5e Wild Shape hp buff is fine. Martials just need better hp buffs.

[Segev]

As is often the case, I want to take a look at the stated problem of the "overpowered" option that is held up as too good because it's better at X than Class Y that is meant to be good at X, and consider whether the problem is actually that Class Y is just not good enough at X.

Wild Shape gives you hp buffers. Moon Druids, in particular, get BIG hp buffers for their level from it. They have lower AC and are more or less forced into melee, and thus do the tank job very well by having hp to soak up the hits that they are immediately drawing to themselves.

It is said that Barbarians (and, presumably, Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers, though I've not seen them held up as examples in these arguments yet) are just plain overshadowed by this. I'm not disinclined to agree; Barbarians rely too much on Rage to do their job for how pitiably few uses of it they get.

Let's start by examining what each class has for hp buffing:
Barbarians have resistance to B/P/S damage when raging. (One particular option in one subclass makes that to "all but psychic.") This, for a lot of fights, effectively doubles their HP, and they have a d12 base die and are encouraged to be high Constitution, so this is a pretty good buff.
Fighters have Second Wind. This is, I think, often overlooked by players. It is 1d10+[Fighter Level] as a bonus action, once, refreshing on short and long rests. This is not a very big amount of healing, especially in combat. At low levels, the die roll dominates and also makes it swing from "meh" to "great," but you also are already really fragile at those levels.
Paladins have Lay on Hands (and possibly cure wounds, if they prepared it). This isn't a ton of hp, and it's an action to use it, but you can also use it on others.
Rangers don't have anything native, but can learn cure wounds if they want. Not only do paladins also have this option, but it's a really costly option for a mediocre amount of healing, especially used on oneself rather than on allies as pop-up healing.

Of these, Barbarians come closest to matching a Moon Druid's Wild Shapes for bonus hp, and even that's a potentially-large gap if you face foes with non-physical attacks.

The easiest one, I think, to address is the Fighter's. My proposal for him is simple: When he uses Second Wind, in addition to the healing, he gains [fighter level]d10 additional dice of temporary hp that last for up to 1 minute. This still doesn't quite double his hp, but it gives him a true "second wind" of ability to just. keep. going. for this fight's duration.

For the Paladin, I think I would suggest simply allowing him to use Lay on Hands on himself as a bonus action. The ability to use it on others and the paladin's other later tanking features vs. saves and the like even out, here, I think, and just allowing the paladin to do it mid-combat a little more easily is worthwhile.

A straightforward aid to the Barbarian would be to give him 1 rage back on a short rest, though that still only means he can use rage more reliably and doesn't help with the problem that too much is tied up in rage. I think a flexible resistance feature that is mutually incompatible with Reckless Attack might be the way to go here. Something that lets him, at the start of his turn, choose to have disadvantage on all attack rolls and choose a damage type to gain resistance to until the start of his next turn. I suppose that's not technically incompatible with Reckless Attack, but if both are used, it negates Reckless Attack's usual benefit in return for negating the penalty of this new feature. Used during a rage, this would primarily be useful when a non-bearbarian is faced with a foe persistently using non-B/P/S damage. Used outside of a rage, it can allow the barbarian to have resistance against some, if not all, of the damage his current foe is dealing. Maybe make this a reaction instead of an "at the start of his turn," thing: that way, the choice of the foe is to target the barbarian, knowing he'll tank the hit well, in order to force the barbarian to be less accurate, OR he can target someone else, knowing the barbarian will be more likely to be able to hit him in return. If that's still not enough, perhaps allow barbarians to use a bonus action to spend and roll hit dice to heal as if it were a short rest.

Rangers, sadly, I don't have any inspiration for. But that's partially because I've spent too long on this post as-is, and my mental juices are running a bit low. I'll come back to it.


Anyway, the main thrust is: buff the hp-regain of Barbarians and other warrior-types until Moon Druid Wild Shape doesn't look broken in comparison. Frankly, I have never seen Moon Druids be a problem in actual play, despite the white room analysis saying they're so overpowered. (Admittedly, I have never seen them played with the infinite wild shape of tier 4, but I'm not so concerned with the balance at tier 4 that I'm okay with calling for nerfs at all the other tiers just to accommodate it.)

[Amnestic]

From a game design perspective, why would you buff 2-4 classes if the 'problem' we're addressing is one subclass? You've set moon druid as the 'baseline', but shouldn't the actual martials be the baseline instead of the full caster subclass?

[Slipjig]

See, I've always objected to the second health bar for Druids (and Polymorphed characters) on storytelling grounds. It seems to me like if you turn into a wolf and someone kills that wolf, when you resume your true form you should be either dead or in death saves. Same thing if you turn into something tiny for spying: sure, you can squeeze through small openings and are extremely hard to spot, but that should come with being extremely vulnerable.

