during preparations. So, pretty much, do away with Vancian and make all casters run off of just a flat spell point system like sorcerer has.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I feel like you're forgetting one of the most highly used spell that pretty much any wizard picks up early, or any of it's higher level variants. Like, yes, the wizard might not have feather fall like the sorcerer, but the wizard can very easily just wait until they get close enough to the ground, then cast Misty Step to safety, or if the 30 foot range isn't long enough to get them completely out of the spike field, literally just misty stepping onto a spike will remove all fall damage, so they will only take damage if the spike inherently causes damage that isn't related to the fall (i.e. spinning saw blade field) but that's irrelevant. Yeah, feather fall fixes the issue, but misty step fixes it just as easily, is a spell that has practical use ANYWHERE, and every spellcaster that can take it, almost always DOES take it. That's also not to mention dimension door, gate, etc which all do this even better.

Can't Misty Step as a reaction. And falling is instant (unless you use Xanathar's, in which case the first 500' is instant). So no, you can't Misty Step out of fall damage. Nor can you DD, gate, etc.

[Nuptup]

Can't Misty Step as a reaction. And falling is instant (unless you use Xanathar's, in which case the first 500' is instant). So no, you can't Misty Step out of fall damage. Nor can you DD, gate, etc.

My action economy while spider climbing.

Movement spent going down wall.
Bonus is irrelevant.
Action: "I am preparing to misty step to safety in case I fall."
Reaction: Ready to activate the prepared action, making Misty Step a Reaction.

Easy.

[Grod_The_Giant]

One note, just for scale--

a level 20 barbarian is stronger than a giant ape (24 vs 23 STR). And since the Giant Ape is basically the early-movie-version (ie not the inflated later versions) of King Kong, anything you could imagine King Kong doing, a level 20 barbarian should be able to do and more. He's equally strong (modifier at least) as a T-rex.
Counterpoint: the level 20 barbarian has +7 to raw Strength checks, but the level 1 barbarian has +3 to raw Strength checks. While the fiction would certainly support the former being way stronger than the latter, the mechanics say "yeah, that's a 20% advantage." Anything hard enough to be impossible for the little guy (DC 24 or higher) is still pretty hard for the big guy (who would have to roll a 17 to pass that DC 24 check). Like I said, it's on the GM to take the context into account, because the numbers very intentionally don't scale that much.

[stoutstien]

Counterpoint: the level 20 barbarian has +7 to raw Strength checks, but the level 1 barbarian has +3 to raw Strength checks. While the fiction would certainly support the former being way stronger than the latter, the mechanics say "yeah, that's a 20% advantage." Anything hard enough to be impossible for the little guy (DC 24 or higher) is still pretty hard for the big guy (who would have to roll a 17 to pass that DC 24 check). Like I said, it's on the GM to take the context into account, because the numbers very intentionally don't scale that much.

At least with indomitable might their minimum value on str checks is high enough they don't need to roll against any DC below strength score. Lower minimum roll than a muscle rouge but hey they got something.

[Asisreo1]

My action economy while spider climbing.

Movement spent going down wall.
Bonus is irrelevant.
Action: "I am preparing to misty step to safety in case I fall."
Reaction: Ready to activate the prepared action, making Misty Step a Reaction.

Easy.
Congratulations! You've just ended concentration on your spider climb. Wait, why did you even spider climb to begin with?

Also, I'm unsure if you can ready a bonus action spell. It would make sense if you could, but IIRC, you can only ready actions and not bonus actions.

[Asisreo1]

At least with indomitable might their minimum value on str checks is high enough they don't need to roll against any DC below strength score. Lower minimum roll than a muscle rouge but hey they got something.
The minimum roll for a muscle-based rogue making a Strength check is 6.

Strength checks are very much not athletic checks and the fact people think they're interchangeable contributes to the problem.

[Nuptup]

Congratulations! You've just ended concentration on your spider climb. Wait, why did you even spider climb to begin with?

Also, I'm unsure if you can ready a bonus action spell. It would make sense if you could, but IIRC, you can only ready actions and not bonus actions.

Pretty much my point if i'm honest. Like, sure, I end concentration on spider climb, but now i'm where I wanted to be anyway. Yes, I could have just jumped off and prepared it the same way (using gate or dimension door in case bonus action prepared isn't valid), but using spider climb allowed me to keep pace with my group. Falling is, well, instant and less desirable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Counterpoint: the level 20 barbarian has +7 to raw Strength checks, but the level 1 barbarian has +3 to raw Strength checks. While the fiction would certainly support the former being way stronger than the latter, the mechanics say "yeah, that's a 20% advantage." Anything hard enough to be impossible for the little guy (DC 24 or higher) is still pretty hard for the big guy (who would have to roll a 17 to pass that DC 24 check). Like I said, it's on the GM to take the context into account, because the numbers very intentionally don't scale that much.

Difficulty is not linear. A DC 20 STR check represents something much more difficult than 2x a DC 10. Better to compare to things we can visualize (King Kong).


My action economy while spider climbing.

Movement spent going down wall.
Bonus is irrelevant.
Action: "I am preparing to misty step to safety in case I fall."
Reaction: Ready to activate the prepared action, making Misty Step a Reaction.

Easy.

Nope. Readied actions take place after the trigger. Which is instantaneous, so you cast Misty Step on the ground, after taking the fall damage.

Order of operations:
* Ready action (concentration ends on spider climb, causing you to fall).
* You hit the ground
* Ready action trigger fires.
* Oops, you're already on the ground.

[Unoriginal]

I feel like you're forgetting one of the most highly used spell that pretty much any wizard picks up early, or any of it's higher level variants. Like, yes, the wizard might not have feather fall like the sorcerer, but the wizard can very easily just wait until they get close enough to the ground, then cast Misty Step to safety, or if the 30 foot range isn't long enough to get them completely out of the spike field, literally just misty stepping onto a spike will remove all fall damage, so they will only take damage if the spike inherently causes damage that isn't related to the fall (i.e. spinning saw blade field) but that's irrelevant. Yeah, feather fall fixes the issue, but misty step fixes it just as easily, is a spell that has practical use ANYWHERE, and every spellcaster that can take it, almost always DOES take it. That's also not to mention dimension door, gate, etc which all do this even better.

Where it is written that Misty Step negates fall damage?


My action economy while spider climbing.

Movement spent going down wall.
Bonus is irrelevant.
Action: "I am preparing to misty step to safety in case I fall."
Reaction: Ready to activate the prepared action, making Misty Step a Reaction.

Easy.

Readying a spell means you spend the spell slot.

[Asisreo1]

Pretty much my point if i'm honest. Like, sure, I end concentration on spider climb, but now i'm where I wanted to be anyway. Yes, I could have just jumped off and prepared it the same way (using gate or dimension door in case bonus action prepared isn't valid), but using spider climb allowed me to keep pace with my group. Falling is, well, instant and less desirable.
Its instant. As soon as you say "I ready another spell." Concentration immediately ends and falling immediately occurs and damage is immediately given. After that sequence of events, you can cast Misty Step. But, of course, you'd need to pass concentration for you to misty step at that point.

[stoutstien]

The minimum roll for a muscle-based rogue making a Strength check is 6.

Strength checks are very much not athletic checks and the fact people think they're interchangeable contributes to the problem.

It's pretty rare for there to be ability checks that don't include a skill. Not getting to add prof makes most of the DC values even more borked than they already are.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's pretty rare for there to be ability checks that don't include a skill. Not getting to add prof makes most of the DC values even more borked than they already are.

No, it just reframes what you should be asking for ability checks for. The default is no proficiency; getting to add proficiency is a bonus. The DC doesn't change.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Difficulty is not linear. A DC 20 STR check represents something much more difficult than 2x a DC 10. Better to compare to things we can visualize (King Kong).
That... doesn't change my point, though? Anything difficult enough to be impossible for the level 1 barbarian is also hard enough that the level 20 probably won't hit it either. It's up to the GM to arbitrarily add the kind of context you're talking about, because the numbers don't really back it up.

[Dark.Revenant]

Its instant. As soon as you say "I ready another spell." Concentration immediately ends and falling immediately occurs and damage is immediately given. After that sequence of events, you can cast Misty Step. But, of course, you'd need to pass concentration for you to misty step at that point.

I'd call for an Athletics check to see if you actually fall while readying the spell. I'd also allow, presuming a successful check, the caster to release the readied spell mid-fall. Falls aren't literally instantaneous, even in D&D-land; that's just a rules convenience.

I would, however, require a different spell than Misty Step. You can't Ready Misty Step, because it's a bonus action.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That... doesn't change my point, though? Anything difficult enough to be impossible for the level 1 barbarian is also hard enough that the level 20 probably won't hit it either. It's up to the GM to arbitrarily add the kind of context you're talking about, because the numbers don't really back it up.

Setting a DC comes after figuring out if the fiction says the person should struggle with it.

As such, I say that anything you could imagine King Kong doing as part of their normal routine, you should let the barbarian do without a check at all. DC 0. Any puzzle the lich could figure out without significant risk, the wizard shouldn't need a check for either. Etc.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Setting a DC comes after figuring out if the fiction says the person should struggle with it.

As such, I say that anything you could imagine King Kong doing as part of their normal routine, you should let the barbarian do without a check at all. DC 0. Any puzzle the lich could figure out without significant risk, the wizard shouldn't need a check for either. Etc.
Right. If the GM doesn't add that context, if they set the DC with the "guy in the gym" in mind regardless of the character's level, the level 20 barbarian isn't going to be pulling off many epic feats of strength. Unfortunately, the GM is kind of left to figure this out for themselves*-- the book doesn't talk about taking high levels and/or superhuman ability scores into account, the raw math sure doesn't suggest it, and modules (many people's first introduction to how the game "should" be played) just give static DCs.

Like I said, reminding the GM that "at level one you're a soldier, at level twenty you're a demigod" goes a long way towards making non-spellcasters fun at high levels.





*5e isn't the only system that does this, for the record. The first time someone on a Fate thread mentioned using Aspects as passive blocks it blew my mind.

[Asisreo1]

It's pretty rare for there to be ability checks that don't include a skill. Not getting to add prof makes most of the DC values even more borked than they already are.
Its not as rare as it seems. Yeah, its not the most common occurrence, but having them be interchangeable can make investing in something like strength less desirable as an unintended consequence.

There's no athletics involved in breaking down a door, RAW. Same for escaping a net or manacles. In fact, unlike Charisma or Wisdom where there seems to be a skill for every case, if you're not moving athletically, you don't use skills for strength.

I'd call for an Athletics check to see if you actually fall while readying the spell. I'd also allow, presuming a successful check, the caster to release the readied spell mid-fall. Falls aren't literally instantaneous, even in D&D-land; that's just a rules convenience.

I would, however, require a different spell than Misty Step. You can't Ready Misty Step, because it's a bonus action.
Why be so lenient? This is exactly the type of scenario a martial character should be shining in, but we're giving leniency for the caster because we feel bad?

I mean, a fighter taking 6d6 fall damage at level 5 is bruised but he'll be fine. A wizard doing so is less likely to feel comfortable with his health. This is the out-of-combat utility a fighter gets but we want to give external benefits to the casters because we're afraid the caster might, for once in their adventuring days, envy the martial.

[Nuptup]

Why be so lenient? This is exactly the type of scenario a martial character should be shining in, but we're giving leniency for the caster because we feel bad?

I mean, a fighter taking 6d6 fall damage at level 5 is bruised but he'll be fine. A wizard doing so is less likely to feel comfortable with his health. This is the out-of-combat utility a fighter gets but we want to give external benefits to the casters because we're afraid the caster might, for once in their adventuring days, envy the martial.

So, I got distracted and got caught up to the current point, and after several clarification, yes, misty step can't be prepared as a bonus, so you'd use a different spell to solve this problem of falling off something or being pushed off. You could again use gate or dimension door. But, what you aren't realizing is that the trigger would be "I lose my grip on the wall." or "I lose my balance while crossing the rope bridge." and the action readied is "I cast the dimension door spell." Also, some of the guy you quoted's leniency comes from the mechanics of the game having the "Catch a ledge" where you can arrest a fall.

My trigger in that instance for my reaction is losing my grip, losing my balance, etc. That happens, then my reaction triggers before the act of falling begins. You know when you're about to fall, and that moment of "oh ****" is the moment you've prepared your spell for. So, in that moment of realization, your triggered reaction activates, before the act of falling. However, again, as many have said, that spends the spell as soon as you ready it, so why bother, and the answer is simple... You don't... you just stand on the other side, let your allies cross, then misty step across, or dim door if it's too far, or literally any of the other spells you have like fly or feather fall or whatever. The fighter might be able to have their moment to shine because they're good at dealing with this kind of thing, but that moment is instantly taken away when the wizard just says "Yeah, I cast XXXXXXXXXXX and get there safely." with no issue. The broader discussion also being asked in this discussion is for stuff like how the fighter handles it, and like others said, if the martial can just casually leap across the 30 foot gap, that's badass in it's own right. But it's up to the DM to remember that they should be able to do stuff like that because they are badass. Meanwhile, the wizard has a purely mechanical way of bypassing the problem entirely while the fighter has to either rely on the GM or argue their point which isn't fun.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Right. If the GM doesn't add that context, if they set the DC with the "guy in the gym" in mind regardless of the character's level, the level 20 barbarian isn't going to be pulling off many epic feats of strength. Unfortunately, the GM is kind of left to figure this out for themselves*-- the book doesn't talk about taking high levels and/or superhuman ability scores into account, the raw math sure doesn't suggest it, and modules (many people's first introduction to how the game "should" be played) just give static DCs.

Like I said, reminding the GM that "at level one you're a soldier, at level twenty you're a demigod" goes a long way towards making non-spellcasters fun at high levels.


*5e isn't the only system that does this, for the record. The first time someone on a Fate thread mentioned using Aspects as passive blocks it blew my mind.

The books do talk about that. That's what the whole Tier thing is for. And why they stress that you don't set DCs until after you consider whether it's worth calling for at all.

And for the record, I was mostly amplifying your statement.

[Person_Man]

3.5 Tome of Battle. Non-casters can have abilities just as awesome as casters.

5E also has plenty of awesome non-caster abilities with dirt simple game mechanics, if that’s important to you. Action Surge, Extra Attack 3/4, Expertise, Sneak Attack, Reliable Talent, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, etc. The Devs just didn’t give enough of them at mid-high levels to non-full casters, because they over estimated the importance of at-will abilities.

[Asisreo1]

So, I got distracted and got caught up to the current point, and after several clarification, yes, misty step can't be prepared as a bonus, so you'd use a different spell to solve this problem of falling off something or being pushed off. You could again use gate or dimension door. But, what you aren't realizing is that the trigger would be "I lose my grip on the wall." or "I lose my balance while crossing the rope bridge." and the action readied is "I cast the dimension door spell." Also, some of the guy you quoted's leniency comes from the mechanics of the game having the "Catch a ledge" where you can arrest a fall.

By time you ready the spell, you've already lost your grip to the wall and the trigger doesn't activate. Its like if you started combat with damage and said "I ready my spell for when I take damage." Too late but you can wait for the next instance.

If you were going to cast dimension door, why wait until you're climbing down the wall again? If you were attempting to reserve resources, you failed.



My trigger in that instance for my reaction is losing my grip, losing my balance, etc. That happens, then my reaction triggers before the act of falling begins. You know when you're about to fall, and that moment of "oh ****" is the moment you've prepared your spell for. So, in that moment of realization, your triggered reaction activates, before the act of falling. However, again, as many have said, that spends the spell as soon as you ready it, so why bother, and the answer is simple... You don't... you just stand on the other side, let your allies cross, then misty step across, or dim door if it's too far, or literally any of the other spells you have like fly or feather fall or whatever. The fighter might be able to have their moment to shine because they're good at dealing with this kind of thing, but that moment is instantly taken away when the wizard just says "Yeah, I cast XXXXXXXXXXX and get there safely." with no issue. The broader discussion also being asked in this discussion is for stuff like how the fighter handles it, and like others said, if the martial can just casually leap across the 30 foot gap, that's badass in it's own right. But it's up to the DM to remember that they should be able to do stuff like that because they are badass. Meanwhile, the wizard has a purely mechanical way of bypassing the problem entirely while the fighter has to either rely on the GM or argue their point which isn't fun.
I mean, a monk can get past a 30ft jump fairly easily.

Also, an eagle totem barbarian.

Also, a champion fighter can do so over a 25ft gap.

On the same token, what's a cleric doing to get over there? What about the Paladin?

Some obstacles are easy for some classes while difficult for others depending on the class and subclass.

And I would not consider spending a 4th level spell on a single action of movement "trivial." Let alone a 9th-level gate spell.

[GeoffWatson]

3.5 Tome of Battle. Non-casters can have abilities just as awesome as casters.


Yeah, they can be awesome.
But they are nearly all combat options.

Casters have a wide array of noncombat options, with many "shortcut the entire adventure" spells.
The "plot maker/breaker" spells make the casters far more important than the non-casters, even if the non-casters are great in combat. And many would argue that they aren't as great in combat as casters.

[Dark.Revenant]

Why be so lenient? This is exactly the type of scenario a martial character should be shining in, but we're giving leniency for the caster because we feel bad?

I mean, a fighter taking 6d6 fall damage at level 5 is bruised but he'll be fine. A wizard doing so is less likely to feel comfortable with his health. This is the out-of-combat utility a fighter gets but we want to give external benefits to the casters because we're afraid the caster might, for once in their adventuring days, envy the martial.

I'd hardly call spending a 4th level spell slot, your action, your reaction, your concentration, succeeding on an ability check, and limiting you to a one-round window of time "lenient".

Just because you should keep close to RAW for spellcasting doesn't mean you have to pull rules gotchas on people to make their ideas auto-fail in the worst possible manner.

[Nuptup]

You are really picking apart the particulars that suit your narrative while ignoring the fact that in my own post I also said that it'd be easier to just wait for the party to go, then teleport to them afterwards. But, that's fine because oh no the spooky fall is passed, guess I'll just burn the clerics healing and we'll move on.

But the point you're not getting is that you gave specific character classes that could just the 30 foot gap with ease, but ignored several things that should be able to. Like, again, why shouldn't the paladin with a 20 strength be able to do the same that the 20 str fighter can do? why did you exclude the paladin?

Either way, yes, the martials can just do it meanwhile the caster has to expend a resource or have help (like climbing onto the barbarian's back since he can easily do it), but the point is how many other wild things the wizard can just do with little effort while the martials have no crazy comparable feats of capability to compare with. The falling example is just one minor thing. What about flight, just bare-bones flight. the fly spell takes care of any vertical challenge, removes the worry of a potential fall, grants combat benefits, increases speed and maneuverability, and plenty other uses. Again, that's a spell that a lot of people take because it's just good and is something that most martials lacking wings can't really EVER replicate or counter. What about invisibility? Yes rogues and others can get ridiculously high stealth rolls, but invisibility "solves" the issue of stealth checks, can affect multiple people, and can be taken by ANY wizard, not just illusionists. the list goes on.

[Nuptup]

Yeah, they can be awesome.
But they are nearly all combat options.

Casters have a wide array of noncombat options, with many "shortcut the entire adventure" spells.
The "plot maker/breaker" spells make the casters far more important than the non-casters, even if the non-casters are great in combat. And many would argue that they aren't as great in combat as casters.

Well put and pretty much exactly what I've been trying to get at. The sheer influence that casters can have on the story is monumental compared to a martial's influence when it comes to outright nullification of certain challenges. And, it's supposed to be balanced by the martials being effective in combat to offset that versatility, but casters are in most instances as powerful if not much more powerful than martials.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Casters have a wide array of noncombat options, with many "shortcut the entire adventure" spells.
The "plot maker/breaker" spells make the casters far more important than the non-casters, even if the non-casters are great in combat. And many would argue that they aren't as great in combat as casters.

Yeah, not seen this. But then again, I don't run linear adventures, so there isn't any "shortcut the entire adventure". The adventure is wherever they go, and whatever they do.

Basically, people talk about teleport-type spells. That's the only real example that gets brought up. Fly is too limited, scry isn't all that good, and the various divinations are seriously limited (in addition to mostly only being on the cleric list). Teleport, planeshift. Those are taxi-driving, not anything plot-making/plot-breaking.

[Nuptup]

I'd hardly call spending a 4th level spell slot, your action, your reaction, your concentration, succeeding on an ability check, and limiting you to a one-round window of time "lenient".

Just because you should keep close to RAW for spellcasting doesn't mean you have to pull rules gotchas on people to make their ideas auto-fail in the worst possible manner.

Agreed. I am all for allowing people to expend resources to overcome challenges even if it's not explicitly supported. For example, in DnD4e skill challenges, part of their charm was the fact that a player can expend an encounter power that could potentially have a use in the skill challenge to automatically succeed in their test. The example I was giving is very similar to a 4e Skill challenge with a wizard needing to get to the bottom of a ravine and just smiling, hopping down and casting a teleport encounter power at the bottom. It counted as a success for creativity and because it could reasonably be done.

A lot of the argument about this seems to be the "falling is instantaneous and therefore you go from 0 feet to negative 500 instantly, and, I'm sorry but no. There is definitely time to react inside of that window. It still occurs inside a 6 second period of time, and in all actuality could be seen as an involuntary usage of movement through your turn, leaving you with a suite of actions as per normal.

Example, barbarian on a castle tower 500 feet up sees a dragon flying around and plans to jump off, grapple dragon. The way people are ruling it, as soon as he jumps, he is no longer able to act, and is instantly 500 ft lower taking the fall damage, and never gets to make his grapple. This is just.., really dumb thinking...

[Nuptup]

Yeah, not seen this. But then again, I don't run linear adventures, so there isn't any "shortcut the entire adventure". The adventure is wherever they go, and whatever they do.

Basically, people talk about teleport-type spells. That's the only real example that gets brought up. Fly is too limited, scry isn't all that good, and the various divinations are seriously limited (in addition to mostly only being on the cleric list). Teleport, planeshift. Those are taxi-driving, not anything plot-making/plot-breaking.

"Oh crap, we have to find the bad guy!"

Rogue: "I can go get in contact with the thieves guild, send out some people to scout for them for us and hopefully they'll find a lead we can follow. In the meantime, does anyone have any other ideas?"

