All this talk of "Casters are too strong", and "What spells do you ban or nerf?"

[Warlush]

Does anyone else feel like the real underlying problem is mismanagement of player agency?

[Amechra]

Does anyone else feel like the real underlying problem is mismanagement of player agency?

Only if the fact that a subset of the classes (AKA the ones with spellcasting) allow for far more player agency than the others can be referred to as "mismanagement".

[Tawmis]

Does anyone else feel like the real underlying problem is mismanagement of player agency?

No, is the simple answer.

For me, I homebrew my game and world. And there are things that get released, where I think it will fit my world, and others that don't.

Artificers, don't really fit in my world. So they're not there.

Magic tattoos don't fit in my world, so they're not there.

Some spells, simply don't fit the dynamics of my world.

And sometimes, even though I am sure WotC tries their best to balance things, sometimes - like any MMO, when a new expansion (in this case, book) comes out - some of the content makes older stuff out dated. So there might be a similar spell to another, but now it does a hair more damage and is a bonus action. Well, then why use the "old version" of the similar spell?

In most cases, unless a spell just doesn't fit the dynamic of my world, I will let most spells go - and see how it plays out. Then after the session, if it's questionable - discuss ideas with the players.

[Warlush]

Only if the fact that a subset of the classes (AKA the ones with spellcasting) allow for far more player agency than the others can be referred to as "mismanagement".

My best friend always plays a thief rogue, and he constantly turns worlds upside down. This is an imagination based game. It is easier to just cast a spell and have an effect, but spells don't give you more agency.

[Warlush]

No, is the simple answer.

For me, I homebrew my game and world. And there are things that get released, where I think it will fit my world, and others that don't.

Artificers, don't really fit in my world. So they're not there.

Magic tattoos don't fit in my world, so they're not there.

Some spells, simply don't fit the dynamics of my world.

And sometimes, even though I am sure WotC tries their best to balance things, sometimes - like any MMO, when a new expansion (in this case, book) comes out - some of the content makes older stuff out dated. So there might be a similar spell to another, but now it does a hair more damage and is a bonus action. Well, then why use the "old version" of the similar spell?

In most cases, unless a spell just doesn't fit the dynamic of my world, I will let most spells go - and see how it plays out. Then after the session, if it's questionable - discuss ideas with the players.

I was talking about banning and nerfing do to abuse. Not lore related editing. Maybe I wasn't clear.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I do think there is pretty widespread generous interpretation and implimentation of some spells. The first ones to come to mind are reaction spells (shield, silvery barbs, and counterspell). From the discussions on this thread it's clear there are a lot of DMs that are rolling openly, providing info regarding crits, and providing info regarding what spell is being cast when that knowledge not RAI. Some of these are the same people complaining that spells are too strong.
For folks complaining about caster/ spell strength (especially at tier 1 and 2) I'd first say reflect on how these spells are being implimented at you table, particularly in relation to what characters/ players actually should know.

[Kane0]

My best friend always plays a thief rogue, and he constantly turns worlds upside down. This is an imagination based game. It is easier to just cast a spell and have an effect, but spells don't give you more agency.

How so?

10char

[Pex]

Does anyone else feel like the real underlying problem is mismanagement of player agency?

Yes.

In combat, just because a warrior does not have a class ability power that forces a monster to attack him doesn't mean monsters ignore him even if and especially if his AC is 20+ to attack the squishies over there. Monsters attack warriors because they're there. Monsters attack them because the warriors are dangerous. Monsters attack them because the DM doesn't metagame to pick on a player whether by attacking or ignoring his character.

Out of combat, my pet peeve skill system issues aside, warriors get to do stuff. You do not need high CH and proficiency in Persuasion to talk to NPCs or convince them to do things. Those with high CH and proficiency are better at it, as they should be, but everyone gets to participate playing the game. PCs get to do stuff just because they want to. When rolls are called for not every DC is a high number. NPCs seek out warriors to engage them in stuff because they're heroes. It's nice to have ability power buttons to push to affect outcomes. Warriors classes do have them, but not everything requires an ability power button to push to get done.

As for spellcasters, being powerful is not a grievous sin to be avoided. PCs are supposed to be powerful. It's a feature of the game that things that used to be obstacles no longer are. When the party comes across a chasm and they no longer need to find a bridge or go another way, that's supposed to happen. When the party can travel from one city to another without spending three weeks walking the lands in between them with lots of random and planned encounters that may or may not have anything to do with anything, that's supposed to happen. When old challenges no longer are, make new challenges. That's how the game is supposed to work.

[Chronic]

Does anyone else feel like the real underlying problem is mismanagement of player agency?

To me, not even remotely. I've done quite a substantial work of rebalance on many part of the 5e system, and the large bulk of it was revalancing spells and spell lists. The consensus amongst my players is that the game work better this way. Magic is useful but not the penultimate solution to every problems anymore, and that actually push players to interact with the world in a less mechanical way.

[Ganryu]

Each spell is equivalent to a feature. "You can do X, Y times."

Casters can swap out their spells. They can be flexible with it. Martials can't. That's the problem. Now... how many times can they cast spells vs a class can use their features?

Martial's aren't useless, their features are on 24/7... for the most part. It enhances what they do, and they do it well. But the disparity isn't from martials being bad players. It's simply casters can do more stuff.

That said, when all you have is a hammer... I've seen some amazing things from martials, real creative to. I prefer to use martials myself. But what's the disparity? It's simply casters can do more. Period.

[Keltest]

Each spell is equivalent to a feature. "You can do X, Y times."

Casters can swap out their spells. They can be flexible with it. Martials can't. That's the problem. Now... how many times can they cast spells vs a class can use their features?

Martial's aren't useless, their features are on 24/7... for the most part. It enhances what they do, and they do it well. But the disparity isn't from martials being bad players. It's simply casters can do more stuff.

That said, when all you have is a hammer... I've seen some amazing things from martials, real creative to. I prefer to use martials myself. But what's the disparity? It's simply casters can do more. Period.

You know, people talk about this a lot, but in my experience, it doesnt hold up in a real game scenario. Prepared casters can do a lot, but a fairly significant amount of what they can do is based on player foresight and planning. To paraphrase another poster's half remembered snark, playing a wizard the way the forums here think they should be played requires more time investment than getting a bachelor's degree.

In discussions like this, I often see talk of how the wizard can do the fighter's job, or the rogue's job, or whatever. But lets get crazy for a moment here and assume that if the player wanted to do one of those jobs, they would have just picked that class. So what is the niche of the wizard that only they can fill, and how much energy do they actually have left over if theyre actively wizarding at the game as their first priority? I would posit, not much. Spells prepared is a resource, and a fairly precious one. Unlike the fighter or the rogue, they have a hard limit to how much they can do their primary job in a given time, so they need to balance their spells prepared with the amount of juice they have available to do it. How many doors can a wizard actually unlock if they also need to preserve their spell slots for casting fireball or hold person? How many shield spells can a wizard afford to expend in a brief fight with some guards if they need to have juice available to cast their divinations and circles of protection later?

The wizard class might have a lot of options, but i would posit that any given wizard wont have terribly many more ways to play than any given fighter.

[animorte]

Honestly, if you're creative enough, you can accomplish a great number of things that a direct approach may not always reveal.

[Dr.Samurai]

You know, people talk about this a lot, but in my experience, it doesnt hold up in a real game scenario. Prepared casters can do a lot, but a fairly significant amount of what they can do is based on player foresight and planning. To paraphrase another poster's half remembered snark, playing a wizard the way the forums here think they should be played requires more time investment than getting a bachelor's degree.

In discussions like this, I often see talk of how the wizard can do the fighter's job, or the rogue's job, or whatever. But lets get crazy for a moment here and assume that if the player wanted to do one of those jobs, they would have just picked that class. So what is the niche of the wizard that only they can fill, and how much energy do they actually have left over if theyre actively wizarding at the game as their first priority? I would posit, not much. Spells prepared is a resource, and a fairly precious one. Unlike the fighter or the rogue, they have a hard limit to how much they can do their primary job in a given time, so they need to balance their spells prepared with the amount of juice they have available to do it. How many doors can a wizard actually unlock if they also need to preserve their spell slots for casting fireball or hold person? How many shield spells can a wizard afford to expend in a brief fight with some guards if they need to have juice available to cast their divinations and circles of protection later?

The wizard class might have a lot of options, but i would posit that any given wizard wont have terribly many more ways to play than any given fighter.
It's a fair point and one that depends tremendously on the DM and how/how often they run encounters.

[Ganryu]

You know, people talk about this a lot, but in my experience, it doesnt hold up in a real game scenario. Prepared casters can do a lot, but a fairly significant amount of what they can do is based on player foresight and planning. To paraphrase another poster's half remembered snark, playing a wizard the way the forums here think they should be played requires more time investment than getting a bachelor's degree.

In discussions like this, I often see talk of how the wizard can do the fighter's job, or the rogue's job, or whatever. But lets get crazy for a moment here and assume that if the player wanted to do one of those jobs, they would have just picked that class. So what is the niche of the wizard that only they can fill, and how much energy do they actually have left over if theyre actively wizarding at the game as their first priority? I would posit, not much. Spells prepared is a resource, and a fairly precious one. Unlike the fighter or the rogue, they have a hard limit to how much they can do their primary job in a given time, so they need to balance their spells prepared with the amount of juice they have available to do it. How many doors can a wizard actually unlock if they also need to preserve their spell slots for casting fireball or hold person? How many shield spells can a wizard afford to expend in a brief fight with some guards if they need to have juice available to cast their divinations and circles of protection later?