[Segev]

From a game design perspective, why would you buff 2-4 classes if the 'problem' we're addressing is one subclass? You've set moon druid as the 'baseline', but shouldn't the actual martials be the baseline instead of the full caster subclass?Valid question. The reason here is mostly as a question of: are the martials really doing the job they're supposed to? Because Moon Druid, again, doesn't actually seem to be breaking anything, so if it's doing their job better, it implies that they aren't doing their job well enough.

On the other hand, it's possible that the assertion that Moon Druids do the Barbarian's job better than the Barbarian is also false; that would align with my observations of Moon Druids in actual play not outshining actual martial PCs.


See, I've always objected to the second health bar for Druids (and Polymorphed characters) on storytelling grounds. It seems to me like if you turn into a wolf and someone kills that wolf, when you resume your true form you should be either dead or in death saves. Same thing if you turn into something tiny for spying: sure, you can squeeze through small openings and are extremely hard to spot, but that should come with being extremely vulnerable.A reasonable stance. I haven't actually seen it be an issue, myself. I have no issue on storytelling grounds with the "temp hp" effect of wild shapes and polymorphs, probably because in earlier editions they came, instead, with direct healing of the target (on the basis that shapeshifting means you're moving muscle and skin and flesh around anyway, so may as well move it into a less-injured state).

[Dr.Samurai]

I think the HP gap between martials and just generic casters is too small. Any caster can walk around with a 16 Con if they want to, and the difference between the d6 and the d10 might not even be a single attack at later levels. Casters are simply too resilient. So in that sense I agree that martials need better HP buffs (or more like casters need to be toned down).

I don't agree with Segev that the druid's two additional hit point pools per short rest is the baseline.

[PhoenixPhyre]

On the other hand, it's possible that the assertion that Moon Druids do the Barbarian's job better than the Barbarian is also false; that would align with my observations of Moon Druids in actual play not outshining actual martial PCs.


This is my strong experience. Except maybe at level 2 when barbarians don't have their subclass and monsters don't hit that hard.

[Amnestic]

Valid question. The reason here is mostly as a question of: are the martials really doing the job they're supposed to?


In my experience, yes. Rangers are perhaps the exception. Their UA ACFs pre-Tasha's let them grab Tireless at 1st, but that's now locked behind level 10. Speaking personally though most rangers I see have been ranged and/or have a pet (BM/DW) which makes up for it.



On the other hand, it's possible that the assertion that Moon Druids do the Barbarian's job better than the Barbarian is also false; that would align with my observations of Moon Druids in actual play not outshining actual martial PCs.

Okay but other people have seen it, so like...anecdote vs anecdote.


I think the HP gap between martials and just generic casters is too small. Any caster can walk around with a 16 Con if they want to, and the difference between the d6 and the d10 might not even be a single attack at later levels. Casters are simply too resilient. So in that sense I agree that martials need better HP buffs (or more like casters need to be toned down).


Barbarians get d20 hit dice lets gooooo :smallcool:

[Segev]

I think the HP gap between martials and just generic casters is too small. Any caster can walk around with a 16 Con if they want to, and the difference between the d6 and the d10 might not even be a single attack at later levels. Casters are simply too resilient. So in that sense I agree that martials need better HP buffs (or more like casters need to be toned down).

I don't agree with Segev that the druid's two additional hit point pools per short rest is the baseline.
What would you say a more appropriate gap between martials and casters would be? How many extra hits should they take?

This is my strong experience. Except maybe at level 2 when barbarians don't have their subclass and monsters don't hit that hard.
I have not playtested at level 2, admittedly. I have from 3-5, primarily, with some dipping into tier 2. Tier 3 play has largely eluded me, so far, sadly, but what others say seems to be that the lack of higher-CR monsters makes Moon Druid peter out somewhere around the top of tier 2, and not come back online until the theoretically-unlimited hp of Tier 4's infinite wild shapes.

[stoutstien]

Eh HP bloat in 5e is already a borderline issue. If it need a rachet it's down not up.

[MadBear]

Honestly, for the ranger, why not package up something similar to the healer feat and make it a part of the rangers base package (I'd probably make it take 1 minute to apply). Give them a slower but natural heal that they can apply using natural remedies. The image of after a fight, a ranger soaking a bandage in various herbs before applying it to a wound seems like a fitting way for them to heal.

If it was a method that took longer and wasn't applicable during a battle it'd also fit the rangers role as a skirmisher a bit better. Not being a direct tank, they are good at getting in and out of battle, and when out, having a decent heal.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have not playtested at level 2, admittedly. I have from 3-5, primarily, with some dipping into tier 2. Tier 3 play has largely eluded me, so far, sadly, but what others say seems to be that the lack of higher-CR monsters makes Moon Druid peter out somewhere around the top of tier 2, and not come back online until the theoretically-unlimited hp of Tier 4's infinite wild shapes.

My experience is that
a) some parties need a front-liner and teh moon druid does acceptably. My current party of 2 rangers (neither one particularly tanky), a trickery cleric (also not tanky) and a moon druid really really benefits. And damage wise, the rangers blow the druid out of the water.
b) moon druids are still really really fragile against anything that matters. Compared to a proper "tanky" martial, their AC is utter crap, which has exponentially-scaling penalties[0]. And it doesn't scale, and their damage output falls like a rock[1].