Wizard: "Don't bother, I used some dumb divination spell to locate him. He's hiding in that barrel over there, eaves dropping on us. oh, and by the way, BANISH. He'll be back in a moment, get in your positions, I'll prepare a hold person."

Everyone: well.., ok i guess. Cool?

--

Or instead of inside a barrel..,

Wizard: "Don't bother, I used some dumb divination spell to locate him. He's inside the old keep hiding amongst his supporters disguised as a servant."

Fighter: "I can go talk to the militia to requisition some transportation. I'll be right back.

Wizard: "Not necessary. Gather round and I'll teleport us right on top of him."

Everyone: well.., ok i guess. Cool?

--

It's almost like casters get utility things that completely ruins any kind of useful narrative from anyone else.

[PhoenixPhyre]

"Oh crap, we have to find the bad guy!"

Rogue: "I can go get in contact with the thieves guild, send out some people to scout for them for us and hopefully they'll find a lead we can follow. In the meantime, does anyone have any other ideas?"

Wizard: "Don't bother, I used some dumb divination spell to locate him. He's hiding in that barrel over there, eaves dropping on us. oh, and by the way, BANISH. He'll be back in a moment, get in your positions, I'll prepare a hold person."

Everyone: well.., ok i guess. Cool?

--

Or instead of inside a barrel..,

Wizard: "Don't bother, I used some dumb divination spell to locate him. He's inside the old keep hiding amongst his supporters disguised as a servant."

Fighter: "I can go talk to the militia to requisition some transportation. I'll be right back.

Wizard: "Not necessary. Gather round and I'll teleport us right on top of him."

Everyone: well.., ok i guess. Cool?

--

It's almost like casters get utility things that completely ruins any kind of useful narrative from anyone else.

Again with the highly slanted, white-room scenarios, leaving out all the detail. For one, wizards don't get any divinations that do that. This isn't 3e.

Scrying? You have to know the person or the place, and there's a good chance it will just outright fail (an amulet of proof against detection and location is uncommon). Plus it doesn't give you much info. Contact other plane? You get 5 one-word answers...if you pass the save. And the being you contact (which you don't control who it is) may not even know the answers--they're not omniscient. Legend lore? Has to be legendary, and lore. Not current locations. Locate creature? 1000 ft range. That's all of them that might help. And all of them are stopped cold by that amulet.

Teleport? Unless you know the area well, you've got a significant chance of misfiring or ending up in a false location. Etc. 3e's dead and gone. Those spells don't have that power, unless the DM stretches things or makes special exceptions for magic that they don't for other things. Which, in the end, is the whole issue.

Basically, the whole "plot warping" thing is something talked about, but it only happens when DMs either
* run linear, pre-planned stories without considering the world (ie are running potemkin village settings
* allow magic to do way more than it says it does, because magic. And restrict non-magic to Guy at the Gym.

Both of those are called bad DMing. Spells should be read literally and restrictively--if there's any reason it won't work (in good faith), it shouldn't work. Skills and non-magic should be read expansively and generously--if there's any reason why it could work, they should get a shot at it. And running real adventures, not bad JRPGs[1] is key to actually being a DM worth mentioning. Any adventure that can be broken by such things was kinda already broken to begin with.

Oh, and readying requires concentration (as we've explained). So the banish ends there and then, before anyone can take positions. And requires them to fail their save and already be in touch range. And lose initiative, etc. Basically, you've stacked the deck in a way that's not exactly persuasive.

[1] I like JRPGs, don't get me wrong. But in TTRPG format, they suck. Bad graphics, worse music, and horrible writing (sorry guys and gals). Especially when the world backing them is paper thin and there are invisible walls everywhere with a pre-planned, pre-plotted story. You don't even have to run a full sandbox, but having some semblance of care and understanding of the world and some adaptability makes all those problems go away.

[Dark.Revenant]

"Oh crap, we have to find the bad guy!"

Rogue: "I can go get in contact with the thieves guild, send out some people to scout for them for us and hopefully they'll find a lead we can follow. In the meantime, does anyone have any other ideas?"

Wizard: "Don't bother, I used some dumb divination spell to locate him. He's hiding in that barrel over there, eaves dropping on us. oh, and by the way, BANISH. He'll be back in a moment, get in your positions, I'll prepare a hold person."

Everyone: well.., ok i guess. Cool?

--

Or instead of inside a barrel..,

Wizard: "Don't bother, I used some dumb divination spell to locate him. He's inside the old keep hiding amongst his supporters disguised as a servant."

Fighter: "I can go talk to the militia to requisition some transportation. I'll be right back.

Wizard: "Not necessary. Gather round and I'll teleport us right on top of him."

Everyone: well.., ok i guess. Cool?

--

It's almost like casters get utility things that completely ruins any kind of useful narrative from anyone else.

You're giving rather unnuanced and exaggerated examples. Occasionally, yes, the mage will just "have the answer" and solve the immediate situation. The reality is often a lot more complicated.

Maybe the bad guy is using Nondetection or has an Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location. Maybe he just has Legendary Resistance to always pass those Scrying saves. Maybe he lives in a lead-lined home that you can't divine the interior of. Maybe you find his location, but he's always surrounded by so many bodyguards that you can't possibly bring enough people via Teleport to stand a chance of beating him, and you need the help of the militia, rallied by the fighter, to stage an assault. Maybe there's a teleportation beacon that redirects you to a specially-prepared trap room. Maybe he has his own means of teleporting away if you ever do jump him in that manner, and he can only be cornered at a point of interest that he isn't willing to give up. Maybe the chance of Teleport's aim being off is too dangerous and would leave the party stranded in the middle of the ocean if anything went wrong—a problem that the rogue can solve by infiltrating the bad guy's place and stealing a goblet that he used for serving wine, so that the teleportation could go off without a chance of failure.

Replies to this thread speak of nerfing casters by making such spells more difficult to pull off, yet the tools to do so are largely already provided to aspiring Dungeon Masters.

[Reach Weapon]

What about invisibility? Yes rogues and others can get ridiculously high stealth rolls, but invisibility "solves" the issue of stealth checks, can affect multiple people, and can be taken by ANY wizard, not just illusionists.

An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.
Invisible Condition (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/appendix-a-conditions#Invisible)
If being invisible is enough for "solving" the problem of stealth checks, rather the more limited issue of obscurement, then it shouldn't be surprising when magical solutions are more powerful.
To the extent you can magically invalidate mundane methods of stealth, it also requires something like Pass without Trace (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/pass-without-trace).

[stoutstien]

No, it just reframes what you should be asking for ability checks for. The default is no proficiency; getting to add proficiency is a bonus. The DC doesn't change.
I wholeheartedly agree but the DCs do need to be changed. DC of 15 is only becomes even odds with a maxed relevant ability score and heaven forbid a DM is really bad at math and uses multiple successful rolls needed to triumph.
The way they presented the ability check system and the progression of the challenges related to them are one of the big hold ups for players who think martials suffer at higher levels.

[Asisreo1]

You are really picking apart the particulars that suit your narrative while ignoring the fact that in my own post I also said that it'd be easier to just wait for the party to go, then teleport to them afterwards. But, that's fine because oh no the spooky fall is passed, guess I'll just burn the clerics healing and we'll move on.

But the point you're not getting is that you gave specific character classes that could just the 30 foot gap with ease, but ignored several things that should be able to. Like, again, why shouldn't the paladin with a 20 strength be able to do the same that the 20 str fighter can do? why did you exclude the paladin?

Because a Paladin is not a Remarkable Athlete. Nor is a fighter capable of having Reliable Talent. And a Monk doesn't have the Indomitable Might to easily push and break things.



Either way, yes, the martials can just do it meanwhile the caster has to expend a resource or have help (like climbing onto the barbarian's back since he can easily do it), but the point is how many other wild things the wizard can just do with little effort while the martials have no crazy comparable feats of capability to compare with. The falling example is just one minor thing. What about flight, just bare-bones flight. the fly spell takes care of any vertical challenge, removes the worry of a potential fall, grants combat benefits, increases speed and maneuverability, and plenty other uses. Again, that's a spell that a lot of people take because it's just good and is something that most martials lacking wings can't really EVER replicate or counter. What about invisibility? Yes rogues and others can get ridiculously high stealth rolls, but invisibility "solves" the issue of stealth checks, can affect multiple people, and can be taken by ANY wizard, not just illusionists. the list goes on.
You abide them all by the rules they're under, not changing them unless you're specifically calling out the rules being changed. Jumping is a form of movement. Its obvious you don't have to have ground contact from the exclusive line segment from point A to point B but you need contact with those points. Otherwise, you'll fall at the end of point B.


My goodness, are we running adventures or obstacle courses? Climbing and jumping pits aren't anything but annoying inconveniences anyways. I can't imagine the climax of the adventure is whether a 30ft pit is a problem for any level of adventurers other than maybe the 1st tier.

Its like the most mundane obstacles ever are being lauded as a game-breaking mechanic. Bypass doors! Climb walls! Swim! Maybe casters can beat martials in a triathalon but when combat is actually mixed in and adds relevant story tension, suddenly spells don't just work like they used to before. Sure, you can try flying up the wall that the archers are shooting from but hope you don't fail the 4+ concentration checks you're making when they all target you.

[Morty]

5e is pretty good at the first, and not bad at the second. Even the third manages to hold up in combat--sure, the barbarian is still just hitting things with an axe, but he's gone from hitting goblins to hitting demon lords, and he can laugh off attacks that would once have turned him into chunky salsa.

Which is fine if you're okay with doing the same thing on level 20 that you did on level 1, but with bigger numbers. This thread is borne out of a dissatisfaction with that. Non-casters scale up in combat, but only ever in terms of doing lots of damage to one target at a time. If they ever run into a situation where doing lots of damage to a single target isn't an option, their capabilities shrink severely.

[Unoriginal]

The "plot maker/breaker" spells make the casters far more important than the non-casters

Again, the Teleporting Gandalf Law:

"If Gandalf can teleport to Mount Doom with minimal effort, then the plot is not about getting to Mount Doom."



Wizard: "Don't bother, I used some dumb divination spell to locate him.

[...]

Wizard: "Don't bother, I used some dumb divination spell to locate him.

Which divination spell(s) are you talking about?


What about invisibility? Yes rogues and others can get ridiculously high stealth rolls, but invisibility "solves" the issue of stealth checks, can affect multiple people, and can be taken by ANY wizard, not just illusionists.

Invisibility doesn't do that.


The list goes on.

The list of spells that are made more powerful by handwaving their limitations and how they're context-dependent while also having no one in-universe know how to deal with said spells does indeed go on.

[strangebloke]

Right. If the GM doesn't add that context, if they set the DC with the "guy in the gym" in mind regardless of the character's level, the level 20 barbarian isn't going to be pulling off many epic feats of strength. Unfortunately, the GM is kind of left to figure this out for themselves*-- the book doesn't talk about taking high levels and/or superhuman ability scores into account, the raw math sure doesn't suggest it, and modules (many people's first introduction to how the game "should" be played) just give static DCs.

Like I said, reminding the GM that "at level one you're a soldier, at level twenty you're a demigod" goes a long way towards making non-spellcasters fun at high levels.


*5e isn't the only system that does this, for the record. The first time someone on a Fate thread mentioned using Aspects as passive blocks it blew my mind.

Ask around these forums. See how many people think that all climbing requires athletics or acrobatics checks, or that wearing heavy armor automatically imposes disadvantage when you're swimming or climbing.

The problem becomes clear.

Perhaps more to the point, skill specialization is possible in 5e via things like expertise and class features, but it shouldn't be as hard to come by as it is. Barbarians usually only get two feats by eighth level, that's not a lot to work with, and multiclassing is not a solution.

The biggest problem with 5e martials is that they genuinely just stop getting interesting class features in T3 and T4. "A Third Attack" is strong but absolutely does not change how the game is played, which is the whole point of T3 and T4. IMO the monk averts this (but is weaker overall at low levels) but Rogues, Fighters, and Barbarians do suffer here.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The biggest problem with 5e martials is that they genuinely just stop getting interesting class features in T3 and T4. "A Third Attack" is strong but absolutely does not change how the game is played, which is the whole point of T3 and T4. IMO the monk averts this (but is weaker overall at low levels) but Rogues, Fighters, and Barbarians do suffer here.

I'm curious to see where that bold part is outlined by the developers. It's been said a lot on the forums, but I have a feeling that it's mostly a hangover from 3e-as-played (not even as-designed). The tier descriptions don't say it--they don't say what you do, merely that you do it at bigger scale. Quantitative, not qualitative differences. As with so many other things, people (especially on forums) seem to expect X when the system only intended and promised Y.

I'm not saying that "changing how the game is played in T3/T4" is wrong, merely that it's (possibly?) not intended, and thus not doing it is not a design error. And in fact, to the degree that caster abilities "change how the game is played"[1], that might be the actual unintended thing.

[1] which I think is drastically overstated, mainly by exaggerating both flexibility (positing Schrodinger's Wizards) and power (assuming that the PCs are the only ones who have ever thought of any of this and that the world will just let you do it...as well as just reading the spells incredibly expansively and generously) of magic, while artificially constraining non-magic to below-realistic, letter-of-the-law standards, under the assumption that the DC for getting out of bed is 15.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Devs just didn’t give enough of them at mid-high levels to non-full casters, because they over estimated the importance of at-will abilities. Interesting point, gonna mull over that but there are a few Tier 3 and 4 abilities I'd like to see tweaked ...

under the assumption that the DC for getting out of bed is 15. It was today. I just spent the last three days helping to pack, load, drive for 4+ hours, unload, and partly unpack my son's move to another city. I am not a young man any more. I hurt in places I haven't hurt in a while. :smallyuk:

Spoiler Alert: driving a U Haul truck is fun for about 20 minutes, then it just sucks, particularly when you get into traffic in a city like San Antonio. :smallannoyed::smalltongue:

[Morty]

I'm curious to see where that bold part is outlined by the developers. It's been said a lot on the forums, but I have a feeling that it's mostly a hangover from 3e-as-played (not even as-designed). The tier descriptions don't say it--they don't say what you do, merely that you do it at bigger scale. Quantitative, not qualitative differences. As with so many other things, people (especially on forums) seem to expect X when the system only intended and promised Y.

I'm not saying that "changing how the game is played in T3/T4" is wrong, merely that it's (possibly?) not intended, and thus not doing it is not a design error. And in fact, to the degree that caster abilities "change how the game is played"[1], that might be the actual unintended thing.


D&D has never actually had any real idea of what high-level play is meant to be like, which is the root cause of many problems discussed in this thread.

[PhoenixPhyre]

D&D has never actually had any real idea of what high-level play is meant to be like, which is the root cause of many problems discussed in this thread.

The default (in the absence of anything else) is "same as low level play, just with bigger numbers/fancier enemies." Is that a great idea? YMMV; lots of people say no. But it certainly does have an idea. 4e made this pretty darn explicit, for better or worse. 5e's basically followed that same pattern--at level 1 you face village-sized threats, mainly by fighting or talking to them. At level 20, you face planar-sized threats, mainly by fighting or talking to them. The backgrounds change and the scale of the threat changes, and you may do more hopping from location to location, but it's still basically the same game.

And really, 5e (without serious cheese like wish/sim loops) doesn't have the "reshape the world single-handedly" or "fight the (real, actual, full-power) gods" capabilities that 3e did. Most of the disparities come from people playing 3e in 5e, including ignoring all the limits.

[Morty]

The default (in the absence of anything else) is "same as low level play, just with bigger numbers/fancier enemies." Is that a great idea? YMMV; lots of people say no. But it certainly does have an idea. 4e made this pretty darn explicit, for better or worse. 5e's basically followed that same pattern--at level 1 you face village-sized threats, mainly by fighting or talking to them. At level 20, you face planar-sized threats, mainly by fighting or talking to them. The backgrounds change and the scale of the threat changes, and you may do more hopping from location to location, but it's still basically the same game.

And really, 5e (without serious cheese like wish/sim loops) doesn't have the "reshape the world single-handedly" or "fight the (real, actual, full-power) gods" capabilities that 3e did. Most of the disparities come from people playing 3e in 5e, including ignoring all the limits.

Except some classes do get completely new capabilities on higher levels while others don't. Going from "can't teleport" to "can teleport" is a different progression than "attacks twice" to "attacks thrice" no matter how many obstacles to teleporting you throw in.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Except some classes do get completely new capabilities on higher levels while others don't. Going from "can't teleport" to "can teleport" is a different progression than "attacks twice" to "attacks thrice" no matter how many obstacles to teleporting you throw in.

In the "normal flow", being able to teleport doesn't really change much. Just changes the scenery in which you fight. It's just a way of "moving faster".

It's also completely replaceable by items, allies, or just different campaign types. It's not really a fundamental qualitative difference.

[Grod_The_Giant]

In the "normal flow", being able to teleport doesn't really change much. Just changes the scenery in which you fight. It's just a way of "moving faster".

It's also completely replaceable by items, allies, or just different campaign types. It's not really a fundamental qualitative difference.
I strongly disagree. The moment a party gets access to teleportation magic, the game changes. Everything becomes local-- going to the other side of the street to consult a scholar and going to the other side of the world to consult a scholar are the same amount of effort. The pace of the game accelerates because travel time isn't a factor anymore, and the scope of the game expands because distance isn't a factor anymore. Broad swathes of potential adventures are suddenly much harder to run, if not totally non-viable.

To take an example from my current game, my group had to travel to a major city on the other side of the continent. Departing at level 8, it was a major endeavor--we needed a ship, crew, supplies, we got tossed around by storms and attacked by harpies; we ran across a city built on the back of a giant turtle and had to deal with a plague of undead along the way. It took us six weeks in-game and almost three months in real life. When we go home at level 9, it'll take all of two seconds because my wizard will be able to cast Teleportation Circle.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing-- the game should qualitatively change as characters gain levels, otherwise there's no point. It's not even a bad thing that only certain archetypes get access to fast travel abilities, or flight, or arcane eye, or any other transformative ability. The party as a whole gains the capability, and that's what's important. But it's sad that there are some (fairly major) archetypes that don't get anything really transformative.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I strongly disagree. The moment a party gets access to teleportation magic, the game changes. Everything becomes local-- going to the other side of the street to consult a scholar and going to the other side of the world to consult a scholar are the same amount of effort. The pace of the game accelerates because travel time isn't a factor anymore, and the scope of the game expands because distance isn't a factor anymore. Broad swathes of potential adventures are suddenly much harder to run, if not totally non-viable.

To take an example from my current game, my group had to travel to a major city on the other side of the continent. Departing at level 8, it was a major endeavor--we needed a ship, crew, supplies, we got tossed around by storms and attacked by harpies; we ran across a city built on the back of a giant turtle and had to deal with a plague of undead along the way. It took us six weeks in-game and almost three months in real life. When we go home at level 9, it'll take all of two seconds because my wizard will be able to cast Teleportation Circle.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing-- the game should qualitatively change as characters gain levels, otherwise there's no point. It's not even a bad thing that only certain archetypes get access to fast travel abilities, or flight, or arcane eye, or any other transformative ability. The party as a whole gains the capability, and that's what's important. But it's sad that there are some (fairly major) archetypes that don't get anything really transformative.

Teleport and Teleport Circle are extremely limited--basically they're only viable for going back to somewhere you've already been. And Teleport Circle requires active permanent circles around (which aren't exactly common or well known in most settings). Which really doesn't buy all that much. They shorten the "returning from adventures" phase, but not the "getting there in the first place".

[Dark.Revenant]

I'd like to point out that the Tiers of Play refer to the kind of obstacles that the party is expected to be able to face and be able to bypass. It's not merely a predictor of the party's capabilities through their Wizard and their Cleric; it's a directive concerning the scope and scale of conflicts at those tiers.

Part of that directive is magic items. For instance, Tier 3 specifically says that "the adventurers find rare magic items (and very rare ones)" with similar capabilities to magic spells like Teleport. The magic item system does a terrible job of communicating this, but if you're lacking those kinds of transformative features from your class, items are supposed to make up the difference.

Is that good design? Probably not. But it's how the game handles this sort of thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd like to point out that the Tiers of Play refer to the kind of obstacles that the party is expected to be able to face and be able to bypass. It's not merely a predictor of the party's capabilities through their Wizard and their Cleric; it's a directive concerning the scope and scale of conflicts at those tiers.

Part of that directive is magic items. For instance, Tier 3 specifically says that "the adventurers find rare magic items (and very rare ones)" with similar capabilities to magic spells like Teleport. The magic item system does a terrible job of communicating this, but if you're lacking those kinds of transformative features from your class, items are supposed to make up the difference.

Is that good design? Probably not. But it's how the game handles this sort of thing.

Right. Or allies with those capabilities. Having a rich (detailed) world lets this be less of a pity-play ("Oh, you don't have a wizard, so here's a pity crutch to get you there") and more of "here's a standing thing you can do". And it can be available as needed earlier on. And doesn't rely on a spell-known tax (which is what baking it into "wizards are expected to provide teleport services" does).

Edit: for example, my setting has a network of permanent teleport gates run by the Adventurer's Guild[1]. They can't really make more that can both send and receive, but they can (and do) put permanent TP circle locations in various cities and the existing gates can use those as destinations. Access to these gates (which are basically in each of the major cities of the main area, plus a few elsewhere) costs cash, but it's not super large amounts for a registered adventurer (~150 gp/person/use). They make most of their money on charging merchants for access. So starting in Tier 2 (when they start coming out of the hinterlands) they can and do pop all over the place, no wizard needed.

[1] which is a bit of a historical misnomer--they're now the international enforcement and regulatory arm of the local fantasy UN. Most of what they do involves regulating adventuring organizations, however.

[Suichimo]

3.5 Tome of Battle. Non-casters can have abilities just as awesome as casters.

5E also has plenty of awesome non-caster abilities with dirt simple game mechanics, if thatÂ’s important to you. Action Surge, Extra Attack 3/4, Expertise, Sneak Attack, Reliable Talent, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, etc. The Devs just didnÂ’t give enough of them at mid-high levels to non-full casters, because they over estimated the importance of at-will abilities.

This is easily fixable. But yes, Tome of Battle was a great solution in 3.5 and should've been the solution in 5e. The fact that they even went so far to make a subsystem called maneuvers, and let others grab bits of it with the feat "Martial Adept", is a travesty and I don't know if it is mocking the ToB or not.


