Simple Houserule to balance caster/martials

[Frogreaver]

Just cap the level of caster spells known to 4th level spells. Slots continue to grow as is.

Thoughts?

Possibly, For access to higher level spells, magic items with atunement would be required.

[Witty Username]

I would make it 5th level, no need to **** over the warlock too.

I think this would overall make the game less fun, and only partially solve the problem, until 7th level the game is unaffected, and 3rd, 4th level spells can still have significant affects on the game for a chunk of time. It does take away about 90% of the tools casters have to mitigate legendary resistance, but again that feels like "Your not supposed to have fun".

I would counter propose giving the non-casters up to 4th level spell casting. Make monks have to pay ki for it.

[Unoriginal]

Just cap the level of caster spells known to 4th level spells. Slots continue to grow as is.

Thoughts?

Possibly, For access to higher level spells, magic items with atunement would be required.

Whoa.

Stating that casters would need to be forbidden all spells past 4th level (with POSSIBLY some exceptions that'd require one of their three attunement slots) for casters and martials to be balanced is INCREDIBLY condescending toward martials.

It's like saying "Of course you're just as good a boxer as your friend. If your friend has one hand tied behind their back."

I will never get how people can have have their "martials suck" idea stuck to such an high degree.

[Mastikator]

Why not just ban all casters?

[PhantomSoul]

Whoa.

Stating that casters would need to be forbidden all spells past 4th level (with POSSIBLY some exceptions that'd require one of their three attunement slots) for casters and martials to be balanced is INCREDIBLY condescending toward martials.

It's like saying "Of course you're just as good a boxer as your friend. If your friend has one hand tied behind their back."

That's unfair -- it actually requires lobbing at least one arm off, probably two or three.
(I would make that blue, but it doesn't always seem all that wrong :P)

[Unoriginal]

Why not just ban all casters?

The answer is probably "because it'd mean we have to play martials". And that's too hellish a thought for caster supremacists.

[PhantomSoul]

The answer is probably "because it'd mean we have to play martials". And that's too hellish a thought for caster supremacists.

And 1/3 and 1/2 casters get to remain, which is non-sarcastically a reasonable option for many campaigns!

[Kane0]

I'd say just cap your games at level 12 or so?

I mean, you could always do some heavy reworking of the system, the core framework of 5e is robust enough to handle it. Make full casters progress a spell level every 3 levels instead of every 2 for example, and give them more class or subclass features/ribbons to fill the gaps.

[Deimess]

I'm gonna second Unoriginal's "whoa" on this one. That is a comedically unnecessary nerf IMHO.

Probably not what you're asking for, but one of the best ways to balance your caster/martials is to diversify your enemy pool. Casters and martials should be facing enemies that challenge them in a variety of ways. Not all fights should be post Long Rest white room meatsack battles, those only make certain types of characters shine.

[sambojin]

I tend to go the other way (but I do ban Wish and Simulacrum). I give all martials a choice of two feats, out of:
(Paladins only get one choice)

Prodigy (no racial restrictions)
Skillful
Inspiring Leader
Magic Initiate (slots can be used)
Martial Adept
Resilient
Ritual Caster

It's a lot, but it makes for very well rounded characters. You can go for +1's to stats, skill monkey it, have smatterings of magic, a bit of healing, whatever combo, or just super-martial it with better saves and a superiority die.

They can't ever MC into another full or half caster class for the privilege. I'm not saying it's perfect, or that it doesn't OP some characters, but it gives them a really good platform to work from. Front-loaded to hell, yet you don't feel like you need to MC out for much, because you've got a smattering of things to do that you're pretty good at, just because you decided to stay martial. Rogues aren't as squishy or are more reliable in combat, fighters can face or skill or have a bit of magic, rangers can really skill or lead or magic toolkit. Pallies tend to just choose resilient and super-save it, but they didn't necessarily have to.

[Captain Panda]

Just cap the level of caster spells known to 4th level spells. Slots continue to grow as is.

Thoughts?

I think if you don't want to DM for level 11+ casters, you shouldn't.

[Aalbatr0ss]

I’ve given some thought to a campaign starting as all-martial, with story-based opportunities to access caster levels as they advance. Gems/relics/etc that enable the option of taking a level in class X.

Still haven’t worked out all the details, but would essentially be capping the casters through forced multiclassing. The group I’m planning this for aren’t really power gamers, and they don’t get that crazy when playing full casters. It just seems like a fun campaign gimmick.

[4koboldsinacoat]

A lot of high level outsiders have magic resistance plus double digit saves, legendary resistance, and teleportation as an action or legendary action. This makes saving throw spells useless, forcecage an almost unnoticeable inconvenience, and even maze becomes a one turn delay against a monster that can planeshift. All a wizard can do against a high level fiend like that is buff or summon one of the few summons that bypass immunity to nonmagic damage. With the exception of simulacrum, pretty much every high level spell can be made irrelevant by the right monster.

[sambojin]

It still doesn't forgive them for getting 1-2 very powerful "class features" every level after about lvl11, compared to a martial's maybe-something-or-a-ribbon by then.

Full casters are so good because of this. Every level is 1-2 more "class features". They're called spells, but they're essentially class features, that blow anything a martial could do out of the water upon versatility. And another one of your "class features" as a full caster is: there's always a lvl3-4 spell that upcasts beautifully.

If the OP does it exactly like its stated, capping out at 4th lvl known/prepped spells, they still get more known/prepped spells and upcasting. Casters are still powerful. They still get more options, and some of these options upscale. Sometimes it's more powerful regardless, even if it's not due to upcasting (casting Fly on a lvl15 paladin for a lvl3 slot is more powerful than casting it on a lvl5 one).

It's fine as a solution, it just doesn't fix any actual problems. Casters will still be "more powerful" than martials, they'll just have more lower level spell options, rather than a wider spread of spell levels to choose from. By about 7th level, you've got heaps anyway.

[ciopo]

I would just multiclass caster 12 / other caster 8 or 8/8/4

not that I've ever managed to play anything higher than level 13 or so, and that was the tail end of the campaign

[Amnestic]

I'd say just cap your games at level 12 or so?


Yeah, this is what I'd do. Pick a level cap (7, 11, 12, whatever floats your boat) and stick to it. Give people extra ASIs/feats/attunement slots instead of additional levels if progression is still a concern.

[MoiMagnus]

IMO, this would both kill the fun without solving the caster/martial issue.

It would kill the fun as now high level casters no longer get new toys to play with, making their gameplay quite stale from level to level. I'd probably end up bored out of the gameplay unless you really work out of your way to compensate for it (crafting unique battles with homebrew enemies interacting with their lair in interesting ways, etc).
[Assuming you ban multiclassing. Otherwise I'd multiclass away to continue getting new toys.]

The caster/martial issue doesn't come from the high level spells outside of a few exceptions (like Simulacrum) which could be banned by themself. The most disruptive part is that you can spam powerful mid-low level spells. That's the reason why the Warlock is considered by many as not truly a "full spellcaster".

[Which makes me wonder: how well would the game work if every spellcaster used the Warlock system of short-rest spell slots?]

[Frogreaver]

Yeah, this is what I'd do. Pick a level cap (7, 11, 12, whatever floats your boat) and stick to it. Give people extra ASIs/feats/attunement slots instead of additional levels if progression is still a concern.

Why do this when high level spells are the only real issue? Other class features for casters or martials have never been a problem. Level 3-4 spells aren’t the problem in tier 3. Even if you get many casts of them.

[Waazraath]

Unneeded in general since it adresses a nonexisting problem. If due to style of play / DM'ing / etc. this adresses issues at your table(s): go ahead, I say good luck!

[Amnestic]

Why do this when high level spells are the only real issue? Other class features for casters or martials have never been a problem. Level 3-4 spells aren’t the problem in tier 3. Even if you get many casts of them.

I mean, they can be. Conjure Animals never goes out of style, especially if you've not got much else to spend your 9th level slot on.

[Frogreaver]

IMO, this would both kill the fun without solving the caster/martial issue.

It would kill the fun as now high level casters no longer get new toys to play with, making their gameplay quite stale from level to level. I'd probably end up bored out of the gameplay unless you really work out of your way to compensate for it (crafting unique battles with homebrew enemies interacting with their lair in interesting ways, etc).
[Assuming you ban multiclassing. Otherwise I'd multiclass away to continue getting new toys.]

The whole mindset here is just so off to me. In tier 3 martials don't get new toys. They get slightly better at the things they've been doing all along. Balance would dictate that if martials aren't getting new toys every level or 2 that casters shouldn't either. It's really that simple.

Once that balance point is recognized the simple solution is to remove caster stuff (it's easier to balance by removal than by creating brand new content). However, an alternative route would be to take this lesson and create new martial features in tier 3 and 4 that aren't just slightly better at the same thing they have been doing.


The caster/martial issue doesn't come from the high level spells outside of a few exceptions (like Simulacrum) which could be banned by themself. The most disruptive part is that you can spam powerful mid-low level spells. That's the reason why the Warlock is considered by many as not truly a "full spellcaster".

[Which makes me wonder: how well would the game work if every spellcaster used the Warlock system of short-rest spell slots?]

IMO Warlocks feel weaker than full casters because they have to constantly be concerned with running out of spells, they have a fairly bad spell list in comparison to other full casters (most of the strongest spells aren't on it), and they don't actually get level 6+ slots.

Most of the spells that really increase full caster capabilities really do come from level 5+ spells. Wall of Force, Forcecage, Heroes feast, wish, foresight, shapechange, planeshift, teleport, mass suggestion, hold monster, animate objects, crown of stars, contingency, raise dead, etc. Take those things away and casters are still good, they just aren't obliviously better anymore.


Unneeded in general since it adresses a nonexisting problem. If due to style of play / DM'ing / etc. this adresses issues at your table(s): go ahead, I say good luck!

It impacts every table. Whether they admit it or not is a different story.


I mean, they can be. Conjure Animals never goes out of style, especially if you've not got much else to spend your 9th level slot on.

I've no issue with a 9th level slot on conjure animals.

[Waazraath]

It impacts every table. Whether they admit it or not is a different story.

Lolz. Millions and millions of tables around the world, and here's Frogreaver 'exlaining what is happening there' for all of them - including my own, despite him never been there.

[Frogreaver]

Lolz. Millions and millions of tables around the world, and here's Frogreaver 'exlaining what is happening there' for all of them - including my own, despite him never been there.

Obvious things are obvious, no?

[Amnestic]

I've no issue with a 9th level slot on conjure animals.

Okay.

I do, so that's why I agreed with the level cap alternative that was suggested instead of your thing.

[Frogreaver]

Okay.

I do, so that's why I agreed with the level cap alternative that was suggested instead of your thing.

Okay. What level appropriate challenge does a 9th level conjure animals solve? Or what character is it able to replace?

[MoiMagnus]

The whole mindset here is just so off to me. In tier 3 martials don't get new toys. They get slightly better at the things they've been doing all along. Balance would dictate that if martials aren't getting new toys every level or 2 that casters shouldn't either. It's really that simple.

Don't make the caster as boring and uninteresting to level up as the Tier 3 martials. Sure, it's might be an easy way to reach balance (and I don't even think it would work, at least not better than just banning some specific problematic spells). But that's balance by killing the fun of levelling up. "Big numbers go bigger" is not enough of a progression to be interesting.
[I'm assuming here you're not planning to milestone more than one level per session. That's indeed a way to hangle my issues.]