Really only levels 2 and 3 are they an outlier. After that, they're a wall of meat that's fairly ineffective at being a front-liner (at least unless you go to large lengths to build around that, in which case you're leaving other stuff on the table). By T2 they're behind the pack for any real martial in damage output, stickyness[2], and survivability.

Personally, I think that moon druids need a slight nerf at levels 2-3 (which can be done simply by modifying the brown bear as it's a strong outlier with multiattack) and a substantial boost at higher levels if they want to actually have a reason to be in combat form (as opposed to just doing the run-and-hide game).

[0] An AC 20 SnB fighter is going to take a lot fewer hits and chip damage is how a lot of monsters scale. Wall of easily-hit meat doesn't scale whatsoever.
[1] A moon druid using "bear" forms (brown -> polar) falls under a brain-dead (shortbow, no advantage, sneak attack every turn if they hit) rogue at level 5 and never recovers. Going into elemental forms doesn't scale either--you get a spike around level 10 and then it falls off hard because both accuracy and damage output are static.
[2] they have none by default and don't have great ways of getting any.

[Segev]

My experience is that
a) some parties need a front-liner and teh moon druid does acceptably. My current party of 2 rangers (neither one particularly tanky), a trickery cleric (also not tanky) and a moon druid really really benefits. And damage wise, the rangers blow the druid out of the water.
b) moon druids are still really really fragile against anything that matters. Compared to a proper "tanky" martial, their AC is utter crap, which has exponentially-scaling penalties[0]. And it doesn't scale, and their damage output falls like a rock[1].

Really only levels 2 and 3 are they an outlier. After that, they're a wall of meat that's fairly ineffective at being a front-liner (at least unless you go to large lengths to build around that, in which case you're leaving other stuff on the table). By T2 they're behind the pack for any real martial in damage output, stickyness[2], and survivability.

Personally, I think that moon druids need a slight nerf at levels 2-3 (which can be done simply by modifying the brown bear as it's a strong outlier with multiattack) and a substantial boost at higher levels if they want to actually have a reason to be in combat form (as opposed to just doing the run-and-hide game).

[0] An AC 20 SnB fighter is going to take a lot fewer hits and chip damage is how a lot of monsters scale. Wall of easily-hit meat doesn't scale whatsoever.
[1] A moon druid using "bear" forms (brown -> polar) falls under a brain-dead (shortbow, no advantage, sneak attack every turn if they hit) rogue at level 5 and never recovers. Going into elemental forms doesn't scale either--you get a spike around level 10 and then it falls off hard because both accuracy and damage output are static.
[2] they have none by default and don't have great ways of getting any.

Admittedly because this aligns with my preferences, I am inclined to agree with this analysis. But also, I agree because it seems based in enough math to make sense and it does align with my experiences when and where I have had relevant ones.

I think my next personal project should be to write a slate of bears and wolves to cover at least up to CR 6 that would hopefully cover some basics for moon druids.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Admittedly because this aligns with my preferences, I am inclined to agree with this analysis. But also, I agree because it seems based in enough math to make sense and it does align with my experiences when and where I have had relevant ones.

I think my next personal project should be to write a slate of bears and wolves to cover at least up to CR 6 that would hopefully cover some basics for moon druids.

TBQH, I'd just prefer some very simple scaling rules as a minimal change. Instead of juggling a bunch of different stat blocks for fundamentally the same creature (Dire wolves, Direr wolves, Even more horrific dire wolves, ...) like 4e did, just have (in the MM, per stat block):

To increase CR for this beast,
* Increase AC by 1 for every X CR higher
* Increase Attack bonus by 1 for ever X CR higher
* Increase HP by X for every Y CR higher
* Increase damage per attack by X for every Y CR higher
* Grant another attack[1] for every Z CR higher, up to a maximum of Q.

[1] since you don't generally want to be adding huge static bonuses to damage.

[Sigreid]

I personally wouldn't mind if moon druid had significantly better wild shape options at the cost of halting their spell progression as soon as they chose the subclass. So a moon druid could never cast more than a few 1st level spells and a couple if cantrips in exchange for a wild shape that stayed cool to 20 and beyond.

[KorvinStarmast]

Eh HP bloat in 5e is already a borderline issue. If it need a rachet it's down not up. Agree.

As to wild shape and Beast HP: a group of 5 hobgoblins melted the T- Rex our cleric had been turned into in two rounds. (Martial advantage helps).
There had been a little damage done before that, but high HP low AC becomes a "time sink" for the attackers.

[Segev]

Agree.

As to wild shape and Beast HP: a group of 5 hobgoblins melted the T- Rex our cleric had been turned into in two rounds. (Martial advantage helps).
There had been a little damage done before that, but high HP low AC becomes a "time sink" for the attackers.