Yeah, not seen this. But then again, I don't run linear adventures, so there isn't any "shortcut the entire adventure". The adventure is wherever they go, and whatever they do.

Basically, people talk about teleport-type spells. That's the only real example that gets brought up. Fly is too limited, scry isn't all that good, and the various divinations are seriously limited (in addition to mostly only being on the cleric list). Teleport, planeshift. Those are taxi-driving, not anything plot-making/plot-breaking.

The fact that you refer to them as "taxi-driving" tells me you've already accounted for them and they have already made/broken your plot enough. Maybe not as a direct result of any of your players, but the sheer possibility changed how you would've designed it.



An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.
Invisible Condition (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/appendix-a-conditions#Invisible)
If being invisible is enough for "solving" the problem of stealth checks, rather the more limited issue of obscurement, then it shouldn't be surprising when magical solutions are more powerful.
To the extent you can magically invalidate mundane methods of stealth, it also requires something like Pass without Trace (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/pass-without-trace).

Yes, invisibility doesn't automatically win at stealth, blah, blah, blah. It didn't in 3.x either but we can all agree it basically won it for you there, and 3.x invisibility can be defeated in the exact same way 5e invisibility can.


Because a Paladin is not a Remarkable Athlete. Nor is a fighter capable of having Reliable Talent. And a Monk doesn't have the Indomitable Might to easily push and break things.


You abide them all by the rules they're under, not changing them unless you're specifically calling out the rules being changed. Jumping is a form of movement. Its obvious you don't have to have ground contact from the exclusive line segment from point A to point B but you need contact with those points. Otherwise, you'll fall at the end of point B.


My goodness, are we running adventures or obstacle courses? Climbing and jumping pits aren't anything but annoying inconveniences anyways. I can't imagine the climax of the adventure is whether a 30ft pit is a problem for any level of adventurers other than maybe the 1st tier.

Its like the most mundane obstacles ever are being lauded as a game-breaking mechanic. Bypass doors! Climb walls! Swim! Maybe casters can beat martials in a triathalon but when combat is actually mixed in and adds relevant story tension, suddenly spells don't just work like they used to before. Sure, you can try flying up the wall that the archers are shooting from but hope you don't fail the 4+ concentration checks you're making when they all target you.

The BBEG is in the middle of a room about to activate an artifact that will cause untold damage to some area of importance. On it's way over, the BBEG destroyed(through explosives or like Mud to Stone or some similar method) the 30' bridge over to the area, the only means of accessing it by foot. The 24 Str Barbarian gets a running start, gives a mighty yell(raging), and leaps over the pit! The Barbarian falls short and falls into the torrential rapids below, because they can only jump 24' at best.

Arguably the best martial character for the situation, due to a combination of increased movement speed and a naturally higher strength score and they still can't make the day saving jump. A spell caster, or even anyone who just picked up Fey Touched, can simply pop right over.


Again, the Teleporting Gandalf Law:

"If Gandalf can teleport to Mount Doom with minimal effort, then the plot is not about getting to Mount Doom."

So the spellcaster already beat that part of the plot.


In the "normal flow", being able to teleport doesn't really change much. Just changes the scenery in which you fight. It's just a way of "moving faster".

It's also completely replaceable by items, allies, or just different campaign types. It's not really a fundamental qualitative difference.

A character having to sacrifice one of their incredibly precious attunement slots, I seriously hate this subsystem by the way, to use a magic item, which was likely created by such a mage anyway, to match what a character can do as simply part of its base kit sounds like a qualitative difference to me. Having to get a Wizard friend to do this for you, which seems to be the point of the thread to begin with, sounds like a qualitative difference to me. Completely changing the type of game you're playing? How is that not a qualitative difference?

[PhoenixPhyre]

The fact that you refer to them as "taxi-driving" tells me you've already accounted for them and they have already made/broken your plot enough. Maybe not as a direct result of any of your players, but the sheer possibility changed how you would've designed it.

A character having to sacrifice one of their incredibly precious attunement slots, I seriously hate this subsystem by the way, to use a magic item, which was likely created by such a mage anyway, to match what a character can do as simply part of its base kit sounds like a qualitative difference to me. Having to get a Wizard friend to do this for you, which seems to be the point of the thread to begin with, sounds like a qualitative difference to me. Completely changing the type of game you're playing? How is that not a qualitative difference?

I implemented my permanent teleport gates when my highest level party was...level 4? Because that's a part of the world. The game doesn't really change at any scale, merely the backdrops. That's no more of a change than "there are fire-based spells". It's a totally meaningless definition of "plot-breaking".

As for items--my current party has a helm of teleportation. Because the Sorcerer (who wears it) didn't want to spend one of his limited spells known on teleport. That's the real tax--if we assume that every party needs to teleport (because that's hypothetically how we "change the game" in T3), then either
* every party needs a wizard who picks that as one of their free spells (false--wizards are one of the rarest classes at my tables)
* every party without a wizard needs a bard or sorcerer who picks that as one of their (very limited) spells known.

That's a tax, and a needless one. Not all wizards, bards, or sorcerers will pick up teleport. Not all parties will have a member of those three classes. Etc. So it cannot be a system assumption. And, in my experience (which has included some groups with permanent teleport effects[1] as well as groups without any access to such things at all), the differences between the actual games is driven much more by the characters and players than by presence or absence of particular buttons on character sheets. Buttons, really, are meaningless for driving plots and can be trivially replaced by allies and items.

As a note, I've had parties travel all over the place even before teleport. But since traveling wasn't part of the challenge (open, relatively nice terrain), them having teleport or not would have changed ~0. Plus, they couldn't have teleported there anyway--they'd never been where they were going. Neither had anyone they knew. It was almost literally "what's over that hill? Let's go find out!".

[1] Had a character in a small-group, basically-no-combat game[2] get access to an at-will, self-and-one-willing-passenger-only gate effect. He played tourist, because that's what he wanted to do. Changed the backdrops and scenery, not the actual type of game we were playing.

[2] which worked just fine. There were token combats, but we basically did not ever roll initiative.

[Morty]

In the "normal flow", being able to teleport doesn't really change much. Just changes the scenery in which you fight. It's just a way of "moving faster".

It's also completely replaceable by items, allies, or just different campaign types. It's not really a fundamental qualitative difference.

Feel free to replace Teleport with creating walls of stone out of nowhere, resurrecting the dead, mind control or banishing outsiders. Even in the context of just fighting the same kind of battles against bigger and badder enemies, these spells expand casters' capabilities in ways nothing higher-level non-casters get can really compare to.


This is easily fixable. But yes, Tome of Battle was a great solution in 3.5 and should've been the solution in 5e. The fact that they even went so far to make a subsystem called maneuvers, and let others grab bits of it with the feat "Martial Adept", is a travesty and I don't know if it is mocking the ToB or not.


To me the attempts to give out maneuvers outside the Battlemaster subclass suggests trying to navigate out of the corner the initial design put the game into.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Feel free to replace Teleport with creating walls of stone out of nowhere, resurrecting the dead, mind control or banishing outsiders. Even in the context of just fighting the same kind of battles against bigger and badder enemies, these spells expand casters' capabilities in ways nothing higher-level non-casters get can really compare to.


None of those (barring raising the dead) really give you much more strategic control. Especially not banishing outsiders--if you can banish it, you can kill it. Sure, it's mildly easier[1], but not qualitatively different.

And raising the dead, given the constraints, really isn't all that much of a change to how you play the game. On a scale of 1 - 3e, it's a...4? Maybe?

Walls of stone are nice...but replaceable by commoners. So unless the DM makes the challenges so that only a wall of stone spell can work (due to tight timelines), it's not really a substantive change. Mind control? Has serious limits, and honestly isn't all that powerful or reliable unless the DM goes out of their way to be generous with interpretations (see the recurring theme)?

And it's not just about battles--the kinds of things you can do at 1st level, you can do (at different scope) just fine at 20th. And vice versa. Sure, it's restricted to a smaller neighborhood and weaker threats (which don't have to be combat threats), but that's a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.

And my original point (that this "total change in how the game is played") isn't actually reflective of design intent. The modules? Consistent game experience as far as they go, and they go well past the point where people say it all changes. The books? Talk about scope changes and other quantitative changes, but not overhauling the whole thing. So maybe its the spells (if they really do change the game) that need to change? You can't always assume that the largest/most-powerful option is the correct one and everyone else needs to go to that level. Instead, you need to decide a priori what the correct level and acceptable range of difference is and adjust anything that falls outside that range, whether up or down.

And simply reading spells narrowly (ie letter-of-the-text interpretations) and non-magic broadly (which is in line with expressed design intent) does 90+% of that work. There are a few easily-abused spells, which should get changed. And wizards need a total overhaul, because their design is awful and the cause of all this issue.

[1] not always, due to needing to be in touch range plus that material component that gets handwaved improperly--you need something objectionable to that specific target. And I'd say no, you can't replace that with an arcane/divine focus or component pouch.

[mr_stibbons]

Walls of stone are nice...but replaceable by commoners. So unless the DM makes the challenges so that only a wall of stone spell can work (due to tight timelines), it's not really a substantive change.


I think you are seriously underestimating the difficulty of making anything as durable as 10ft tall, 6inch thick solid stone barriers in a medieval-ish setting. You will need skilled tradesmen, a supply of good stone or brick to work with, and days of work, or you accept something much less tall or durable. Expecting the local townsfolk to throw that together with a few days warning shouldn't work. Similar with the other uses of wall of stone, like making a bridge.

And, in active combat, being able to isolate half the monsters behind a wall of solid stone without any saving throws allowed is a huge tactical advantage. It's not entirely new to the wizard, hypnotic pattern and sleet storm can do similar things, but they require saves or more specific positioning. Control effects actually get better as you unlock better ones, while damage effects mostly keep up with the progression of monster HP.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think you are seriously underestimating the difficulty of making anything as durable as 10ft tall, 6inch thick solid stone barriers in a medieval-ish setting. You will need skilled tradesmen, a supply of good stone or brick to work with, and days of work, or you accept something much less tall or durable. Expecting the local townsfolk to throw that together with a few days warning shouldn't work. Similar with the other uses of wall of stone, like making a bridge.

You'd be surprised. For one thing, a 6-inch stone wall (without any other supports) isn't all that durable. And commoners were pretty darn good about building stuff. Quantity of labor has a quality all of its own.



And, in active combat, being able to isolate half the monsters behind a wall of solid stone without any saving throws allowed is a huge tactical advantage. It's not entirely new to the wizard, hypnotic pattern and sleet storm can do similar things, but they require saves or more specific positioning. Control effects actually get better as you unlock better ones, while damage effects mostly keep up with the progression of monster HP.

In combat, it's an extension of the same things you could already do. So not a qualitative change. And certainly not a campaign disrupting one.

[Asisreo1]

The BBEG is in the middle of a room about to activate an artifact that will cause untold damage to some area of importance. On it's way over, the BBEG destroyed(through explosives or like Mud to Stone or some similar method) the 30' bridge over to the area, the only means of accessing it by foot. The 24 Str Barbarian gets a running start, gives a mighty yell(raging), and leaps over the pit! The Barbarian falls short and falls into the torrential rapids below, because they can only jump 24' at best.

Arguably the best martial character for the situation, due to a combination of increased movement speed and a naturally higher strength score and they still can't make the day saving jump. A spell caster, or even anyone who just picked up Fey Touched, can simply pop right over.

Unless its an eagle-totem barbarian, in which case he jumps just fine.

What spell does a Light Cleric use to pop over?

[PhoenixPhyre]

What spell does a Light Cleric use to pop over?

Exactly. These discussions usually boil down to people assuming the Schroedinger's Wizard, who always has exactly the right spells (including spells he doesn't have access to, cf most divinations) prepared and slots present.

That, to me, says that the issue is wizards.

[Man_Over_Game]

Unless its an eagle-totem barbarian, in which case he jumps just fine.

What spell does a Light Cleric use to pop over?

TBF, Clerics are basically the Monks of the caster world. Despite being really cool and fun, they don't really do much beyond generic combat stuff.


Exactly. These discussions usually boil down to people assuming the Schroedinger's Wizard, who always has exactly the right spells (including spells he doesn't have access to, cf most divinations) prepared and slots present.



I will say that a 30 foot chasm with a bottomless pit that the players have to traverse or they fail the mission, and their success is basically on a coin flip on what spells/abilities they decided to pick up at the start of the day/campaign is kinda ****ty DM behavior.

Yeah, it's possible, but it's not like a bunch of resources or teamwork is going to solve that problem. Without some kind of way to build a bridge (like Wall of Stone) or spending a crapton of spell slots on Fly, you might get half the party across.

Bottomless floors, in general, are really crappy mechanics to use for comparisons, just because of the fact that there is such a small niche of abilities that allow players to interact with them. Now, if it was a wall, or a monster, or a ritual, or a machine, or whatever, all of those problems seem to go away.

For that reason, I'd like to notion that anything that involves fall damage should never come up in whiteroom discussions like this. It's not fun and nobody likes it.

[Gignere]

TBF, Clerics are basically the Monks of the caster world. Despite being really cool and fun, they don't really do much beyond generic combat stuff.

Unless you’re an arcana cleric.

[Man_Over_Game]

Unless you’re an arcana cleric.

THAT, I can agree with. An Arcana Cleric with Ritual Caster can do a LOT.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For that reason, I'd like to notion that anything that involves fall damage should never come up in whiteroom discussions like this. It's not fun and nobody likes it.[/FONT]

Or DCs for climbing/swimming.

Was seriously tempted to leave off the blue text....

[Suichimo]

None of those (barring raising the dead) really give you much more strategic control. Especially not banishing outsiders--if you can banish it, you can kill it. Sure, it's mildly easier[1], but not qualitatively different.

And raising the dead, given the constraints, really isn't all that much of a change to how you play the game. On a scale of 1 - 3e, it's a...4? Maybe?

Walls of stone are nice...but replaceable by commoners. So unless the DM makes the challenges so that only a wall of stone spell can work (due to tight timelines), it's not really a substantive change. Mind control? Has serious limits, and honestly isn't all that powerful or reliable unless the DM goes out of their way to be generous with interpretations (see the recurring theme)?

And it's not just about battles--the kinds of things you can do at 1st level, you can do (at different scope) just fine at 20th. And vice versa. Sure, it's restricted to a smaller neighborhood and weaker threats (which don't have to be combat threats), but that's a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.

And my original point (that this "total change in how the game is played") isn't actually reflective of design intent. The modules? Consistent game experience as far as they go, and they go well past the point where people say it all changes. The books? Talk about scope changes and other quantitative changes, but not overhauling the whole thing. So maybe its the spells (if they really do change the game) that need to change? You can't always assume that the largest/most-powerful option is the correct one and everyone else needs to go to that level. Instead, you need to decide a priori what the correct level and acceptable range of difference is and adjust anything that falls outside that range, whether up or down.

And simply reading spells narrowly (ie letter-of-the-text interpretations) and non-magic broadly (which is in line with expressed design intent) does 90+% of that work. There are a few easily-abused spells, which should get changed. And wizards need a total overhaul, because their design is awful and the cause of all this issue.

[1] not always, due to needing to be in touch range plus that material component that gets handwaved improperly--you need something objectionable to that specific target. And I'd say no, you can't replace that with an arcane/divine focus or component pouch.

I'll agree with banishment, but the other options definitely give strategic value, both in and out of combat. In combat, a spell like wall of stone is immediate cover and battlefield control. Reviving/Raising the dead you already acknowledge. Even weak mind control like Command has amazingly strategic uses. Out of combat, a spell like Wall of Stone can provide shelter, block off paths, create bridges/paths. Again, I don't need to make an argument for reviving/raising the dead, I'll just mention it can be vastly more powerful out of combat. Mind control is immensely powerful strategically. A Geas to force a conflict between two powers, a Modify Memory to get you in good graces with an important NPC, a Mass Suggestion on several members of a nobleman's guard to join and protect you when you lead the charge to overthrow the "corrupt" noble, and I'm certain many other effects that I'm not thinking of.

This is definitely what I'd like to see. The power of spells dropped and the power of martials brought up. I actually don't mind that casters can fly, teleport, throw fire balls, whatever. I mind that martials have very little ability to compete with that type of thing. It's one of the reasons I love Tome of Battle and am one of the few people who liked 4e. Tome of Battle gave a lot of abilities depending on your stances, boosts, etc. I don't have it in front of me but I remember a Desert Wind stance that allowed you to fly, a Shadow Hand stance that let you do short range teleports, of course there is the infamous Iron Heart Surge to end negative effects on you. Expand the system so it isn't 90% combat and you have a fantastic set of abilities for martials to have.


Unless its an eagle-totem barbarian, in which case he jumps just fine.

What spell does a Light Cleric use to pop over?

I'd like to highlight an important difference here. The eagle-totem Barbarian fails the jump just like every other Barbarian. The eagle-totem Barbarian however FLIES over the gap just fine.

As for the Cleric, not exactly relevant but, there are a few things they could summon.


Exactly. These discussions usually boil down to people assuming the Schroedinger's Wizard, who always has exactly the right spells (including spells he doesn't have access to, cf most divinations) prepared and slots present.

That, to me, says that the issue is wizards.

I'd still say the issue is spells, though Wizards definitely have more issues than most spell casters. As far as "Schroedinger's Wizard", I think it is extremely fair to assume that once a Wizard hits 5th level they pick up Fly either through their free allotment of spells, scribing it out of another Wizard's spell book, or copying it off a scroll and then have it prepared for the remainder of their lifetime. There are a good number of general use spells like this that you can take and prepare probably 60-70% of the time and you'd be making the correct decision.


TBF, Clerics are basically the Monks of the caster world. Despite being really cool and fun, they don't really do much beyond generic combat stuff.



I will say that a 30 foot chasm with a bottomless pit that the players have to traverse or they fail the mission, and their success is basically on a coin flip on what spells/abilities they decided to pick up at the start of the day/campaign is kinda ****ty DM behavior.

Yeah, it's possible, but it's not like a bunch of resources or teamwork is going to solve that problem. Without some kind of way to build a bridge (like Wall of Stone) or spending a crapton of spell slots on Fly, you might get half the party across.

Bottomless floors, in general, are really crappy mechanics to use for comparisons, just because of the fact that there is such a small niche of abilities that allow players to interact with them. Now, if it was a wall, or a monster, or a ritual, or a machine, or whatever, all of those problems seem to go away.

For that reason, I'd like to notion that anything that involves fall damage should never come up in whiteroom discussions like this. It's not fun and nobody likes it.

Fall damage isn't important to the example I made up, just the gap that needs to be crossed. It could just be like a 20 foot drop or whatever. It was just to show that a nearly peak martial couldn't clear something that a lot of casters could do since level 3.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fall damage isn't important to the example I made up, just the gap that needs to be crossed. It could just be like a 20 foot drop or whatever. It was just to show that a nearly peak martial couldn't clear something that a lot of casters could do since level 3.

A lot of casters. Meaning those wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks who picked it up. Which isn't nearly all of them. Plus a land (coast) druids. That's the entire set of people who can have it at level 3.

Again, this comes down to wizards, in the main. And note that you set it up so that misty step works (30 feet) but longer than others can jump unassisted (> 24 feet). That's...a really narrow range here. Suspiciously cherry picked so.

And then you need something that that one wizard, alone and unsupported, can stop in less time than it'd take for the martial to climb to the bottom (1 round with a rope) and back up (1 more round at 20', less if you're looking at a thief rogue). Which basically means you've got a really narrow set of things that this could apply to.

Edit: And I'd consider it not a check at all for that barbarian to just throw the rogue over the gap. King Kong could do it, so so can that barbarian.

[Suichimo]

A lot of casters. Meaning those wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks who picked it up. Which isn't nearly all of them. Plus a land (coast) druids. That's the entire set of people who can have it at level 3.

Again, this comes down to wizards, in the main. And note that you set it up so that misty step works (30 feet) but longer than others can jump unassisted (> 24 feet). That's...a really narrow range here. Suspiciously cherry picked so.

And then you need something that that one wizard, alone and unsupported, can stop in less time than it'd take for the martial to climb to the bottom (1 round with a rope) and back up (1 more round at 20', less if you're looking at a thief rogue). Which basically means you've got a really narrow set of things that this could apply to.

Edit: And I'd consider it not a check at all for that barbarian to just throw the rogue over the gap. King Kong could do it, so so can that barbarian.

I'd qualify three entire classes and a subset of another class as "a lot", to be fair.

Cherry picked it definitely is, it's the lowest point where a caster can make that gap. That was kind of the point. An unassisted martial can't make that jump, and the Barbarian only even gets the full 24' thanks to Fast Movement(because you can't make a jump that would exceed your movement speed). We can make the gap larger if you want. Fly comes on line in the next level of spells, after all, and Dimension Door in the level after that.

My DMs would have the Barbarian make an attack roll to throw the Rogue over, if they even allowed it.

[Unoriginal]

So the spellcaster already beat that part of the plot.

No. It was never a part of the plot to beat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd qualify three entire classes and a subset of another class as "a lot", to be fair.

Cherry picked it definitely is, it's the lowest point where a caster can make that gap. That was kind of the point. An unassisted martial can't make that jump, and the Barbarian only even gets the full 24' thanks to Fast Movement(because you can't make a jump that would exceed your movement speed). We can make the gap larger if you want. Fly comes on line in the next level of spells, after all, and Dimension Door in the level after that.

My DMs would have the Barbarian make an attack roll to throw the Rogue over, if they even allowed it.

How many times has such a thing really come up at your tables? Remember, it has to be something where the wizard, acting alone and unsupported, can solve the issue in a single action (because the rogue can be there the next turn if it's a 20' pit, the turn after if it's not several hundred feet deep). And yes, it's going to be only a subset of those classes, because not everyone picks up misty step. You can't assume that "has class access" and "has prepared and ready" are the same, unless you're talking Schrodinger's Wizard.

And wait. Dashing means that you can jump MIN(STR, (2x speed - 10) = 50 ft) for regular movement, given the strength. So the barbarian doesn't need Fast Movement at all. And that regular jump distance is explicitly a floor, not a ceiling.