I mean, this doesn't make the campaign boring by itself. You can get a lot of progression in the universe itself if the GM allows it (building a network of allies, trying to reform society to your liking, etc). But it's killing the fun of having your D&D character progress in its class.

[Frogreaver]

Don't make the caster as boring and uninteresting to level up as the Tier 3 martials. Sure, it's might be an easy way to reach balance (and I don't even think it would work, at least not better than just banning some specific problematic spells). But that's balance by killing the fun of levelling up. "Big numbers go bigger" is not enough of a progression to be interesting.
[I'm assuming here you're not planning to milestone more than one level per session. That's indeed a way to hangle my issues.]

I mean, this doesn't make the campaign boring by itself. You can get a lot of progression in the universe itself if the GM allows it (building a network of allies, trying to reform society to your liking, etc). But it's killing the fun of having your D&D character progress in its class.

But The question is not whether some alternative and harder to implement approach could achieve balance. It’s whether this forms a good starting point for balance. If it does then either use it as is or use it as a guidepost for the strength of martial features that need added. Much better than just stabbing in the dark at that kind of solution.

[Amnestic]

Okay. What level appropriate challenge does a 9th level conjure animals solve? Or what character is it able to replace?

Summoning 32 wolves or flying snakes probably solves a lot of problems that a 20th level fighter is "replaced" by, if that's your marker. Especially if you happen to be a Shepherd druid who keeps buffing their hit points as you level.

Alternatively, any of the Summon X spells from an 8th or 9th level slot will do a fair job of competing with your beatstick damage output wise. Summon Fey from an 8th level slot is 4x(2d6+11) damage, which is probably pretty close to how much a rogue is pumping out.

[Unoriginal]

Obvious things are obvious, no?

If you're talking about your loathing for martials, it is indeed.

[Frogreaver]

Summoning 32 wolves or flying snakes probably solves a lot of problems that a 20th level fighter is "replaced" by, if that's your marker. Especially if you happen to be a Shepherd druid who keeps buffing their hit points as you level.

Alternatively, any of the Summon X spells from an 8th or 9th level slot will do a fair job of competing with your beatstick damage output wise. Summon Fey from an 8th level slot is 4x(2d6+11) damage, which is probably pretty close to how much a rogue is pumping out.

You don’t get to pick wolves or flying snakes.

The spell can be good if you are fighting a ground based non aoe creature with lower ac for that level.

I’m not doing this moving goalpost thing. You brought up conjure animals. I’m not going to suddenly shift to other spells just because you realize that comparison isn’t going in your favor all that much.

[ciopo]

*spittake* did.. did you just introduce dragons as a pro-martials argument in the martials/casters divide?

what is mister greatsword going to do about the flying menace, throw javelins?

anyway, I don't see how removing higher level spells would solve anything, ( not that I feel there is anything that needs to be solved )

[Eldariel]

Sure, it would kinda work. It feels boring to me, removing a ton of options without really addressing the root issues (martials not getting nice things) and making high levels quite samey to lower levels for casters as well, but it would of course balance things a lot. Casters would still be stronger but at least it wouldn't be to such an absurd degree higher up. Honestly, I don't know how they ****ed up martials so bad in this edition - the first 2-3 levels are great and then they just kinda stop getting stuff. Like 1/5 levels contains something useful... Seriously, it's not a crime to give martials strong abilities when casters are getting Contingencies and Simulacrums and Forcecages and such, and it's possible to get extra attack + damage bonus chassis with 9th level spells...

[Frogreaver]

*spittake* did.. did you just introduce dragons as a pro-martials argument in the martials/casters divide?

what is mister greatsword going to do about the flying menace, throw javelins?

anyway, I don't see how removing higher level spells would solve anything, ( not that I feel there is anything that needs to be solved )

Martials at least live through the dragons breath attack. 32 wolves do not.

Also, The great sword user could have flight from magic items or spell from another caster.

The Druid is not a particularly strong caster for fighting dragons. That’s pretty much the arcane casters and archers.

[JNAProductions]

If you feel martials are that far behind casters, I recommend buffing them rather than nerfing casters.

I also think that this is a grotesque overreaction. Like… massively so.

[Amnestic]

You don’t get to pick wolves or flying snakes.

There is a great deal of discussion on that which I won't rehash here, but frankly 32 of anything CR1/4 is going to pose an issue simply because there's 32 of them.



I’m not doing this moving goalpost thing. You brought up conjure animals. I’m not going to suddenly shift to other spells just because you realize that comparison isn’t going in your favor all that much.

I mean, I brought up one spell, as an example. Then I brought up another, as an example. That there are more spells that are an issue is like...okay? Doesn't that help my point?

I'd also note that your houserule does little to handicap the Nuclear Wizard, since they're also more than happy to drop spell slots of high level on magic missile for massive damage.

I'm not really interested in deliberating over it further, I've made my preference known and explained why.

[Frogreaver]

Sure, it would kinda work. It feels boring to me, removing a ton of options without really addressing the root issues (martials not getting nice things) and making high levels quite samey to lower levels for casters as well, but it would of course balance things a lot. Casters would still be stronger but at least it wouldn't be to such an absurd degree higher up. Honestly, I don't know how they ****ed up martials so bad in this edition - the first 2-3 levels are great and then they just kinda stop getting stuff. Like 1/5 levels contains something useful... Seriously, it's not a crime to give martials strong abilities when casters are getting Contingencies and Simulacrums and Forcecages and such, and it's possible to get extra attack + damage bonus chassis with 9th level spells...

I don’t disagree that buffing martials would be more interesting. But, we really need some idea of the full scale of the issue. Looking at the problem as what level of spells helps get in the ballpark and then you know the power level of features the martial needs to match.


If you feel martials are that far behind casters, I recommend buffing them rather than nerfing casters.

I also think that this is a grotesque overreaction. Like… massively so.

Then in your opinion, What level of spells would be the best cut off for balance?

[Unoriginal]

If you feel martials are that far behind casters, I recommend buffing them rather than nerfing casters.

I also think that this is a grotesque overreaction. Like… massively so.


Then in your opinion, What level of spells would be the best cut off for balance?

"I recommend buffing martials rather than nerfing casters."

"But what's the best way to nerf casters, for you?"

Uhm, what?

Am I going crazy, or...?

[Darth Credence]

"I recommend buffing martials rather than nerfing casters."

"But what's the best way to nerf casters, for you?"

Uhm, what?

Am I going crazy, or...?

Perhaps this is all an elaborate April Fool's joke?

[Eldariel]

I think the peak spells of each level are more relevant than the level of spells - there are level 9 spells that are barely better than level 3 spells and would be balanced in a Tier 2 game, and there are level 3 spells that completely break at least an entire tier of play. All spell levels of level 3+ contain problematic entries (of course, not only in power level; variability in e.g. Conjure Animals and Woodland Beings with absolutely broken options but some almost balanced and even few absolutely trash makes them hard to balance) - if we gut the best few spells on every level (as in mitigate their efficiency) we're much closer than by cutting to a certain level of spells:

3. Animate Dead, Conjure Animals, Tiny Hut, Hypnotic Pattern, Fireball, Spirit Guardians (the last two are just above the curve though)
4. Conjure Woodland Beings, Polymorph, Summon Greater Demon (summoning a PC-level consistent damage dealer with super-PC levels of survivability is pretty stupid for a single spell even with its drawbacks and "drawbacks"; it's also terribly written, the free demon should be vengeful, not random rage beater)
5. Wall of Force, Animate Objects, Danse Macabre, Summon Celestial, Planar Binding, potentially few others (Telekinesis and Bigby's are problematic WRT Legendary Resistance mattering but they are OTOH a fix for the stupid design of LR)
6. Magic Jar, Contingency
7. Simulacrum, Forcecage, Create Magen, Conjure Celestial
8. Clone, Maze
9. We don't need to go here.

I think tuning down the peak effects for each level is really where we should go if we were to address this from this angle: there are lots of strong effects outside that list but that's most of the actually broken spells (and as per usual, almost all are PHB spells - PHB is always the most broken book of D&D since it contains the iconic sacred cows they never get right). Then again, I think bringing minionmancy in line and fixing Legendary Resistance and Magic Resistance to be less save-aligned would also help as that would expand a caster's options on higher levels to make the game more interesting and varied all the while making no-save effects less problematic (though seriously, what the hell the designers were thinking making Wall of Force have the "Forcecage lite"-option I have no clue - it was one of the best level 5 Wizard spells in 3e even as just a Wall, it doesn't need to replicate a level 7 spell...).

Really, buffing higher level martials (I don't think anyone disagrees that they get shafted in Tiers 3-4) and fixing the huge outliers addresses most of the issues. And it's actually a surprisingly manageable set of changes; due to the power of spells, you can give martials almost anything without breaking anything.

[strangebloke]

Honestly balance is pretty close to fine if you have long adventuring days that really tax resources. And even then the issue comes less from teleport and simulacrum and scrying and more from the eternal omnipresence of gish builds that are in many cases full spellcasters while also having high AC and hp and high resourceless DPR.

Wizards etc. are very powerful, perhaps the most powerful overall, but paladins and hexblades and bladesingers are the real problem, insofar as one exists.

To underline this point, I would argue that a straight sorcerer is weaker than a lot of 'martial' builds, even if built by someone who knows what they're doing.

[Frogreaver]

I think the peak spells of each level are more relevant than the level of spells - there are level 9 spells that are barely better than level 3 spells and would be balanced in a Tier 2 game, and there are level 3 spells that completely break at least an entire tier of play. All spell levels of level 3+ contain problematic entries (of course, not only in power level; variability in e.g. Conjure Animals and Woodland Beings with absolutely broken options but some almost balanced and even few absolutely trash makes them hard to balance) - if we gut the best few spells on every level (as in mitigate their efficiency) we're much closer than by cutting to a certain level of spells:

3. Animate Dead, Conjure Animals, Tiny Hut, Hypnotic Pattern, Fireball, Spirit Guardians (the last two are just above the curve though)
4. Conjure Woodland Beings, Polymorph, Summon Greater Demon (summoning a PC-level consistent damage dealer with super-PC levels of survivability is pretty stupid for a single spell even with its drawbacks and "drawbacks"; it's also terribly written, the free demon should be vengeful, not random rage beater)
5. Wall of Force, Animate Objects, Danse Macabre, Summon Celestial, Planar Binding, potentially few others (Telekinesis and Bigby's are problematic WRT Legendary Resistance mattering but they are OTOH a fix for the stupid design of LR)
6. Magic Jar, Contingency
7. Simulacrum, Forcecage, Create Magen, Conjure Celestial
8. Clone, Maze
9. We don't need to go here.

I think tuning down the peak effects for each level is really where we should go if we were to address this from this angle: there are lots of strong effects outside that list but that's most of the actually broken spells (and as per usual, almost all are PHB spells - PHB is always the most broken book of D&D since it contains the iconic sacred cows they never get right). Then again, I think bringing minionmancy in line and fixing Legendary Resistance and Magic Resistance to be less save-aligned would also help as that would expand a caster's options on higher levels to make the game more interesting and varied all the while making no-save effects less problematic (though seriously, what the hell the designers were thinking making Wall of Force have the "Forcecage lite"-option I have no clue - it was one of the best level 5 Wizard spells in 3e even as just a Wall, it doesn't need to replicate a level 7 spell...).