The wizard class might have a lot of options, but i would posit that any given wizard wont have terribly many more ways to play than any given fighter.

Skill Empowerment - DND 5th Edition (wikidot.com) (http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/spell:skill-empowerment)

A surprising amount I'd say.

I was the party tank as a sorcerer before. It was Stone sorcerer, UA, but the GM refused to target me, because I could not be hit. {Actually a bad game overall do to that.}

But it wasn't theoretical. That's what I played. It worked. Low level, too.

Mage armor, Blur, shield, and Green flame blade. AC was insane. Con was high too, meaning I could take hits. And it wasn't like I was blowing through my spell slots with that setup.

No, the divide isn't as big as people make it out to be. There is a difference there, spell slots are finite. But as long as a party has spell slots, they can do anyone's job. Each spell slot is like a feature.

Fighter and Rogue are good for infinite resource, but... what about other martials? Barbarian doesn't look so good without rage. Monk without Ki. Paladin without smite. {Okay, those are spell slots, but who actually uses them for that?}, etc.

[KyleG]

To me, not even remotely. I've done quite a substantial work of rebalance on many part of the 5e system, and the large bulk of it was revalancing spells and spell lists. The consensus amongst my players is that the game work better this way. Magic is useful but not the penultimate solution to every problems anymore, and that actually push players to interact with the world in a less mechanical way.

Always looking for houserule ideas...care to share?

[Ortho]

You know, people talk about this a lot, but in my experience, it doesnt hold up in a real game scenario. Prepared casters can do a lot, but a fairly significant amount of what they can do is based on player foresight and planning. To paraphrase another poster's half remembered snark, playing a wizard the way the forums here think they should be played requires more time investment than getting a bachelor's degree.

You've said this a lot more eloquently than I could. Schrödinger's Wizard is a very real problem on this forums.

[Anymage]

You know, people talk about this a lot, but in my experience, it doesnt hold up in a real game scenario. Prepared casters can do a lot, but a fairly significant amount of what they can do is based on player foresight and planning. To paraphrase another poster's half remembered snark, playing a wizard the way the forums here think they should be played requires more time investment than getting a bachelor's degree.

Some of the tricks are a lot more straightforward. Simulacrum + Forcecage + (some constantly ticking AOE inside the forcecage) is a common win button that people float for wizards. Or sim shenanigans in general.

Although I will grant that if the game's problem is that it starts to fall apart in T4, that's when you should be doing a victory lap and enjoying your OPness. You then get into issues about how T4 martials should also be getting to go nuts, but martials getting nice things at those power levels is its own thread.


Unlike the fighter or the rogue, they have a hard limit to how much they can do their primary job in a given time, so they need to balance their spells prepared with the amount of juice they have available to do it. How many doors can a wizard actually unlock if they also need to preserve their spell slots for casting fireball or hold person? How many shield spells can a wizard afford to expend in a brief fight with some guards if they need to have juice available to cast their divinations and circles of protection later?

I heard this argument in 3e a lot before. The wizard would be better served buffing the fighter or rogue, or at least not spending a spell slot when the fighter or rogue could do the same job without spending a resource.

In-universe, though, there's less reason for a wizard to want to split the loot with a dedicated trapfinder/locksmith when a wand of Knock and another wand of Summon Monster I (to call up celestial monkeys) fulfills most of those roles. And at the table, there's little incentive for the other player to play a rogue when a wizard with the right spell selection can be as effective while my wizard can still focus on the classically wizardy roles. The fighter or rogue need to have something to make them work taking over another option, and "they can keep going all day" doesn't mean that much when there are only a finite number of rounds where people take important actions. If that number is less than the number of rounds that spells can be impactful, the wizard's potential to run dry is not a real limit.

5e has done a good job making things feel more balanced over a wider range of levels. Credit where credit is due. But the idea that I'm better off leaving the fighter or rogue to their shtick does rather dodge the question of if a wizard in those roles would be a more effective character in the first place.

[Warlush]

How so?

10char

Mostly by manipulating NPCs (the DM). Stealing and planting stolen goods, deception and performance checks, finding DM plot holes and blind spots. Just being creative and coming up with shenanigans that are so entertaining the DM goes along with it.

[Kane0]

Mostly by manipulating NPCs (the DM). Stealing and planting stolen goods, deception and performance checks, finding DM plot holes and blind spots. Just being creative and coming up with shenanigans that are so entertaining the DM goes along with it.

Alright, so if that same fellow played an Arcane Trickster instead of a Thief do you think he could do all the same things? Would he be more or less efficient in doing them? Would having access to spells and cantrips let him do those things easier or open up additional options?

[Leon]

To a degree yes. That you have a set of powerful tools on offer isn't a reason to use them to break a game, it takes the better player to have power and not use it than to do so. Casters are powerful but what's even more powerful is a group working together with all its elements to overcome the challenges they are facing.

[Chronic]

Always looking for houserule ideas...care to share?
I was toying with the idea of posting it somewhere but didn't do it because of a lack of time. I'll post what I have written down later today.

[Warlush]

Alright, so if that same fellow played an Arcane Trickster instead of a Thief do you think he could do all the same things? Would he be more or less efficient in doing them? Would having access to spells and cantrips let him do those things easier or open up additional options?

Would it be easier? Sure. Sometimes though, the power of being underestimated is really all you need. And DMs don't underestimate anyone harder than a thief. Well maybe a monk lol.

[Warlush]

Again I want to clarify, I'm not saying that martials can do anything casters can. I'm saying when you get rid of the character names, abilities, and the title of Dungeon Master, all you have are people with their own complicated motives that even they might not understand.

And that perhaps if you deal with the fact that the problem is one of interpersonal communication, goal awareness, teamwork, or mental illness, you won't have to waste time nerfing/banning powerful elements of the game THE DESIGNERS INCLUDED ON PORPOISE. You can just ask the person to stop trying to ruin the game.

[Unoriginal]

Again I want to clarify, I'm not saying that martials can do anything casters can. I'm saying when you get rid of the character names, abilities, and the title of Dungeon Master, all you have are people with their own complicated motives that even they might not understand.

And that perhaps if you deal with the fact that the problem is one of interpersonal communication, goal awareness, teamwork, or mental illness, you won't have to waste time nerfing/banning powerful elements of the game THE DESIGNERS INCLUDED ON PORPOISE. You can just ask the person to stop trying to ruin the game.

Most of this talk about casters being overpowered is purely pseudo-academic and won't ever actually reach a table.

Or if it'll reach a table, it'll most likely be with DMs and players who do believes in it and will change things to fit their view.

Aside from that, you're correct that no amount of rules can fix an out-of-table issue, and that someone being a jerk is one of said issues, but there is also things that are designed a way the people at the table don't like and as such they will change it.

[Rynjin]

Again I want to clarify, I'm not saying that martials can do anything casters can. I'm saying when you get rid of the character names, abilities, and the title of Dungeon Master, all you have are people with their own complicated motives that even they might not understand.

And that perhaps if you deal with the fact that the problem is one of interpersonal communication, goal awareness, teamwork, or mental illness, you won't have to waste time nerfing/banning powerful elements of the game THE DESIGNERS INCLUDED ON PORPOISE. You can just ask the person to stop trying to ruin the game.

This is such a tired argument. It's been tired for like 20 years now.

The issue with casters is not and has never been that they "break/ruin the game". It's that they interact with the game in an entirely different way than martial characters do, with limited drawbacks.

It doesn't matter how creative, cunning, or able to be underestimated your Thief Rogue is, if the party wants to go to Axis, he's **** out of luck. The Wizard or Cleric on the other hand, wiggle their fingers and go there.

Is that game breaking? No. Does that give them inherently more agency and effect on the plot? Yes.

This is not a difficult concept and I'm not sure why so many people fail to grasp it. It's an underlying issue with a system that with each passing edition makes the same mistakes as the previous Edition because even the devs don't understand this problem. Nerfing casters by making it so they can concentrate on only one spell at a time, or removing 80% of the spells in the game...doesn't matter, so long as one subset of classes have the ability to change the tone and setting of the campaign with a single Standard action and the other subset doesn't.

This is the core of the issue in a nutshell, and always has been. It's such a baked in problem with D&D that they'll probably never fix it, even though it's pretty easy, you just have to sacrifice a lot of sacred cows to do it.

As an aside, when broken options are included in a game, you can't always trust to a gentleman's agreement either. Not because of malice, but due to ignorance. On the part of the GM, the player, or both.

If a brand new player picks up a Wizard and later in the game casts Simulacrum because they think it would be awesome to have a clone of whatever powerful monster you just fought, they're not being malicious, they're just doing something that sounds really ****ing cool but also happens to break the game. The GM preemptively saying "Hey dudes, Simulacrum is banned, you're not allowed to learn it or cast it" is the simplest solution to the problem. If your gentleman's agreement would preclude breaking the game anyway, and thus not using said spell, it has the exact same effect except there's no chance of the mistake being made by an inexperienced player who needs to be informed of these "unwritten rules". Write them down, don't expect your players to suddenly develop telepathic powers in real life. This isn't Mazes and Monsters my guy.