So this is all a case of "read martials narrowly and spells expansively". Which is the core of the problem (other than wizards). Could you see King Kong doing it? Then the barbarian can do it.

[Gignere]

Unless its an eagle-totem barbarian, in which case he jumps just fine.

What spell does a Light Cleric use to pop over?

Summon celestial, and it will carry the cleric across.

[Suichimo]

How many times has such a thing really come up at your tables? Remember, it has to be something where the wizard, acting alone and unsupported, can solve the issue in a single action (because the rogue can be there the next turn if it's a 20' pit, the turn after if it's not several hundred feet deep). And yes, it's going to be only a subset of those classes, because not everyone picks up misty step. You can't assume that "has class access" and "has prepared and ready" are the same, unless you're talking Schrodinger's Wizard.

Unfortunately often at my table. My fellow players are also the ones who like to use each other as mounts, when one of them is small.

As for the bolded, I would honestly suggest Misty Step as one of the single best 2nd level spells any character can get. Immensely useful for movement, defense, and stealth. So yes, we can't guarantee every caster capable of casting Misty Step will have Misty Step, except for Wizards because those buttholes can have as many spells as they want, but I would strongly argue that you're hurting yourself for not taking it.


And wait. Dashing means that you can jump MIN(STR, (2x speed - 10) = 50 ft) for regular movement, given the strength. So the barbarian doesn't need Fast Movement at all. And that regular jump distance is explicitly a floor, not a ceiling.

I read that horrendously wrong, then, thankfully. I thought it used base movement speed.


So this is all a case of "read martials narrowly and spells expansively". Which is the core of the problem (other than wizards). Could you see King Kong doing it? Then the barbarian can do it.

All I can say is that I wish my DMs were more like you, on this front.

[Asisreo1]

I'd qualify three entire classes and a subset of another class as "a lot", to be fair.
3 out of 12 classes is alot? I mean, there's 8 spellcasting classes not including artificers and not even half of them have access to this spell.

The reason I brought up the cleric is that having an obstacle with no solution other than using a spell is horrible game design which is a recipe for a situation where everyone looks around confused and feels like you've either railroaded them or are being adversarial when there's no foreseeable solution that the wizard had the thought "maybe I want to prepare Haste this time, change things up."

If any reasonable party of any configuration cannot bypass a necessary obstacle, that's a failure of adventure design.

[Asisreo1]

Summon celestial, and it will carry the cleric across.
I almost never include books past the PHB, DMG, and MM as they aren't considered "core" even if they're official. Its annoying how WoTC force you to pay just to have access to stuff running counter to their own original vision.

[PhoenixPhyre]

All I can say is that I wish my DMs were more like you, on this front.

This is the most common malady I see in online discussions[1] on this point. And it's not said anywhere in the books; in fact, it's actually cautioned against (although not as strongly as it could be). It is an easy trap to fall into, however. "But magic..."/Guy at the Gym thinking has broken editions. And needs to die a horrible agonizing death, for all of our sakes.

[1] I'm a forever DM, so I don't see it at my tables. Or at least I try my hardest to avoid it.

[strangebloke]

If the solution to a certain problem your party is having is "give them a high level DMPC who has the abilities of the class they do not have" you might as well just admit that there's a grievous problem with your system. DMPCs are a hallmark of bad DMing. Imagine, if you will a situation where you have an entire party that is incapable of dealing magical damage, and someone on a DND forum simply tells you, "well its true that a third of the classes in DND can't deal damage, and it is true that the game is designed such that many enemies will be immune to non-magical damage, but you can just provide a DMPC who will deal all the damage for them!"

Its farcical, and the only reason people give stuff like 'teleport' and 'raise dead' a pass is because they're support abilities (though I will point out that even in combat there's no way for martials to efficiently deal with hordes of enemies, either.)

Leaning on the DM to fix a problem in the system is the definition of the rule zero fallacy.

And that's really what we keep coming back to, isn't it? The Barbarian can do this custom action I came up with in this specific situation to save the day. The Fighter can lead an army or something, because DMs always put the fighter in charge of an army for some reason regardless of their intelligence/wisdom score. The party can have a pet wizard who sits all day with his thumb up his butt, waiting for the PCs to drop by so he can ship them off somewhere (note that such a wizard doesn't provide you a route back from the adventure)

The simple truth of the matter is that the vast majority of ALL the pages WOTC have printed in 5e cover either generic options available to everyone, or laser specific spells that half the classes can't access easily, with a narrow bit in the middle covering "class and subclass features" of which the spellcasters get almost as much as the martials. Any attempt to "give the barbarian something to do" past 10th (or even 5th level, if we're being honest) runs right into this problem. If the barbarian is allowed to throw people across a chasm using his strength, can't the fighter? Or the cleric? Or the druid who's turned into a bear? Or the heavily armored dwarf wizard, because that's a thing in this edition?

Like, ooh, you stuck with Barbarian until level 13! Amazing! you get TWO Brutal critical dice now! Nice! Surely that will matter sometime. And Mr. Fighter, he gets to reroll two saving throws over the course of a long rest, wow! Just think, by the time he gets to 17th level, his indomitable feature will be as good as the lucky feat, which honestly he probably also took because what else is he doing with his seventh ability score improvement, I means surely he already got every other possibly relevant feat. Oh yeah, and what's sir wizard getting? Just teleport and/or simulacrum? Just the ability to fundamentally alter the pacing the game, forcing the DM to change the entire plot to compensate for it? Poor dear, casters just aren't allowed to have fun, are they?

There's design space for a simple class that doesn't have complicated resources, but do we really need three such classes? And do the simple classes need to not have options at high levels? This isn't a white room problem, its a real, practical problem I've seen at many tables in spite of me working heavily to compensate for it. I've seen many people retire martials halfway through tier two, and even more frequently I've seen them multiclass into druid or wizard or whatever. Only one of the dozens of characters I've seen make it to tier three was not a multiclassed spellcaster of some strip, and that player was a pure beer and pretzels guy who hated anything more complex than a basic thief. Barbarians, rogues, and fighters do not get very useful or interesting class features in tier two and beyond, and I think this is a problem.

[GeneralVryth]

The simple truth of the matter is that the vast majority of ALL the pages WOTC have printed in 5e cover either generic options available to everyone, or laser specific spells that half the classes can't access easily, with a narrow bit in the middle covering "class and subclass features" of which the spellcasters get almost as much as the martials. Any attempt to "give the barbarian something to do" past 10th (or even 5th level, if we're being honest) runs right into this problem. If the barbarian is allowed to throw people across a chasm using his strength, can't the fighter? Or the cleric? Or the druid who's turned into a bear? Or the heavily armored dwarf wizard, because that's a thing in this edition?

Like, ooh, you stuck with Barbarian until level 13! Amazing! you get TWO Brutal critical dice now! Nice! Surely that will matter sometime. And Mr. Fighter, he gets to reroll two saving throws over the course of a long rest, wow! Just think, by the time he gets to 17th level, his indomitable feature will be as good as the lucky feat, which honestly he probably also took because what else is he doing with his seventh ability score improvement, I means surely he already got every other possibly relevant feat. Oh yeah, and what's sir wizard getting? Just teleport and/or simulacrum? Just the ability to fundamentally alter the pacing the game, forcing the DM to change the entire plot to compensate for it? Poor dear, casters just aren't allowed to have fun, are they?

There's design space for a simple class that doesn't have complicated resources, but do we really need three such classes? And do the simple classes need to not have options at high levels? This isn't a white room problem, its a real, practical problem I've seen at many tables in spite of me working heavily to compensate for it. I've seen many people retire martials halfway through tier two, and even more frequently I've seen them multiclass into druid or wizard or whatever. Only one of the dozens of characters I've seen make it to tier three was not a multiclassed spellcaster of some strip, and that player was a pure beer and pretzels guy who hated anything more complex than a basic thief. Barbarians, rogues, and fighters do not get very useful or interesting class features in tier two and beyond, and I think this is a problem.

Do you expect people to disagree with the idea that Barbarians, Fighters, and Rogues could use some more high level non-combat abilities? That's probably one of the most commonly agreed on things on this forum. Where you are going to find disagreement is what form those abilities should take. There is legitimate reasons for that disagreement as well, different people have different ideas about what the abilities should be (specifically how supernatural they are, if they are at all) because they have different visions of what high level versions of those classes look like.

What people in this thread are saying is a specific spell should never be the only solution to a problem, they should simply just be an option PCs can utilize. If a specific spell is the only solution then it's likely bad DMing, or at the very least the party should have some access to the spell regardless of party composition. Additionally, many spells believed to be narratively broken aren't as powerful as people may think when you look at how they are supposed to operate. Which means the problems of the high level differences aren't as bad as some people have been lead to believe.

[Asisreo1]

If the solution to a certain problem your party is having is "give them a high level DMPC who has the abilities of the class they do not have" you might as well just admit that there's a grievous problem with your system.
Its a failure of your DMing, not the system. Every game (that I played) has something where one class (or class equivalent) has something unique to a different class. But requiring that uniqueness in order to progress is something the system itself can't help other than telling the GM's "don't do that."

[strangebloke]

Do you expect people to disagree with the idea that Barbarians, Fighters, and Rogues could use some more high level non-combat abilities? That's probably one of the most commonly agreed on things on this forum. Where you are going to find disagreement is what form those abilities should take. There is legitimate reasons for that disagreement as well, different people have different ideas about what the abilities should be (specifically how supernatural they are, if they are at all) because they have different visions of what high level versions of those classes look like.

What people in this thread are saying is a specific spell should never be the only solution to a problem, they should simply just be an option PCs can utilize. If a specific spell is the only solution then it's likely bad DMing, or at the very least the party should have some access to the spell regardless of party composition. Additionally, many spells believed to be narratively broken aren't as powerful as people may think when you look at how they are supposed to operate. Which means the problems of the high level differences aren't as bad as some people have been lead to believe.
Its not as bad as third edition but it is still bad. One of the best uses of teleport is for getting out of a dungeon/enemy base in a hurry, and there's no way to replicate that ability without literally having a DMPC to hold your hand. Similarly, not having a cleric means revivify doesn't work for bringing the thief back and you have to seek out a DMPC who's potentially a full tier above you to replicate the effect as well as spending a lot more gold.

IMO the baseline assumption that a high level wizard/cleric gets to warp reality, teleport, see the future, shift planes, raise dead, and summon angels, is a cursed problem in game design without solution other than maybe the myth class as outlined by grod earlier.

As long as we're frozen to a high level paradigm of "guys at the gym and angel summoner" high level play will always be a broken mess that precious few people have any interest in playing at, which is the current paradigm if we're being honest. Expansively interpreting skill checks doesn't solve this problem, as anyone can be really good at those.

Its a failure of your DMing, not the system. Every game (that I played) has something where one class (or class equivalent) has something unique to a different class. But requiring that uniqueness in order to progress is something the system itself can't help other than telling the GM's "don't do that."
...No, the system could give fewer abilities that necessarily are going to be required for the game to progress in a certain way.

[tKUUNK]

It's tricky because, in order to really give them that, 5E combat would have to be granular to a level that would defeat the entire design philosophy behind it (a philosophy that, on balance, in my opinion, was an excellent direction to take D&D and works astoundingly well for the kinds of players I see playing the game [and I know that's a bit chicken and egg]). Once you give a Fighter a rule for breaking someone's sword, then you're tacitly admitting that no one else can do that. But once anyone can do it, you have to find a way to make (some) Fighters better at it, which then makes everyone else retroactively crappy at it, and you can only invoke Advantage/Disadvantage so many times, but anything more persnickety than that just walks us back to 3.5 again.

I don't know what the answer is. I think some work on the saving throws, as mentioned up-thread, could help. Saving Throws is one of the few parts of 5E that I find of dubious merit, conceptually, and also poorly executed. Some different ways to short-change or avoid effects or other rules would be helpful. Maybe some auto-crit rules or insta-kills. A some more debuffs for 'hamstringing' or the like. I remember the old 'Heroic Fray' rule from 2E whereby a Fighter (and only a Fighter) got one attack per round PER level when fighting enemies of less than one HD each. It was fun that, every now and again, the Fighter got to activate super Saiyan mode and just go ham on a pile of Mooks.

This is spot on.

It's hard to solve the issue of our collective yawn @ martial class mechanics without adding complexity to the game. The bump in ASI/feats for martials as suggested above may be the simplest solution. With Resilient, players wanting to boost saves could do so.

However, that's boring compared with the possibilities spellcasting provides.

I'm not saying I want martials to have an analog for every spell out there. Not even close. But martials should get "cool stuff". I like the idea I saw in other threads that every martial class get some version of battlemaster maneuvers. This at least addresses the in-combat boredom of "I swing again". [yawn]

Shifting my focus a bit... Martials also need more ways to do incredible single-target damage. In our tier 3 campaign, the party basically holds space in combat waiting for our only full caster to effectively end the fight with magic (whether it's massive AoE or CC). None of us are particularly uber-optimized, including the caster, so it's a pretty good representation of gameplay as-designed. I seem to have an old memory of Fighters in D&D being really dangerous to anything in their reach, but it's been so long I can't remember why.

Maybe because they used to be WAY harder to hit (bigger AC disparity between classes), they had WAY more hit points (remember when wizards rolled a straight d4 and there was no bonus?), WAY more likely to land a hit, do reliable damage, and walk away from a fight...

I think part of the problem with the magic / martial divide is that it has actually narrowed in the sense that magic users are now every bit as hardy and dependable as the warriors (okay yeah, I see you, Bear-totem Barbs, point taken), with comparable at-will abilities.

Part of what made martials so awesome (in my fading memory) is that they were rugged and dependable. They still are, but they don't hold the monopoly. They just aren't special anymore.

[Asisreo1]

...No, the system could give fewer abilities that necessarily are going to be required for the game to progress in a certain way.
Nothing is required within the system in terms of exploration abilities. The system doesn't require every character to fly, teleport, resurrect, or read minds. That stuff is completely up to the structure of the adventure. And the structure of the adventure is completely up to the DM.

[Dark.Revenant]

I believe earlier in this thread, someone touched on what I believe is the actual solution. And yes, unfortunately, it requires added complexity. It's also very similar to bonus Feats...

Legendary Deeds!

Basically, every class would gain some Legendary Deeds, which would usually have prerequisites in terms of some attribute (like Strength), class level, or character level. This would cause them to be broadly categorized in terms of physical, magical, or general Deeds, though the specific flavor would demand class-specific requirements at times. It wouldn't make much sense for a Druid to build an Arcane Tower, or a Wizard to cultivate a Druid's Grove.

Legendary Deeds would each offer paragon-like abilities that might have minor-to-moderate impact in combat, but are mostly intended as out-of-combat dynamics. It would be a codified way to grant the ability to leap insane distances as a Barbarian, start a small army as a Fighter, learn to fly by making yourself weightless as a Monk, slip through constructs of magic as a Rogue, etc. This sort of thing is what the game would require to even-out the scope of capabilities that magic-users and muggles can both reach. Obviously, martial classes like Barbarian would gain a lot more of these than a Wizard (let's say 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th, and 20th level for a Barbarian and 14th + 20th for a Wizard).

It's a lot of work, though. Maybe something worth writing/selling a book for.

[jas61292]

I think part of the problem with the magic / martial divide is that it has actually narrowed in the sense that magic users are now every bit as hardy and dependable as the warriors (okay yeah, I see you, Bear-totem Barbs, point taken), with comparable at-will abilities.

Part of what made martials so awesome (in my fading memory) is that they were rugged and dependable. They still are, but they don't hold the monopoly. They just aren't special anymore.

I think this is really the biggest issue with modern D&D. I never player anything before 3.5, so I can't say anything with certainty, but from what I have read, it very much seems like, over the years, they took a system that was mostly "balanced" and removed things that were deemed "unfun." And while those things may have been "unfun" they were part of the balance of the game, and when removed, you would need to adjust other things to compensate. But... they largely didn't.

Casters were weaker and very easy to kill? Make them bulkier.
Casters could only do a few things a day? Give them a bunch more spell slots.
Casters need to sit there doing nothing but be protected while they cast? Make spells go faster and be unstoppable.
Casters had nothing they could do without spell slots? Give them at will options similar to a martial's attacks.
Etc.

But never did they say, "huh, maybe if a caster can't be killed as easily their powers shouldn't be as strong," or anything like that. On the other hand they very much did say "you know, it seems unfair that a fighter is so much better at saves than anyone else, we should make that more even."

I know this seems obvious, but if you take a relatively balanced system, and then remove all the negatives from one group of options, while also taking away some positives from another group of options, you are not going to end up with a system that is still balanced.

Whenever conversations like this come up, the focus is almost always on the martial characters and how far behind they are, but the real issue is always the other side. You simply cannot give casters everything they get and not limit them more than they currently are, if you are hoping for a balanced game. That is not to say martials are perfect, but you can buff them somewhat and they will still be behind, so long as your solution is not the often implied "make martials casters, but just pretend they are not because we use different words and descriptions."

[Luccan]

But it wasn't balanced, unless you mean in the sense that it was imbalanced for different characters at different levels. You still didn't play Fighters past a certain level, mages just sucked to play at low-levels.

[jas61292]

But it wasn't balanced, unless you mean in the sense that it was imbalanced for different characters at different levels. You still didn't play Fighters past a certain level, mages just sucked to play at low-levels.

Well, I guess we may be thinking of a different kind of balance then. I personally do not think that balance as in "is X class equally good to Y class" is a meaningful thing. D&D is a team game, and so what I think is what matters is that for whatever the default assumed party size is, is the "ideal" party made up of a variety of different classes, or is it simply the same class (or type of class) over and over.

Again, I do not know older D&D well, but the impression I get is that, due to a caster's frailty and the complex mechanics of casting, even once they get strong and have powerful spells, they still need martial character around or they will quickly meet their demise. That's not necessarily saying that the ideal party of four is necessarily the classic Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, but rather that it was a lot closer to that than it was at some newer versions of the game.

But, when a class is designed to have great power, but with limitations, and then you remove the limitations, you are going to also remove the need for a diverse party. I know that in 3.5 for example, the "ideal party of four" might be considered something like Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Wizard, which is obviously not a balanced and diverse party at all. Its 4 full casters and no martials, entirely because they removed almost every disadvantage of being a caster, while also removing a ton of the advantages of being a martial. Its not simply that one on one a caster is "stronger" than a "martial," but that the "weaker" classes have no niche. Adding another caster to any given party would always be stronger than adding a martial.

I think 5e is a step in the right direction in this regard, in so far as that spells themselves are more limited such that a caster can't effortlessly subsume the entire role of a martial, but I do not think it is ideal. I have no idea what people would consider the "ideal party of four" for 5e, but I would not be surprised if it was (ignoring multiclass builds for now) something like Wizard, Druid, Paladin plus a second Paladin or Wizard. This is definitely an improvement in that, for any given party composition, if you were to add another member, the ideal addition is not necessarily another full caster, but it still has some issues in that a pure martial is almost never going to be considered the best choice. Now, I personally think the biggest issue in that regard is with Paladin, and not the full casters, as there is almost never going to be a party in which a Paladin (whether it be the first one or the fourth one) is not going to be considered the better addition than a Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger or Monk. But at least a Paladin is not just another full caster.

Even so, I think things could be better, such that you are not defaulting to assume that over half the party must be casters, and I think that starts with making sure that casters need martial characters more for combat (eviscerate summoning spells and overpowered damage options), and continues by making sure that they cannot simply solve every problem with a spell (increasing the attractiveness of "skill" classes like Rogue and Ranger).

[MaxWilson]

What I didn't like was the lack of improvement in skills as you leveled--if running a 2e game today, I'd probably use a version of 5e's proficiency bonus, but only for NWPs.

2nd edition lets you increase NWPs by +1 per extra NWP spent, but I think that's too stingy. I make it +2, and I also roll checks on 3d6 instead of 1d20, so +2 matters relatively more.

I do the same thing for psionics.

[tKUUNK]

But it wasn't balanced, unless you mean in the sense that it was imbalanced for different characters at different levels. You still didn't play Fighters past a certain level, mages just sucked to play at low-levels.

This is a good point, thinking back to 2E.

But I guess the way we looked at it back then was, if you were willing to play a wizard, which meant taking the very real daily risk of dying on your face and not even leveling up as fast as your comrades for the first tier of play, then by the time higher levels rolled around, if you'd somehow survived- the whole party got to take pride in your abilities because they helped protect you when you were still a fragile, terrified apprentice.

So you're right, it was NOT balanced across levels. But there was this cool risk/reward mechanic at play, and it felt like a team effort.

[Unoriginal]

Didn't the spellcasters level up more slowly than the other classes/require more XP to level up, in the 2nd edition?

[MaxWilson]

Didn't the spellcasters level up more slowly than the other classes/require more XP to level up, in the 2nd edition?

Yes, but the difference isn't large, typically only 1-2 levels maximum gap between Thief and Wizard.

[Gtdead]

Some thoughts:

I find the discussion about how strong magic is actually, and that spells should be read as restrictively as possible, a bit annoying at times. A high level caster PC is as strong as a high CR caster BBEG at spellcasting. Whatever the BBEG can do, the PC caster can replicate. By trying to contain casters, you contain the dangers of the setting.

It's apparent that there is a problem with the high level martial conceptually. Everyone has his own view of what a high level martial should be able to do. From having supernatural strength like Godzilla, to be dropping from airplanes without parachute and survive with a few scratches. The problem is that these are descriptions based on mechanics and it's a slippery slope. Cause if we start comparing monster stats to PC stats in order to determine if the Barbarian can uproot a tree with his bare hands, then we have to consider the implications of Rogues and Bards being able to take minimums that beat the highest DCs.

Also I think that comparing martials to casters in this discussion is counterproductive. The problem isn't that "casters are better at high level", rather than martials suck at high levels. The opposite is true at low levels. At T1, the martials are flat out better than casters. Is that something to be fixed too? I doubt it. Casters start weaker and end up stronger. Why is this such a controversial thought, especially when DnD (5e at least) is mostly played at low levels and most players will never experience a 1 to 20 game.