Which is exactly what a tank is supposed to do, so arguments that a T-Rex form allowed the moon druid to tank effectively for two rounds are supported, here. That's two rounds of attacks not directed at other PCs. (Of course, if those attacks had a much higher likelihood of missing other PCs, it didn't help as much as it might seem, but there's no question it helped a little... unless the hobgoblins are incapable of doing damage to anything but the T-rex. :smallwink:)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I personally wouldn't mind if moon druid had significantly better wild shape options at the cost of halting their spell progression as soon as they chose the subclass. So a moon druid could never cast more than a few 1st level spells and a couple if cantrips in exchange for a wild shape that stayed cool to 20 and beyond.

At that point, just do the sane thing and make combat wild shape the UCT of its own, non-casting (or no-more-than-1/3 casting) class and balance it as the primary contribution of that class. Heck, you could leave "turn into a bunch of small furry animals for utility" as a druid thing.

[KorvinStarmast]

Which is exactly what a tank is supposed to do, so arguments that a T-Rex form allowed the moon druid to tank effectively for two rounds are supported.
Not really.
(1) Moon Druid can't turn into CR 8 creatures.
(2) If you are the Moon Druid and you polymorph, every hit you take forces a concentration save, right?
(3) If you are the moon druid and you polymorph one of the other PCs into a T Rex (as we did) then you make a sacrifice (lose that PCs' skills and actions in order to distract the enemy for a bit) and occasionally hit like a to of bricks. T Rex has decent to hit and damage. But at Tier 2 and Tier 3 where I have seen this employed, the monsters can do stuff like Dispel Magic on the Polymorph, hit the caster and there goes the polymorph, melt it down, have high enough AC to not get hit as much ... your points are White Room, my point was "this is what happened in play."

And it cost a level 4 spell slot. In a 4 or 5 encounter adventure day that's a price paid that is not recoverable quickly.

In another campaign where we had fewer encounters, the price wasn't as painfully felt.

[stoutstien]

I've been doing another read through of WWN and this seems relevant

....
The Kistian Duelist is just one example of a com- mon fantasy trope; the warrior with some sort of innate magical power. The same trope is often applied to skill-based concepts as well, producing shapeshifting assassins, sorcery-singing bards, or artisans with frankly impossible creative powers. There’s nothing wrong with this trope in of itself, but it’s a hard one to execute in a balanced way. The natural assumption when adding magic to something is that it makes whatever it is even better. If a warrior is good, a warrior with magic must naturally be superior. Resist this urge. Unless you want your entire campaign to consist of multiple flavors of mage, a plain, untainted warrior or straight-up thief has to be better at something related to their role than the magical equivalent
In Worlds Without Number, the Warrior has class abilities that make them better at general slaughter than the Duelist. If you make a class that can do as much reliable damage and take as much punishment as the Warrior can, you risk the deprecation of an entire swath of concepts......

[Segev]

Not really.
(1) Moon Druid can't turn into CR 8 creatures.
(2) If you are the Moon Druid and you polymorph, every hit you take forces a concentration save, right?
(3) If you are the moon druid and you polymorph one of the other PCs into a T Rex (as we did) then you make a sacrifice (lose that PCs' skills and actions in order to distract the enemy for a bit) and occasionally hit like a to of bricks. T Rex has decent to hit and damage. But at Tier 2 and Tier 3 where I have seen this employed, the monsters can do stuff like Dispel Magic on the Polymorph, hit the caster and there goes the polymorph, melt it down, have high enough AC to not get hit as much ... your points are White Room, my point was "this is what happened in play."

And it cost a level 4 spell slot. In a 4 or 5 encounter adventure day that's a price paid that is not recoverable quickly.

In another campaign where we had fewer encounters, the price wasn't as painfully felt.Ah, right, I forgot the T-Rex as CR 8, not 6, and also misread how your anecdote went. Sorry. I think the point still stands, but yeah. This sounds like, "Even if the druid COULD wild shape into a T-Rex, this wouldn't be a problem."


I've been doing another read through of WWN and this seems relevant

....
The Kistian Duelist is just one example of a com- mon fantasy trope; the warrior with some sort of innate magical power. The same trope is often applied to skill-based concepts as well, producing shapeshifting assassins, sorcery-singing bards, or artisans with frankly impossible creative powers. There’s nothing wrong with this trope in of itself, but it’s a hard one to execute in a balanced way. The natural assumption when adding magic to something is that it makes whatever it is even better. If a warrior is good, a warrior with magic must naturally be superior. Resist this urge. Unless you want your entire campaign to consist of multiple flavors of mage, a plain, untainted warrior or straight-up thief has to be better at something related to their role than the magical equivalent
In Worlds Without Number, the Warrior has class abilities that make them better at general slaughter than the Duelist. If you make a class that can do as much reliable damage and take as much punishment as the Warrior can, you risk the deprecation of an entire swath of concepts......

Ehhh... I have to disagree with this. If no amount of magic can make a warrior better at being a warrior, why have buff mages at all? ("Warrior" is a bit of a placeholder, here; hopefully what I mean is clear.)