Really, buffing higher level martials (I don't think anyone disagrees that they get shafted in Tiers 3-4) and fixing the huge outliers addresses most of the issues. And it's actually a surprisingly manageable set of changes; due to the power of spells, you can give martials almost anything without breaking anything.

Youve listed a lot of the best but the 2nd tier ones aren’t that far behind. Fear, banishment, counterspell, raise dead, etc.

[Dr.Samurai]

"I recommend buffing martials rather than nerfing casters."

"But what's the best way to nerf casters, for you?"

Uhm, what?

Am I going crazy, or...?
There was a condition to that recommendation. Then JNA went on to comment specifically on the OP, saying it was an overreaction. So Frogreaver asked what would be a more reasonable cut-off to JNA.

Makes sense to me.

EDIT:


The whole mindset here is just so off to me. In tier 3 martials don't get new toys. They get slightly better at the things they've been doing all along.
I found this compelling. Capping casters doesn't seem right to me though; my own personal preference. I think I am more in line with keeping tropes/concepts distinct and limiting how much casters can poach from everyone else.

[Hael]

Honestly balance is pretty close to fine if you have long adventuring days that really tax resources. And even then the issue comes less from teleport and simulacrum and scrying and more from the eternal omnipresence of gish builds that are in many cases full spellcasters while also having high AC and hp and high resourceless DPR.

Wizards etc. are very powerful, perhaps the most powerful overall, but paladins and hexblades and bladesingers are the real problem, insofar as one exists.


I dont think I agree. Gish builds are very powerful, but by the time they really start pulling away from martials (and only slightly so at that), wizards are first turn solving encounters multiple times a day with summon greater demon, walls of force and forcecage. The various gishes (and multiclass gishes) have like a one or two level window where they are top tier, and then they are promptly outscaled by the stupid spells.

Sorcerors are (imo) a pretty weak tier1/2 class, but once they hit their stride, they get just as silly as the other full casters.

[strangebloke]

I dont think I agree. Gish builds are very powerful, but by the time they really start pulling away from martials (and only slightly so at that), wizards are first turn solving encounters multiple times a day with summon greater demon, walls of force and forcecage. The various gishes (and multiclass gishes) have like a one or two level window where they are top tier, and then they are promptly outscaled by the stupid spells.

Sorcerors are (imo) a pretty weak tier1/2 class, but once they hit their stride, they get just as silly as the other full casters.

I mean hexblades and bladesingers are still full casters.

And yes, casters outgrow their martial peers eventually, but when you have six encounters a day force cage is only active for two, the effect is less pronounced even at the high end. My bigger concern is when the casters are far ahead in power to begin with and have no major weaknesses at any point.

And then paladins are just generally very strong without being truly busted except in one encounter days.

[Jervis]

Just cap the level of caster spells known to 4th level spells. Slots continue to grow as is.

Thoughts?

Possibly, For access to higher level spells, magic items with atunement would be required.

Kind of jerkish to caster players honestly. This is inverse of a magikarp curve. They’re still as strong before level 9, which most games end before anyway, but play past that and you become a monk, no features whatsoever at high levels to help them keep up.

[Frogreaver]

Kind of jerkish to caster players honestly. This is inverse of a magikarp curve. They’re still as strong before level 9, which most games end before anyway, but play past that and you become a monk, no features whatsoever at high levels to help them keep up.

So your proposal is that they would be balanced if they stop at 3rd level spells?

*Note: you said they were strong before level 9.

[Jervis]

[Which makes me wonder: how well would the game work if every spellcaster used the Warlock system of short-rest spell slots?]

Honestly I think better class features and making spellcasting warlock style would make the game a lot more fun. Warlocks are one of my preferred classes and making every caster follow that schema would improve things imo.

For one thing features that require a long rest would be used less often, the game would shift to be much more SR focused in actual play, it would be pretty interesting

[Jervis]

So your proposal is that they would be balanced if they stop at 3rd level spells?

*Note: you said they were strong before level 9.
You know, I know you’re trolling me, this is note a take a actual human who has played the game can have, but I’ll pretend this isn’t a troll and give a honest response. Either way you propose this is basically making casters 7 or 5 level classes which does literally nothing in games that end before that. In any game that goes longer you’re cutting off half the class no reason whatsoever. The only real fix you can do is to fix the fact that martials are designed poorly. Give them things they can do outside of hit thing, hit thing twice, and hit thing harder. We had them fixed in 3.5 with initiators and backtracked since then

[Witty Username]

I highly recommend looking up the epic 6 rules from 3.5 and adapt them to 5e, if you are seriously considering this.

Martials vs spellcasters isn't really a tier 3 on thing though, it is true to a degree at all levels of play. Mostly because spells are designed to be high impact effects for a tightly controlled resource cost. If they aren't high impact you are just playing a fighter with worse HP/AC and weapons. But because of this mages win encounters, the better way of balance is encounter diversity and hidden information, spells are much weaker when it is more difficult to use them optimally.

[Frogreaver]

You know, I know you’re trolling me, this is note a take a actual human who has played the game can have, but I’ll pretend this isn’t a troll and give a honest response. Either way you propose this is basically making casters 7 or 5 level classes which does literally nothing in games that end before that. In any game that goes longer you’re cutting off half the class no reason whatsoever. The only real fix you can do is to fix the fact that martials are designed poorly. Give them things they can do outside of hit thing, hit thing twice, and hit thing harder. We had them fixed in 3.5 with initiators and backtracked since then

Under my proposal casters still learn/prepare more spells, they still get more slots. Removing the ability to learn higher than level 4 spells isn't the same as giving them noting beyond those levels. So IMO, it's a bit over the top to react to this proposal as if everything is being taken away. A level 11 casters will have 1 level 3 slot, 3 level 4 slots, 2 level 5 slots and 1 level 6 slot more than a level 5 caster. That's a significant advantage I'd estimate roughly a doubling if not tripling in power compared to level 5. Also the caster will also be able to prepare 6 more spells.

I don't believe casters are a problem before level 5+ spells. IMO, you don't need to fix what isn't broken.

I've said this about 10x now, the starting point for balance is to determine what would need to be taken away from a caster to make them roughly balanced with a martial of the same level. Whether you want to then go the route of nerfing casters to that level or use that balance point knowledge to know how much more can be added to martials for balance - either of those options is fine, but one is a heck of a lot easier to implement than designing that many powerful features from scratch.


I highly recommend looking up the epic 6 rules from 3.5 and adapt them to 5e, if you are seriously considering this.

Martials vs spellcasters isn't really a tier 3 on thing though, it is true to a degree at all levels of play. Mostly because spells are designed to be high impact effects for a tightly controlled resource cost. If they aren't high impact you are just playing a fighter with worse HP/AC and weapons. But because of this mages win encounters, the better way of balance is encounter diversity and hidden information, spells are much weaker when it is more difficult to use them optimally.

E6 is a possible solution, but it's not a solution that addresses how to balance the classes for high level play. It just avoids high level play altogether, which isn't what I'm trying to accomplish here.

Personally, I've never found casters to be stronger than martials in tier 1 and early tier 2.

I agree with your comment above that 'encounter diversity and hidden information, spells are much weaker when it is more difficult to use them optimally.' But that alone is not enough to solve the tier 3+ gap.

[Dimers]

Just cap the level of caster spells known to 4th level spells. Slots continue to grow as is.

Thoughts?

Possibly, For access to higher level spells, magic items with atunement would be required.

*shrug* If my DM wanted to try it out, I'd play a full caster and see how it went. Though I'd probably multiclass out after gaining, Iunno, level 6 or 7 slots, just to bring some fresh variety to the playstyle. There's only so many times you can cast the same spells without it getting dull, no matter how effective those spells are.

EDIT: Hmm, maybe multiclass earlier to get a good mix of options from multiple lists. Depends on class features.

[Leon]

By all means do it, its a housrule. You don't need permission from a forum of random gamers to make it so, just your groups.

[Jervis]

Under my proposal casters still learn/prepare more spells, they still get more slots. Removing the ability to learn higher than level 4 spells isn't the same as giving them noting beyond those levels. So IMO, it's a bit over the top to react to this proposal as if everything is being taken away. A level 11 casters will have 1 level 3 slot, 3 level 4 slots, 2 level 5 slots and 1 level 6 slot more than a level 5 caster. That's a significant advantage I'd estimate roughly a doubling if not tripling in power compared to level 5. Also the caster will also be able to prepare 6 more spells.

I don't believe casters are a problem before level 5+ spells. IMO, you don't need to fix what isn't broken.
No, it really doesn’t. Upcasting is very, very bad compared to just casting a spell normally of that level. You have standouts like Spirit Guardians which is arguable good even at 5th and 6th level slots because of how it’s damage scales, but upcasting a fireball will pretty much never be as good as a spell of that level. And damage is the least disruptive way to play a caster in the first place. A lot of good spells just don’t scale at all. As written these rules mean the only correct way to play a caster is to go 7 levels in the class you actually want to play and then go dipping in Paladin and sorcerer for smite shenanigans. Smite isn’t the best use of a slot but it’s is the best in terms of action economy.

Again this is cutting a classes legs off. You get fairly meaningless buffs in terms of ammo and small damage buffs but that’s it. You don’t get anything to compensate for the fact your non-resource damage starts to suck and your spells just don’t keep up



I've said this about 10x now, the starting point for balance is to determine what would need to be taken away from a caster to make them roughly balanced with a martial of the same level. Whether you want to then go the route of nerfing casters to that level or use that balance point knowledge to know how much more can be added to martials for balance - either of those options is fine, but one is a heck of a lot easier to implement than designing that many powerful features from scratch.
The fact you keep saying it and no one is agreeing with you should tell you something. When 10 separate people give the same complaint and the answer you give doesn’t satisfy them, then you can safely say that it’s a valid complaint and you should reevaluate your stance. Granted a larger sample size could improve results but, eh.

I also disagree that it’s hard to give more powerful features to underwhelming classes. Really all they need is something else to do to change the encounter up. As it stands we have asymmetric game design where casters use buffs and effects and the like to set up enemies for DPR focused characters to knock them down. I don’t normally toot Mercer’s horn but his approach with Barbarian homebrew where a subclass let someone play a actual effective tank is a good example of this, it gives a Barbarian something to do other than smash.



E6 is a possible solution, but it's not a solution that addresses how to balance the classes for high level play. It just avoids high level play altogether, which isn't what I'm trying to accomplish here.

Personally, I've never found casters to be stronger than martials in tier 1 and early tier 2.

I agree with your comment above that 'encounter diversity and hidden information, spells are much weaker when it is more difficult to use them optimally.' But that alone is not enough to solve the tier 3+ gap.

I think you do just want to stick to low level play, from reading this anyway. Martials at high levels mostly get bigger numbers, casters get more things they can do to effect the battle. Higher numbers really doesn’t change much other than add bloat and go into rocket tag. You get more interesting enemies, granted though you have less interest ways to deal with them under this ruleset, so i’m not convinced you gain anything.