[Unoriginal]

It doesn't matter how creative, cunning, or able to be underestimated your Thief Rogue is, if the party wants to go to Axis, he's **** out of luck. The Wizard or Cleric on the other hand, wiggle their fingers and go there.

I want to comment on this, but first, I need to know: which spell allows them to do that?

I don't recall any place in DnD called Axis, so it makes it hard to judge if the thief can or cannot go there.

[Sneak Dog]

No. I'd say it's a combination of a lack of non-combat features that aren't spells and bounded accuracy being applied to one-dimensional ability checks. (For comparison, attacks are two-dimensional: attack roll is bounded, damage is not.) So in 5e, everyone's a guy at the gym if they're not casting spells or dealing/taking damage. Sort of, monk gets some real neat class features to let them go somewhat beyond.

Which is weird, because at highest levels according to the examples in the DMG crashing a floating fortress on a PC is entirely survivable. But lifting it is not really an option, unless it already was at single-digit levels.

[Unoriginal]

So in 5e, everyone's a guy at the gym if they're not casting spells or dealing/taking damage.

No, they are not.

NO ONE is a guy at the gym in D&D 5e. Not anyone, in any gym of our reality.

[Contrast]

I want to comment on this, but first, I need to know: which spell allows them to do that?

I don't recall any place in DnD called Axis, so it makes it hard to judge if the thief can or cannot go there.

Google suggests they might be talking about this (https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Axis). So I would assume Plane Shift.

[Pildion]

Does anyone else feel like the real underlying problem is mismanagement of player agency?

I don't ban any spells, but the guys I play with don't do abusive things ether. We also swap DMing though.

[Rynjin]

Google suggests they might be talking about this (https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Axis). So I would assume Plane Shift.

Replace Axis with Sigil or any other extraplanar metropolis as your preferred setting suggests.

[Dr.Samurai]

I know in a typical "caster vs martials" thread people have a conniption fit over "martials can't go to other planes" but planar portals are literally in the DMG as a thing in the world. The argument is reduced to "martials have to travel to a portal instead of wave their fingers in the air", which, as a staunch advocate for martials, seems not a big deal to me.

[Unoriginal]

Replace Axis with Sigil or any other extraplanar metropolis as your preferred setting suggests.

In that case, the Cleric or Wizard are just as **** out of luck as the Thief Rogue, because they aren't going to Sigil or any other extraplanar metropolis by wiggling their fingers without the right planar-attuned tuning fork.

Ah, but said planar-attuned tuning fork can be found in the world, right? Yes, and so can the means for a Thief Rogue to go to a planar metropolis.

Being the group's designated chauffeur with Teleport or Shape Shift is useful, but it's not some kind of unique thing the group would be helpless without.

You're not banned from the Planes if you don't have a Wizard, it's just a bit more difficult. Same way that you're not banned from infiltrating the BBEG's fortress without a Rogue, it's just a bit more difficult.

[Catullus64]

I do feel that people have very different ideas about what the word 'agency' means, and this causes a certain amount of friction & fruitless debate.

Agency can mean the power to act upon and change your surroundings, which is what I think the 'there's a big problem' crowd mean when they say that non-casters have less agency. The 'there isn't a big problem' set tend to use it more in the sense of the moral and intellectual capacity to make decisions. The extent to which individual agency is dependent upon individual power is an interesting philosophical debate that I would never trust to the internet, not even a space as relatively civil as this one.

I'm in the 'there isn't a big problem' camp, and thus seldom feel inclined to involve myself in these debates, but I'll offer one observation that I hope will be useful: even though spellcasters have significantly more varied and far-reaching ways to affect the world outside of combat, non-spellcasters in this edition remain a relevant force in the field of fighting throughout the whole game; and in a game that's mainly about fighting monsters, where everything that's not fighting monsters is there to support fighting monsters, that's a lot of what's important.

[Xervous]

The biggest fumble with the various classes is the outright failure to communicate the design intent behind most classes and the critical detail that classes are not even asymmetrically balanced, much less of comparable potency. The game does not discuss the consequences of this design for gameplay and thereby cannot provide advice on how to adjust for different desired styles of play.

In short: it’s up to the community to tell new arrivals what the system actually does, rather than the DMG/PHB.

[Demonslayer666]

Casters are not too strong. They are strong, but have limited resources.

Casters may seem too strong if you allow your players to do the 5 minute work day and are fully rested for each encounter. Then I could see a case for it because you are not playing a resource management game. You just nova everything down, which is where casters would shine.

[Rafaelfras]

Casters are not too strong. They are strong, but have limited resources.

Casters may seem too strong if you allow your players to do the 5 minute work day and are fully rested for each encounter. Then I could see a case for it because you are not playing a resource management game. You just nova everything down, which is where casters would shine.
So much this
My last dungeon we had to take 3 short rests.
There was 2 subbosses and the bbeg of that adventure.
Our 4e monk did so much that it seemed a diferent character
The casters played well their resources but each got spent at a different boss.
It felt very balanced and i am talking of a level 14 party
So yeah, if not always at least once make your casters spend those slots.

[Itsfrank]

In short: it’s up to the community to tell new arrivals what the system actually does, rather than the DMG/PHB.

This right here is the reason I've learned so much.

[Chronic]

The problem with the "5 minute workday" is the idea that if you are not fighting all the time, you are doing it wrong. Problem is, I don't think combat is interesting enough to devote the majority of a session time to it. And my players agree, they like combat in small doses, especially if it is the kind of filler fights, full of generic ennemies. My postulate is that 90% of the time, if the combat doesn't add something to the story (pushing the storyline, developing faction, defining the ambiance of the world etc), it probably shouldn't happen. It free up a lot of game time for my players to do something else (spoiler, it's scheming... boy do they love their scheming)

[Unoriginal]

especially if it is the kind of filler fights, full of generic ennemies.

I've been meaning to write something addressing this for forever. I really should.


My postulate is that 90% of the time, if the combat doesn't add something to the story (pushing the storyline, developing faction, defining the ambiance of the world etc), it probably shouldn't happen.

Absolutely true. Combat is still part of the narrative, and if it doesn't add *something* then it's a waste.

Especially when most antagonists involved in combat tend to be one-scene wonders.

Even when a combat makes PCs spend ressources, it adds something.

[Xervous]

This right here is the reason I've learned so much.

Absent the community, would you say the game provides enough guidance to understand what it can actually do?

[Itsfrank]

Absent the community, would you say the game provides enough guidance to understand what it can actually do?
I think so. It just takes a long time to really blend everything together and not everybody has the time or effort to put into it. A lot of page flipping

[Warlush]

This is such a tired argument. It's been tired for like 20 years now.

The issue with casters is not and has never been that they "break/ruin the game". It's that they interact with the game in an entirely different way than martial characters do, with limited drawbacks.

It doesn't matter how creative, cunning, or able to be underestimated your Thief Rogue is, if the party wants to go to Axis, he's **** out of luck. The Wizard or Cleric on the other hand, wiggle their fingers and go there.

Is that game breaking? No. Does that give them inherently more agency and effect on the plot? Yes.

This is not a difficult concept and I'm not sure why so many people fail to grasp it. It's an underlying issue with a system that with each passing edition makes the same mistakes as the previous Edition because even the devs don't understand this problem. Nerfing casters by making it so they can concentrate on only one spell at a time, or removing 80% of the spells in the game...doesn't matter, so long as one subset of classes have the ability to change the tone and setting of the campaign with a single Standard action and the other subset doesn't.

This is the core of the issue in a nutshell, and always has been. It's such a baked in problem with D&D that they'll probably never fix it, even though it's pretty easy, you just have to sacrifice a lot of sacred cows to do it.

As an aside, when broken options are included in a game, you can't always trust to a gentleman's agreement either. Not because of malice, but due to ignorance. On the part of the GM, the player, or both.

If a brand new player picks up a Wizard and later in the game casts Simulacrum because they think it would be awesome to have a clone of whatever powerful monster you just fought, they're not being malicious, they're just doing something that sounds really ****ing cool but also happens to break the game. The GM preemptively saying "Hey dudes, Simulacrum is banned, you're not allowed to learn it or cast it" is the simplest solution to the problem. If your gentleman's agreement would preclude breaking the game anyway, and thus not using said spell, it has the exact same effect except there's no chance of the mistake being made by an inexperienced player who needs to be informed of these "unwritten rules". Write them down, don't expect your players to suddenly develop telepathic powers in real life. This isn't Mazes and Monsters my guy.

Just as tired.

[Warlush]

Casters are not too strong. They are strong, but have limited resources.

Casters may seem too strong if you allow your players to do the 5 minute work day and are fully rested for each encounter. Then I could see a case for it because you are not playing a resource management game. You just nova everything down, which is where casters would shine.

Thank you, this also.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Another thing is that what counts as "balanced" varies between tables. Some care strongly about fine-level balance without player intervention. Others have much wider bands of acceptable performance, as long as people give and take and collaborate to give everyone a time to shine. Yet others prefer if one character handles <thing X> while the others watch. Usually where X == social things, but I've heard of combat versions, where there was the "combat monster" who basically soloed all the fights and everyone preferred it that way.