Scrying and teleportation are very potent tools and the DM needs to find ways around them once they come online. Perhaps not as potent as they used to be in 3.5, but a wizard still can summon an invisible stalker for when scrying doesn't work, and if teleport has some chance to fail, planeshift doesn't. Mind Blanks and Non Detections can save the BBEG from scrying but villains tend to have servants. Someone won't have an active blocking spell and it's going to be enough. The only way to stop a wizard from preparing is to set time constraints and while some of you may say that you have experience in limiting PC casters, do you limit your BBEG in the same fashion? Because if you don't then there is a serious disconnect that weakens the argument. But in any case, you don't have to do any of that for any martial class.

Lastly I don't think that the way to fix martials is to give them more out of combat abilities. I think that they need skill check debuffs and crowd control, like for example an ability to intimidate the enemy for -1 or 2 save or ac, or to taunt an enemy and force him to attack the martial for a single round, or bluff to redirect an attack. Some other ideas would be that martials can use their reaction to stop an enemy's reaction while in melee range, get more movement with higher levels (it's kind of ironic that wizards can run as fast as martials without magical assistance). They need fun stuff that will be implemented in a broader scale, not limited to subclasses, so the party can work with these abilities and weave them into a tactic without having to shoehorn the player into choosing a subclass that he doesn't like. This is similar to how caster subclasses work. The player can pick his poison and still have enough generalist abilities that the other players know what to expect from the get go.

[SharkForce]

But it wasn't balanced, unless you mean in the sense that it was imbalanced for different characters at different levels. You still didn't play Fighters past a certain level, mages just sucked to play at low-levels.

you must've been playing the game very differently from me.

if you didn't bring fighters to high level play, you were going to do fine for a while, then you'd hit something that will just brutally crush you without even breaking a sweat.

fighters were amazing in 2nd edition. I found them boring, personally, but that doesn't mean they weren't extremely powerful at high levels. a bit of buffing (or the right magic items) and I wouldn't be too surprised if the fighters in the party could each kill an ancient dragon in a single round, provided the dragon doesn't run away.

meanwhile I wouldn't give a wizard nearly as good odds of taking down a dragon, period.

[GeoffWatson]

Didn't the spellcasters level up more slowly than the other classes/require more XP to level up, in the 2nd edition?

No. It looked slower at first glance, as low levels require more XP, but Magic-users overtake Fighters at 6th and are a full level ahead at 10th.

[Luccan]

This is a good point, thinking back to 2E.

But I guess the way we looked at it back then was, if you were willing to play a wizard, which meant taking the very real daily risk of dying on your face and not even leveling up as fast as your comrades for the first tier of play, then by the time higher levels rolled around, if you'd somehow survived- the whole party got to take pride in your abilities because they helped protect you when you were still a fragile, terrified apprentice.

So you're right, it was NOT balanced across levels. But there was this cool risk/reward mechanic at play, and it felt like a team effort.

To be honest, I don't know how much I care about balance anymore. The main reason to pursue it, IMO, is to mechanically enforce equitable character relevancy and spotlight time. Which can be handled by the DM, at least in theory. But it's certainly easier the closer classes are in terms of balance. All this to say: I don't think there's anything wrong with the balance of early editions, as long as you accept it as part of the game. As you say, there's something cool about knowing your fighter has become a ruler and also is close friends with a guy who can stop time and travel to other planes of existence. But I don't think it was very balanced mechanically

Edit: and to be fair, I'm mostly thinking about pre-2e games, which I've actually had the chance to play. This might be less accurate in 2e, but we didn't own those books

[jas61292]

I find the discussion about how strong magic is actually, and that spells should be read as restrictively as possible, a bit annoying at times. A high level caster PC is as strong as a high CR caster BBEG at spellcasting. Whatever the BBEG can do, the PC caster can replicate. By trying to contain casters, you contain the dangers of the setting.

I disagree with most of what you said, largely because I do think casters are the issue, not martials. But I particularly think that this statement is incorrect for 5e in particular. A high level caster PC is not as strong as a high CR caster BBEG, because PC rules in 5e are for PCs and only PCs. As a DM, if you want your caster BBEG to do something that a PC caster can't, go right ahead. Whether that is have a spell do something it might not do for a PC, or whether it is use a totally different spell that you made up that PCs don't have any access to at all. The game is not designed such that PCs and NPCs follow the same rules, and forcing it to do so such that anything your NPCs can do the PCs can also access is not a good practice.

[Gtdead]

I disagree with most of what you said, largely because I do think casters are the issue, not martials.

Suppose for a second that martial classes do not exist, and you have the option to play only casters. Are they an issue? If you think that the answer is yes, then we have a completely different opinion on the matter. If you think the opposite, then martials are the problem, not casters.

The DnD settings are inherently magical, and playing a grunt is a very restrictive experience, best tailored for small scale quests. So the bare minimum is for the game to be balanced around spellcasters. If martials aren't on par, then it's counterproductive to nerf spellcasters because you will have to alter the lore (like 5e had to do, which weakened magic across the board).

And I think we can all agree that we lack a high level martial paradigm. Why should we change something that is well established, when there is a problematic one laying around and ripe for rebalancing/redifining.


But I particularly think that this statement is incorrect for 5e in particular. A high level caster PC is not as strong as a high CR caster BBEG, because PC rules in 5e are for PCs and only PCs. As a DM, if you want your caster BBEG to do something that a PC caster can't, go right ahead. Whether that is have a spell do something it might not do for a PC, or whether it is use a totally different spell that you made up that PCs don't have any access to at all. The game is not designed such that PCs and NPCs follow the same rules, and forcing it to do so such that anything your NPCs can do the PCs can also access is not a good practice.

The MM has spell lists of the same spells explained in the PHB. So the spell rules are the same for everyone. Thus if he can cast it, I can too. The DM can homebrew as much as he likes and create new spells, as long as he informs the players about the possibility and doesn't introduce double standards. If the enemy can accurately teleport everywhere, or directly into my non teleportation zone, he needs to have something that allows this to happen and it can be a target that I will be able to use it too when I steal it. I expect that if I cast nondetection and take preventive measures against spies, the BBEG won't be able to scry. If the DM decides my conjure animals creatures in a random manner, I expect the same to happen if the enemy druid casts Conjure Animals as well. I expect that if I have to counterspell blindly, so will the enemy spellcaster. I expect that if the npc casts teleport, the same rules of spell failure apply without fudges. Also I expect to be informed about all of these things before I commit to the game. I always bring a list of spell interactions to the DM so he can make changes/ban/allow things. If I don't get the same treatment or haven't agreed to changes I'm out. Balancing issues are a table matter, not a DM matter. It happens that the experienced DM has more knowledge on the matter so his opinion carries weight, but there is no one true authority, or at least I don't conform to this style.

PS. This isn't me trying to control what a DM does, nor I'm saying that mistakes can't happen and the DM must be a superhuman that can foresee every problematic scenario, but I like rules and my view is that without having a very methodic approach to this, there can't be any balance at all. If the caster players make the martial players feel inadequate, there should be corrections. But nerfing casters to not steal the spotlight isn't the way, nor it's ok to blame the casters because the Fighter player felt bored after doing the same thing for 100 sessions. That's on him. DnD is very open ended and crazy things can happen, like the Fighter befriending a dragon for example, so he becomes a better "summoner" than a shepherd druid. I have no problem with an "emergent progression" style. I also I'm very supportive of rerolling characters, or even playing multiple ones, as long as it is done in a way that fits the narrative (loosely).

[Unoriginal]

Suppose for a second that martial classes do not exist, and you have the option to play only casters. Are they an issue? If you think that the answer is yes, then we have a completely different opinion on the matter. If you think the opposite, then martials are the problem, not casters.

Suppose for a second that caster classes do not exist, and have the option to play only martials. Are they an issue?



The MM has spell lists of the same spells explained in the PHB. So the spell rules are the same for everyone. Thus if he can cast it, I can too.


Spells are only a small part of magic. There are rituals, places of powers, imprisoned entities, weird planar phenomenons and the like that have nothing to do with the spell rules, and BBEGs using those things to their advantage is one of the oldest tropes in the book.

Plus it's not because the spells are the same that the NPCs have the same abilities related to spells as the PCs. For example, Moloch can cast Animated Dead at will, and Acererak has 2 ninth level spell slots.

Also, there is nothing wrong with the rules limiting what a BBEG or even regular antagonists can do. You're not making the setting less scary just because there are limits.

As you said, if the BBEG uses Scry, they'll have the same limitations as a PC using Scry. You've said that it's a good thing. So why should a DM let the player use Scry in a way other than what the spell is written just because if they don't allow it the BBEG can't do the same?

[jas61292]

Suppose for a second that martial classes do not exist, and you have the option to play only casters. Are they an issue? If you think that the answer is yes, then we have a completely different opinion on the matter. If you think the opposite, then martials are the problem, not casters.

Yeah, I think the (full) casters still are the issue. I can have a game at just about every level that is made up of any mix of Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Paladins, Rangers and Rogues and have very little issue, regardless of level. But add in full casters and things will start to break down. The problem at high levels is not that martials have no good things to do, its that casters have too many win buttons, and other options that invalidate whole other characters.

Yes, the D&D setting is inherently magical, but that does not mean characters need stupid magic powers to solve every issue. It just means that problems, and solutions, can come in all kinds of forms. Problems involving magic are an obvious and common thing, but even without full casters, magic solutions can also be plentiful. Rituals that one must perform, magic items that one has acquired, powerful NPCs that one can recruit, and, of course, low level magic spells. You don't need to have full caster PCs that can repeatedly nullify situations using magic in order to have a strongly magical world.

It is true that a high level magical paradigm exists, while arguably a high level martial one does not. But the high level magical paradigm is so utterly broken, that the best solution starts, not with getting martials to that level, but rather by trashing that high level paradigm completely. After that, if you want to start anew with trying to build a high level game, you can do that. But simply trying to make martials match casters is not going to be a solution, because it ignores all the problems that already exist, and likely just causes them to grow.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, I think the (full) casters still are the issue. I can have a game at just about every level that is made up of any mix of Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Paladins, Rangers and Rogues and have very little issue, regardless of level. But add in full casters and things will start to break down. The problem at high levels is not that martials have no good things to do, its that casters have too many win buttons, and other options that invalidate whole other characters.

Yes, the D&D setting is inherently magical, but that does not mean characters need stupid magic powers to solve every issue. It just means that problems, and solutions, can come in all kinds of forms. Problems involving magic are an obvious and common thing, but even without full casters, magic solutions can also be plentiful. Rituals that one must perform, magic items that one has acquired, powerful NPCs that one can recruit, and, of course, low level magic spells. You don't need to have full caster PCs that can repeatedly nullify situations using magic in order to have a strongly magical world.

It is true that a high level magical paradigm exists, while arguably a high level martial one does not. But the high level magical paradigm is so utterly broken, that the best solution starts, not with getting martials to that level, but rather by trashing that high level paradigm completely. After that, if you want to start anew with trying to build a high level game, you can do that. But simply trying to make martials match casters is not going to be a solution, because it ignores all the problems that already exist, and likely just causes them to grow.

Personally, I believe that the high level magical paradigm is not inevitable with full casters, nor was it intended. It's an outgrowth of the 3e mentality that such a thing is right and good and we'll force it in, no matter how much it breaks.

They've tried to kill that paradigm now in 4e and 5e. But tradition is strong. And the "high level means reshape the world at a whim by magic" crowd is vocal, especially on these forums.

[Gtdead]

Suppose for a second that caster classes do not exist, and have the option to play only martials. Are they an issue?


That's beside the point, high level casters are supposed to create problems, not martials. If the proposed problem isn't an actual problem from a macroscopic perspective, then it's not worth discussing, which is my current opinion on the matter. I'm aware that people will disagree with me on this and continue the discussion and that's perfectly fine. I have my own solution to this, which is inspired by games other than DnD. I could go into extreme detail but I won't do because it will include analysis of other systems.




Spells are only a small part of magic. There are rituals, places of powers, imprisoned entities, weird planar phenomenons and the like that have nothing to do with the spell rules, and BBEGs using those things to their advantage is one of the oldest tropes in the book.

That's not my argument and the players can use these things themselves. I'm talking about caster ability and as far as the spellcasting feature exists, everyone with access to it is equal, assuming equal power. This also is reason enough for the "martial vs caster" comparison to be redundant, which was my original point. Introduce a phenomenon where spellcasting doesn't work right in the area, and suddenly martials become the only viable solution, bar a mcguffin.



Also, there is nothing wrong with limiting what a BBEG or even regular antagonists can do. You're not making the setting less scary, you're making it more coherent.

Neither I said that there is something wrong. I said that spellcasting as a feature is all-embracing and if you nerf spellcasting for players, you nerf it for enemies as well. The rules of what constitutes a challenge in DnD are just guidelines. Character/monster relative power is what's important and the DM can oneup everyone if he has a good reason to do so (and to be frank, I expect the DM to one up me if I dominate the encounter. Makes things more fun). Perhaps that's a thing where mileage may vary, but I expect an arms race where combat is concerned. If my weapons are made weaker, then the enemy's weapons are getting weaker too.



And furthermore, you're saying that only letting spells do what the text says they can do is bad because it limits a caster BBEG, but you're not applying the same standard to martial BBEGs.

My position is that high level casters are as good as high CR casters at spellcasting, while high level martials are not as good as high level bruiser types at bruising. This makes sense insetting IMO so I don't consider it part of the problem but I think that it should be taken into account when discussing the possible solution for high level martials and the direction in which the design should focus.


PS. It's important to note here that when talking about optimization issues, I expect the game to be on par. I'm not inclined to play the most overpowered and broken build in a group with newbies. This discussion only applies in tables where high end optimization, challenging combat matters and everyone is in agreement. Which is why players that don't care about these things so much will never have to face the deadly encounter ending combos that we in this forum reference daily. The vast majority of DM complaints I see here and in reddit have easy solutions that the DM wasn't aware of, and frankly, martials tend to cause more problems for the DM than casters in my experience.
-------------
@jas61292


Yeah, I think the (full) casters still are the issue. I can have a game at just about every level that is made up of any mix of Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Paladins, Rangers and Rogues and have very little issue, regardless of level. But add in full casters and things will start to break down. The problem at high levels is not that martials have no good things to do, its that casters have too many win buttons, and other options that invalidate whole other characters.

I admit that I expected this to be your answer. I know we disagree on a fundamental level. My opinion is that there can be encounter designs where the casters can't win, mostly due to limits in action economy and the concentration rule. 2 Wizards may completely trivialize a Dragon by encasing him in a persistent damaging effect, but this is a problem of scale. Introduce 2 weaker dragons instead and now one is encased while the other roams free and wreaks havoc in the party. We can discuss about simulacrum and arcane abeyance tactics, but eventually there is going to be a limit to what casters can do, and martials will take it from there by providing dpr, which is what they do best. Damage ends the encounter, not tricks, and martials are good at that. It's not necessarily a protagonist role, but it's essential.



Yes, the D&D setting is inherently magical, but that does not mean characters need stupid magic powers to solve every issue. It just means that problems, and solutions, can come in all kinds of forms. Problems involving magic are an obvious and common thing, but even without full casters, magic solutions can also be plentiful. Rituals that one must perform, magic items that one has acquired, powerful NPCs that one can recruit, and, of course, low level magic spells. You don't need to have full caster PCs that can repeatedly nullify situations using magic in order to have a strongly magical world.

Agreed, the world can offer alternatives, but classes and character actions are the primary way for the players to interact with the world. These are the only certain things. So why should we add mcguffins when the solution is right there in the PHB? I personally find it selfish when the players don't want to fill a role, which is probably a very hard stance to take, but I like strict and prohibitive systems.

[Unoriginal]

That's beside the point, high level casters are supposed to create problems, not martials.

I got what you meant, but you got to admit "high level casters are supposed to create problems" is kind of a funny way to phrase it.



Neither I said that there is something wrong. I said that spellcasting as a feature is all-embracing and if you nerf spellcasting for players, you nerf it for enemies as well. The rules of what constitutes a challenge in DnD are just guidelines. Character/monster relative power is what's important and the DM can oneup everyone if he has a good reason to do so (and to be frank, I expect the DM to one up me if I dominate the encounter. Makes things more fun). Perhaps that's a thing where mileage may vary, but I expect an arms race where combat is concerned. If my weapons are made weaker, then the enemy's weapons are getting weaker too.

Having spells only do what the text says they do isn't a nerf to spells. It's how strong they were meant to be.




My position is that high level casters are as good as high CR casters,

I can't think of a high CR caster NPC that is equal to a high level caster PC. Do you have any example?


while high level martials are not as good as high level bruiser types. This makes sense insetting IMO so I don't consider it part of the problem

Just to make clear I understand your position clearly: you think that in-setting it makes sense that high level martial PCs are not on the same power level as high level bruiser NPCs?

[Gtdead]

I got what you meant, but you got to admit "high level casters are supposed to create problems" is kind of a funny way to phrase it.

It's a simple way to phrase it. When I preach about not comparing martials to casters, I don't care too much to phrase it in any better way.




Having spells only do what the text says they do isn't a nerf to spells. It's how strong they were meant to be.

I was referring to conversations on this thread about teleport and scrying not being or not being the ultimate spells that diffuse any situation. It's not my point and I don't really care about the RAW vs RAI and strict vs relaxed reading. This is up to the DM. But these spells are extremely significant and everyone that claims the contrary tries to overcompensate for something in my opinion.



I can't think of a high CR caster NPC that is equal to a high level caster PC. Do you have any example?

Sorry I edited this part a bit after I posted. I meant the caster is equal at spellcasting, assuming similar power level (Lvl 17 vs CR 17 for example). Not that the lvl 20 Wizard is as powerful as a Lich in every aspect.




Just to make clear I understand your position clearly: you think that in-setting it makes sense that high level martial PCs are not on the same power level as high level bruiser NPCs?

Yes, because high CR bruiser enemies are mythic beings, dragons, krakens and whatnot. They are monsters. As I said in a previous post, there are no high CR non-legendary martial humanoids. They cap at CR9-10. Only high CR casters exist. 5etools has an awesome filtering system so you can confirm that for yourself. To me this speaks volumes.

[jas61292]

Sorry I edited this part a bit after I posted. I meant the caster is equal at spellcasting, assuming similar power level (Lvl 17 vs CR 17 for example). Not that the lvl 20 Wizard is as powerful as a Lich in every aspect.

I consider this to be, not an inherent fact of 5e, but an unfortunate quirk of the way they have done monster design. The game makes it quite clear the PCs and NPCs do not use the same rules, especially when it comes to their creation. NPCs can have abilities and stats that PCs cannot, and thus there is no reason that an NPC cannot have magic that is far beyond anything PCs can do. However, for whatever reason (probably because they didn't want to write another entire chapter on NPC exclusive spells) they have never really done anything like this for any of the actual published monsters. But there is no reason that you could not do this as a DM. There is no rule saying that NPC casters have to function just like PC casters, and can only have access to the same spells. If anything, the exact opposite is the truth.

And so, while there may not be any published monsters/NPCs with the equivalent of theoretical level 10 or higher spells, or with the ability to cast far more high level spells, or cast spells faster and more powerfully that a PC, such a creature could easily be made. The Archmage NPC has the spellcasting of an 18th level full caster, but sits at CR12. An appropriately built CR 20 caster should have casting far beyond anything a PC can ever accomplish. The fact that they have only ever chosen to publish monsters that are basically "20th level caster but with more non-casting abilities" does not change this.

So, generally, I guess my point is that its not really fair to say that a high CR NPC martial equivalent can be better than a high level PC martial, but a high CR NPC pure caster equivalent can't, simply based on the fact that Wizards of the Coast has chosen not to actually publish a high CR NPC pure caster.

[Unoriginal]

Sorry I edited this part a bit after I posted. I meant the caster is equal at spellcasting, assuming similar power level (Lvl 17 vs CR 17 for example). Not that the lvl 20 Wizard is as powerful as a Lich in every aspect.

I mean, from the top of my head the Archmage is CR 12 and the spellcasting of a lvl 18 pc, while the CR 18 Drow Favored Consort has the spellcasting of a lvl 11 pc, so I don't think what you wrote is accurate. I could be wrong, though.




Yes, because high CR bruiser enemies are mythic beings, dragons, krakens and whatnot. They are monsters.

Thanks, I get what you mean now.

[Waazraath]

Yes, because high CR bruiser enemies are mythic beings, dragons, krakens and whatnot. They are monsters. As I said in a previous post, there are no high CR non-legendary martial humanoids. They cap at CR9-10. Only high CR casters exist. 5etools has an awesome filtering system so you can confirm that for yourself. To me this speaks volumes.

I don't follow this. I don't know 5etools, but if I look at my books, and humanoids, I see in Volo's a CR 12 Warlord, which is more or less a very high level fighter with the lvl 18 champion ability and bunch of martial adept maneuvers as legendary actions, and I see a CR 12 Arch Druid, which is more or less a very high level druid with 9th level spells and a sort of wildshape. Seems pretty equal to me, in the way the designers assess really high level humanoid NPC's.

[Gtdead]

I consider this to be, not an inherent fact of 5e, but an unfortunate quirk of the way they have done monster design. The game makes it quite clear the PCs and NPCs do not use the same rules, especially when it comes to their creation. NPCs can have abilities and stats that PCs cannot, and thus there is no reason that an NPC cannot have magic that is far beyond anything PCs can do. However, for whatever reason (probably because they didn't want to write another entire chapter on NPC exclusive spells) they have never really done anything like this for any of the actual published monsters. But there is no reason that you could not do this as a DM. There is no rule saying that NPC casters have to function just like PC casters, and can only have access to the same spells. If anything, the exact opposite is the truth.

And so, while there may not be any published monsters/NPCs with the equivalent of theoretical level 10 or higher spells, or with the ability to cast far more high level spells, or cast spells faster and more powerfully that a PC, such a creature could easily be made. The Archmage NPC has the spellcasting of an 18th level full caster, but sits at CR12. An appropriately built CR 20 caster should have casting far beyond anything a PC can ever accomplish. The fact that they have only ever chosen to publish monsters that are basically "20th level caster but with more non-casting abilities" does not change this.

So, generally, I guess my point is that its not really fair to say that a high CR NPC martial equivalent can be better than a high level PC martial, but a high CR NPC pure caster equivalent can't, simply based on the fact that Wizards of the Coast has chosen not to actually publish a high CR NPC pure caster.