Besides that, as others have posted, casters aren’t broken anyway playing as intended. Granted few people actually play by the adventuring day, and honestly I think that model is a bit flawed as well but changing it requires changing the entire math the system is built on. Even at high levels if you’re casting a lot a 6 encounter day is gonna leave you taxed by the end. If that’s an issue just change the adventuring day to a adventuring week and make players rest longer than 8 hours to recover dailies, I’ve used that before and it’s never posed an issue.

Though keep in mind I’ve ran games for 3.5 parties as far spread apart as an optimized summoner and a pure fighter so my encounter design has adapted to vast power level separation. I’ll admit I’ve changed Time Stop to be a 5th level spell in some games to fit a theme so take that as you will

[Witty Username]

I've said this about 10x now, the starting point for balance is to determine what would need to be taken away from a caster to make them roughly balanced with a martial of the same level. Whether you want to then go the route of nerfing casters to that level or use that balance point knowledge to know how much more can be added to martials for balance - either of those options is fine, but one is a heck of a lot easier to implement than designing that many powerful features from scratch.


So, my take, the problem you are trying to address isn't really being solved. As spells by around 3rd level are encounter solving, so by this solution you would need to cut all spells beyond 2nd level. But that leaves casters completely non-functional. The problem you are trying to address is the number of powerful effects the caster can use. But that is not spells, it is spell slots, cut the number of spell slots the caster gets. Because we are going with sweeping changes I would recommend 1/2 (to a minimum of 1).
How does this balance high level play you might ask? It limits the spare spells available for secondary effects (Shield, Absorb elements, Dimension Door, etc.) And the ability to bring down encounters with repeated spells.
This also affects the casters more evenly, cleric, from what I have been told, is very effective upcasting spirit guardians. Your change would not affect them much at all. But cutting there spell slots means less pop-up healing, and needing to occasionally not cast spells for an encounter to get through the day.

But there are combat roles to consider as well, durability is one of the divides that balances casters but is broken as a system. Simply not allowing casters to gain armor proficiency from multiclassing is sufficient to maintain the value of martials at high level play.
Try out these 2 rules:
1. Ban the shield spell.
2. A caster cannot cast a leveled spell from a class while wearing armor that class does not provide proficiency in.

[Jervis]

But there are combat roles to consider as well, durability is one of the divides that balances casters but is broken as a system. Simply not allowing casters to gain armor proficiency from multiclassing is sufficient to maintain the value of martials at high level play.
Try out these 2 rules:
1. Ban the shield spell.
2. A caster cannot cast a leveled spell from a class while wearing armor that class does not provide proficiency in.

I really don’t understand the purpose of this. The majority of casters don’t multiclass just for armor proficiency anyway and higher AC is almost never a issue. Likewise the shield spell is a 1 turn buff to save your skin.

Besides that I fail to see how Ac even plays into the “role” issue. There’s no such thing as a tank in dnd at present. There’s nothing stopping a group of intelligent enemies from ignoring the screaming shirtless guy and just focus during the dude in robes hiding in the back, especially if magic is common and they know what you can do. This is addressing a problem that doesn’t exist imo.

As for the spell slot issue at that point just make everyone a warlock. Cutting spell slots in half breaks the adventuring day the system was built around. You would need to reduce encounters unless you want the game to turn into ADnD where your class just stops working half way through a session and you just go back to camp. Making it warlock based at most just encourages more short rests. You would also need to compensate by buffing casters with more non-resource draining abilities but that’s not a bad thing all things considered.

[False God]

Why is the answer never "Give martials cool stuff too"?

[Sindeloke]

Because when you try to add things to martials people go "we like this class to be level-1 simple for 20 levels, stop trying to make us into anime characters."

I agree with Witty Username here, halving daily slots seems like a more consistent quick-n-dirty solution than a spell level cutoff.

[Xetheral]

I've said this about 10x now, the starting point for balance is to determine what would need to be taken away from a caster to make them roughly balanced with a martial of the same level.

I disagree that what you're describing is a starting point for balance (let alone "the" starting point) because martial/caster balance is a multifaceted topic that can't be meaningfully reduced to a single axis. There doesn't necessarily exist a specific spell level at which removing higher level spells makes casters "roughly balanced" with martials. There's simply too many dimensions on which balance can be considered, and too many incompatible opinions on which of those dimensions are the important ones. I think that's why you're getting so many posters telling you that giving additional features to martial characters is not equivalent balance-wise to taking away features from casters.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Just cap the level of caster spells known to 4th level spells. Slots continue to grow as is.

Thoughts?

Possibly, For access to higher level spells, magic items with atunement would be required.

If no one else said it, I'll say add smart enemies who know the silence spell or give the bad guys some magic protections and use the optional flanking rules to boost martials.

My theory is if someone plays a wizard for 15 levels they just may wanna cast Simulacrum.

Not everyone wants to play a high magic game I understand though.

[Frogreaver]

I disagree that what you're describing is a starting point for balance (let alone "the" starting point) because martial/caster balance is a multifaceted topic that can't be meaningfully reduced to a single axis. There doesn't necessarily exist a specific spell level at which removing higher level spells makes casters "roughly balanced" with martials. There's simply too many dimensions on which balance can be considered, and too many incompatible opinions on which of those dimensions are the important ones. I think that's why you're getting so many posters telling you that giving additional features to martial characters is not equivalent balance-wise to taking away features from casters.

See this is a comment with some actual meat worth discussing.

Unlike you, I think you can balance things such that the overall usefulness of a class is roughly equivalent despite multiple unbalanced dimensions. That is B(fighter) is between X and Y and B(wizard') is between X and Y.

Maybe you are right that this cannot be done by restricting access to higher level spells. If so that's an interesting development. But I think there's some spell level where things were okay and then some other spell level where things got out of hand. I thought that was level 4 spells to level 5 spells, but maybe it's actually level 2 to level 3 spells.

I mean we surely both agree that a caster stuck at level 1 spells isn't going to outperform martials in general. Are level 2 spells enough for them to? I don't think so, but maybe you do. But somewhere at level 3, 4 or 5 spells - casters do start greatly outperforming martials. It'd be interesting if you actually said what spell level you thought that occurred at.

[Kane0]

Id say the better 4th level spells or the average 5th level spell (when full casters get them in relation to noncasters). Its when the encounter defining and ending spells really start to lose their drawbacks/countermeasures

[Jervis]

See this is a comment with some actual meat worth discussing.

Unlike you, I think you can balance things such that the overall usefulness of a class is roughly equivalent despite multiple unbalanced dimensions. That is B(fighter) is between X and Y and B(wizard') is between X and Y.

Maybe you are right that this cannot be done by restricting access to higher level spells. If so that's an interesting development. But I think there's some spell level where things were okay and then some other spell level where things got out of hand. I thought that was level 4 spells to level 5 spells, but maybe it's actually level 2 to level 3 spells.

I mean we surely both agree that a caster stuck at level 1 spells isn't going to outperform martials in general. Are level 2 spells enough for them to? I don't think so, but maybe you do. But somewhere at level 3, 4 or 5 spells - casters do start greatly outperforming martials. It'd be interesting if you actually said what spell level you thought that occurred at.

You realize you’re kneecapping 12 classes for the sake of 4 right? The reason you aren’t getting much meat of discussion is because you’re approaching balance backwards. If you’re changing 75% of the game to help 25%, you should probably consider that changing the 25% of classes lagging behind is a better approach. You haven’t addressed this at all besides saying it’s too hard, which isn’t true as many other people have done so, and WotC themselves have done themselves in past editions bringing pure martials up to par with all but the best prepared casters in terms of usefulness. You seem to be approaching this discussion as off removing half of a classes features is the only way to “fix” a problem that most people don’t even think exists and disregard the most common, suggested, and favorable answer as being to hard to balance.

[ciopo]

Performing what, in your metric?

There are a bunch of spell that do stuff that are *magical* and just isn't replicable for the nonmqgical folks as it is.

Off the top of my mind, staying at first and second level spells

Goodberry
Invisibility
Entangle
Healing in general, both curative and restorative
Silence
Comprehend languages
Augury

Granted, the "big tickets" starts with 3rd level spells, but I find it hard to put together a criteria under which sport jocks and software engineers are meant to be fairly compared to each other.

What balance is it that you wish to have? Of combat effectiveness?

Why is there a martial/caster distinction to you? To clarify: a distinction that needs to be addressed.

Because any caster will always be able to do something a martial has no way to replicate, even if they were limited to only cantrips.

If we pare it down to only have the same exact options for all characters but dressed differently, is, I don't know how to finish this thought, something something 4e

[Frogreaver]

Performing what, in your metric?

There are a bunch of spell that do stuff that are *magical* and just isn't replicable for the nonmqgical folks as it is.

Off the top of my mind, staying at first and second level spells

Goodberry
Invisibility
Entangle
Healing in general, both curative and restorative
Silence
Comprehend languages
Augury

Granted, the "big tickets" starts with 3rd level spells, but I find it hard to put together a criteria under which sport jocks and software engineers are meant to be fairly compared to each other.

What balance is it that you wish to have? Of combat effectiveness?

Why is there a martial/caster distinction to you? To clarify: a distinction that needs to be addressed.

Because any caster will always be able to do something a martial has no way to replicate, even if they were limited to only cantrips.

If we pare it down to only have the same exact options for all characters but dressed differently, is, I don't know how to finish this thought, something something 4e

It's not about the particular effects they generate, it's about their overall impact. Of course casters can do things martials can't. No issues with that premise by itself for me. It's about the overall impact of those effects. As a thought experiment consider a character that made 1 million 1 damage attacks per turn. I would say that character is unbalanced because the impact he has on the game/encounters is going to be much greater than any other character.

[Jervis]

It's not about the particular effects they generate, it's about their overall impact. Of course casters can do things martials can't. No issues with that premise by itself for me. It's about the overall impact of those effects. As a thought experiment consider a character that made 1 million 1 damage attacks per turn. I would say that character is unbalanced because the impact he has on the game/encounters is going to be much greater than any other character.

Not if all the enemies have damage resistance and round down to 0 :)

[Frogreaver]

You realize you’re kneecapping 12 classes for the sake of 4 right? The reason you aren’t getting much meat of discussion is because you’re approaching balance backwards. If you’re changing 75% of the game to help 25%, you should probably consider that changing the 25% of classes lagging behind is a better approach. You haven’t addressed this at all besides saying it’s too hard, which isn’t true as many other people have done so, and WotC themselves have done themselves in past editions bringing pure martials up to par with all but the best prepared casters in terms of usefulness. You seem to be approaching this discussion as off removing half of a classes features is the only way to “fix” a problem that most people don’t even think exists and disregard the most common, suggested, and favorable answer as being to hard to balance.

This is about finding where casters and martials balance. Instead of arguing against the whole concept of the thread, how about you actually contribute something meaningful? Maybe a comment like, I think martials and casters would be balanced if we nerfed casters in the following ways. Too much to ask?

EDIT below:

Not if all the enemies have damage resistance and round down to 0 :)

So I'm done responding to you on this thread topic. Instead of acknowledging and talking about the actual important points you would rather nitpick about stupid stuff like this. Feel free to say your peace, but don't expect anything back from me.

[ciopo]

It's not about the particular effects they generate, it's about their overall impact. Of course casters can do things martials can't. No issues with that premise by itself for me. It's about the overall impact of those effects. As a thought experiment consider a character that made 1 million 1 damage attacks per turn. I would say that character is unbalanced because the impact he has on the game/encounters is going to be much greater than any other character.