Now, I'm all for a warrior that has extraordinary, technically-non-magical abilities that rival what a mage on his own can do with magic. But if the mage is throwing his magic behind the warrior, the warrior had darned well better be doing the warrior thing better than he would unaided. I also think the warrior should be designed in such a way that he is, in general, a better chassis for the mage's magic than a conjured critter. Whether this means conjured critters don't keep up with warriors, or magical buffs on warriors somehow are just more effective (directly by specific benefits from being cast on a warrior, or indirectly by some cleverness in design, such as warriors having more attacks per round making a flat buff to damage-per-attack better on warriors than on lower-attack-count summons), or some combination of the two, is fine by me. But in any case, a warrior buffed by magic had better not only be better than that warrior by himself, he'd better be better than conjured minions. (He should, at worst, be merely on par with the entire set of conjured minions, combined, at 'combat' in general, when not buffed by magic.)

[Eldariel]

I think the HP gap between martials and just generic casters is too small. Any caster can walk around with a 16 Con if they want to, and the difference between the d6 and the d10 might not even be a single attack at later levels. Casters are simply too resilient. So in that sense I agree that martials need better HP buffs (or more like casters need to be toned down).

I don't agree with Segev that the druid's two additional hit point pools per short rest is the baseline.

I agree with this here. I give all martials double their Con-bonus to HP. Pushes this angle a bit. Also max HD to HP helps a bit, doubling the difference. Still not massive but at least makes Con relatively more valuable to martials (by RAW casters are more inclined to invest in Con, both because they get relatively more HP from it and because they care more about Con-saves due to Concentration), which I find is completely opposite to the fantasy of the classes: martials should be the burly types while casters should be the squishies with immense cosmic power at their fingertips.

Honestly, in 3e shapeshifting just let you regain HP equal to natural recovery overnight (so 1 point per level): I think that's about right. Shapeshifting having a separate HP pool just feels massively unnecessary and creates all sorts of issues. In 3e, shapeshifting just gave you stats but you kept using your own HP and even there, shapeshifting was amazing since you could get physical stats and multiattack (kinda thing) for free from it, something casters had a real hard time accessing otherwise. You don't need shapeshifting giving you a huge HP buff to make it good. I think it shouldn't be good because it randomly makes you a supertank but instead, good because the things it lets you do are good.

[KorvinStarmast]

The natural assumption when adding magic to something is that it makes whatever it is even better. If a warrior is good, a warrior with magic must naturally be superior. Resist this urge. Unless you want your entire campaign to consist of multiple flavors of mage, a plain, untainted warrior or straight-up thief has to be better at something related to their role than the magical equivalent WotC's attitude towards magic, and to a certain extent TSR's before them, is "we have an app for that." (And I enjoyed your entire post :smallsmile: ).

[Kane0]

I dont think the numbers need increasing really, when it comes to the marital vs caster debate. The numbers don’t need drastic overhauling, it’s the capabilities of martials outside of hitting things with sticks that needs addressing.

[BRC]

Ah, right, I forgot the T-Rex as CR 8, not 6, and also misread how your anecdote went. Sorry. I think the point still stands, but yeah. This sounds like, "Even if the druid COULD wild shape into a T-Rex, this wouldn't be a problem."



Ehhh... I have to disagree with this. If no amount of magic can make a warrior better at being a warrior, why have buff mages at all? ("Warrior" is a bit of a placeholder, here; hopefully what I mean is clear.)

Now, I'm all for a warrior that has extraordinary, technically-non-magical abilities that rival what a mage on his own can do with magic. But if the mage is throwing his magic behind the warrior, the warrior had darned well better be doing the warrior thing better than he would unaided. I also think the warrior should be designed in such a way that he is, in general, a better chassis for the mage's magic than a conjured critter. Whether this means conjured critters don't keep up with warriors, or magical buffs on warriors somehow are just more effective (directly by specific benefits from being cast on a warrior, or indirectly by some cleverness in design, such as warriors having more attacks per round making a flat buff to damage-per-attack better on warriors than on lower-attack-count summons), or some combination of the two, is fine by me. But in any case, a warrior buffed by magic had better not only be better than that warrior by himself, he'd better be better than conjured minions. (He should, at worst, be merely on par with the entire set of conjured minions, combined, at 'combat' in general, when not buffed by magic.)


In your example, there are two entities: The Warrior and the Mage, with the Mage supporting the Warrior. Obviously, that should produce a better fighter than a Warrior fighting alone.

I think the WWN example was referring to a SINGLE character, which is to say, A Mage should not be able to buff themselves to the point where they can match the Warrior in whatever it is we define as Warrior Stuff. (Neither should the Mage be able to summon up something equivalent to the Warrior, but you've already covered that).


More relevant to the thread, I see three modes of "Tanking" in the game, that all reduce out to the same thing, roughly


Fighters get high AC, they waste enemy attacks by forcing them to miss. This is, as was refered to above, a "Time Sink"

Barbarians get Rage, effectively doubling their HP against most attacks. Once again, Time Sink.