No system can accommodate all of those in a single fixed set of rules. So you're always going to get disagreements when different tables meet. And the need for DMs and tables to do management of abilities for a better fit.

[Eldariel]

Casters are not too strong. They are strong, but have limited resources.

Casters may seem too strong if you allow your players to do the 5 minute work day and are fully rested for each encounter. Then I could see a case for it because you are not playing a resource management game. You just nova everything down, which is where casters would shine.

This is not the main crux of the thread. The main issue is indeed that even if combat were equal, casters do everything else better while still being equal on that front if you aggregate the day.

And this is also just not true - it's a statement that gets repeated but I doubt it actually gets put to the test, at least on casters with good spell selection. It's true that casters can nova while warriors can't (an advantage when fights are exceptionally difficult) but casters don't generally need to nova to outperform warriors. It's true that it's possible to play casters so that they run out of gas but it's not necessary to achieve the level of competence where you don't really need or want martials in the party - and if you play casters using their strongest options efficiently, you just won't have this problem before the whole party is tapped out. Casters are actually kinda forced to play smarter in this edition than earlier due to how Concentration limits the number of relevant spells you can use simultaneously.

No amount of comparable level warrior contribution is going to match a single casting of Conjure Animals in as many encounters as it lasts even if the Druid did nothing else (and the Druid can also use at-wills for the duration), and it lasts an hour so it can often last for multiple encounters if you have a day full of them. And after this point, for a martial to catch up to what the Druid did, in the remaining encounters the martial would have to outperform the Druid by as much as the Conjure Animals outperformed them by in the first encounter.

It's going to take an absurd number of encounters to reach that point if the Druid uses all their resources wisely on efficient spells (8 deadlies is probably still something a level 5-6 Druid has enough resources for and for non-casters to contribute as much as a Druid did over those 8 encounters, you'd probably need another 8 deadlies after that so maybe 16 deadly encounters a day would start to hit that point), and the party will likely be simply too low on resources to push on if there is such a number of difficult encounters in a day, be the party all martials or all casters (indeed, all casters will probably last the longest in most cases, and be able to punch the highest above their weight class with the best likelihood of success; they have the most resources and they are the most efficient at both, preventing damage/attacks and restoring HP and conditions).

Actually, a good way to notice how this goes in an actual game is this: think about every PC in the party over an adventuring day you played through - go through the encounters and events and what you did and happened and such. Think which PC you'd rather be of another class. You might notice that as long as the casters are using the high tier spells, it'll be rare enough that you'd wish for your Druid or Cleric or Wizard or Bard or Warlock or something to be of another class but I'll bet you can come up with a lot of times where you could use another Hypnotic Pattern, Counterspell, Healing Word, Spirit Guardians, Conjure Animals, Spike Growth, Pass without Trace or whatever instead of whatever the Fighter/Monk/Rogue/Barbarian is bringing to the table over the day.

[Dark.Revenant]

Dungeons and Dragons is balanced around delving dungeons. If that's not what your party is doing the majority of the time, you will see greater and greater class disparity.

Unless you change the rules accordingly. Handing out magic items that help in the other pillars, changing the resting schedules, etc. D&D is very much a "tailor to experience" type of game.

[animorte]

No system can accommodate all of those in a single fixed set of rules. So you're always going to get disagreements when different tables meet. And the need for DMs and tables to do management of abilities for a better fit.

Here's the answer to that:

D&D is very much a "tailor to experience" type of game.

People keep forgetting that the DM really can have a fair amount of design control as far as the encounters that the party faces. The game needs to be adjusted to the party's strengths and weaknesses, and don't be afraid to exploit both sometimes if you really need to. It can be a cruel and unfair world... prove it.

I think by doing that, showing the players their weaknesses and finding holes in the plan, you can create a much more rewarding experience instead of non-combat encounters not getting quite creative enough and enemies just getting run over by your players, or only some of your players.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here's the answer to that:


People keep forgetting that the DM really can have a fair amount of design control as far as the encounters that the party faces. The game needs to be adjusted to the party's strengths and weaknesses, and don't be afraid to exploit both sometimes if you really need to. It can be a cruel and unfair world... prove it.

I think by doing that, showing the players their weaknesses and finding holes in the plan, you can create a much more rewarding experience instead of non-combat encounters not getting quite creative enough and enemies just getting run over by your players, or only some of your players.

True. But also, you have to tailor how much you exploit things to your players and your campaign. Some campaigns just don't care about challenge or being "clever". And that's fine.

But my whole point was exactly that you'll never have a system that out of the box works for everyone. Unless "everyone" is a tiny, self-selected, homogenous audience. Which isn't D&D.

Basically, "DM changed X" =/= "X was broken". And certainly not equal to the idea that it would admit a global fix. The game and culture are better if they accept that every game will be different in significant ways. Saying "X is a flaw" is inherently a local phenomena (except in exceedingly rare circumstances). Most of the time, it's simply one choice among many possibilities. One that works for some people and not for others.

[animorte]

True. But also, you have to tailor how much you exploit things to your players and your campaign. Some campaigns just don't care about challenge or being "clever". And that's fine.

Absolutely, no argument for anything that you said here!

[tKUUNK]

I do feel that people have very different ideas about what the word 'agency' means, and this causes a certain amount of friction & fruitless debate.

Agency can mean the power to act upon and change your surroundings, which is what I think the 'there's a big problem' crowd mean when they say that non-casters have less agency. The 'there isn't a big problem' set tend to use it more in the sense of the moral and intellectual capacity to make decisions. The extent to which individual agency is dependent upon individual power is an interesting philosophical debate that I would never trust to the internet, not even a space as relatively civil as this one.

I'm in the 'there isn't a big problem' camp, and thus seldom feel inclined to involve myself in these debates, but I'll offer one observation that I hope will be useful: even though spellcasters have significantly more varied and far-reaching ways to affect the world outside of combat, non-spellcasters in this edition remain a relevant force in the field of fighting throughout the whole game; and in a game that's mainly about fighting monsters, where everything that's not fighting monsters is there to support fighting monsters, that's a lot of what's important.

Well said!

My take on it is: There IS a gap. ...but with a good DM, you may never feel it. Especially if you game with a group of people who are cheering each other on the whole time, rather than playing D&D as competition.

[animorte]

Well said!

My take on it is: There IS a gap. ...but with a good DM, you may never feel it. Especially if you game with a group of people who are cheering each other on the whole time, rather than playing D&D as competition.

People should really do this more. Go watch some Critical Role and appreciate how much they absolutely love when another player succeeds at something.

[Rynjin]

People should really do this more. Go watch some Critical Role and appreciate how much they absolutely love when another player succeeds at something.

Critical Role are a bunch of paid actors who would hurt their brand if there was too much of a sense of bad feelings apparent at the table.

I'm sure they enjoy the game, but they don't represent anything close to the average person or table, and how certain disparities and functionality or feeling constrained by your class' rigidly defined role or "flavor" can lead to discontent. I'm sure if you paid me a hundred grand a year (conservatively) to play D&D I'd be quite happy as well no matter what happened.

[KorvinStarmast]

Critical Role are a bunch of paid actors who would hurt their brand if there was too much of a sense of bad feelings apparent at the table.

I'm sure they enjoy the game, but they don't represent anything close to the average person or table, and how certain disparities and functionality or feeling constrained by your class' rigidly defined role or "flavor" can lead to discontent. I'm sure if you paid me a hundred grand a year (conservatively) to play D&D I'd be quite happy as well no matter what happened.
Yes, they do it for money and are professional actors, but what your post says about your assumptions regarding D&D players is a bit off putting, to be charitable. :smallconfused:

[animorte]

Critical Role are a bunch of paid actors who would hurt their brand if there was too much of a sense of bad feelings apparent at the table.

I'm sure they enjoy the game, but they don't represent anything close to the average person or table, and how certain disparities and functionality or feeling constrained by your class' rigidly defined role or "flavor" can lead to discontent. I'm sure if you paid me a hundred grand a year (conservatively) to play D&D I'd be quite happy as well no matter what happened.

I've got a lot more to say on the subject, but our opinions on the show itself are irrelevant to the point.

Ultimately, the point I intend to make is that they play the game together. They tend to have some semblance of communication and teamwork. They're telling a story together. They support each other in times of failure and success. These are all things that we can watch, learn from, aspire to, and maybe even enjoy.

Have you ever watched any movie or a television show and learned something from it, enjoyed it even? What's the difference, really?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've never watched CR.

That said, I find the idea of playing or DMing at a table where the players are all in it for their own sake or worse, antagonistic/competitive, rather unpleasant. It's one reason why AL holds no interest for me. The game only really works (as with all cooperative games) where the players are at least trying to work for the common fun.

[NaughtyTiger]

Same way that you're not banned from infiltrating the BBEG's fortress without a Rogue, it's just a bit more difficult.

Why is it more difficult?
what can the thief rogue do that a party of casters cannot?

[Rynjin]

Yes, they do it for money and are professional actors, but what your post says about your assumptions regarding D&D players is a bit off putting, to be charitable. :smallconfused:

My assumptions about D&D players is that they're people.

People, typically, like to have fun in a game. Likewise, people typically have fun when they feel...needed, for lack of a better word, in a cooperative setting.