Eh, that's if making 1 million 1 damage attacks is relevant to the game/encounter.

I guess it's a thought experiment, in good faith I'll make it as problematic as possible in a scope where damage is relevant, so this million attacks also have infinite range, doesn't require line of sight or effect and doesn't even need the character to be aware of whatever it feels like attacking.

I suppose I would default to a "why is the player that cares about damage not picking this instead of something else tgat doesn't deal a million attacks a round, anywhere in the multiverse" but I admit this is stretching.

But, I guess that's what the divide is? Angel summoner and bmx bandit? You speak of inpact, but of course a dude that "can rewrite reality" will on broad terms have an higher impact than a dude that "can't rewrite reality". It's kind of binary there?


I don't think those can be balanced, unless you go all the way to remove the rewrite reality, I "know" I can feel upstaged, or upstage, with even just 1st level spells

[Xetheral]

See this is a comment with some actual meat worth discussing.

Unlike you, I think you can balance things such that the overall usefulness of a class is roughly equivalent despite multiple unbalanced dimensions. That is B(fighter) is between X and Y and B(wizard') is between X and Y.

Maybe you are right that this cannot be done by restricting access to higher level spells. If so that's an interesting development. But I think there's some spell level where things were okay and then some other spell level where things got out of hand. I thought that was level 4 spells to level 5 spells, but maybe it's actually level 2 to level 3 spells.

I mean we surely both agree that a caster stuck at level 1 spells isn't going to outperform martials in general. Are level 2 spells enough for them to? I don't think so, but maybe you do. But somewhere at level 3, 4 or 5 spells - casters do start greatly outperforming martials. It'd be interesting if you actually said what spell level you thought that occurred at.

I think looking at "rough balance," "overall usefulness," and "outperformance" aren't meaningfully different from each other, so I don't think that any of them can be meaningfully looked at in one dimension, at least not with any degree of universality.

Personally, I think the most pertinent issue with martials and casters is that it's harder to make a martial character that is fun and interesting to play at all levels than it is to make a spellcasting character that is fun and interesting to play at all levels. Fixing that by making casters less fun and interesting to play by cutting off access to higher level spells would be missing the point entirely. So even if I ignore universality and just go with my personal balance priorities, I still don't think your question is answerable.

[Ganryu]

Seems to me at that point, easier just to pick a different system...? There are table tops other than 5E DnD.

[Jervis]

This is about finding where casters and martials balance. Instead of arguing against the whole concept of the thread, how about you actually contribute something meaningful? Maybe a comment like, I think martials and casters would be balanced if we nerfed casters in the following ways. Too much to ask?

EDIT below:


So I'm done responding to you on this thread topic. Instead of acknowledging and talking about the actual important points you would rather nitpick about stupid stuff like this. Feel free to say your peace, but don't expect anything back from me.

Admittedly the bit about damage resistance was tongue in cheek but in my defence an absurd analogy deserves an absurd answer and it was obvious where you were going with this. I’ll say my problems with the premise and then give my actual suggestions for a nerf later as a sign of good faith.

As for “saying my peace”, this wasn’t presented as a thought experiment, your post was presented as a house rule meant to be played as is. And anything but agreement with your premise is met with claims of being unconstructive. And you dismiss the idea that simply buffing the outlier classes that wouldn’t be negatively effected by this is an option. I would argue that you’re being the one who isn’t being helpful to the discussion here. In game design theory it’s generally agreed on that buffing weaker options is better than nerfing strong ones for the simple reason that the people who enjoy the currently strong options will be neutral while the people who like the currently weaker options will enjoy the change. Sweeping nerfs do the opposite. The people that like weaker options don’t care and the people who like stronger ones, which make up the majority of the classes available mind you, will be negatively effected by it. I disagree entirely with your premise which is as valid as disagreeing with the assumption you reached because of your premise.

But in the sake of good faith, capping spells known level is simply the wrong way to go. There isn’t a level where spells become better and martials just stop being good. From levels 1-3 sleep is a magic bullet that can just end encounters. Fairy Fire is a 1st level spell I’ve seen be used and impactful at level 17. Pass without trace is a 2nd level spell that invalidates specialization in stealth and lets a Paladin sneak past most passive perceptions in printed content, one that I’ve seen REPLICATED WITH WISH in a game before and be impactful. Spiritual Weapon is a go too spell at 2nd that gives clerics very good action economy at multiple levels. Spirit Gardians is a 3rd level spell that’s good at just about any slot level. I could go on and on. Likewise there are 9th level spells I wouldn’t waste a 6th level slot on. You simply can’t find a level where spells start being too good. Capping spell level also means that learning new spells becomes basically redundant, as there are a few spells of each level that swing well above their weight and even fewer which scale well. So those new slots will be used on the one or two spells that scale well at any slot level.

One option I did suggest earlier that wasn’t addressed was to bring everyone in line with the warlock model. No one follows the adventuring day so just making everyone short rest based would solve the problem most people have with casters, that being that they quickly accrue a almost limitless amount of resources. People look at them in a featureless white room and assume they’re broken, give enough encounters to whittle down their resources through a long day and you start to respect classes that don’t have to worry about it. It would also solve the issue of long rest vs short rest classes, just making everyone primarily short rest based fixes the issue. I would also recommend improving the ritual casting mechanic if you do this. Granted we’re getting dangerously close to 4E at this point, but that was the most balanced edition so, eh.

[Witty Username]

I really don’t understand the purpose of this. The majority of casters don’t multiclass just for armor proficiency anyway and higher AC is almost never a issue. Likewise the shield spell is a 1 turn buff to save your skin.

Besides that I fail to see how Ac even plays into the “role” issue. There’s no such thing as a tank in dnd at present. There’s nothing stopping a group of intelligent enemies from ignoring the screaming shirtless guy and just focus during the dude in robes hiding in the back, especially if magic is common and they know what you can do. This is addressing a problem that doesn’t exist imo.

This is a little complex to get into one sitting. The short version is tanking exists in D&D but it is not particularly intuitive, durability being a part of that.
Also, durability is something that is beneficial to a D&D party without agro mechanics, as it can enable tactics that wouldn't otherwise be possible.
Under the assumption that martials are at issue because of they can be replaced by casters, then cutting into the caster's ability to replcate martial features is a potential solution.


As for the spell slot issue at that point just make everyone a warlock. Cutting spell slots in half breaks the adventuring day the system was built around. You would need to reduce encounters unless you want the game to turn into ADnD where your class just stops working half way through a session and you just go back to camp. Making it warlock based at most just encourages more short rests. You would also need to compensate by buffing casters with more non-resource draining abilities but that’s not a bad thing all things considered.
I don't disagree with you, except for maybe the warlock part. I don't think my spell slots idea is good, for my games. But, recall that we are trying to address a perceived problem. Frogreaver is trying to reduce the dominance of casters, by reducing the number of powerful effects they can do.
On my end, I am content that the problem does not exist. But that doesn't mean that I can't look at there issue and solution and see that they are disconnected and propose one that would actually affect the issue at hand.

Reducing spell slots requires casters to be reliant on other characters more often. Which appears to be the goal. A goal I have no interest in pursuing personally, but the goal nonetheless.

[Jervis]

This is a little complex to get into one sitting. The short version is tanking exists in D&D but it is not particularly intuitive, durability being a part of that.
Also, durability is something that is beneficial to a D&D party without agro mechanics, as it can enable tactics that wouldn't otherwise be possible.
Under the assumption that martials are at issue because of they can be replaced by casters, then cutting into the caster's ability to replcate martial features is a potential solution.

I don't disagree with you, except for maybe the warlock part. I don't think my spell slots idea is good, for my games. But, recall that we are trying to address a perceived problem. Frogreaver is trying to reduce the dominance of casters, by reducing the number of powerful effects they can do.
On my end, I am content that the problem does not exist. But that doesn't mean that I can't look at there issue and solution and see that they are disconnected and propose one that would actually affect the issue at hand.

Reducing spell slots requires casters to be reliant on other characters more often. Which appears to be the goal. A goal I have no interest in pursuing personally, but the goal nonetheless.

I recognize that tanking does exist to a degree, unintelligent enemies and positioning make it important. Just that the lack of proper agro mechanics make tanking as a role not viable as an option. As players we usually gank the caster in enemy encounters and that behavior is reasonable from enemies where possible. The only way to make memory target you for sure is to be dangerous to them. Once the fight starts you have AoOs and the like but that’s a long discussion. As for AC I don’t consider that a issue. Of the traditional casters, Clerics can easily have the same AC as fighters, Druids can too but they might need to skin a dragon to do it, but they have Wildshape and Wildshape is Wildshape. You could take away their casting all together and they could still be effective in some cases. Bards have light armor and Gish with Dex so their ac is gonna be OK. The only ones that suffer are Sorcs and Wizards, who rarely invest resources into armor profs and just take mage armor + shield and pray they can stay out of melee. Shield as a spell helps but I just don’t see it as problematic as a use of a 1st level spell slot. Just my take on things anyway

[Frogreaver]

This is a little complex to get into one sitting. The short version is tanking exists in D&D but it is not particularly intuitive, durability being a part of that.
Also, durability is something that is beneficial to a D&D party without agro mechanics, as it can enable tactics that wouldn't otherwise be possible.
Under the assumption that martials are at issue because of they can be replaced by casters, then cutting into the caster's ability to replcate martial features is a potential solution.

Is martial identity primarily having decent durability and being able to multiattack with a weapon? If so, that's a sad state of affairs.


I don't disagree with you, except for maybe the warlock part. I don't think my spell slots idea is good, for my games. But, recall that we are trying to address a perceived problem. Frogreaver is trying to reduce the dominance of casters, by reducing the number of powerful effects they can do.
On my end, I am content that the problem does not exist. But that doesn't mean that I can't look at there issue and solution and see that they are disconnected and propose one that would actually affect the issue at hand.

My solution does affect this though. We can debate whether limiting slots or spells known is a better solution, but it makes no sense to claim my solution doesn't address the problem. It's one way of limiting the number/power of effects that casters use.


Reducing spell slots requires casters to be reliant on other characters more often. Which appears to be the goal. A goal I have no interest in pursuing personally, but the goal nonetheless.

Eliminating high level spells also makes them reliant on other characters more often while still allowing them to use alot of magic.


I think looking at "rough balance," "overall usefulness," and "outperformance" aren't meaningfully different from each other, so I don't think that any of them can be meaningfully looked at in one dimension, at least not with any degree of universality.

IMO, I find your position that classes that do different things can't be balanced (at least to some degree) when taking everything they do as a holistic comparison to be axiomatically untrue.

[strangebloke]

Well, I think we have a consensus: Literally everyone thinks this is a terrible idea except the guy who proposed it, and if martial/caster disparity is a problem, this isn't even an approximately correct way to frame it.

You'd get far closer to fixing the 'problem' as it stands by simply saying "no summons."

[Jervis]

Well, I think we have a consensus: Literally everyone thinks this is a terrible idea except the guy who proposed it, and if martial/caster disparity is a problem, this isn't even an approximately correct way to frame it.

You'd get far closer to fixing the 'problem' as it stands by simply saying "no summons."