Moon Druid Wildshape grows an extra HP bar.


The fighter and the Barbarian are probably going to be more offensively powerful than the Druid is while they're soaking up hits. The biggest issue is, IMO, that the Martials will walk out of the fight battered and bloodied, while the Druid, having already expended their Wild Shape use, doesn't actually care how much damage they take unless they get punched out of WS and their "Real" HP bar starts getting hit.


This means that the Druid can wade into combat with fairly little fear of consequence while the Barbarian and Fighter still need to avoid damage, which is a very different experience than the Fighter or Barbarian approach to tanking. It's not simply a question of POWER, it's one of approach.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ehhh... I have to disagree with this. If no amount of magic can make a warrior better at being a warrior, why have buff mages at all? ("Warrior" is a bit of a placeholder, here; hopefully what I mean is clear.)

Now, I'm all for a warrior that has extraordinary, technically-non-magical abilities that rival what a mage on his own can do with magic. But if the mage is throwing his magic behind the warrior, the warrior had darned well better be doing the warrior thing better than he would unaided. I also think the warrior should be designed in such a way that he is, in general, a better chassis for the mage's magic than a conjured critter. Whether this means conjured critters don't keep up with warriors, or magical buffs on warriors somehow are just more effective (directly by specific benefits from being cast on a warrior, or indirectly by some cleverness in design, such as warriors having more attacks per round making a flat buff to damage-per-attack better on warriors than on lower-attack-count summons), or some combination of the two, is fine by me. But in any case, a warrior buffed by magic had better not only be better than that warrior by himself, he'd better be better than conjured minions. (He should, at worst, be merely on par with the entire set of conjured minions, combined, at 'combat' in general, when not buffed by magic.)

I think that that's a slight misinterpretation of the quote--

The injunction is against hybrid "warriors" being better than warriors at being warriors. A warrior + buffs should be better than a warrior without buffs. But a hybrid warrior/mage should have to give up enough to gain that magic to be worse at being both a warrior (than a pure warrior) and a mage (than a mage). That is, self-buffs should be disfavored.

A "magic martial" should be worse at being a martial than a pure martial.

This is pretty obviously true, at least for me--opportunity cost has to be a thing. And 5e doesn't do enough for it--the opportunity cost for a "mage" to play in martial territory is way smaller (often just a feat or racial pick or maybe a few spells, sometimes a subclass) than it is for a martial to play in mage territory (where even taking a subclass only gets you a pale imitation of a mage). And hybrids (cough paladin, hexblade) are too efficient both as casters and as martials.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ah, right, I forgot the T-Rex as CR 8, not 6, and also misread how your anecdote went. Sorry. I think the point still stands, but yeah. This sounds like, "Even if the druid COULD wild shape into a T-Rex, this wouldn't be a problem."
It is still a case of "here's a new HP bundle to apply and we try to get the enemy to pay attention to it" - to me that's a tactic rather than a problem of another kind.

But, let me offer a little support to the folks who feel that the HP pool is just too big in an absolute sense.

There are 12 classes.
There are usually 3-5 PCs in a party. In a party with no Druid - who can be a wolf or a dire wolf for a while, both attacking and soaking up Time and Actions by the enemy (action economy at work here) - versus a party of a Cleric, Wizard, Rogue, Fighter (Basic rules foundational party) we find that most other classes don't have a way to get a pool of that size and scale before the Wizard gets Polymorph. (Tasha's summons mitigate this somewhat).

That means that different tactics need to be used by parties who can't throw that distraction at the enemy. And that's where I transition to a Player skill issue: how good are you tactically?
(Not you, Segev, more the impersonal "you" for a bit of a rhetorical question).

[Segev]

I think that that's a slight misinterpretation of the quote--

The injunction is against hybrid "warriors" being better than warriors at being warriors. A warrior + buffs should be better than a warrior without buffs. But a hybrid warrior/mage should have to give up enough to gain that magic to be worse at being both a warrior (than a pure warrior) and a mage (than a mage). That is, self-buffs should be disfavored.

A "magic martial" should be worse at being a martial than a pure martial.

This is pretty obviously true, at least for me--opportunity cost has to be a thing. And 5e doesn't do enough for it--the opportunity cost for a "mage" to play in martial territory is way smaller (often just a feat or racial pick or maybe a few spells, sometimes a subclass) than it is for a martial to play in mage territory (where even taking a subclass only gets you a pale imitation of a mage). And hybrids (cough paladin, hexblade) are too efficient both as casters and as martials.

You're not the only one to give this reply, but I chose you 'cause you're the latest.

I agree with the sentiment, explained by this.

And that can be a problem in D&D in general. It tends to be a consequence of variations on the Guy and the Gym fallacy.