IME people also have more fun when they have a variety of things to do.

This confluence of things is what will often lead someone playing a Champion Fighter to feel discontent when they're partied up with a Druid. Certainly they can feel happy the Druid gets to be cool by shooting people with moon lasers and shapeshifting into a bear.

They can also feel sad when they realize that they will not only never get to do anything like that, they will never get to do anything else beyond what they've been doing since level 3.

Every edition of D&D has had this issue, and IMO 5e has it the worst. Because to reiterate my earlier point, the actual relative power level of a caster isn't super relevant. It's the ability they have to change the paradigm of the game, in larger and smaller ways. A Wizard can be practically a (mechanically) different character day to day just by preparing spells. A martial's choices are locked in, and further constrained by arbitrary flavor restrictions (eg. Rage not working with ranged weapons in 5e for some reason).

Being discontented with that at the table is not a failing, and implying that everyone at the table needs to be 100% happy all the time no matter what, and pointing to a group of people literally being paid to be happy as the standard everyone should aspire to is just silly.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah, I would shy away from the presumption that criticism of the martial/caster disparity stems from not being a cooperative player or from not wanting to see your friends succeed.

[animorte]

My assumptions about D&D players is that they're people.

People, typically, like to have fun in a game. Likewise, people typically have fun when they feel...needed, for lack of a better word, in a cooperative setting.

IME people also have more fun when they have a variety of things to do.

This confluence of things is what will often lead someone playing a Champion Fighter to feel discontent when they're partied up with a Druid. Certainly they can feel happy the Druid gets to be cool by shooting people with moon lasers and shapeshifting into a bear.

They can also feel sad when they realize that they will not only never get to do anything like that, they will never get to do anything else beyond what they've been doing since level 3.

Every edition of D&D has had this issue, and IMO 5e has it the worst. Because to reiterate my earlier point, the actual relative power level of a caster isn't super relevant. It's the ability they have to change the paradigm of the game, in larger and smaller ways. A Wizard can be practically a (mechanically) different character day to day just by preparing spells. A martial's choices are locked in, and further constrained by arbitrary flavor restrictions (eg. Rage not working with ranged weapons in 5e for some reason).

Being discontented with that at the table is not a failing, and implying that everyone at the table needs to be 100% happy all the time no matter what, and pointing to a group of people literally being paid to be happy as the standard everyone should aspire to is just silly.

What gives you the impression that the cast of Critical Role (people who are playing D&D) aren't people trying to have fun? And what gives you the impression that - just because people might actually play as a team - that they don't know how to build an effective character?

Nobody implied anything about "being 100% happy all the time no matter what". I was only talking about any random group of friends playing D&D and communicating with each other, trying to actually have fun. I'm not quite sure what your definition of fun is, but your blatantly unreasonable assumptions are making it difficult to be civil.

Edit: I'm also contributing to derailing the thread, my apologies everyone.

[Leon]

In short: it’s up to the community to tell new arrivals what the system actually does, rather than the DMG/PHB.

This the same "community" that spends most of its time arguing in circles about various thing so mileage may vary on the quality of that information.

[Warlush]

This the same "community" that spends most of its time arguing in circles about various thing so mileage may vary on the quality of that information.
That's also why people who haven't even played tier 4 wanna ban and nerf spells and abilities they have no actual table experience with. All the "expert advice" by all of these "seasoned professionals ".

I just hope some kid somewhere is getting to play real unedited D&D.

Here's to you kid, we're fighting for you.

[Warlush]

The biggest fumble with the various classes is the outright failure to communicate the design intent behind most classes and the critical detail that classes are not even asymmetrically balanced, much less of comparable potency. The game does not discuss the consequences of this design for gameplay and thereby cannot provide advice on how to adjust for different desired styles of play.

In short: it’s up to the community to tell new arrivals what the system actually does, rather than the DMG/PHB.

The community will never ever ever have the authority over the DMG/PHB. Ever. Not even a debate. To the abyss with the community.

[Rynjin]

The community will never ever ever have the authority over the DMG/PHB. Ever. Not even a debate. To the abyss with the community.

Ah yes, ye olde "**** the people who play this game" attitude. The toxicity is strong with this one.

[KorvinStarmast]

That said, I find the idea of playing or DMing at a table where the players are all in it for their own sake or worse, antagonistic/competitive, rather unpleasant.{snip} The game only really works (as with all cooperative games) where the players are at least trying to work for the common fun. Yes.

Every edition of D&D has had this issue, and IMO 5e has it the worst. Rage works with thrown weapons, though. :smallwink:
When you make a melee weapon attack using Strength, you gain a bonus to the damage roll that increases as you gain levels as a barbarian, as shown in the Rage Damage column of the Barbarian table. The javelin, for example, is a simple melee weapon, with the thrown property. I realize that some people do not accept this rationale, but it fits the description so that's how we play it

That's also why people who haven't even played tier 4 wanna ban and nerf spells and abilities they have no actual table experience with. All the "expert advice" by all of these "seasoned professionals ". What I've noticed about Tier 4 is that a lot of magical effects go off from both sides of the battle when battle happens, and conditions get set and saved for a lot more.

I just hope some kid somewhere is getting to play real unedited D&D.

Here's to you kid, we're fighting for you. My heart is with you here.

[Eldariel]

That's also why people who haven't even played tier 4 wanna ban and nerf spells and abilities they have no actual table experience with. All the "expert advice" by all of these "seasoned professionals ".

I just hope some kid somewhere is getting to play real unedited D&D.

Here's to you kid, we're fighting for you.

Who the hell plays real, unedited D&D and why is that even desirable? The whole game is literally built around rulings and DM making things work for their table. Rules as written has never been the goal, design intent or anything else except a common ground for online discussion. There is no value in trying to port it to your home game.

[Itsfrank]

This the same "community" that spends most of its time arguing in circles about various thing so mileage may vary on the quality of that information.
For the most part from what I've seen. Some people just get too busy fighting over technicalities. But the helpful ones and the fighting ones may not be the same people lol

[Unoriginal]

Why is it more difficult?
what can the thief rogue do that a party of casters cannot?

I find it pretty funny that your response to "the party can do it, even without a thief rogue" is "what can the thief rogue do that the party cannot?"

Also find it pretty funny that the hypothetical went from "a party" to "a party of casters".

But to answer your question: the party of caster will require either specific builds or to spend quite a few spell slots to infiltrate a fortress the way a basic Thief Rogue can do it.

Ergo, it is a bit more difficult for them.

[Pex]

Ah yes, ye olde "**** the people who play this game" attitude. The toxicity is strong with this one.

But he's right. Random strangers on the internet have no authority to tell new players how to play the game. Their opinions are fine to read and consider, but new players have no obligation to obey.

[NaughtyTiger]

I find it pretty funny that your response to "the party can do it, even without a thief rogue" is "what can the thief rogue do that the party cannot?"

Also find it pretty funny that the hypothetical went from "a party" to "a party of casters".

But to answer your question: the party of caster will require either specific builds or to spend quite a few spell slots to infiltrate a fortress the way a basic Thief Rogue can do it.

Ergo, it is a bit more difficult for them.

I have absolutely no problem with saying "a caster can do it without the a thief rogue".
I can build a caster that does everything a the thief rogue can do. (for example, most druids can do thief right out of the box)
And that caster can still do non thief rogue stuff.
It is okay to spend resources daily resources ... that's why they are in the rules.

The reason I went with "party of casters" is ...
yes, 1 rogue can infiltrate the castle... while the rest of the party/Players go to the kitchen for snacks.
OR a whole party of casters can infiltrate the castle together. heck, they can even get the non-caster party members into the castle.

Ergo, it is not more difficult for a caster to infiltrate the castle, AND let all the players participate in the game too AND still do non-rogue things.

[Warlush]

Ah yes, ye olde "**** the people who play this game" attitude. The toxicity is strong with this one.

Well, eating seeds is a pastime activity.

[Warlush]

The whole game is literally built around rulings and DM making things work for their table.

Yes, the DM. Not the community of hypothetical hall monitors.

And lots of us play unedited D&D. We don't ban spells, we don't nerf abilities. And we don't try to control every player decision to fit into some boring narrative that only one person at the table cares about. It's a game. A story based game yes, but a game. Games are supposed to be fun. If someone is making the game not fun, you talk to that person about why they wanna make the game not fun.

[Warlush]

Ah yes, ye olde "**** the people who play this game" attitude. The toxicity is strong with this one.

Not the people who play this game. Just the wet blankets who are allergic to other people having fun.

[Segev]

You do not need high CH and proficiency in Persuasion to talk to NPCs or convince them to do things. Those with high CH and proficiency are better at it, as they should be, but everyone gets to participate playing the game. PCs get to do stuff just because they want to. When rolls are called for not every DC is a high number.

To add some backing to this, my character in a recent game has an 8 Cha and no training in social skills other than Intimidate. I still wound up trying to persuade or trick people more than a few times, and I got disproportionately lucky, I admit, on the dice with those rolls, frequently getting natural 20s or natural 19s that became 18 or 19, and thus were remarkably successful efforts to persuade NPCs who weren't highly-trained in Insight, themselves.

[Amdy_vill]

Does anyone else feel like the real underlying problem is mismanagement of player agency?