Basically it seems as such. Though this has inspired me to try my hand at converting the Book of 9 swords to 5E, or at least take inspiration from it. I’m a stubborn son of a beholder and seeing someone say that something is too hard or won’t work is a great way to make me do it. Im putting that next on my list after 5E Sha’ir. Also I might do a short rest Cleric, Wizard, and Bard based on warlock since I saw a bit of interesting discussion on that. When I finally get some free time I need to do that

[Witty Username]

Is martial identity primarily having decent durability and being able to multiattack with a weapon? If so, that's a sad state of affairs.


You're mistaking an assessment of the nature of the problem and the scale of it.

For example, if the problem is casters have too great a capacity to replace martials in a party, reducing there max HP to 1, taking away there ability to make attack rolls and cutting all skill proficiency from casters would address that problem. As would dropping the HD of casters by 1 size.

The primary advantage of martials is durability, better attacks lines, and more generally passive or easy to recover features that are easy to keep up all the time.


This is one of the key disconnects here, you seem to be of the mind that a 9th level wizard is not just as good but better than a 20th level Fighter. And when we are saying effectively capping casters at 9th level risks invalidating the character as a whole, you seem to think we are denying the problem exists.

For example, would you find banning just 9th level spells a reasonable response to your concerns?

[Xetheral]

IMO, I find your position that classes that do different things can't be balanced (at least to some degree) when taking everything they do as a holistic comparison to be axiomatically untrue.

That is not my position. My position is that balance between martials and casters can't be usefully considered in only one dimension, especially not when taking into account the fact that everyone prioritizes different aspects of balance differently. Ergo, I dispute your claim that there must be some level of spells beyond which cutting off higher level spells (i.e. making a change in only a single dimension) would balance spellcasters with fighters.

To make an anology, you're effectively arguing that there must exist a value of the variable "max spell level" at which martials are balanced with casters, and I'm pointing out that you can't necessarily solve a nontrivial multivariate equation by fiddling with one variable, particularly when no one can agree in the first place on what the magnitude of the coefficients are.

That doesn't mean that I think balancing martials and casters is impossible, only that I think your focus on identifying the appropriate level at which to cut off spell access is misplaced.

[Kane0]

In order to prevent casters from quadratically surpassing martials, remove the quadratic.

Instead of learning new, stronger spells plus getting more resources to use them with plus class features and generic HP/prof bonus progression, strip something out entirely. You get better spells or class features, not both. You get more slots or stronger slots, not both. And so on.

[Jervis]

In order to prevent casters from quadratically surpassing martials, remove the quadratic.

Instead of learning new, stronger spells plus getting more resources to use them with plus class features and generic HP/prof bonus progression, strip something out entirely. You get better spells or class features, not both. You get more slots or stronger slots, not both. And so on.

I don’t understand exactly what this is suggesting. Spells are a class feature, granted a very good one. Casters are very sparse on features unrelated to casting outside of subclasses. I suppose you could just make spellcasting scale off class level instead of slot and remove different level slots altogether like LotFP 2E does (assuming the playtest is to be believed), but that system is as jank as it sounds and not getting new ammunition or more things you can do as you level, or just getting one of those, makes things very boring.

[Kane0]

I don’t understand exactly what this is suggesting. Spells are a class feature, granted a very good one. Casters are very sparse on features unrelated to casting outside of subclasses. I suppose you could just make spellcasting scale off class level instead of slot and remove different level slots altogether like LotFP 2E does (assuming the playtest is to be believed), but that system is as jank as it sounds and not getting new ammunition or more things you can do as you level, or just getting one of those, makes things very boring.

Well im also in the same camp as everyone else, just playing devils advocate. Anyways I guess you could start with treating spellcasting more like Mystic Arcanums, or Invocations even. You can still cherrypick your favourites from a curated list, but if you pick up say Scorching Ray you cant use your Scorching Ray fuel for extra Webs or an emergency Shield because you have already used up your Shield fuel.
Of course, more balancing passes on individual spells are always helpful too.

[Frogreaver]

You're mistaking an assessment of the nature of the problem and the scale of it.

For example, if the problem is casters have too great a capacity to replace martials in a party, reducing there max HP to 1, taking away there ability to make attack rolls and cutting all skill proficiency from casters would address that problem. As would dropping the HD of casters by 1 size.

The primary advantage of martials is durability, better attacks lines, and more generally passive or easy to recover features that are easy to keep up all the time.

That's a fair approach to the problem. I don't think you can remove sufficient durability from casters to solve the problem. It's not like the AC of most casters is super low compared to the GWM and SS characters top out at 17 or 18 normally. Which leaves hp as the sole differentiator. HP is a buffer style defense, so a character that's still standing is just as strong. Thus, the only way hp starts to come into the picture as a balancing mechanism is if casters have so little hp they drop to 0 after 1 or 2 hits. But if they have that little hp, then you've probably swung the game far toward the martials favor. I don't think hp durability can solve this problem, but it's an interesting take.


This is one of the key disconnects here, you seem to be of the mind that a 9th level wizard is not just as good but better than a 20th level Fighter. And when we are saying effectively capping casters at 9th level risks invalidating the character as a whole, you seem to think we are denying the problem exists.

For example, would you find banning just 9th level spells a reasonable response to your concerns?

My position is not to cap casters at 9th level. They still get slots and other class features, they just don't learn higher level spells. I really wish my position would stop being misconstrued. Every time someone describes it, it feels like they are describing a strawman that they created to just beat down. The difference in slots between a 9th level wizard and a 20th is. 4,3,3,3,1 vs 4,3,3,3,3,2,2,1,1. 14 vs 22. Almost double in number and much stronger slots in comparison. The wizard with no higher level spells essentially doubled in power from slots (if not more) and also nearly doubled in versatility from more spells learned (about twice as many spells he can prepare) in the time between 9th level and 20th level. Then there's also his class features to consider. Arcane Recovery, Subclass Features, Spell Mastery, Signature spells. All are very powerful. Capping Wizard and more generally caster spells learned to level 4 is probably not sufficient of itself. Martials certainly don't double in power and versatility from level 9 to 20.


In order to prevent casters from quadratically surpassing martials, remove the quadratic.

Instead of learning new, stronger spells plus getting more resources to use them with plus class features and generic HP/prof bonus progression, strip something out entirely. You get better spells or class features, not both. You get more slots or stronger slots, not both. And so on.

I'm in agreement here. I was hoping just restricting spell known level would work, but I think even more than that is probably needed to be done.


That is not my position. My position is that balance between martials and casters can't be usefully considered in only one dimension, especially not when taking into account the fact that everyone prioritizes different aspects of balance differently. Ergo, I dispute your claim that there must be some level of spells beyond which cutting off higher level spells (i.e. making a change in only a single dimension) would balance spellcasters with fighters.

If you believe casters and martials can be balanced, then they are obviously balanced under their N dimensions when taken as a whole. As an example, we know a wizard can cast misty step and a fighter can be balanced with the wizard without having misty step. Since that's the case, then at least in the general case, we know that taking one dimension and sufficiently lowering it's power level could balance unbalanced classes, provided the chosen dimension has enough total power wrapped up in it such that removing it nearly entirely would put the martial ahead. This seems a trivial point to prove, as Casters stuck at 1st level spells the whole game would not be better than martials. So we know if we restrict spell level enough that casters go from being stronger to then martials become stronger. If this was a continuous function, then Central Limit theorem would dictate that there was a point where they became perfectly balanced. But we are dealing with a discrete space and as such we would want to choose the step right before casters became weaker than martials as the balancing point.



To make an anology, you're effectively arguing that there must exist a value of the variable "max spell level" at which martials are balanced with casters, and I'm pointing out that you can't necessarily solve a nontrivial multivariate equation by fiddling with one variable, particularly when no one can agree in the first place on what the magnitude of the coefficients are.

That doesn't mean that I think balancing martials and casters is impossible, only that I think your focus on identifying the appropriate level at which to cut off spell access is misplaced.

It doesn't seem that hard to do. Are casters stuck at 1st level spells better than martials in tier 3 and 4. I don't think anyone says yes. What about stuck at 2nd level spells. Probably not a yes there either, but I could see an argument for it. What about 3rd level spells? If not 3rd level spells, what about 4th. At some point the answer will be a definitive yes.

[Xetheral]

If you believe casters and martials can be balanced, then they are obviously balanced under their N dimensions when taken as a whole.

If by "taken as a whole" you meant considering the question in all it's multifaceted complexity, then I'd agree with your statement. But from our discussion so far it sounds like you're using "taken as a whole" to mean "flattened into one dimension," in which case I strenuously disagree, as my whole point is that doing so isn't meaningful given the complexity of the problem.


As an example, we know a wizard can cast misty step and a fighter can be balanced with the wizard without having misty step. Since that's the case, then at least in the general case, we know that taking one dimension and sufficiently lowering it's power level could balance unbalanced classes, provided the chosen dimension has enough total power wrapped up in it such that removing it nearly entirely would put the martial ahead. This seems a trivial point to prove, as Casters stuck at 1st level spells the whole game would not be better than martials. So we know if we restrict spell level enough that casters go from being stronger to then martials become stronger. If this was a continuous function, then Central Limit theorem would dictate that there was a point where they became perfectly balanced. But we are dealing with a discrete space and as such we would want to choose the step right before casters became weaker than martials as the balancing point.

Here're you're collapsing the complexity of balance into one dimension, specifically "total power". That's what I don't think is meaningful. Observing that casters with access to 9th level spells are not balanced with martials (in the spellcasters' favor) and that casters without access to spells above 1st level are not balanced with martials (in the martials' favor) and concluding (based on the Intermediate Value Theroem, which is what I assume you meant) that somewhere in the middle there exists a point at which they are balanced is only a correct conclusion if you assume in the first place that balance can be meaningfully mapped to a "total power" scale with "spell access" as the input variable. I disagree with that assumption, and based on the pushback you're receiving in this thread, I'm not alone.


It doesn't seem that hard to do. Are casters stuck at 1st level spells better than martials in tier 3 and 4. I don't think anyone says yes. What about stuck at 2nd level spells. Probably not a yes there either, but I could see an argument for it. What about 3rd level spells? If not 3rd level spells, what about 4th. At some point the answer will be a definitive yes.

It's entirely possible that spellcasters won't be balanced with martials at any point along the artificial one-dimensional scale you're looking at. As a trivial proof, note that decreasing spell access might plausibly improve balance in one dimension while simultaneously making it worse in another dimension. Similarly, if there are aspects of balance which spell access does not impact, that imbalance can't be addressed by changing spell access.

[Frogreaver]

If by "taken as a whole" you meant considering the question in all it's multifaceted complexity, then I'd agree with your statement. But from our discussion so far it sounds like you're using "taken as a whole" to mean "flattened into one dimension," in which case I strenuously disagree, as my whole point is that doing so isn't meaningful given the complexity of the problem.



Here're you're collapsing the complexity of balance into one dimension, specifically "total power". That's what I don't think is meaningful. Observing that casters with access to 9th level spells are not balanced with martials (in the spellcasters' favor) and that casters without access to spells above 1st level are not balanced with martials (in the martials' favor) and concluding (based on the Intermediate Value Theroem, which is what I assume you meant) that somewhere in the middle there exists a point at which they are balanced is only a correct conclusion if you assume in the first place that balance can be meaningfully mapped to a "total power" scale with "spell access" as the input variable. I disagree with that assumption, and based on the pushback you're receiving in this thread, I'm not alone.