[Chronos]

Rangers have bupkis for in-combat burst healing, but they still have a much better option than Cure Wounds for between-combat healing: Goodberry. It's always a reliable 10 points per first-level spell slot, and since the berries last for 24 hours, you can just use all of your remaining slots on it before going to bed, and get effectively free healing out of it the next day. Even in combat, it can be useful for pop-up healing, if your DM rules that you can feed them to other characters, like you can with potions: It still costs someone an action, but a resource cost of a tenth of a first-level spell slot to put someone back on their feet is about as close to free as you can get.

When I played my ranger in a party with two clerics, I ended up healing more than either of them, all due to that spell.

[Mastikator]

Just give martials quadrable hit dice. Fighters get 4d10 per level, barbarians 4d12, monks 4d8.

Specialists shouldn't get this kind of boost because they have other stuff, maybe just double? so rogues, rangers and bards get 2d8.

How do we balance the monsters? Just let them crit on every hit. No more rolling for attack with monsters, they always roll critical hit, which is not a problem for martials with their quadrable hit dice.

[Kane0]

Just give martials quadrable hit dice. Fighters get 4d10 per level, barbarians 4d12, monks 4d8.

Specialists shouldn't get this kind of boost because they have other stuff, maybe just double? so rogues, rangers and bards get 2d8.

How do we balance the monsters? Just let them crit on every hit. No more rolling for attack with monsters, they always roll critical hit, which is not a problem for martials with their quadrable hit dice.

This sounds like a great one-shot test idea, itll either be incredible or miserable

[stoutstien]

You're not the only one to give this reply, but I chose you 'cause you're the latest.

I agree with the sentiment, explained by this.

And that can be a problem in D&D in general. It tends to be a consequence of variations on the Guy and the Gym fallacy.

That's because they never really set aside space for <not>magic so it's a natural tendency to use any known framing to use in its place.

This leads to both the current issue where martials don't get cool stuff and casters get to add what little martials get on top of magic on the cheap. Adding HP won't help because it's just going to prolong the pattern. They can't help themselves because magic.

[Sigreid]

At that point, just do the sane thing and make combat wild shape the UCT of its own, non-casting (or no-more-than-1/3 casting) class and balance it as the primary contribution of that class. Heck, you could leave "turn into a bunch of small furry animals for utility" as a druid thing.

That's essentially what it would be doing, except you still call yourself a druid.

[Segev]

That's because they never really set aside space for <not>magic so it's a natural tendency to use any known framing to use in its place.

This leads to both the current issue where martials don't get cool stuff and casters get to add what little martials get on top of magic on the cheap. Adding HP won't help because it's just going to prolong the pattern. They can't help themselves because magic.

The solution, in my opinion, is to just start giving martials cool features that are truly extraordinary. Justify it with (non-spell) magic, if you must. It doesn't really matter, outside of the crossover with Superman, whether He-Man's strength is magic doing strength things, or just strength that is impossible in the real world.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's essentially what it would be doing, except you still call yourself a druid.

The issue is that 5e subclasses are designed to be purely additive on the base class. This would be tremendously confusing.

[Tanarii]

No, it's not just fine. Tier 1 and 2 martials hold their own quite well. Druids break the resource drain model.

[Kane0]

The solution, in my opinion, is to just start giving martials cool features that are truly extraordinary. Justify it with (non-spell) magic, if you must. It doesn't really matter, outside of the crossover with Superman, whether He-Man's strength is magic doing strength things, or just strength that is impossible in the real world.

A few years back this sentiment was short-handed to 'because they're just that good' as a counterpart to 'because magic'

[Segev]

No, it's not just fine. Tier 1 and 2 martials hold their own quite well. Druids break the resource drain model.On paper. At the table, I have not noticed this, at least not at levels 3-5, where it allegedly is the biggest problem (outside of the infinite wild shape issue at tier 4).


A few years back this sentiment was short-handed to 'because they're just that good' as a counterpart to 'because magic'A good way to express it.

[stoutstien]

The solution, in my opinion, is to just start giving martials cool features that are truly extraordinary. Justify it with (non-spell) magic, if you must. It doesn't really matter, outside of the crossover with Superman, whether He-Man's strength is magic doing strength things, or just strength that is impossible in the real world.

I mostly agree. I think it just can't be done with "DND" at this point. Just no room left.

Heck I experimented with allowing barbs to instant kill certain targets, added damage on missed attacks, and upped thier ability to shake off non damage related effects. They still felt second string to spells being used with soso efficiency.

[Segev]

I mostly agree. I think it just can't be done with "DND" at this point. Just no room left.

Heck I experimented with allowing barbs to instant kill certain targets, added damage on missed attacks, and upped thier ability to shake off non damage related effects. They still felt second string to spells being used with soso efficiency.

I disagree that there's no room left. I just think people get too fixated on, "Because they're martials, all they can do is hit things."

Give Barbarians a Hulk Jump. Give rogues a sixth sense for magic, wealth, and danger. Let fighters use harpoons to pull dragons out of the sky to fight them on the ground.

[stoutstien]

I disagree that there's no room left. I just think people get too fixated on, "Because they're martials, all they can do is hit things."