The real problem here is martial not spellcasters. the real problem is there are a lot of options that not only aren't fun but also are not powerful enough to participate often. and there's a problem with the monster design. making it easy to run a monster in a way that them weaker than it should be. casters are in a really great place. fun to play. lots of options. many useful options. spellcaster doesn't need to be weakened. martial need some reworks from minor to major, and monsters need more effective stat blocks. which we are getting in the new monsters book.

this isn't to say spellcasters don't need fixing. some spells are legitimately overpowered. but most aren't and most are bad. the problem comes down to a small amount of well-balanced content. a lot of objectively weak options. and some overpowered options. some spells need nerfing, some buffing, and most martial need buffing. something like agro draw, and other normally spell effects accessible to them to give them actual choices.

[Eldariel]

Yes, the DM. Not the community of hypothetical hall monitors.

And lots of us play unedited D&D. We don't ban spells, we don't nerf abilities. And we don't try to control every player decision to fit into some boring narrative that only one person at the table cares about. It's a game. A story based game yes, but a game. Games are supposed to be fun. If someone is making the game not fun, you talk to that person about why they wanna make the game not fun.

Who are "us"? On what planet is editing abilities, creating new ones, picking ones to suit your world, etc. a net negative in fun? What makes rules as written more fun than something catered to your group specifically? Do you play Conjure Animals and Conjure Woodland Beings as written in spite of the written rules being basically "DM must know every animal statblock and pick the most appropriate one to every scenario and play all the creatures in addition to the NPCs"? Why not improve where you can?

[Kane0]

Im really curious what a hard magic D&D would look like.

[Pex]

Who are "us"? On what planet is editing abilities, creating new ones, picking ones to suit your world, etc. a net negative in fun? What makes rules as written more fun than something catered to your group specifically? Do you play Conjure Animals and Conjure Woodland Beings as written in spite of the written rules being basically "DM must know every animal statblock and pick the most appropriate one to every scenario and play all the creatures in addition to the NPCs"? Why not improve where you can?

There's nothing wrong with homebrewing whatever you want for your game. The point is new players are under no obligation to play the game the way people on the internet do it. That is what this particular subthread is about.

[Eldariel]

There's nothing wrong with homebrewing whatever you want for your game. The point is new players are under no obligation to play the game the way people on the internet do it. That is what this particular subthread is about.

That's your point, not the point they stated. Nobody is disagreeing with you, since the whole statement is trivial: how could anyone be under obligation to play in any which way and how is anyone imposing that? Of course nobody is under any obligation to play in any which way. People just talk about what the rules lead to, not how one should play. However, the point they stated was:


That's also why people who haven't even played tier 4 wanna ban and nerf spells and abilities they have no actual table experience with. All the "expert advice" by all of these "seasoned professionals ".

I just hope some kid somewhere is getting to play real unedited D&D.

Here's to you kid, we're fighting for you.

[Warlush]

Who are "us"? On what planet is editing abilities, creating new ones, picking ones to suit your world, etc. a net negative in fun? What makes rules as written more fun than something catered to your group specifically? Do you play Conjure Animals and Conjure Woodland Beings as written in spite of the written rules being basically "DM must know every animal statblock and pick the most appropriate one to every scenario and play all the creatures in addition to the NPCs"? Why not improve where you can?

Holy turds, no I didn't mean the most literal interpretation of one word. It was in the context of BANNING AND NERFING of fun abilities. Excuse me for being slightly too broad or vague. Not LITERALLY ABSOLUTELY UNEDITED. Gods you are irritating.

[Warlush]

Once again, I hope somewhere, someone gets to have a simulacrum. I hope someone gets to cast Wish every effing session. And I hope that one day people can have a conversation without others changing the subject or focusing on one word in order to distract from the point.
That somewhere isn't here.
Goodbye.

[Rafaelfras]

Once again, I hope somewhere, someone gets to have a simulacrum. I hope someone gets to cast Wish every effing session. And I hope that one day people can have a conversation without others changing the subject or focusing on one word in order to distract from the point.
That somewhere isn't here.
Goodbye.

If conforts you, in my table we play as written. Every spell is there to take and use as you like

[Willowhelm]

If conforts you, in my table we play as written. Every spell is there to take and use as you like

Ditto.

My players don’t care about any of this stuff. They don’t follow the community, they don’t read build guides, they don’t “optimise” etc. They just pick stuff that seems fun and if it isn’t what they want, then we work in a change.

It’s friends having fun.

One person has conjure animals. They haven’t trawled through the monster manual to find optimal creatures to summon, they just ask for what seems like a neat animal for the situation and I pick something that approximates it as best I can. Nobody feels nerfed.

If you ask any of them what their DPR is or whether they’d be better off taking GWM instead of PAM or an ASI they literally wouldn’t know what the hell any of those TLAs meant. They don’t care and it doesn’t stop them having fun.

This forum and “the community” (however you define that) is a small fraction of the player base. New players don’t need them to explain how the game “really” works. Either they don’t notice the issues or if they do they’ll just find their own solutions that are good enough. There isn’t one single right way to play dnd. The only wrong way is if you’re not having fun.

[Rafaelfras]

Ditto.

My players don’t care about any of this stuff. They don’t follow the community, they don’t read build guides, they don’t “optimise” etc. They just pick stuff that seems fun and if it isn’t what they want, then we work in a change.

It’s friends having fun.

One person has conjure animals. They haven’t trawled through the monster manual to find optimal creatures to summon, they just ask for what seems like a neat animal for the situation and I pick something that approximates it as best I can. Nobody feels nerfed.

If you ask any of them what their DPR is or whether they’d be better off taking GWM instead of PAM or an ASI they literally wouldn’t know what the hell any of those TLAs meant. They don’t care and it doesn’t stop them having fun.

This forum and “the community” (however you define that) is a small fraction of the player base. New players don’t need them to explain how the game “really” works. Either they don’t notice the issues or if they do they’ll just find their own solutions that are good enough. There isn’t one single right way to play dnd. The only wrong way is if you’re not having fun.

My PHB is a 2015 edition, I dont even use (or care about) errata. :cool:

[Azuresun]

Yeah, I would shy away from the presumption that criticism of the martial/caster disparity stems from not being a cooperative player or from not wanting to see your friends succeed.

I wouldn't.

Just take a look at the optimization criteria that forum arguments use. They seem to involve races to 0 HP in a white room where everybody starts toe to toe and absolutely nobody would ever help one of their alleged allies out. Teamwork is never a factor, it's just a grim, friendless race to the most DPR. It bears no resemblance to any PC group, player group or even any optimiser that I've met in real life.


Ah yes, ye olde "**** the people who play this game" attitude. The toxicity is strong with this one.

Nah. There's a difference between "people who play D&D" and the more negative or bittervet-riddled online communities.

[NaughtyTiger]

Yeah, I would shy away from the presumption that criticism of the martial/caster disparity stems from not being a cooperative player or from not wanting to see your friends succeed.
I wouldn't.

Just take a look at the optimization criteria that forum arguments use. They seem to involve races to 0 HP in a white room where everybody starts toe to toe and absolutely nobody would ever help one of their alleged allies out. Teamwork is never a factor, it's just a grim, friendless race to the most DPR. It bears no resemblance to any PC group, player group or even any optimiser that I've met in real life.

The disparity between martial and casters is even more apparent if players dont optimize.

Caster is almost a damaging as a pure martial in combat.
but a caster has more utility than a pure martial out of combat

Martials are built for combat, nothing more.
Casters can combat, control, support, and utility in a single build without trying.

[Azuresun]

The disparity between martial and casters is even more apparent if players dont optimize.

Caster is almost a damaging as a pure martial in combat.
but a caster has more utility than a pure martial out of combat

Martials are built for combat, nothing more.
Casters can combat, control, support, and utility in a single build without trying.

As incredibly fun, original, engaging, non-repetitive, novel and healthy for my enjoyment of the game that this argument would be....I'll just say "not in my experience", and punch out.

[NaughtyTiger]

As incredibly fun, original, engaging, non-repetitive, novel and healthy for my enjoyment of the game that this argument would be....I'll just say "not in my experience", and punch out.

You made the claim that this problem arises when people are focused on getting to 0HP.
No one on this thread made is arguing that Casters do more damage than an optimized Martial.

If you make the argument that other tables experience this disparity because they have jerky optimizers, and don't expect pushback, then yeah, this is prolly the correct response.

[KorvinStarmast]

Once again, I hope somewhere, someone gets to have a simulacrum. I hope someone gets to cast Wish every effing session. And I hope that one day people can have a conversation without others changing the subject or focusing on one word in order to distract from the point.
That somewhere isn't here.
Goodbye. My bard got simulacrum. Sim was fun to use, and allowed me to perform duets now and again and fund raiser concerts.
My bard used wish for some fun shenanigans, one of them being an earthquake cast on a small fortress the day after I had True Polymorphed my sim into an adult Emerald dragon who tunneled under the fort for the whole hour she was viable. The DM preferred that TP not be permanent, since if he didn't do that I had thought of creating a bunch of Silver Dragons, young, via the TP Object to Creature feature. I just figured that the world needed more silver dragons, but he felt it was going to skew the world building a bit (and as he explained it, I totally agreed with him).
Shortly after the bard retired her "here's what she will do for the next few years" project included
cast wish as Mords Fortress for long enough to make her retirement chalet (she was with child as the campaign wound up, so she decided to make her own home).
and after that
Cast wish for a year, day after day, as teleportation circle to build a TP circle near the home of a friend (the party paladin, retired) so that they can always visit one another. :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

The disparity between martial and casters is even more apparent if players dont optimize.