It's entirely possible that spellcasters won't be balanced with martials at any point along the artificial one-dimensional scale you're looking at. As a trivial proof, note that decreasing spell access might plausibly improve balance in one dimension while simultaneously making it worse in another dimension. Similarly, if there are aspects of balance which spell access does not impact, that imbalance can't be addressed by changing spell access.

I think you are muddling your definitions and arguing something against your initial assumptions.

There are 2 types of balance. Type 1 balance is balance where every dimension is balanced along the dimensions. Type 2 balance is balance where the overall result is balanced even though the dimensions themselves may be unbalanced (some higher and some lower).

So why is it that you keep on criticizing my stance by referring to type 1 balance, when I'm talking to you about type 2 balance. And more frustratingly type 2 balance is a type of balance you've admitted is possible just a few posts ago.

[Damon_Tor]

I'll float this as a compromise: the new casting time for any spell with a listed casting time of "one action" is now "a number of actions equal to the level of the spell minus your casting modifier (minimum of one action). So if youre a wizard with an int of 20, then 1-6 level spells cost their normal 1 action, 7th level spells cost 2 actions, 8th level spells cost 3 actions, and 9th level spells take 4 actions.

[Frogreaver]

I'll float this as a compromise: the new casting time for any spell with a listed casting time of "one action" is now "a number of actions equal to the level of the spell minus your casting modifier (minimum of one action). So if youre a wizard with an int of 20, then 1-6 level spells cost their normal 1 action, 7th level spells cost 2 actions, 8th level spells cost 3 actions, and 9th level spells take 4 actions.

Not bad. Doesn't help as much with spells that can be precast before combat (which is quite a few, but still not bad).

EDIT: or for out of combat spells.

[Witty Username]

Alright, banning spells beyond 4th level risks invalidating classes as a whole regardless of the number of spells slots they get. As casters lose the tools to affect high level encounters.
To be clear, as least in my case, the level capping is more a messy simplification. Mostly, that apparently simply having 5th level spells is better than martial classes regardless of context is the point of my complaint.

Context is why my first instinct was to raise the cap to 5th level. With that adjustment Paladin and Ranger are now unaffected (no issues caused by them as far as I can tell). And warlock only loses the mystic arcanas,(unless you weren't planning to touch those) so their power is reduced without affecting there play patterns much.

But now for the other casters. Clerics get there best spells by the 3rd spell level, so power wise they aren't actually affected much. Wizards and Sorcerers are more geared for debuff and damage, 4th level spells your best damage spell is fireball which doesn't scale well enough upcasting for tier 4 play. And debuff spells are made obsolete against legendary resistance. I would say at least 6th level spells are required to maintain functionality for them.
Druids are more mixed, conjure animals is possibly strong enough for a 4th level cap, if you let the player pick the creatures. I would recommend a 5th level cap for them for safety. Bard's are a bit of a mix 5th level gives them more access to debuff tools the need, also there cap needs to be high enough for magical secrets to be open enough for interesting picks.

The quick, my recommendation
Ranger, Paladin-no cap
Cleric, 3rd (or no cap, 9th level casting on cleric doesn't actually improve there power much)
Bard, Druid 5th
sorcerer, wizard 6th

[Tanarii]

If you assume that high level casters dominate compared to martials, picking the level of spells that "break" the game to rule out does seem like the quickest fix.

Biggest downside is you'll probably see a lot of Multiclassing builds that provide more slots but not higher level spells. If you consider that a "downside" in the first place.

[Frogreaver]

If you assume that high level casters dominate compared to martials, picking the level of spells that "break" the game to rule out does seem like the quickest fix.

You get it.


Biggest downside is you'll probably see a lot of Multiclassing builds that provide more slots but not higher level spells. If you consider that a "downside" in the first place.

Ironically, martials are already in that boat. It's almost universally agreed that barbarian/ranger are prime candidates to multiclass before tier 3. Fighters can nearly always be multiclassed in early tier 2 or early tier 3 without issues. Paladins are probably the single most multiclassed class in the game.

To me that would be supporting evidence the change is working!


Alright, banning spells beyond 4th level risks invalidating classes as a whole regardless of the number of spells slots they get. As casters lose the tools to affect high level encounters.

This seems like a large over-exeggeration.

Clerics still get Spirit Guardians, Spiritual Weapon, Bless, Healing Word, Command, Hold Person, Silence, Blindness/Deafness

Wizards still get Tasha's Laughter, Shield, Absorb Elements, Magic Missile, Find Familiar, Grease, Levitate, Hold Person, Invisibility, Blindness/Deafness, Flaming Sphere, Misty Step, Suggestion, Shatter, Scorching Ray, Web, Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Fly, Haste, Fear, Hypnotic Pattern, Tiny Hut, Tasha's Summon Spells

It has to be a pretty specific encounter before these kinds of spells aren't going to affect them.


To be clear, as least in my case, the level capping is more a messy simplification. Mostly, that apparently simply having 5th level spells is better than martial classes regardless of context is the point of my complaint.

Context is why my first instinct was to raise the cap to 5th level. With that adjustment Paladin and Ranger are now unaffected (no issues caused by them as far as I can tell). And warlock only loses the mystic arcanas,(unless you weren't planning to touch those) so their power is reduced without affecting there play patterns much.


I think it's interesting to discuss whether the level cap is better at 3rd, 4th or 5th level spells. I lean toward 4th, but I could see 3rd or 5th as well.


But now for the other casters. Clerics get there best spells by the 3rd spell level, so power wise they aren't actually affected much. Wizards and Sorcerers are more geared for debuff and damage, 4th level spells your best damage spell is fireball which doesn't scale well enough upcasting for tier 4 play. And debuff spells are made obsolete against legendary resistance. I would say at least 6th level spells are required to maintain functionality for them.

Legendary resistance is supposed to slow casters down. It also does not invalidate save or suck spells, it just means you don't get instant effectiveness of them. The party has to burn some save or suck spells to get the enemy down. If a party has 2-3 party members using save or suck effects, legendary resistance goes away fairly quickly.

[Jervis]

Alright, banning spells beyond 4th level risks invalidating classes as a whole regardless of the number of spells slots they get. As casters lose the tools to affect high level encounters.
To be clear, as least in my case, the level capping is more a messy simplification. Mostly, that apparently simply having 5th level spells is better than martial classes regardless of context is the point of my complaint.

Context is why my first instinct was to raise the cap to 5th level. With that adjustment Paladin and Ranger are now unaffected (no issues caused by them as far as I can tell). And warlock only loses the mystic arcanas,(unless you weren't planning to touch those) so their power is reduced without affecting there play patterns much.

But now for the other casters. Clerics get there best spells by the 3rd spell level, so power wise they aren't actually affected much. Wizards and Sorcerers are more geared for debuff and damage, 4th level spells your best damage spell is fireball which doesn't scale well enough upcasting for tier 4 play. And debuff spells are made obsolete against legendary resistance. I would say at least 6th level spells are required to maintain functionality for them.
Druids are more mixed, conjure animals is possibly strong enough for a 4th level cap, if you let the player pick the creatures. I would recommend a 5th level cap for them for safety. Bard's are a bit of a mix 5th level gives them more access to debuff tools the need, also there cap needs to be high enough for magical secrets to be open enough for interesting picks.

The quick, my recommendation
Ranger, Paladin-no cap
Cleric, 3rd (or no cap, 9th level casting on cleric doesn't actually improve there power much)
Bard, Druid 5th
sorcerer, wizard 6th

I’ve made my issues with just giving slots and no new spells clear but variable caps is more palatable than a sweeping ban on spells above a certain level. Though I disagree that clerics stop at 3, in combat healing is already not that viable so banning the high level healing spells that make it somewhat keep up is a bad move IMO. A lot of their spells are support based and thus make people better at what they do. At most I could see a ban on 8th level because thats where they get earthquake. I also disagree that wizards with 6th level spells are a match in high level play, a lot of powerful creatures are just functionally immune to save or sucks. Legendary resistance usually comes packaged with almost hilariously high saves on boss monsters so you kinda need spells with a save for half to compete. I can’t really pinpoint a hypothetical level where sorcerers and wizards would be fine with this since they’re hurt most by this type of rule. I’m also curious what warlocks would get in exchange because this would just make their last 10 levels almost dead with no option to hop into another casting class to progress their own spellcasting, but that’s a common theme here so anyway.

This also raises the issue of summoning spells. People will argue until they’re blue in the face that the DM picks the creature, which is the design intent, but raw is ambiguous. (i’m not arguing on this, the writers clearly messed up if they wanted to be clear on intent, it’s not just a contentious issue because of power gamers who think summoning 32 cows is good. Run rai the spell is a mess because of initiative rules alone ) They’re debatably the best spells to upcast on people that have them. Problem is rai the spells are a mess that means a DM has to keep up with a lot of unplanned statblocks, each with their own initiative. You can also end up with a bunch of earthworms summoned by a 5th level spell of the DM is feeling vindictive that day. It’s a mess and the whole reason I run it the intuitive way and just have players pick something geographically reasonable but that’s a tangent. I’d imagine you would want to ban these of the goal was balancing. I’ve personally banned them solely because a pair of Druids crashed my computer one night with token spam but that’s besides the point.

[Witty Username]

Legendary resistance is supposed to slow casters down. It also does not invalidate save or suck spells, it just means you don't get instant effectiveness of them. The party has to burn some save or suck spells to get the enemy down. If a party has 2-3 party members using save or suck effects, legendary resistance goes away fairly quickly.

No it doesn't. Even with multiple party members it takes multiple rounds to burn legendary resistance. Take it from a player that has seen stunning strike in multiple fights involving legendary resistance.

By the time legendary resistance is gone the fight is almost over by damage. Casters have at issue that 4th level and earlier the tendency is for spells to either do damage or save for debuff but not both, this means they are forced to choose between bad damage or wasting slots to burn legendary resistances. Martials don't have this problem as much because of the frequency of save or suck being tied to attacks that deal reasonable damage or having damage as a rider inherently. The other work around is spells that don't provide saving throws, but those are rare and don't really appear much until 6th level.

[Frogreaver]

No it doesn't. Even with multiple party members it takes multiple rounds to burn legendary resistance. Take it from a player that has seen stunning strike in multiple fights involving legendary resistance.

By the time legendary resistance is gone the fight is almost over by damage. Casters have at issue that 4th level and earlier the tendency is for spells to either do damage or save for debuff but not both, this means they are forced to choose between bad damage or wasting slots to burn legendary resistances. Martials don't have this problem as much because of the frequency of save or suck being tied to attacks that deal reasonable damage or having damage as a rider inherently. The other work around is spells that don't provide saving throws, but those are rare and don't really appear much until 6th level.

IMO, it's almost like that is exactly what legendary resistance was intended to do. Force you to either go all in on save or suck effects and have them only start to apply after a few rounds of combat, or have you go all in on less effective spells that bypass legendary resistance by using attack rolls or just causing damage.

I think you have a misconception that legendary resistance was meant to be bypassed. I don't think that was the intention.