There is an insetting explanation for the spell level cap, which is native to the forgotten realms. Gods have forbidden spells of level 10 and higher because the Netherese were careless in their usage. So unless the DM does some serious homebrewing, you won't see any published monster with higher spells than level 9 unless it's a God. WotC tends to progressively decrease the powers of spellcasters with each edition so I doubt that this will change anytime soon. I'm not sure what the explanation is for other settings, but afaik, FR is the main setting.

Homebrew can add anything in the game and balancewise I could even argue for making lvl 20 PC casters able to reach only 6th or 7th level spells if I believed that there is sufficient reason for it, but as long as lore dictates design choices, the devs will try to balance the game around what is supposed to exist in the setting and create odd situations like the one I'm describing. Although I have to say that I personally don't see this as a huge problem and blame the lack of high level martial paradigm. I seriously believe that high level martials are perfectly fine (*) and the only changes needed are ones that add enjoyment, not combat effectiveness.

Based on the lore factor, I don't think that my statement is controversial. This is a simple observation of the current state of the game (which is already 7 years old). Things may change with splatbooks (although I very much doubt it) and I may have to change my view on things, but in the mean time, I think that the community will be best served by learning how to create encounters and conditions that make martials shine a bit brighter.


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

I don't follow this. I don't know 5etools, but if I look at my books, and humanoids, I see in Volo's a CR 12 Warlord, which is more or less a very high level fighter with the lvl 18 champion ability and bunch of martial adept maneuvers as legendary actions, and I see a CR 12 Arch Druid, which is more or less a very high level druid with 9th level spells and a sort of wildshape. Seems pretty equal to me, in the way the designers assess really high level humanoid NPC's.

I said non-legendary and I'm comparing spellcasting ability of the PC classes to the high CR monsters. My argument is about what features and abilities a high level martial should have conceptually. It's not about power because that is relative. For example there is no comparison between the CR12 Archmage and a PC wizard because the later can shapechange and instantly become a CR17+ monster. Also WotC seems to think that a Legendary fighter type monster is the same CR as a featureless Archdruid/mage. Considering that these 2 technically have access to shapechange (although we need to assume that monsters work somewhat like pc classes for this hypothesis), their CR is whatever you want it to be and tagging it as CR12 is actually limiting their potential. It's a self feeding loop, a paradox. The warlord on the other hand is a CR12 through and through.

A high level PC caster can be as good as any high CR monster at spell casting. According to the internet, Niv-Mizzet @26 is the highest CR wizard type monster (dragon) with the ability to concentrate on two spells, having spell resistance etc. The abjurer can replicate all these effects (with some simulacrum trickery for the concentration thing) except DC and that's mostly because of the PC limit on attributes and level otherwise even that would be possible.
A high level PC bruiser is not as good as the high CR monsters at bruising. Monsters will have way higher hit chance, health and sustained damage which gets even higher with legendary actions, along with other features that make the comparison unfair to martials.

This means to me that conceptually, casters are as good as it gets, while bruisers are not. Don't take my argument out of context. I'm trying to explain that whatever martial inadequacies are perceived by the community at higher levels are independent of casters and it's a problem that should be solved by redefining what a high level martial is conceptually. There is no paradigm of a high CR fighter in published material, and by high I mean 17+ at least. Everything either has features that martials don't get, have access to at least halfcaster spell casting progression or some powerful spells/spell like abilities through innate spellcasting/auras, and abilities tied to race (tail attacks, poisons, grappling bites etc).


I mean, from the top of my head the Archmage is CR 12 and the spellcasting of a lvl 18 pc, while the CR 18 Drow Favored Consort has the spellcasting of a lvl 11 pc, so I don't think what you wrote is accurate. I could be wrong, though.

No, you aren't wrong. In fact Drow Favored Consort seems more like an Eldritch Knight than a caster, although it's better than and EK in spellcasting and marginally better in weapon output. There is also the Nagpa, which is a lvl 15 spellcaster at CR17.

PS. By martials I mean strictly mundane classes. We have a lot of paradigms of magical warriors since the early days of DnD. Gishes are extremely popular and people intuitively understand the role of these builds/classes at high levels. Consort while resembling an EK, I classify him as a spellcaster, not a martial, even if the parent class of EK is Fighter.
----------------------------

(*) I am perfectly happy as a high level wizard to buff the fighter with foresight and haste/fly and let him destroy everything in his path. I don't "need" to be the protagonist, I only need to manage my output and survive. This very basic (and strong) function is so integral to the caster playstyle that you can nerf every shenanigan known to the optimizer community and still the casters can be extremely effective. I can also tell you that it would be extremely easy for me as a DM to create an encounter that pretty much enforces this type of play and I think that most people here can easily do the same. One enemy spellcaster is enough to disrupt the party spellcaster. It may not be "fun" for the player, having to face counterspells, dispels and disintegrates on his wall spells, but it's part of the game and braindead encounter design is also not very fun.

[MaxWilson]

Personally, I believe that the high level magical paradigm is not inevitable with full casters, nor was it intended. It's an outgrowth of the 3e mentality that such a thing is right and good and we'll force it in, no matter how much it breaks.

I think it's actually an outgrowth of the mentality that PCs have a right to reach high levels without dying. I say this because I understand that Gygax originally invented 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells for dungeon builders and mad archmages like Zagyg, without the intention of giving PCs access to those spells. Instead of accepting that fact and making archmages rare, 5E has gone the other way and made 9th level spells weak (except where it's overpowered in specific ways, e.g. minionmancy, and even there it's weak compared to Gygaxian magic).

Therefore in 5E, epic bad guys need to resort to DM fiat in order to threaten real danger (perma-winter or kingdom-wide sterility are too powerful for 9th level spells), and archmages are distressingly common in published literature but simultaneously ineffective (unwilling or unable to leverage the 5E spells that are above the curve, like Wish (Clone) and Symbol + Gate combos, dedicating their 9th level slots instead to ineffectual garbage like Time Stop).

Too many archmages, too few epic spells.


Some thoughts:

I find the discussion about how strong magic is actually, and that spells should be read as restrictively as possible, a bit annoying at times. A high level caster PC is as strong as a high CR caster BBEG at spellcasting. Whatever the BBEG can do, the PC caster can replicate. By trying to contain casters, you contain the dangers of the setting.

I mean, maybe. But there's nothing actually stopping a DM from running a setting where at least one BBEG is powerful far beyond what any PC will ever achieve in the next thousand years. Remember Borys of Ebe, the Dragon in Darksun? 30th level Defiler/Psionicist/Dragon with a pile of special abilities like 80% magic resistance, class A flight, and regeneration on top of that (plus terrific AC and a breath weapon). Just because conceptually a PC could eventually achieve similar heights doesn't mean it will actually happen, and if it did happen it would be long after the current campaign has ended one way or the other.

But I agree that 5E hasn't generally gone down this road, even though an individual DM can. 5E's versions of Tiamat/Orcus/etc. are anemic and not terribly interesting to be honest, strategically or tactically. Sul Khatesh is a notable exception due in part to Teleport access.

[SharkForce]

I don't expect to see a more powerful spellcaster monster in 5e any time soon, or at least, not on the "in-combat" scale of things. something like birthright's realm magic, sure, absolutely, no problem. make an entire province go through a drought or summon a legion of undead loyal to you over a period of a month or two, yeah I could see that.

basically, it's the 5-minute adventuring day in reverse. monsters always have a 5-minute adventuring day, so if you put someone with as many spells (and the best spells) of a level 20 wizard as a monster, they can just spam those high level spell slots that the PCs have to save for later use.

you have the archmage NPC fire off meteor swarm, maze and forcecage in the first 3 rounds (or wish ==> symbol) and see how that CR 12 stands up.

(and that's assuming we disregard all the preparation they probably would have done, like having a bunch of symbols and/or glyphs of warding to ruin your day as well).

[jas61292]

There is an insetting explanation for the spell level cap, which is native to the forgotten realms. Gods have forbidden spells of level 10 and higher because the Netherese were careless in their usage. So unless the DM does some serious homebrewing, you won't see any published monster with higher spells than level 9 unless it's a God. WotC tends to progressively decrease the powers of spellcasters with each edition so I doubt that this will change anytime soon. I'm not sure what the explanation is for other settings, but afaik, FR is the main setting

Do you have a source for this? Not that I don't believe you, but I am unfamiliar with FR lore in general. If its stated somewhere in a 5e book, so be it, but I'm hesitant to go by it if it does not have a current edition source.

[MaxWilson]

basically, it's the 5-minute adventuring day in reverse. monsters always have a 5-minute adventuring day,

Do they?

...Chars...

[Gtdead]

Do you have a source for this? Not that I don't believe you, but I am unfamiliar with FR lore in general. If its stated somewhere in a 5e book, so be it, but I'm hesitant to go by it if it does not have a current edition source.

Karsus Folly, the event that caused the ban by Mystra, is a fairly old piece of FR lore. The ban isn't directly referenced in 5e afaik, but Karsus is referenced in SCAG, page 16.

[Zuras]

Would it be an accurate description of the 3.5 and 4e attempts to solve the martial power problem as based on creating powerful, often supernatural abilities for their martial classes, as typified in the Tome of Battle?

It seems like this method isn’t available in non-homebrew 5e at the moment because something like Prestige Classes is the most sensible way to implement it. Effectively this is accepting the logic of guy-at-the-gym arguments and requiring you to pick a source of supernatural power at 11th (or whatever) level.

Is that an accurate interpretation, and if so does anyone have a 3rd party collection of 5e prestige class rules with good martial classes they recommend? Particularly one available on DMsGuild?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Would it be an accurate description of the 3.5 and 4e attempts to solve the martial power problem as based on creating powerful, often supernatural abilities for their martial classes, as typified in the Tome of Battle?

It seems like this method isn’t available in non-homebrew 5e at the moment because something like Prestige Classes is the most sensible way to implement it. Effectively this is accepting the logic of guy-at-the-gym arguments and requiring you to pick a source of supernatural power at 11th (or whatever) level.

Is that an accurate interpretation, and if so does anyone have a 3rd party collection of 5e prestige class rules with good martial classes they recommend? Particularly one available on DMsGuild?

Personally, I've never seen the argument that martials don't have supernatural abilities in 5e to be very persuasive. Rage? That's absolutely a fantastic effect. Action Surge? Shooting a heavy crossbow (with a feat) 8 times in 6 seconds, while running 30' while carrying a pack and wearing armor? That's fantastic. Dodging a point-blank fireball without even a scratch[1]? That's fantastic. Etc.

5e martials are already fantastic, we just have to put the guy-at-the-gym mentality to rest and let them be fantastic. Can/should we add more features? Sure. But that doesn't require anything like prestige classes (which are a horrible horrible horrible idea in 5e).

The flip side is that, in my opinion, we should (instead of making martials ludicrous) tone down the casters. Yes, this would involve slaughtering herds of legacy bovines. But most of it is just enforcing the existing restrictions and not giving them free power "because magic".

Basically, like it or not, there are no mundane PCs in 5e. It's just not an option.

[1] If you're at 50% + 1 HP and Evasion a fireball, you're still not in the "showing signs of damage" range. So you really didn't take a scratch/scorch from it. And this is possible even without anything like cover, or even moving from a 5' square.

[Waazraath]

Personally, I've never seen the argument that martials don't have supernatural abilities in 5e to be very persuasive. Rage? That's absolutely a fantastic effect. Action Surge? Shooting a heavy crossbow (with a feat) 8 times in 6 seconds, while running 30' while carrying a pack and wearing armor? That's fantastic. Dodging a point-blank fireball without even a scratch[1]? That's fantastic. Etc.

5e martials are already fantastic, we just have to put the guy-at-the-gym mentality to rest and let them be fantastic. Can/should we add more features? Sure. But that doesn't require anything like prestige classes (which are a horrible horrible horrible idea in 5e).


Seeing up to 1 mile away, being able to fly in short burst, speak with beast and animals, being so tough you can fall 1000 ft and survive and finally become stonger than a giant... and that's only the eagle totem barbarian, one of the most mundane classes. I think it would be a hell of an X-man. So yeah, you are right, plenty of supernatural abilities available, fighters can heal themselves, monks walk on water, rogues move twice as fast as others on the battlefield, and that's without later editions like Ancestral Barbarians, Rune Knight Fighters, Creepy Soul Powered Rogues or Astral Monks, to name a few.

Mildly related: an eleborate take that 5e already has quite a lot of what 3.5 needed Tome of Battle for: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612915-Probably-unpopular-take-%96-we-have-large-portions-of-Bo9S-ToB-in-5e-already

On the OP, I think a lot of sensible stuff has been said already. On the one hand the caster weaknesses in AD&D that were a kind of balance between martials and casters, which were removed without providing an alternative balance in 3.x. On the other hand, a lot of spells got tuned town or removed between 3.5 and 5e, and new balancing mechanisms like concentration (1 spell/time) got implemented. So I don't see the disbalance in 5e tbh

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet: late 3.5, the designers already found the sweet spot in balancing the classes, given the introduction of lots of "strong but not overpowered classes with their own niche" like beguiler, duskblade, binder, warblade/sword sage/crusader, dread necromancer, etc; (and by replacing types of spells, summoning spells with 1 specific critter instead of "pick any of this 100'ds', polymorph in 1 specific critter instead of "anything with up to X hit dice, etc., but let's not go to far into that). Additionally, strong upgrades were provided for classes like paladin, with very strong feats, alternative class features, and prestige classes.

For 5e, a lot of the overpoweredness of casters, if it takes place, seems to come from 1) too liberal interpretation of what spells can do (counter: read and apply the rules); 2) bad encounter design leading to 5 minute work days (counter: vary adventuring days, from 1 encounter to many many lots lots, with all the tools you have as a DM), 3) world building in which the world is prepared for all the mundane solutions but not for magical solutions (counter: take into account when building a world that if magic is know to exist people will use obvious counters against it, so an invisibility, charm or disguise self isn't an 'I win' button for a social situation). But some of it also seems to be the porting over of 'caster supremacy' of earlier edtions, mainly 3.x, even though it no longer applies, mostly. I find this an interesting illustration of how 3.5 mindset is ported to 5e:



Yes, invisibility doesn't automatically win at stealth, blah, blah, blah. It didn't in 3.x either but we can all agree it basically won it for you there, and 3.x invisibility can be defeated in the exact same way 5e invisibility can.


Because in fact, invisibility in 5e is vastly different. In 3.x, being invisible gave a +20 to your hide check, or +40 when standing still. The skill system had higher scores than 5e, for those that don't know it, but these numbers are really, really high, unbeatable if a wizard had a bit of dex and invested some skill ranks (and Int determined how much skill points you had, so it had them in abundance). Determining where an invisibile creature was required a (very high) spot (now perception) check, in 5e the invisible creature needs to spend an action to hide, gets only advantage, or is spotted. Additionally, the invisible caster in 3.x could cast other buffs like fly (no need to touch the floor and make a noise), which can't be done in 5e (due to concentration).

And finally, it's mentality. When I see people writing about "people swinging sticks" and "people getting better hitting things with sticks" as they describe martials, I get the feeling it's partly just about 'not liking fighters'. Which is fine, to each their own. But if folks can't help writing about classes without describing them in a derogatory manner, I think there's quite a chance that they are also underestimating them, or haven't given their abilities a fair chance.

[Zuras]

<snip>
5e martials are already fantastic, we just have to put the guy-at-the-gym mentality to rest and let them be fantastic. Can/should we add more features? Sure. But that doesn't require anything like prestige classes (which are a horrible horrible horrible idea in 5e).

The flip side is that, in my opinion, we should (instead of making martials ludicrous) tone down the casters. Yes, this would involve slaughtering herds of legacy bovines. But most of it is just enforcing the existing restrictions and not giving them free power "because magic".

Basically, like it or not, there are no mundane PCs in 5e. It's just not an option.

I don’t think it’s really that D&D magic rules are some sort of sacred cow. If the complaint is “martials don’t have enough scope of action at high levels”, responding “make high level wizards play like mid level wizards” completely dodges the issue. It’s basically the same response as “well, don’t play at high levels where the game breaks down, then.” That’s not not a wrong answer, but it’s not a different one.

[Asisreo1]

I don’t think it’s really that D&D magic rules are some sort of sacred cow. If the complaint is “martials don’t have enough scope of action at high levels”, responding “make high level wizards play like mid level wizards” completely dodges the issue. It’s basically the same response as “well, don’t play at high levels where the game breaks down, then.” That’s not not a wrong answer, but it’s not a different one.
The reason why everyone comes up with answers and every time they do its "missing the point" or "avoiding the issue" is because there isn't a single point and the issue isn't a universal one.

The way the system of magic and the Martial v Caster dynamic is a design choice not an issue that can be fixed with a tool.

In this game, the design choice is that casters are versatile and martials are reliable. Rituals, cantrips, and low level spells only gets a caster so far before eventually something rolls damage. A trap, effect, or monster. Martials, as a design choice are optimized for these sudden situations. As much as people want to believe characters are difficult to kill, once you let go of the self-imposed DM constraints, even high-level characters will start dropping dead.

And some players enjoy sitting back until initiative is rolled, and this system allows them to do that and still be very valuable. Some players don't like that, and this system accommodates them.

But some people want all classes/divisions to have those properties. Whether its all classes or both in each division of martial and caster, they want it more spread out. The designers said "no." That can be annoying when you want something and someone tells you "no." Especially when its your fun hobby, but unless you're a designer you have to take what they give you.

Trust me, some design decisions frustrate me too. But I didn't make the game so unless its a genuine, bonafide flaw, I don't really have much force behind my voice.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don’t think it’s really that D&D magic rules are some sort of sacred cow. If the complaint is “martials don’t have enough scope of action at high levels”, responding “make high level wizards play like mid level wizards” completely dodges the issue. It’s basically the same response as “well, don’t play at high levels where the game breaks down, then.” That’s not not a wrong answer, but it’s not a different one.

You're defining "high level wizards" as "can reshape reality at will". That's not how the designers define it. Basically, it's argument by definition.

The game does not break down if you actually use the proper, written-in-the-books limits on spells, let martials be fantastic (which they are by construction), and actually build a fictional world where the PCs aren't the first ones to pull these tricks. Basically, play the game as designed, not as forums and forum!RAW (and hangovers from 3e's as-played absurdity) tell you it should be played. In fact, it ends up looking quite like lower level game-play. Which is how it was designed.

That paradigm shift between high levels and low levels where casters go all "I am the master of reality" and martials can't do anything? Hasn't been part of D&D's design since name levels went away. It's been shoehorned in by people who want magic to be more powerful than it was designed to be by reading out the limits. Stop doing that and the problem resolves itself.

[MaxWilson]

Seeing up to 1 mile away, being able to fly in short burst, speak with beast and animals, being so tough you can fall 1000 ft and survive and finally become stonger than a giant... and that's only the eagle totem barbarian, one of the most mundane classes.

<pet peeve>

Nitpick: anyone can see 1-2 miles away, sometimes more.

But only the Eagle Totem barbarian can potentially read your lips at that distance.

</pet peeve>


You're defining "high level wizards" as "can reshape reality at will". That's not how the designers define it. Basically, it's argument by definition.

The game does not break down if you actually use the proper, written-in-the-books limits on spells, let martials be fantastic (which they are by construction), and actually build a fictional world where the PCs aren't the first ones to pull these tricks.

Er, it actually does break down (becomes unwieldy and unfun to play) if you use the proper, written-in-the-books limits on spells and assume that others have pulled the ridiculous RAW shenanigans like simulacrum loops and Gate assassinations before the PCs come along.

Therefore it's necessary for a DM to override RAW and rewrite Simulacrum or Wish or both, at minimum.

Giving a horde of 100,000 Simulacra to some NPC who came first isn't a solution. Wish (Simulacrum) breaks the game no matter who has it.

What's so annoying about 5E is that it only breaks in specific ways, along specific lines predetermined by which spells are most broken. You want to teleport a whole city to another continent? 100,000 Simulacra can do it. AFAIK, nothing else can. (No arguments about Divine Intervention here please.) There's nothing merely epic in between "powerful" and "ridiculously game-breaking". It makes the whole gameworld feel very artificial, and gamist.

[Asisreo1]

What's so annoying about 5E is that it only breaks in specific ways, along specific lines predetermined by which spells are most broken. You want to teleport a whole city to another continent? 100,000 Simulacra can do it. AFAIK, nothing else can. (No arguments about Divine Intervention here please.) There's nothing merely epic in between "powerful" and "ridiculously game-breaking". It makes the whole gameworld feel very artificial, and gamist.
I don't think you can Simulacrum chain without DM fiat.

There are indeed some loopholes, though, but I believe it to be part of the process of creating anything approaching the complexity of the magic system in D&D. I don't think the solution is to intentionally add more of these, though. Just iron them out.

For Simulacrum, I make the basic arrangement that having the gold isn't enough. You need the ground ruby dust. How do you do that? Sorry, only one way: the RAW crafting rules. Therefore, if you're a spellcaster and want to Simulacrum more than just with Wish, you'll need to spend 300 days of downtime per additional simulacrum.

I'll also impose my DM pressure that your Simulacrum can't cast simulacrum because its technically the same creature as you. (Its really not, but its a ruling to suppress anything slick happening).

[RandomPeasant]

Is that an accurate interpretation, and if so does anyone have a 3rd party collection of 5e prestige class rules with good martial classes they recommend? Particularly one available on DMsGuild?

I would recommend switching to 3.5 or Pathfinder. There's no reason to be too attached to any one gaming system, and those ones provide far more for martial characters to do than 5e does, even if they don't go as far as they should.


I don’t think it’s really that D&D magic rules are some sort of sacred cow. If the complaint is “martials don’t have enough scope of action at high levels”, responding “make high level wizards play like mid level wizards” completely dodges the issue.

I really don't understand the impulse of people who try to fix the issues with martials not being interesting enough by hitting casters with the nerfing stick. That doesn't make martials any more interesting! Especially in 5e. Casters got hit with the nerfing stick a lot. If that didn't solve your problems, maybe it's time to look at some other solutions. The fix for martials is the same in 5e as it was in 3e: give them abilities that are as useful as the ones casters get. It's a bit harder to do, because there aren't well-defined performance benchmarks in 5e because of changes to the CR system, but it's not conceptually complicated.