Caster is almost a damaging as a pure martial in combat.
but a caster has more utility than a pure martial out of combat

Martials are built for combat, nothing more.

My Ranger called, he's very good at exploring.
My Paladin called, his social skills are impressive.
My rogue called, he just lifted the biggest diamond on the continent.
My barbarian called; you're obviously ducking him, and he's standing there in the octagon, waiting...
My monk called. He's making a small fortune as a translator.

[NaughtyTiger]

My Ranger called, he's very good at exploring.
My Paladin called, his social skills are impressive.
My rogue called, he just lifted the biggest diamond on the continent.
My barbarian called; you're obviously ducking him, and he's standing there in the octagon, waiting...
My monk called. He's making a small fortune as a translator.

your ranger is a caster with good exploring skills (edit, i will give you this, because the class has exploration built in)
your paladin is a caster with impressive social skills
you monk is magic... and talks alot.
your barbarian is good at combat... okay
your rogue is good at thieving... okay

my druid just stole the diamond from your rogue..., and better at healing, moving, changing the landscape
my druid (moon) is also pretty good in the octogon
my wizard is a great translater, and better at moving, healing (raising undead) , changing the landscape, and fireballing

edit: i suppose you are honing in on my "built for combat and nothing more".
i will concede that is a little hyperbole on my part.
but is it a coincidence that you left out the last line of the quote?

it took 13 levels for the monk to get magical ability to be a translator.
a wizard can get it in 3 and still do most everything else your monk can

[Dr.Samurai]

I wouldn't.

Just take a look at the optimization criteria that forum arguments use. They seem to involve races to 0 HP in a white room where everybody starts toe to toe and absolutely nobody would ever help one of their alleged allies out. Teamwork is never a factor, it's just a grim, friendless race to the most DPR. It bears no resemblance to any PC group, player group or even any optimiser that I've met in real life.
The problem with making these presumptions is that they are lazy and, generally, wrong. It's just too easy to pretend that the people that hold an opinion you don't agree with are BAD people on top of it. So it's a good idea not to do that. Just pretend that they are as thoughtful as you are about their opinion and try to understand it so that you know why you agree and/or disagree.

This particular concern with caster disparity has little to do with "optimization".

Bear in mind that teamwork is the goal, yes. I agree with you. But if the caster is always in a position to say "well, we could let you do it that way, or I could cast this spell instead" that is ALSO not teamwork. That's a one-person show.

I love when the casters in my group do cool and amazing stuff. When I see the wizard take half the enemy mooks out of the fight with Hypnotic Pattern, it's awesome. I'm not jealous or angry or disappointed, etc. I like it, that's what they're supposed to do.

I also want a role in the party as well. And I'd like to fulfill that role without the magical omni-caster that gets a kick out of checking off as many "role boxes" as they can encroaching on that role.

Nah. There's a difference between "people who play D&D" and the more negative or bittervet-riddled online communities.
For the little it's worth, you and Warlush appear the most embittered in this thread...

[Sigreid]

IMO, a big part of the issue is that people don't really take into account that everything the caster does with magic is something they can't do with that magic later that might be more important. So the way I see it is the question becomes "Why is the party so confident that they can squander resources that could be important later by trivializing something they can already?"

[NaughtyTiger]

"Why is the party so confident that they can squander resources that could be important later by trivializing something they can already?"

I like this reframing...
It takes a lot to burn all your slots in one day...
Combat intense enough to burn through HP and slots typically takes the whole game session and damages the martials enough they want a long rest too..


snip.
This is more eloquent than my terse attempt

[Sindeloke]

IMO, a big part of the issue is that people don't really take into account that everything the caster does with magic is something they can't do with that magic later that might be more important. So the way I see it is the question becomes "Why is the party so confident that they can squander resources that could be important later by trivializing something they can already?"

Probably because from late tier 2, the casters spending spell slots at a rate of 1-2 per encounter will leave them running out of spell slots at about the same time as, if not later than, the barbarian runs out of rages and the fighter and monk run out of hit dice (and the paladin runs out of smites/LoH, if the paladin counts), so if they're resting then anyway they might as well spend the resources.

In a sandbox campaign (versus a theme park module) there's also potentially an aspect of preventative medicine. A spell now to wrap up this situation more efficiently could very likely make another fight down the line much less demanding anyway. Killing scouts before they can raise an alarm, getting information in twenty seconds rather than tens of minutes of resourceless interrogation, stone-shaping a bridge to catch the bad guys before they can start the ritual instead of getting there once the demon is summoned because you took the time to resourcelessly climb around the chasm - in a sandbox campaign, all of these can turn a deadly encounter that needed you to save every spell for into an easy encounter you can also solve with one or two.

On that note, incidentally, if I've learned anything from two decades of this argument on various D&D forums, it's that the difference has nothing to do with pacing, agency, or optimizing whatsoever, and is 100% centered on whether a player views D&D as a theme park module game or a sandbox game. ("If the party is supposed to go to another plane the DM will give them a means to go there" is perfectly rational argument if your perspective is the former, and utterly incoherent if you play the latter.) No one has ever convinced anyone that the problem with "the" game is real/not real because we are literally playing different games.

[Dr.Samurai]

IMO, a big part of the issue is that people don't really take into account that everything the caster does with magic is something they can't do with that magic later that might be more important. So the way I see it is the question becomes "Why is the party so confident that they can squander resources that could be important later by trivializing something they can already?"
I agree and it's a good point. It's worth digging into what exactly can the caster replicate and at what expense.

The familiar is a 10gp ritual, so that's hardly a "resource" for these purposes I think.

Getting weapon/armor proficiencies with Extra Attack, and tanking in combat with Booming Blade is not spending any slots except the buffs you might put on, but you may have put those on anyways.

It's a good question.

[Elenian]

My Ranger called, he's very good at exploring.
My Paladin called, his social skills are impressive.
My rogue called, he just lifted the biggest diamond on the continent.
My barbarian called; you're obviously ducking him, and he's standing there in the octagon, waiting...
My monk called. He's making a small fortune as a translator.

Thievery? High-stakes diplomacy? Translation? These are all well and good, I suppose, but fundamentally they are relics of a pre-magical economy :smallwink:

A druid can double the yield of a five-hundred acre field for a year, overnight. A wizard can compress a month's worth of labour into ten minutes. A bard can relay a message across the world, instantly and reliably, with perfect real-time translation. A cleric can cure diseases, divine the future, and return the dead to life. These are all available before level 10.

These are abilities that could, with only a very little cleverness applied, change the face of the world. Most DnD games don't center around doing this, for fairly obvious reasons (and 5e, by virtue of getting rid of a lot of utility spells, has greatly reduced the issue), but it remains the case that a comparison of mundane skills (which, of course, in general the spellcasters can use, too, and are actually often better at) to magical means of altering the world is... fairly lopsided.

[Leon]

Martials are built for combat, nothing more.


Given where the rest of posts have gone just Say Fighters, because apparently anything else is not pure martial enough to be only for combat.

[Rynjin]

The issue with skill based judgments of versatility has always been that everyone can get skills. The difference between a Monk with Linguistics and a Druid with Linguistics is minimal at best; eitehr makes a good "translator".

5e tries to bring back the "Rogues are better at skills" thing in a pretty interesting way that doesn't actively punish skill characters that aren't Rogues, which is a nice step in the right direction. The difference between a Rogue using Thievery and a Wizard doing it is pretty hefty in terms of raw numbers once Expertise is factored in.

The issue is it doesn't go far enough, and doesn't stretch naturally to the other classes in the game. It is just "raw numbers". This means that while the Rogue is better at doing Thievery or whatever other skill than other classes, they're still doing the same thing. It's just a matter of magnitude.

If Rogues got some new uses for skills based on Expertise, that could do some truly incredible things, it would be nice. Being able to steal magic at mid levels, or even the inherent properties of things at high levels would be pretty fun.

But unfortunately there's too much of a contingent of people that would call that "too anime". And anime is bad and wrong, and only characters from anime can do cool things (ignoring all of the mythological and narrative figures in western media who can do the same), so martials getting cool things is anime, and therefore bad.

[NaughtyTiger]

The difference between a Rogue using Thievery and a Wizard doing it is pretty hefty in terms of raw numbers once Expertise is factored in.

A single class caster is 90% as effective as a martial at their specialty, plus all the other stuff.

Moreover, if i want to play a thief-y toon, then
Caster X with Rogue 1 is 120% stronger than thief rogue at thieving and more well rounded toon. With little drawback.
(Yes numbers are arbitrary)

I am okay with magic being amazing, there should be a cost

[KorvinStarmast]

In a sandbox campaign (versus a theme park module) there's also potentially an aspect of preventative medicine. While I hadn't looked at it this way, that's a neat way to approach styles.

[Sigreid]

Probably because from late tier 2, the casters spending spell slots at a rate of 1-2 per encounter will leave them running out of spell slots at about the same time as, if not later than, the barbarian runs out of rages and the fighter and monk run out of hit dice (and the paladin runs out of smites/LoH, if the paladin counts), so if they're resting then anyway they might as well spend the resources.