[Sindeloke]

Well, I think we have a consensus: Literally everyone thinks this is a terrible idea except the guy who proposed it

Untrue. I ran a game almost just like this a while back, from level 6 to 16, primarily for setting reasons but with the abstract hope that it might change the martial/caster balance as a side effect. My cutoff was level 5 spells, not level 4, but it was otherwise the same system; casters kept learning new spells, but only from the same 5 levels they already had, and kept getting new spell slots, but could only use 6+ slots to upcast. It wasn't terrible at all.

With respect to balance, what we found was that out of combat, casters felt much less dominant. Information-gathering problems that could have been solved in a round with Planar Ally or True Seeing instead became opportunities for the whole party to use their personal connections. Travel problems that could have been solved by Teleport or Wind Walk were instead places for the barbarian to use his Sailor connections or the whole team to learn to ride hippogriffs. Essentially it scaled up the problem-solving of Tier 1&2 instead of asymptotic solutions opening up that only half the party could interact with. It was, if nothing else, easier to run than a normal high-level game, and kept skills and backgrounds in the forefront of problem-solving.

In combat, the difference was less significant. The casters couldn't completely trivialize an encounter, but they still had so many spell slots that they could easily cast an impactful spell every round (or even more than one, since the opportunity cost for Shield or Counterspell became lower). Dispel Magic, Wall of Fire, and Plant Growth all have the capacity to halve the difficulty of a complex encounter in a single round, sometimes even in very high CR combats, in a way that no non-spell ability can achieve even at CR 1. And a level 14 druid can do all three in a single fight, for three fights in a row, without ever touching a spell higher than level 4. Which is why I tend to think that reducing total spell slots would better serve someone who was solely doing it for balance. But combat is generally agreed to be the place where the disparity is smallest to begin with, and without minionmancy, the "divide and conquer" offered by Wall of Fire still actively involves and requires the stabby guys to be effective, so if that's your bar it'll cross it.

As for the "getting bored without new class features," my players made no such complaint. I did allow them to target and quest for single specific 6+ spells, if they wanted, but that was essentially a class-agnostic bolt-on comparable to a magic item (the barbarian quested for a legendary spear in the exact same way for a roughly equivalent power boost as the sorceror's quest for Etherealness), rather than a class feature, and the druid didn't even bother.

[Frogreaver]

Untrue. I ran a game almost just like this a while back, from level 6 to 16, primarily for setting reasons but with the abstract hope that it might change the martial/caster balance as a side effect. My cutoff was level 5 spells, not level 4, but it was otherwise the same system; casters kept learning new spells, but only from the same 5 levels they already had, and kept getting new spell slots, but could only use 6+ slots to upcast. It wasn't terrible at all.

With respect to balance, what we found was that out of combat, casters felt much less dominant. Information-gathering problems that could have been solved in a round with Planar Ally or True Seeing instead became opportunities for the whole party to use their personal connections. Travel problems that could have been solved by Teleport or Wind Walk were instead places for the barbarian to use his Sailor connections or the whole team to learn to ride hippogriffs. Essentially it scaled up the problem-solving of Tier 1&2 instead of asymptotic solutions opening up that only half the party could interact with. It was, if nothing else, easier to run than a normal high-level game, and kept skills and backgrounds in the forefront of problem-solving.

In combat, the difference was less significant. The casters couldn't completely trivialize an encounter, but they still had so many spell slots that they could easily cast an impactful spell every round (or even more than one, since the opportunity cost for Shield or Counterspell became lower). Dispel Magic, Wall of Fire, and Plant Growth all have the capacity to halve the difficulty of a complex encounter in a single round, sometimes even in very high CR combats, in a way that no non-spell ability can achieve even at CR 1. And a level 14 druid can do all three in a single fight, for three fights in a row, without ever touching a spell higher than level 4. Which is why I tend to think that reducing total spell slots would better serve someone who was solely doing it for balance. But combat is generally agreed to be the place where the disparity is smallest to begin with, and without minionmancy, the "divide and conquer" offered by Wall of Fire still actively involves and requires the stabby guys to be effective, so if that's your bar it'll cross it.

As for the "getting bored without new class features," my players made no such complaint. I did allow them to target and quest for single specific 6+ spells, if they wanted, but that was essentially a class-agnostic bolt-on comparable to a magic item (the barbarian quested for a legendary spear in the exact same way for a roughly equivalent power boost as the sorceror's quest for Etherealness), rather than a class feature, and the druid didn't even bother.

Thanks! This is exactly the kind of play experience I would have anticipated with the change. It's nice to know the theory lines up with the playtest.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

Interesting!

[Jervis]

Untrue. I ran a game almost just like this a while back, from level 6 to 16, primarily for setting reasons but with the abstract hope that it might change the martial/caster balance as a side effect. My cutoff was level 5 spells, not level 4, but it was otherwise the same system; casters kept learning new spells, but only from the same 5 levels they already had, and kept getting new spell slots, but could only use 6+ slots to upcast. It wasn't terrible at all.

With respect to balance, what we found was that out of combat, casters felt much less dominant. Information-gathering problems that could have been solved in a round with Planar Ally or True Seeing instead became opportunities for the whole party to use their personal connections. Travel problems that could have been solved by Teleport or Wind Walk were instead places for the barbarian to use his Sailor connections or the whole team to learn to ride hippogriffs. Essentially it scaled up the problem-solving of Tier 1&2 instead of asymptotic solutions opening up that only half the party could interact with. It was, if nothing else, easier to run than a normal high-level game, and kept skills and backgrounds in the forefront of problem-solving.

In combat, the difference was less significant. The casters couldn't completely trivialize an encounter, but they still had so many spell slots that they could easily cast an impactful spell every round (or even more than one, since the opportunity cost for Shield or Counterspell became lower). Dispel Magic, Wall of Fire, and Plant Growth all have the capacity to halve the difficulty of a complex encounter in a single round, sometimes even in very high CR combats, in a way that no non-spell ability can achieve even at CR 1. And a level 14 druid can do all three in a single fight, for three fights in a row, without ever touching a spell higher than level 4. Which is why I tend to think that reducing total spell slots would better serve someone who was solely doing it for balance. But combat is generally agreed to be the place where the disparity is smallest to begin with, and without minionmancy, the "divide and conquer" offered by Wall of Fire still actively involves and requires the stabby guys to be effective, so if that's your bar it'll cross it.

As for the "getting bored without new class features," my players made no such complaint. I did allow them to target and quest for single specific 6+ spells, if they wanted, but that was essentially a class-agnostic bolt-on comparable to a magic item (the barbarian quested for a legendary spear in the exact same way for a roughly equivalent power boost as the sorceror's quest for Etherealness), rather than a class feature, and the druid didn't even bother.

To be honest I think the problem people have with high level spells is that some of them are just poorly designed. Just adding limits to or removing some of the ones that trivialize part of the game solves its better than this approach imo. Sure it takes a bit more work but anything good does. I still contend that removing any incentives to stay in a class past 9 doesn’t sit well with me.

[Eldariel]

To be honest I think the problem people have with high level spells is that some of them are just poorly designed. Just adding limits to or removing some of the ones that trivialize part of the game solves its better than this approach imo. Sure it takes a bit more work but anything good does. I still contend that removing any incentives to stay in a class past 9 doesn’t sit well with me.

Well, there are class features. E.g. Chronurgist or Illusionist will be very interested in that level 14 feature as will many other kinds of Wizards. But yeah, this is just what martials already have to contend with: no real features of note past level 11ish. Though if you make martial levels worth taking past that point, then we might be talking. Which is my preferred solution.

[Sindeloke]

Thanks! This is exactly the kind of play experience I would have anticipated with the change. It's nice to know the theory lines up with the playtest.

I got the idea from another GitP post ages ago, it only seems fair to report back. :smallsmile:

Worth noting that of course, one anecdote is not data, and though that campaign was fun and functional, you could definitely feel a certain lopsidedness of "rush to 5 then stop" in the full caster progression. I also suspect spell lists would become even more samey across different characters of the same class, if we'd played further campaigns that way. I can't say how sustainable it would be as a permanent rule, once the novelty wore off. If I were to revisit that setting, I'd probably either just replace the full casters with thematically consistent half-casters or limit the level cap to 10, with maybe some down-squishing of particularly core higher-level features. (The intentionality of "you can just stop your game here to have the power level you want" is one thing I really wish they'd brought forward from 4e.)

Honestly my biggest takeaway from the experience was actually that backgrounds are surprisingly powerful. A minimum of four skill proficiencies and a guaranteed social resource for every character, regardless of class, is great design. (Well, it's only as reliable as the skill system itself, of course, but on its own merit, at least, it's great design). I was constantly impressed by how my party marshaled their various competencies against problems that their class features alone offered zero solution for, and it ended up being a good safety net against the caster nerf, since that baseline competency is universal and the casters were just as likely to have a useful skill themselves. Well done, backgrounds. A+ contribution to the game.

[Jervis]

Well, there are class features. E.g. Chronurgist or Illusionist will be very interested in that level 14 feature as will many other kinds of Wizards. But yeah, this is just what martials already have to contend with: no real features of note past level 11ish. Though if you make martial levels worth taking past that point, then we might be talking. Which is my preferred solution.
Same. Ever since this thread started seeing the arguments against doing so because it’s difficult or someone breaks design convention (despite them being in the minority here) made me want to make an adaptation of book of 9 swords. So far I have a skeleton for a 5e Warblade and a Roguish class. Probably just gonna frame it as a full replacement of Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter and balance it against the other classes instead of worrying about balancing them against existing martials

[Eldariel]

Same. Ever since this thread started seeing the arguments against doing so because it’s difficult or someone breaks design convention (despite them being in the minority here) made me want to make an adaptation of book of 9 swords. So far I have a skeleton for a 5e Warblade and a Roguish class. Probably just gonna frame it as a full replacement of Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter and balance it against the other classes instead of worrying about balancing them against existing martials

That's what you have to do. Balancing them against martials will inevitably result in a subpar, half-baked products. In 3e they mostly outstripped martials fairly effortlessly even though 3e martials were able to reach the "Press button to kill target creature."-level fairly easily. And that was perfectly okay, they still weren't near the others.

[Witty Username]

With respect to balance, what we found was that out of combat, casters felt much less dominant. Information-gathering problems that could have been solved in a round with Planar Ally or True Seeing instead became opportunities for the whole party to use their personal connections. Travel problems that could have been solved by Teleport or Wind Walk were instead places for the barbarian to use his Sailor connections or the whole team to learn to ride hippogriffs. Essentially it scaled up the problem-solving of Tier 1&2 instead of asymptotic solutions opening up that only half the party could interact with. It was, if nothing else, easier to run than a normal high-level game, and kept skills and backgrounds in the forefront of problem-solving.


Hm, I will just have to take your word on some of this, I personally haven't seen much issue with out of combat dominance of casters, or that least not much limiting to 5th level spells would actually solve. The big standout I recall is social encounters, which bards are very dominant in, but that isn't so much casting as expertise in social skills that key off of their primary stat. There is the note that my people like our paladins so maybe not the cleanest case (Monks have been used a bit too, out of combat they seem to have been doing fine). We did get some value out of wind walk, but we found some of the time it has liabilities that need some planning to get around properly. Travel might be a group specific thing though, Teleport isn't really something that has cooperated with our group mentality (We tend to have carts and things of supplies, equipment and whatnot which can't be brought along with a teleport).