There's nothing merely epic in between "powerful" and "ridiculously game-breaking". It makes the whole gameworld feel very artificial, and gamist.

Yeah. The issue with casters was never really that that they were "too powerful". It was that they were powerful in stupid ways. The cheesy TO tricks you can do aren't fun or satisfying, but running around casting blasting spells for the entire game isn't either. There needs to be a better job done of allowing people to do things that feel epic and impactful without causing the game to shatter into tiny pieces.

[MaxWilson]

(A) I don't think you can Simulacrum chain without DM fiat.

(B) I'll also impose my DM pressure that your Simulacrum can't cast simulacrum because its technically the same creature as you. (Its really not, but its a ruling to suppress anything slick happening).

(A) You've got that backwards. Otherwise (B) would be unnecessary.

[Sorinth]

I really don't understand the impulse of people who try to fix the issues with martials not being interesting enough by hitting casters with the nerfing stick. That doesn't make martials any more interesting! Especially in 5e. Casters got hit with the nerfing stick a lot. If that didn't solve your problems, maybe it's time to look at some other solutions. The fix for martials is the same in 5e as it was in 3e: give them abilities that are as useful as the ones casters get. It's a bit harder to do, because there aren't well-defined performance benchmarks in 5e because of changes to the CR system, but it's not conceptually complicated.

Because the problem of martials not being fun or interesting isn't that they can't tackle a challenge in a fun/interesting way it's that the spellcaster will often makes the attempt unnecessary. The right spell just works and has no chance of failure whereas the martial approach involving a fun series of skill checks has a risk of failure. So unless the spell slots are being saved for a later encounter the spellcaster renders the martial useless.

It's also why Warlocks and to a lesser extent Sorcerers are seen as less problematic. They either don't have the slots to spend or for Sorcerers don't have enough spells known to cover the different situations.

[Hytheter]

I don't think you can Simulacrum chain without DM fiat.

In the sense that nothing can happen without DM Fiat, sure. But Simulacra chains are straightforward RAW.


For Simulacrum, I make the basic arrangement that having the gold isn't enough. You need the ground ruby dust. How do you do that? Sorry, only one way: the RAW crafting rules. Therefore, if you're a spellcaster and want to Simulacrum more than just with Wish, you'll need to spend 300 days of downtime per additional simulacrum.

Or you could just just ban simulacrum chaining instead of imposing a ridiculous penalty for attempting to use the spell in a legitimate matter. You're trying to tell me "crafting" ground rubies makes more sense than just buying some rubies and grinding them? Or is your assertion that it should take 300 days to turn rubies into dust? Both options are utterly nonsensical. Just put your foot down and toss the cheese instead of being spiteful and ridiculous. Heck, you can ban the spell altogether if you'd rather not deal with it. But if I tell you I want to get components for Simulacrum and you tell me it's going to take 300 days I'm going to roll my eyes and leave.

[Dark.Revenant]

Or you could just just ban simulacrum chaining instead of imposing a ridiculous penalty for attempting to use the spell in a legitimate matter. You're trying to tell me "crafting" ground rubies makes more sense than just buying some rubies and grinding them? Or is your assertion that it should take 300 days to turn rubies into dust? Both options are utterly nonsensical. Just put your foot down and toss the cheese instead of being spiteful and ridiculous. Heck, you can ban the spell altogether if you'd rather not deal with it. But if I tell you I want to get components for Simulacrum and you tell me it's going to take 300 days I'm going to roll my eyes and leave.

Technically, by the RAW crafting rules, you'd only need 500 gp of rubies to create 1000 gp of ruby dust. Makes perfect sense.

[Witty Username]

Personally, I've never seen the argument that martials don't have supernatural abilities in 5e to be very persuasive. Rage? That's absolutely a fantastic effect. Action Surge? Shooting a heavy crossbow (with a feat) 8 times in 6 seconds, while running 30' while carrying a pack and wearing armor? That's fantastic. Dodging a point-blank fireball without even a scratch[1]? That's fantastic. Etc.

And that is not even getting into Rune knight, Echo knight, Soul knife, and Path of the beast style options. Every class in 5e is fantastical and supernatural.

--
I am not sure strict RAW readings of spells solves the issue. Wish is well known for its ability to cut time and material costs, even without simulacrum chains, just being able to copy a monster your fighting mid combat is scary enough. Going down the list spells like wall of force, magic jar, and clone all can have absurd effects either on encounters or campaigns. Also, that would solve range of effect disparity, or martial just sort of not getting much in the way of features past 11th level.
That being said, martial characters tend to have a lot of options when multiclass dipping. Three levels in assassin rogue do wonders for a ranged build, or mixing in some battle master can up your options with little to no sacrifices. It is not pretty, but it does work.

[Hytheter]

That being said, martial characters tend to have a lot of options when multiclass dipping. Three levels in assassin rogue do wonders for a ranged build, or mixing in some battle master can up your options with little to no sacrifices. It is not pretty, but it does work.

I say this as someone playing an 18th level character with three levels in Assassin: Don't do it. It's a trap. I knew it was a trap when I built it and it still finds a way to disappoint me.

[Morty]

Would it be an accurate description of the 3.5 and 4e attempts to solve the martial power problem as based on creating powerful, often supernatural abilities for their martial classes, as typified in the Tome of Battle?

It seems like this method isn’t available in non-homebrew 5e at the moment because something like Prestige Classes is the most sensible way to implement it. Effectively this is accepting the logic of guy-at-the-gym arguments and requiring you to pick a source of supernatural power at 11th (or whatever) level.

Is that an accurate interpretation, and if so does anyone have a 3rd party collection of 5e prestige class rules with good martial classes they recommend? Particularly one available on DMsGuild?

As far as keywords go, "interesting", "varied" and "versatile" are far more important than "powerful", certainly more so than "supernatural". Non-spellcasters do already have access to supernatural abilities, the problem is that unless those abilities are specifically spells, they still boil down to a gameplay style of "hit them again for more damage" and "roll an incrementally better skill check than before".

[SharkForce]

just out of curiosity, a question to ask...

do the people who think martials need more options actually play martials?

I ask because I used to be firmly in the camp that martials are poorly designed for having no options, but my experience has been that suggesting anything to "fix" the problem is simply not welcome.

I couldn't tell you *why* people didn't want more options or anything. they certainly didn't want anything that even *slightly* sounded magical or fantastical in any way (and for all that some aspects of a character are quite fantastical, in other ways they really aren't *that* impressive... for example, a level 20 fighter is frankly not that much more impressive than a group of level 4 fighters in combat, and might actually be shown up by level 5 fighters against an enemy that doesn't require magical weapons to hit or use a lot of AoE attacks). also, in my experience they don't seem to care for stuff like leadership or anything like that.

now, maybe I'm wrong. maybe there are a ton of people playing fighters who long for something kind of like battlemaster maneuvers, except they get actually get better ones at higher levels. maybe there are ranger players who want to be able to instantly befriend all manner of creatures. maybe there are even lots of rogue players who want to be able to steal your dreams or hide from death itself.

but after a whole lot of being told that they don't want my "help", I've decided that the best solution is to just accept that people are apparently happy with it and move on with my life.

I mean, I still think it'd be neat to let barbarians grapple dragons (if a rogue can toe-stab a dragon to death with a 6-inch blade, who am I to tell the barbarian that grappling is unrealistic?) or to let a battlemaster craft a catapult as if they were a 20-man construction crew, or to let the ranger persuade/trick a purple worm to undermine an enemy stronghold... but if the people playing those characters don't want to be able to jump on clouds or look around the world at the back of their own head, who am I to tell them they have to like my ideas?

[Morty]

just out of curiosity, a question to ask...

do the people who think martials need more options actually play martials?

I did play non-spellcasting characters. First a scout rogue up to level 6. It was an experience I sincerely never wish to repeat. Then a battlemaster fighter in a level 4 one-shot. It was better, largely because it was a very combat-heavy adventure, a battlemaster has some rudimentary options and level 4 is probably where they do best. Then a wizard in another level 4 one-shot, this time very combat-light. I'll certainly never play a non-caster if I ever play 5E again. I would like to, because my preferred character types are non-casters, but not if it means playing a sidekick to the real characters.

Which leads me to how this is a feedback loop. People who want more options that scale with level play casters, because what else will they play? Spells are the only way to have those. Even if they'd rather play martial characters, like myself. That, or they quit playing 5E altogether. Like I also did.

[Gtdead]

just out of curiosity, a question to ask...

do the people who think martials need more options actually play martials?

....

I'm in the camp that martials are perfectly fine powerwise and they tend to get boring at high levels, which is why they need more options other than dealing damage and taking punishment. Not all of them are boring though, just the mundane ones. Rangers (especially since xanathar) and Arcane Tricksters are all perfectly fine and enjoyable to me, and I've played these classes once (although none of them in high levels). I'm always left with the feeling that my characters never reached their potential, but I always plan for the 1 to 20 scenario unless stated otherwise, which is why I prefer magical classes and subclasses.

I think a lot of people bring bias from previous editions. For example, a Fighter 20 in 3.5e could be made pointless by a Cleric casting divine power and the assortment of buffs available, persisting them in the process. This isn't the case in this edition. Fighter is always king of DPR at 20 and no other class can come close. Perhaps some funky multiclass can match it under certain conditions or some shapechange shenanigan for a limited time, but against the really high CR monsters, I'd rather have a Fighter than a Sorlock dealing damage.

Fighter will always have a role in 5e. Perhaps this role is what Bard was in 3.5e, the famous 5th party member, to be brought along in the cavern where your paid mercenary army can't follow, but it's a role nonetheless and Fighter is the best at it.

[Waazraath]

just out of curiosity, a question to ask...

do the people who think martials need more options actually play martials?

I ask because I used to be firmly in the camp that martials are poorly designed for having no options, but my experience has been that suggesting anything to "fix" the problem is simply not welcome.

I couldn't tell you *why* people didn't want more options or anything. they certainly didn't want anything that even *slightly* sounded magical or fantastical in any way (and for all that some aspects of a character are quite fantastical, in other ways they really aren't *that* impressive... for example, a level 20 fighter is frankly not that much more impressive than a group of level 4 fighters in combat, and might actually be shown up by level 5 fighters against an enemy that doesn't require magical weapons to hit or use a lot of AoE attacks). also, in my experience they don't seem to care for stuff like leadership or anything like that.

now, maybe I'm wrong. maybe there are a ton of people playing fighters who long for something kind of like battlemaster maneuvers, except they get actually get better ones at higher levels. maybe there are ranger players who want to be able to instantly befriend all manner of creatures. maybe there are even lots of rogue players who want to be able to steal your dreams or hide from death itself.

but after a whole lot of being told that they don't want my "help", I've decided that the best solution is to just accept that people are apparently happy with it and move on with my life.

I mean, I still think it'd be neat to let barbarians grapple dragons (if a rogue can toe-stab a dragon to death with a 6-inch blade, who am I to tell the barbarian that grappling is unrealistic?) or to let a battlemaster craft a catapult as if they were a 20-man construction crew, or to let the ranger persuade/trick a purple worm to undermine an enemy stronghold... but if the people playing those characters don't want to be able to jump on clouds or look around the world at the back of their own head, who am I to tell them they have to like my ideas?

Good question. I'm pretty firmly in the camp that all of this isn't needed for balance, if you play the game as intended and have a half decent DM, but I'd like your ideas and wouldn't mind seeing them implemented.


I did play non-spellcasting characters. First a scout rogue up to level 6. It was an experience I sincerely never wish to repeat. Then a battlemaster fighter in a level 4 one-shot. It was better, largely because it was a very combat-heavy adventure, a battlemaster has some rudimentary options and level 4 is probably where they do best. Then a wizard in another level 4 one-shot, this time very combat-light. I'll certainly never play a non-caster if I ever play 5E again. I would like to, because my preferred character types are non-casters, but not if it means playing a sidekick to the real characters.


And this I simply don't understand, this sentiment, especially if it is derived from playing at low level, where in my experience if any power gap exists it is firmly in favour of martial characters, who have more and more interesting options if the adventuring day is more than 1 or 2 encounters.

To give an example from my current campaign: we are level 10, have a full caster (clockwork sorcerer) 2 half casters (battlesmith artificer and vengeance paladin) and 1 pure martial (battlemaster fighter). All of them are indispensable, and equally contributing. The fighter is essential for battlefield control, with PAM/sentinel feat combo, and maneuvers to shove and trip. The Sorcerer is a very valuable counter against enemy spellcasters (silent counterspell!) and sometimes steals the show by defeating a really big baddy (polymorph on a Kraken and a beholder, in part of the dungon where we could easily dispose the cute little bunny he turned them into); the paladin is wonderful for both burst damage and protecting others (true fighting style and aura), as well as providing healing (together with the arteficer). The Artificer is the most steady source of single target DPR (with SS/CBE), buffs the party and provides (together with the sorcerer) for all kinds of utility.

Specfically the sorcerer (full caster) has the highest peaks and deepest pits when playing: sometimes saving the day, but also, sometimes, large parts of an adventuring day plinking fire bolts or poison spray and doing nothing else. The fighter has a large amount of options every combat, on positioning, where to stand to block access to others, when to use maneuvers and which one, when to action surge, bonus action heal or attack, etc.. It has to make much more tactical decisions than the sorcerer, on the whole.

Again, this is level 10 - next session we hit tier 3. The power bump for fighter and paladin is huge, and though lvl 6 spells can be great, the extra attack / damage will be more impactful than that single extra spell the sorcerer gets. I've never seen "real characters" and "sidekicks".

[Asisreo1]

(A) You've got that backwards. Otherwise (B) would be unnecessary.
Remember, ruby dusts are material components and the DM has the entire grasp of the ruby supply in his hands.

Now to me, its perfectly reasonably to find small amounts of rubies in the jewelers but, as a DM, you have to take responsibility that you just gave the player the keys to a known exploit simply because "its more realistic." There's no shame in noting that all of the ruby supplies are being hoarded by an Efreeti king or that they were all consumed by a powerful wizard of ancient times.

If you're still unwilling to part ways with that mindset, then B becomes necessary.

[Unoriginal]

I did play non-spellcasting characters. First a scout rogue up to level 6. It was an experience I sincerely never wish to repeat. Then a battlemaster fighter in a level 4 one-shot. It was better, largely because it was a very combat-heavy adventure, a battlemaster has some rudimentary options and level 4 is probably where they do best. Then a wizard in another level 4 one-shot, this time very combat-light. I'll certainly never play a non-caster if I ever play 5E again. I would like to, because my preferred character types are non-casters, but not if it means playing a sidekick to the real characters.

Which leads me to how this is a feedback loop. People who want more options that scale with level play casters, because what else will they play? Spells are the only way to have those. Even if they'd rather play martial characters, like myself. That, or they quit playing 5E altogether. Like I also did.

Were all those "I'm never playing martials again"/"I'm never playing 5e again"-causing experiences with the same DM, or with DMs with similar styles?


or to let the ranger persuade/trick a purple worm to undermine an enemy stronghold...

Rangers can do that, though.

[Zuras]

I don’t think it’s really that D&D magic rules are some sort of sacred cow. If the complaint is “martials don’t have enough scope of action at high levels”, responding “make high level wizards play like mid level wizards” completely dodges the issue. It’s basically the same response as “well, don’t play at high levels where the game breaks down, then.” That’s not not a wrong answer, but it’s not a different one.


You're defining "high level wizards" as "can reshape reality at will". That's not how the designers define it. Basically, it's argument by definition.

The game does not break down if you actually use the proper, written-in-the-books limits on spells, let martials be fantastic (which they are by construction), and actually build a fictional world where the PCs aren't the first ones to pull these tricks. Basically, play the game as designed, not as forums and forum!RAW (and hangovers from 3e's as-played absurdity) tell you it should be played. In fact, it ends up looking quite like lower level game-play. Which is how it was designed.

That paradigm shift between high levels and low levels where casters go all "I am the master of reality" and martials can't do anything? Hasn't been part of D&D's design since name levels went away. It's been shoehorned in by people who want magic to be more powerful than it was designed to be by reading out the limits. Stop doing that and the problem resolves itself.


I'm in the camp that martials are perfectly fine powerwise and they tend to get boring at high levels, which is why they need more options other than dealing damage and taking punishment. Not all of them are boring though, just the mundane ones. Rangers (especially since xanathar) and Arcane Tricksters are all perfectly fine and enjoyable to me, and I've played these classes once (although none of them in high levels). I'm always left with the feeling that my characters never reached their potential, but I always plan for the 1 to 20 scenario unless stated otherwise, which is why I prefer magical classes and subclasses.

I think a lot of people bring bias from previous editions. For example, a Fighter 20 in 3.5e could be made pointless by a Cleric casting divine power and the assortment of buffs available, persisting them in the process. This isn't the case in this edition. Fighter is always king of DPR at 20 and no other class can come close. Perhaps some funky multiclass can match it under certain conditions or some shapechange shenanigan for a limited time, but against the really high CR monsters, I'd rather have a Fighter than a Sorlock dealing damage.

Fighter will always have a role in 5e. Perhaps this role is what Bard was in 3.5e, the famous 5th party member, to be brought along in the cavern where your paid mercenary army can't follow, but it's a role nonetheless and Fighter is the best at it.

Just to be clear, my original post was asking for specific techniques or rule changes that have worked in practice in the past if/when martial characters start feeling left behind. The various reasons that happens are bound to come up in discussion, but my question is less about diagnosis and more about treatment—how to keep martial players happy. Careful encounter design that enforces the 5e adventuring day concept was one of the first items brought up, although any techniques for doing so without the players noticing the heavy hand of the DM are welcome (even when it makes plot sense, anti-magic zones and magic immune monsters scream “DM decided to give martials something to do”).

To be clear on my personal stance—I think high level martial/caster balance is perfectly achievable via encounter design over the course of a single adventure, but breaks down if you give the players free rein in an open world unless you give martials something extra (e.g. various cohorts are more likely to follow them, magic items, or other stuff on the list).

In my personal experience, at the very least spells like Simulacrum and Wish need to be handled with restrictive rather than generous interpretations (or removed from the game), and proper encounter balancing is almost impossible for a DM at a table with Tier 4 characters they’ve never seen in action (which is why tier 4 play at conventions is often unsatisfying), but under more optimal conditions it’s entirely possible.

And to repeat my opinion on the 5e classes—the Barbarian and the Ranger need the most help. The Fighter, Monk, and Paladin are fine, though the fighter gets a bit dull outside of combat without (non combat) magic items or followers. Rogues are also generally fine if the DM gives them something to do with their skills and doesn’t change how they set DCs.

Fundamentally, the Barbarian’s shtick of absorbing impossible amounts of damage is just less proactive than the fighter’s ability to deal impossible amounts of damage, especially in high level 5e play where the Barbarian is far more likely to have junk Wis and Int saves than the Fighter (who has enough ASIs to pick up Resilient somewhere along the way). Doesn’t mean they *will* be unhappy, just that they’re easily the most likely to.

As for Rangers, they’re not terrible, but they get the least stuff at high levels. 9th level Rangers are a lot closer in power to 17th level Rangers than 9th level fighters are to 17th level Fighters.

Obviously this is only my personal experience, but I’ve never had to worry about the Barbarian’s combat abilities completely trivializing an encounter, and for the Ranger the only game-breaker is their extended range if using the Sharpshooter feat. With Wizards and Fighters I have to constantly consider whether creatures will even get to act if they roll poorly for initiative.

[strangebloke]

Gosh, I love how the first refuge people run to when there's any criticism of the system is "you suck at DMing/your DM sucks." Such a productive discussion point. Clearly nobody else is playing real DND out here and their personal experiences and feelings of annoyance and frustration are invalid. Even if this is "only a result of bad DMing" I think its telling that so many people have had this experience.

To go back to my earlier example, consider 13th level. Paladin gets fourth level spells and Find Greater Steed. That's a really cool moment, something the paladin player has been looking forward to, something other players will envy. The Wizard can make a simulacrum, something that although sometimes situationally impractical is still very powerful and very interesting. The Wizard has probably been looking forward to using or trying to use that spell, and if he gets it working a lot of other players will envy him for as long as its functional. The cleric gets resurrection, something that can allow them to bring back someone from their backstory who's been dead for ages. Or a former dead party member. It's got huge narrative weight and was something the cleric has been looking forward to for a while.

meanwhile. Brutal critical. +1d12 damage once per combat, but its totally random. Yeah... cool, great. Indomitable. Woohoo, its 1/3 of the lucky feat.

These abilities are anemic and uninteresting. Even stronger high level abilities for martials usually fall along these lines. Martials get stronger access to generic systems that are often poorly defined (what is a DC 24 history check?) casters get access to 10 pages of new rules for their spells.

EDIT: I will also point out that the "casters are versatile and explosive, martials are reliable" thing is mostly a myth and breaks down hard when you look at things like warlocks and moon druids and summoners, as well as the more explosive martial classes like fighter and monk.

[Waazraath]

Gosh, I love how the first refuge people run to when there's any criticism of the system is "you suck at DMing/your DM sucks." Such a productive discussion point.

Imo this is a most unfair 'summary' of what people are actually saying - not quite productive as well, if that's what you're aiming for. The discussions on this topic run as long as this editions exist, and in each of those treads you'll find people coming with examples of spells who are overpowered, but are actually implemented in a way that is not conform the rules; (often because mixing up what a spell did in an earlier edition), you'll find examples or who only run 1 encounter adventuring days and then complain about long rest classes being overpowered, etc.. Sorry, but in those cases people are making mistakes - it has nothing to do with not accepting cristisim on the system per se.

What you describe as "you suck at DM'ing/your DM sucks" can be (and often is) substatiated criticism. No intent to put anybody down, but noticing that somebody is misinterpeting rules and isn't playing the game as written and intended can be (and ime often is) a factual statement'.

[Unoriginal]

but noticing that somebody is misinterpeting rules and isn't playing the game as written and intended can be (and ime often is) a factual statement'.

I'm with you for the rest, but I disagree with that part.

A DM doesn't have to play the game as written or intended to be a good DM.