In a sandbox campaign (versus a theme park module) there's also potentially an aspect of preventative medicine. A spell now to wrap up this situation more efficiently could very likely make another fight down the line much less demanding anyway. Killing scouts before they can raise an alarm, getting information in twenty seconds rather than tens of minutes of resourceless interrogation, stone-shaping a bridge to catch the bad guys before they can start the ritual instead of getting there once the demon is summoned because you took the time to resourcelessly climb around the chasm - in a sandbox campaign, all of these can turn a deadly encounter that needed you to save every spell for into an easy encounter you can also solve with one or two.

On that note, incidentally, if I've learned anything from two decades of this argument on various D&D forums, it's that the difference has nothing to do with pacing, agency, or optimizing whatsoever, and is 100% centered on whether a player views D&D as a theme park module game or a sandbox game. ("If the party is supposed to go to another plane the DM will give them a means to go there" is perfectly rational argument if your perspective is the former, and utterly incoherent if you play the latter.) No one has ever convinced anyone that the problem with "the" game is real/not real because we are literally playing different games.

I would expect tier 3-4 characters would have more than enough enemies that understand them well enough to tax their resources that could show up at any time.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would expect tier 3-4 characters would have more than enough enemies that understand them well enough to tax their resources that could show up at any time. Demons can summon more demons (though why that's gated behind a variant rule in the MM I am not sure).

[Willie the Duck]

Mostly by manipulating NPCs (the DM). Stealing and planting stolen goods, deception and performance checks, finding DM plot holes and blind spots. Just being creative and coming up with shenanigans that are so entertaining the DM goes along with it.


Again I want to clarify, I'm not saying that martials can do anything casters can. I'm saying when you get rid of the character names, abilities, and the title of Dungeon Master, all you have are people with their own complicated motives that even they might not understand.

And that perhaps if you deal with the fact that the problem is one of interpersonal communication, goal awareness, teamwork, or mental illness, you won't have to waste time nerfing/banning powerful elements of the game THE DESIGNERS INCLUDED ON PORPOISE. You can just ask the person to stop trying to ruin the game.

There is definitely a kernel of agreement here for me. In-play, I'd say somewhere between 50-75% (possibly more, especially in the TSR era) of problem-solving and adventure-success) is relatively class- and build-neutral. Going to the right locations, asking the right questions, getting agreements for various parties, deciding to look for things (contacts, secret doors, traps) in various locations (yes, with some question as to the resolution mechanics of the searches, and whether those are better served by magic or skill)-- all of these are things are things any character can do. of the rest, 50-75% are things any class can accomplish -- things like combat, or enduring failed traps (a rogue with a good dex save, high base HP, the party having a cleric, or defensive mage spells), or the like.

On the other side of the coin, that does not really speak much to the inter-class balance. If 50-99% of the game is class-independent, than yes interclass balance issues aren't necessarily as big a deal as often made out to be, but at the same time there's also less reason for any balance issues to exist. That the designers included certain elements on purpose (not on porpoise, although I'm sure that's a whale of a tale you otter tell us eventually) also doesn't really argue one way or the other. While I'm dutifully unimpressed with people that talk about how mind-numbingly incompetent the developers are/that they clearly don't know these facts about the game the rest of us have know for years/that their own solutions would just plain work better and not have any other flaws or issues/etc., the designers are both not infallible and (more importantly) have purposes and reasons for things that match gameplay styles* that the player base might not share.
*Dark.revenant has it right that D&D rules never really left the dungeon, and the farther one's gameplay style goes from those assumptions, the more issues one will likely find.


The community will never ever ever have the authority over the DMG/PHB. Ever. Not even a debate. To the abyss with the community.

Not the people who play this game. Just the wet blankets who are allergic to other people having fun.

Nah. There's a difference between "people who play D&D" and the more negative or bittervet-riddled online communities.
See, this is a very depressing trend in these online discussions. If someone else has a differing opinion, it is because they want to control others' fun, or they don't really play (particularly at the levels being discussed), or they only do unrealistic whiteroom discussions, but most importantly, they are the toxic ones.
Here's the issue -- we are the only community. There's no magic group of bad-actors* who are the nattering nabobs of negativism, just everyone here's worst angels coming out to play (or worstly interpreted statements, depending). If gaming/nerd culture has flaws and bad actors, the place to find them is always in the mirror. The assumption that we (any given we) are the good guys is something one should always reflect on with the assumption that there is someone on the other side of the discussion staring at the monitor thinking, 'well thanks a lot for completely dismissing my lived gaming experience!**'
*well there are, we call them trolls and depending on forum rules they don't last long
** blue is sarcasm, right?

[Rynjin]

A single class caster is 90% as effective as a martial at their specialty, plus all the other stuff.


This was indeed the entire point of my post, do you have anything new to add?

[Jervis]

Maybe it’s the fact that i’m use to DMing 3.5 but nothing in 5e outside of a few actually insane combos (twilight cleric + peace cleric immortality combo) seems banworthy to me. The only spells I really tweak are things like remove curse not working on curses cast by a more powerful caster and anti-magic field having a check involved against creatures with more hit dice. Stuff like that. Also I use lore accurate wish, if it’s something 10th level and higher spells could doin the past then or is of similar scope then no amount of wish lawyering is gonna let you do it.

[Ortho]

(twilight cleric + peace cleric immortality combo)

Wait, what?

I've never heard of this exploit. Could you elaborate?

[NaughtyTiger]

This was indeed the entire point of my post, do you have anything new to add?


I read your post as expertise makes the rogue way better than a wizard at thieving.
I disagree.
So not the point of your post?

[Rafaelfras]

Maybe it’s the fact that i’m use to DMing 3.5 but nothing in 5e outside of a few actually insane combos (twilight cleric + peace cleric immortality combo) seems banworthy to me. The only spells I really tweak are things like remove curse not working on curses cast by a more powerful caster and anti-magic field having a check involved against creatures with more hit dice. Stuff like that. Also I use lore accurate wish, if it’s something 10th level and higher spells could doin the past then or is of similar scope then no amount of wish lawyering is gonna let you do it.

Yeah, I have similar experience
On my 3.0 days I had a group with a wizard, cleric and druid in the same party with a sorceress, ranger, paladin rogue and bard(dragon disciple) I had to work hard to make everything fit together, for the tier 1 classes not dominate everything. To go on with really long adventuring days so the spell casters could at least worn off some of their power, giving very good magic weapons to the martials (i.e. the paladin got a holy avenger by level 15) and I took all of then to level 20, when we wrapped up the last campaign and moved to 5.0
The balance effort was real, the martials were very optimized (paladin was built for mounted charge, bard was a dragon disciple with absurdly high stats and saves, ranger was a forest shooter that could chose when to crit) and still when the casters put effort into it, they could dominate. (My efforts payed off though and everyone got their chance to shine)
5th Ed is a walk in the park. We are at lvl 14 right now. My party has everything from wizard to fighter and everyone is happy and I don't have to do anything to level the playing field. It just happens. I really like 5th Ed and the balance is really way closer then a lot of people give credit for
I really think that people having problems with spellcasters should try longer adventuring days. It doesn't have to be all the time, but at least once make your party go through 3 short rests, use time constraints, intelligent dungeon denizens, patrols, I don't know, but don't let then sleep. You will see things under a new light, and your martials will never feel underpowered again.

[Jervis]

Wait, what?

I've never heard of this exploit. Could you elaborate?

Twilight gives a bunch of temp HP and Peace lets characters take hits for each other. At level 6 damage that isn’t AOE becomes basically pointless because everyone can just hop around teleporting to take damage for each other and assure that all of that temp hp gets used up and almost nothing else.


Yeah, I have similar experience
On my 3.0 days I had a group with a wizard, cleric and druid in the same party with a sorceress, ranger, paladin rogue and bard(dragon disciple) I had to work hard to make everything fit together, for the tier 1 classes not dominate everything. To go on with really long adventuring days so the spell casters could at least worn off some of their power, giving very good magic weapons to the martials (i.e. the paladin got a holy avenger by level 15) and I took all of then to level 20, when we wrapped up the last campaign and moved to 5.0
The balance effort was real, the martials were very optimized (paladin was built for mounted charge, bard was a dragon disciple with absurdly high stats and saves, ranger was a forest shooter that could chose when to crit) and still when the casters put effort into it, they could dominate. (My efforts payed off though and everyone got their chance to shine)
5th Ed is a walk in the park. We are at lvl 14 right now. My party has everything from wizard to fighter and everyone is happy and I don't have to do anything to level the playing field. It just happens. I really like 5th Ed and the balance is really way closer then a lot of people give credit for
I really think that people having problems with spellcasters should try longer adventuring days. It doesn't have to be all the time, but at least once make your party go through 3 short rests, use time constraints, intelligent dungeon denizens, patrols, I don't know, but don't let then sleep. You will see things under a new light, and your martials will never feel underpowered again.

As a side note if your campaign doesn’t like the adventuring day a adventuring week is a decent idea. Keep the amount of combat the same but require a full 24 hours rest to recover daily abilities. It’s good for if you want to stretch out several sessions between rests but make sure you don’t make a lot of extra combat because of this.