It's the DM who decides what the game is, not the words on the paper. It can be done well, it can be done badly, but the fact it is done is not an indicator of either.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I am not sure strict RAW readings of spells solves the issue. Wish is well known for its ability to cut time and material costs, even without simulacrum chains, just being able to copy a monster your fighting mid combat is scary enough. Going down the list spells like wall of force, magic jar, and clone all can have absurd effects either on encounters or campaigns. Also, that would solve range of effect disparity, or martial just sort of not getting much in the way of features past 11th level.
That being said, martial characters tend to have a lot of options when multiclass dipping. Three levels in assassin rogue do wonders for a ranged build, or mixing in some battle master can up your options with little to no sacrifices. It is not pretty, but it does work.

There are a few spells that are just out of band. But one note about that wish/sim combat trick--it only works on humanoids and beasts. The number of beasts worth a 9th level spell is...negligible, and the number of humanoid monsters worth changing isn't all that big. Most of the big scary things tend to be, well, neither. And wish itself (the safe uses anyway) is only powerful because the spells it replicates are out of band.

Clone? Sure, it gets around (some forms of) death. For one character, over long time scales. And no, wish doesn't help there at all. I'd put clone as a spell much more useful for NPCs than PCs.

Wall of Force can be bad, I agree. I fully support allowing martials to cut through such things in some way.

Magic jar, to me, is highly situational, and really only strong if you allow cheese. It takes a huge pile of things to all work fine and leaves you in a very precarious position.

The big "warning sign" spells, for me, are ones that either
* have highly unbounded effects (wish, although I'm not super concerned about 9ths just due to the rarity of actually getting to use them, a few others)
* allow "book diving" and get stronger with every monster (etc) book published (polymorph to some degree, summoning spells)
* are long-term effects (I'm not super worried about combat spells, especially high-level ones, because simply having more than one fight in a day pretty much solves those as being the big cheese all the time)

And the real offender, as usual, is the wizard class. When your class features are "I have all the spells", that's a problem. Because then you gain new class features for free every time a book is published and your class features can interact quadratically (or better). My preferred solution is something along the lines of
* move about half of the wizard (and the corresponding spells from other lists) spell list to ritual-type things that anyone can learn/use, but no one can cast from spell slots [solves much of the martial utility lack]
* Force specialization in the spells wizards can learn--no more cherry picking the best spells at will.
* Give them real evocative class features to compensate and bring some sort of theme to their world.

The goal would be not to really change power, but tamp down the insane "I do anything" capabilities, while letting other people play with the toys they've hoarded for several editions now (except 4e).

[Xervous]

But are people fumbling with these situations because they refuse to adopt new methods, or because the game fails to provide enough instruction for them to be able to anticipate these sorts of problems?

[MaxWilson]

Remember, ruby dusts are material components and the DM has the entire grasp of the ruby supply in his hands.

Now to me, its perfectly reasonably to find small amounts of rubies in the jewelers but, as a DM, you have to take responsibility that you just gave the player the keys to a known exploit simply because "its more realistic." There's no shame in noting that all of the ruby supplies are being hoarded by an Efreeti king or that they were all consumed by a powerful wizard of ancient times.

If you're still unwilling to part ways with that mindset, then B becomes necessary.

That's an unusual definition of "fiat", but even in a world without rubies, Simulacrum chains can still exist thanks to Wish, so you haven't solved anything. All that needs to happen is for Wizard A to Wish for a Simulacrum of Wizard B, who knows and has slots available for Wish.

Ergo, the only way to fix the issue is to nerf one or both spells. Trying to get cute with ruby economics won't solve anything.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's an unusual definition of "fiat", but even in a world without rubies, Simulacrum chains can still exist thanks to Wish, so you haven't solved anything. All that needs to happen is for Wizard A to Wish for a Simulacrum of Wizard B, who knows and has slots available for Wish.

Ergo, the only way to fix the issue is to nerf one or both spells. Trying to get cute with ruby economics won't solve anything.

My preferred solution is to fix sim (and other summon spells) by saying "summons/created creatures won't summon/conjure/create anything else". So no chaining anything; no summoning a demon that can summon and having him summon other demons, no wightapocalypse, etc.

That's both for worldbuilding reasons (having to do with souls) and also just for sanity.

I also don't let wish avoid the "target you touch" line of simulacrum, because that's not a component. You have to find another wizard who can do that, and (in my personal world) those are rather few and far between.

[Asisreo1]

That's an unusual definition of "fiat", but even in a world without rubies, Simulacrum chains can still exist thanks to Wish, so you haven't solved anything. All that needs to happen is for Wizard A to Wish for a Simulacrum of Wizard B, who knows and has slots available for Wish.

That gets them an extra simulacrum but its not infinite.

Either way, the exploit is clearly unintentional and shouldn't be lauded as proof of any sort of superiority.

[Zuras]

Gosh, I love how the first refuge people run to when there's any criticism of the system is "you suck at DMing/your DM sucks." Such a productive discussion point. Clearly nobody else is playing real DND out here and their personal experiences and feelings of annoyance and frustration are invalid. Even if this is "only a result of bad DMing" I think its telling that so many people have had this experience.



I don’t think you can dump everything on the DM, but at its root the issue is partially a people/play group problem. I have been in many play groups with experienced players with deep system mastery who were playing optimized full casters. Whether the new guy or gal playing a champion fighter felt good about the game had much more to do with how the experienced players supported them. In one campaign, the new players quickly decided that moon druids were completely OP and did not care one iota, because the druid player’s first words after “I wild shape into a bear” were “want to climb on my back and mess these dudes up?”

The same principle applies even at high levels—stabbing Demogorgon in the face while riding a wizard!dragon feels a lot more awesome than stabbing it in the foot while the wizard!dragon blasts it with acid, even if the damage you’re doing is identical.

Not saying that the classes couldn’t or shouldn’t be better balanced, just that play groups have a lot of influence over whether people are having fun at all levels of D&D, and it doesn’t stop being the most important factor at high levels.

[Morty]

And this I simply don't understand, this sentiment, especially if it is derived from playing at low level, where in my experience if any power gap exists it is firmly in favour of martial characters, who have more and more interesting options if the adventuring day is more than 1 or 2 encounters.

Even on low levels, rudimentary spells and cantrips are versatile in a way no non-spellcasting feature can really match. It does get worse later. Incidentally, in the game where I played a wizard, everyone was a spellcaster - we also had a paladin (using the new fighting style that grants cantrips), an arcane trickster rogue and a multiclass rogue/warlock. Spells in 5E are pretty easy to get and there's not much reason not to get them in some way or the other.


To give an example from my current campaign: we are level 10, have a full caster (clockwork sorcerer) 2 half casters (battlesmith artificer and vengeance paladin) and 1 pure martial (battlemaster fighter). All of them are indispensable, and equally contributing. The fighter is essential for battlefield control, with PAM/sentinel feat combo, and maneuvers to shove and trip. The Sorcerer is a very valuable counter against enemy spellcasters (silent counterspell!) and sometimes steals the show by defeating a really big baddy (polymorph on a Kraken and a beholder, in part of the dungon where we could easily dispose the cute little bunny he turned them into); the paladin is wonderful for both burst damage and protecting others (true fighting style and aura), as well as providing healing (together with the arteficer). The Artificer is the most steady source of single target DPR (with SS/CBE), buffs the party and provides (together with the sorcerer) for all kinds of utility.

Paladins are actually probably the best "martial" class, in no small part because they have spells. Definitely closer to the "real characters" part of the spectrum than the sidekick one. Aside from spells, they have reliable combat skills, powerful auras, Lay on Hands and Smite - for when they don't feel like fiddling with spells and just want to turn something into fine red mist. If all martial classes had a similar spread of passive and active abilities as well as defence, offence and utility, we'd have a lot fewer problems. Battlemasters are among the few (or the only) non-casting option that has something approaching spells in terms of versatility, but the maneuver list never gets better.


Were all those "I'm never playing martials again"/"I'm never playing 5e again"-causing experiences with the same DM, or with DMs with similar styles?

They were three different GMs running different games. Each of them a good GM and a long time friend. So you don't get to pin this on them.

[strangebloke]

Imo this is a most unfair 'summary' of what people are actually saying - not quite productive as well, if that's what you're aiming for. The discussions on this topic run as long as this editions exist, and in each of those treads you'll find people coming with examples of spells who are overpowered, but are actually implemented in a way that is not conform the rules; (often because mixing up what a spell did in an earlier edition), you'll find examples or who only run 1 encounter adventuring days and then complain about long rest classes being overpowered, etc.. Sorry, but in those cases people are making mistakes - it has nothing to do with not accepting cristisim on the system per se.

What you describe as "you suck at DM'ing/your DM sucks" can be (and often is) substatiated criticism. No intent to put anybody down, but noticing that somebody is misinterpeting rules and isn't playing the game as written and intended can be (and ime often is) a factual statement'.
There's a presumption that the problem of high level martial ennui always flows from a poor interpretation of rules. And sure, you can prove that someone misread the rules, but that doesn't prove that it was fundamentally the source of the bad experience. Someone might misunderstand teleport and have a bad time, but if they genuinely wanted to stop playing its unlikely that their problem was just that one spell exactly.

"I had a bad time trying to play a fighter at 11th level"
"why?"
"well it just felt like I had no options in a lot of scenarios, for example in [scenario] the wizard could do x and y, and I couldn't do p or q."
"well your DM wasn't running x or q right, so that's probably your issue."

Stealth rules are a good counterexample here. Stealth rules get abused a lot, but generally it doesn't make people want to retire their characters.

Moreover, people don't question why people misread so many spells. The reason there are so many misinterpreted spells is because there are a lot of spells and a high level caster will have easily 5-10 times as many pages of mechanics to keep track of as a martial does. In such a context its much easier for a DM and player to mess things up and create some broken interaction.

Moreover, whatever people say, the guy at the gym fallacy is still enshrined in the rules. If anything its more alive than ever. Korthrax the Mighty Fighter may have a STR score of 24 and that might nominally make him as strong as a giant, but he can still only jump as far as a real world olympian. His massive physique still doesn't make him any faster than anyone else, doesn't let him easily push through difficult terrain. His +12 athletics modifier looks impressive, but he'll only be able to successfully wrestle the wizard with acrobatics proficiency a slight majority of the time, and the cleric with -1 str and dex will also be able occasionally win.

There is a deep seeded problem with how this sort of thing is handled in 5e and just because its better than 3e doesn't mean it isn't a problem. The default rules often prevent martials from feeling suitably heroic, and the class features of martials are extremely lacking and uninspired compared to the massive wealth of options available to casters. It's very telling that the best martial subclasses are almost universally ones that grant spellcasting. Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, and Shadow Monk all come to mind here.

But are people fumbling with these situations because they refuse to adopt new methods, or because the game fails to provide enough instruction for them to be able to anticipate these sorts of problems?
Correct. Also : DMG skill check guidance is great if a bit bare-bones, but its almost never followed in published adventures, so you can hardly blame new DMs for messing it up.

[ZRN]

There is a deep seeded problem with how this sort of thing is handled in 5e and just because its better than 3e doesn't mean it isn't a problem. The default rules often prevent martials from feeling suitably heroic, and the class features of martials are extremely lacking and uninspired compared to the massive wealth of options available to casters.

This whole post is well-argued, but I think it can be boiled down to the two points you make here: that the rules still default to "guy at a gym" for high-level nonmagical abilities, and that spellcasters get a lot of very specific abilities (spells) that a martial character can't match.

I'll readily agree to the first point as a weakness in the system. A level 20 character with expertise in Athletics should be performing superhuman feats of athleticism. But I think the latter point *DOES* come down to player and DM preference: basically D&D is (relatively) a rules-light game for martial characters outside of combat, and a rules-heavy game for combat and for anything involving magic. Being rules-light isn't inherently less powerful or broad-ranging than being rules-heavy; in fact, it's often pretty empowering! If I want to lie my way past a guard, I don't need to check my spell slots and rules text; I know I can just come up with a lie and roll a deception check, and trust the DM to set a fair DC. But this requires the DM to rule pretty liberally about what's possible with skills and ability checks, while still ruling pretty conservatively about what you can do with magic (e.g. nothing that's not in the spell description).

The "trouble" is that a lot of DMs/groups try to apply a consistent philosophy to the whole game: either they try to be sticklers all the time and don't let martials get away with doing anything that isn't mentioned in the PHB/DMG, or they are more liberal and let people try to use their mundane AND magical abilities beyond the limit of what's in the rules text. T ("sure, you can use Cone of Cold to freeze the water elemental!") The former approach makes high-level martials feel limited and the latter makes mages insanely powerful.

[Man_Over_Game]

The "trouble" is that a lot of DMs/groups try to apply a consistent philosophy to the whole game: either they try to be sticklers all the time and don't let martials get away with doing anything that isn't mentioned in the PHB/DMG, or they are more liberal and let people try to use their mundane AND magical abilities beyond the limit of what's in the rules text. T ("sure, you can use Cone of Cold to freeze the water elemental!") The former approach makes high-level martials feel limited and the latter makes mages insanely powerful.

As a side comment, the options essentially are "Get Over It and Have Less Fun" or "Ignore the rules", neither of which are great philosophies for a gaming rulebook.


I do think there's also the problem of having to fit the power curve of spells into a world that's not ready for it. Being strict on the rules for high-level play would be fine if the heroes were still mercenaries and fighting political skirmishes at level 15. Instead, they're expected to be dealing with demigods, interdimensional monsters, immortal lords of the underworld and such.

Trying to bridge that power gap with "The same Attack Action you did at level 1" and "The crappy skill system that doesn't scale with the rest of the game" as your tools is a lesson in futility.

Which is why most solutions for this level of play are "Add unique feature to martials to let them break the game too" or "Lower the 'Super' level by removing game-changing stuff from casters". I suppose "Fixing the skill system" is another valid approach, if its poor usability is part of the problem.

On the note of lowering the power curve, the Lord of the Rings version of 5e does this pretty well. Casters don't get to Gandalf levels of power until level 20, starting out with a magical level akin to ADND without being useless. Since mages are incredibly rare in the LOTR universe, even a little bit of magic can play a huge factor in otherwise martial-focused engagements. To keep the game interesting, martials get a lot of the utility to compensate, so that everyone is able to contribute to similar degrees. Never played it, but reviews all say the same thing, and that it's really good. Worth a look for those interested.

[strangebloke]

This whole post is well-argued, but I think it can be boiled down to the two points you make here: that the rules still default to "guy at a gym" for high-level nonmagical abilities, and that spellcasters get a lot of very specific abilities (spells) that a martial character can't match.
Pretty much. I get a bit verbose.

I'll readily agree to the first point as a weakness in the system. A level 20 character with expertise in Athletics should be performing superhuman feats of athleticism. But I think the latter point *DOES* come down to player and DM preference: basically D&D is (relatively) a rules-light game for martial characters outside of combat, and a rules-heavy game for combat and for anything involving magic. Being rules-light isn't inherently less powerful or broad-ranging than being rules-heavy; in fact, it's often pretty empowering! If I want to lie my way past a guard, I don't need to check my spell slots and rules text; I know I can just come up with a lie and roll a deception check, and trust the DM to set a fair DC. But this requires the DM to rule pretty liberally about what's possible with skills and ability checks, while still ruling pretty conservatively about what you can do with magic (e.g. nothing that's not in the spell description).

Heh. This is an oldschool argument that people have made since 3e at least, but it doesn't really solve the problem. Boosting the power of ability checks doesn't boost the power of martials as a whole, it boosts features and spells related to ability checks... of which some are accessible to martials. Bards exist! Clerics and Druids can cast Guidance! Pass Without Trace and Glibness exist! Expertise is very accessible for fighters but frankly its pretty accessible for everyone else as well. Barbarians can get advantage on strength checks, but raging just so you can jump a chasm is pretty lame, and the barbarian gets rage at 1st level anyway.

You can't just "run the game in a more accommodating way." If you want the barbarian to have a reason to keep playing a barbarian until level 20 you have to actually give the barbarian class features after fifth level.


The "trouble" is that a lot of DMs/groups try to apply a consistent philosophy to the whole game: either they try to be sticklers all the time and don't let martials get away with doing anything that isn't mentioned in the PHB/DMG, or they are more liberal and let people try to use their mundane AND magical abilities beyond the limit of what's in the rules text. T ("sure, you can use Cone of Cold to freeze the water elemental!") The former approach makes high-level martials feel limited and the latter makes mages insanely powerful.

Personally I favor being more loose with rules in general because that's one of the unique appeals of TTRPGs as opposed to games. But at the same time, you do have to be careful not to allow broken interactions to occur which requires a lot of game knowledge and experience.

[Xetheral]

Were all those "I'm never playing martials again"/"I'm never playing 5e again"-causing experiences with the same DM, or with DMs with similar styles?

To continue from this thought, it's definitely interesting how much impact campaign style can have on the martial/caster disparity. At one extreme, there are campaigns where most of the interesting action takes place off-character-sheet (e.g. campaigns focusing on high-level strategy or in-depth RP), making inter-class balance largely irrelevant. Similarly, there are campaigns where most of the interesting action takes place at the party level (e.g. deciding tactics in advance of a battle) and it matters less who is playing each character as everyone is contributing to the party tactical plan. At the opposite end of the spectrum, campaigns consisting of nothing but scripted combat encounters that must be approached as written also seem to suffer from the disparity less, as the greater flexibility of casters matters less if encounter parameters are fixed and most of the table time is spent in initiative where action economy limitations are strict.

Where the disparity seems to matter most is in campaigns that aren't at any of these extremes. I don't have a good way to succinctly characterize them as a group, but in general I'm thinking of campaigns where "success" is defined as overcoming a series of pre-written limited-scope challenges as presented by the DM, using mainly on-character-sheet abilities, but flexible enough to allow creative use of those abilities to bypass or obviate the pre-written challenges. Then the greater flexibility of the caster classes lets them "succeed" by overcoming the presented challenges in a way the martial classes can't match. This is, of course, a very common campaign style, which I suspect is why the martial/caster disparity gets so much attention.

One potentially productive line of discussion might be to try to figure out what elements could be borrowed from the more extreme styles that don't suffer as much from the disparity and incorporated into the more middle-of-the-road style. If a small enough set of borrowed elements can be found to mitigate the impact of the disparity while keeping the overall playstyle intact, that might be a stopgap solution that doesn't require a wholesale revision of class mechanics.

[ZRN]

Heh. This is an oldschool argument that people have made since 3e at least, but it doesn't really solve the problem. Boosting the power of ability checks doesn't boost the power of martials as a whole, it boosts features and spells related to ability checks... of which some are accessible to martials. Bards exist! Clerics and Druids can cast Guidance! Pass Without Trace and Glibness exist! Expertise is very accessible for fighters but frankly its pretty accessible for everyone else as well. Barbarians can get advantage on strength checks, but raging just so you can jump a chasm is pretty lame, and the barbarian gets rage at 1st level anyway.

I've been saying since the 5e playtest that it was a mistake not to include more built-in noncombat advantages for martial classes, but in subtle ways (which I'm sure you're aware of) 5e martials actually do tend to benefit more from skill checks than non-martials (other than bards): on top of the obvious rogue stuff like reliable talent and expertise, abilities like cunning action, action surge, and even extra attack provide the opportunity to use more skills in combat situations.


You can't just "run the game in a more accommodating way." If you want the barbarian to have a reason to keep playing a barbarian until level 20 you have to actually give the barbarian class features after fifth level.

Yes, barbarians need work, but I think that's more class-specific than systemic. But it's a multivalent problem because while SOME players wish their barbarian turned into Beowulf by level 20, others are really invested in the "Badass Normal" trope of the guy who has absolutely no supernatural attributes but is able to hang with demigods through sheer resourcefulness, planning, grit, etc. Like, will the barbarian be happy if you give him Mjolnir and let him fly around smashing dragons in midair? Or is he trying to play Conan, and would be happier just staying on the ground stabbing people in the face, in which case your challenge is to come up with reasons the bad guys don't just fly around and nuke him from orbit?


Personally I favor being more loose with rules in general because that's one of the unique appeals of TTRPGs as opposed to games. But at the same time, you do have to be careful not to allow broken interactions to occur which requires a lot of game knowledge and experience.

I think"fool me twice, shame on me" is a decent DM rule of thumb for these kinds of interactions: the player who comes up with a cool, broken rules interaction should get to benefit from it at least once, but if they try to make it a pattern they should know that Unintended Consequences are coming there way. That way players don't feel shut down but they also aren't allowed to make things too unbalanced and repetitive.

This is IME fairly easy with high-level spells like Clone and Wish, because that level magic is so rare and dangerous that you can come up with all sorts of narratively interesting complications for their overuse.

[Man_Over_Game]

Where the disparity seems to matter most is in campaigns that aren't at any of these extremes. I don't have a good way to succinctly characterize them as a group, but in general I'm thinking of campaigns where "success" is defined as overcoming a series of pre-written limited-scope challenges as presented by the DM, using mainly on-character-sheet abilities, but flexible enough to allow creative use of those abilities to bypass or obviate the pre-written challenges. Then the greater flexibility of the caster classes lets them "succeed" by overcoming the presented challenges in a way the martial classes can't match. This is, of course, a very common campaign style, which I suspect is why the martial/caster disparity gets so much attention.

One potentially productive line of discussion might be to try to figure out what elements could be borrowed from the more extreme styles that don't suffer as much from the disparity and incorporated into the more middle-of-the-road style. If a small enough set of borrowed elements can be found to mitigate the impact of the disparity while keeping the overall playstyle intact, that might be a stopgap solution that doesn't require a wholesale revision of class mechanics.

So if I understand this correctly, the first paragraph is saying "The tables that hurt the most from the differences are the ones where players choose their own solutions, since there is a distinct difference between the quality and quantity of tools for one class over another", and the second paragraph is saying "By incorporating solutions from other methods of campaigning, we may be able to mitigate the problems"?

Yeah, I can agree to that. The problem comes from things like Barbarians. Unless you're going to come up with a list of problems that Barbarians are good at solving and just include one in your campaign every few hours, there's just not a lot to work with. The lack of diversity with the tools Barbarians are given throws a wrench into everything. I could see someone doing something like that (like a random table of problems that X class is good at solving, and then just include one of those problems into a current scenario), just gotta be careful not to make it stale and obvious.

For instance, you could have the party take care of a broken portcullis or break down a metal door or carry a civilian to safety. If you're clever (or the list is clever enough), you could get some good mileage out of it.