Give Barbarians a Hulk Jump. Give rogues a sixth sense for magic, wealth, and danger. Let fighters use harpoons to pull dragons out of the sky to fight them on the ground.

So everything spell already has?

[Segev]

So everything spell already has?

Why not? Warriors having things doesn't stop spells from getting them.

And things that aren't spells can't be counterspelled, for whatever that's worth in your games.

I'm sorry, but the argument in the quote just sounds like, "I want warriors to be unable to keep up with mages so I can justify demanding mages be nerfed," to me, and I reject that sentiment.

[BRC]

I disagree that there's no room left. I just think people get too fixated on, "Because they're martials, all they can do is hit things."

Give Barbarians a Hulk Jump. Give rogues a sixth sense for magic, wealth, and danger. Let fighters use harpoons to pull dragons out of the sky to fight them on the ground.

I think part of the idea is people losing a sense of scale with physical stats. A +4 strength is only 5% greater chance to succeed at something than a +3 strength, so the assumption is that somebody with +4 strength is just a bit stronger than somebody with +3, and +3 strength is seen as, like, a pretty strong person.

This gets wrapped up into the "Guy at the Gym". Because mechanically +3 strength is just a 5% increase in success chance over a +2 strength, and when building a character +2 isn't that hard to get. It seems very small.


As a point to consider, an Ogre is +4 strength. That's also the strength of a draft horse and a Brown Bear. A +3 strength fighter isn't "Just a bit stronger than my bro Dan who lifts weights", a +3 Strength fighter is just a bit WEAKER than a draft horse.

My point is, martials should get toys. "Strength of a Bear" isn't guy at the gym, in some settings that alone makes you a mid-tier superhero.

[Dr.Samurai]

So everything spell already has?
In a way, yes.

The issue is that the approach to design is "keep martials limited and simple" and "magic is unlimited".

If the approach to design were different, the Haste "spell" might be a Barbarian or Fighter feature, same as Jump, etc.

[Mastikator]

On a serious note I'd definitely give martials more stuff.

Fighters should get some battle master stuff on level 3, in addition to their subclass. Something like 2d8 superiority dice and 3 maneuvers. Additionally I'd like action surge and second wind to follow the channel nature model, IE start at 2, recharge one at short rest, gain more at higher levels.
I'd also like indomitable to be either replaced with something good, or made good. Maybe make indomitable legendary resistance?

Barbarians- with tasha's extra stuff, I think are good, however I'd like to recharge 1 barbarian rage per short rest. Also I'd like to add barbarian rage damage bonus to strength ability checks. And I would change it from a static bonus to a dice bonus, IE d4 levels 1-7, d6 levels 8-15, d8 levels 16-20. It would mean rage bonus is doubled with crits, and increase damage per rage hit by 0.5.
Brutal crit I find to be a ribbon feature, they should also gain hulk like features, for example they can climb on sheer surfaces by digging their fingers into the stone work, and/or jump double distance. They could also have other things like if they land a critical hit all creatures of their choice within 30 feet must make a wisdom save or become frightened until the end of the barbarians next turn.
At 13 I'd probably let the barbarian rage for free if they are reduced to 50% hit points. Or maybe they can start to spend 2 rage charges to gain double rage damage bonus?

[stoutstien]

Why not? Warriors having things doesn't stop spells from getting them.

And things that aren't spells can't be counterspelled, for whatever that's worth in your games.

I'm sorry, but the argument in the quote just sounds like, "I want warriors to be unable to keep up with mages so I can justify demanding mages be nerfed," to me, and I reject that sentiment.

Then you end up right back where you started ,or worse, you end up like PF2e.

You can't just say martials should get cool things to allow them to match <spells> when spells themselves have little boundaries. The only limits spells have is if a certain option has been printed yet. That's it. It has no built in limits or logic. Martials will always run into limits regardless on how high you take the relative fiction.

No matter what you add to martials they will always be a thing that isn't spells as long as to have this massive flaw.

For an immediate example: I'd doesn't matter how much HP you add to the other classes because wild shapes inherently doesn't have a limit. Eventually they will print something that is better that work with it and it will continue to improve indefinitely. CR has no real limitations built in.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In a way, yes.

The issue is that the approach to design is "keep martials limited and simple" and "magic is unlimited".

If the approach to design were different, the Haste "spell" might be a Barbarian or Fighter feature, same as Jump, etc.

Right. And you can't fix this (stupid, IMO) design approach by just adding on more features unless you just go ahead and make them all full-casters. Because no amount of limited options can compete with options that have no limit. More spells will be printed that will further encroach on previously untouched areas.

The only way to fix this right is to limit both of them. Set strong limits for what spells can do (not magic, spells). And then give everyone explicit, up front, blatant permission to do fantastic things. But only fantastic things that fit that class's fiction. That means junking the "generic, do-anything" fictions, since that brings back the "do anything" problem. Wizards (and barbarians and clerics and ...) should have their niche, with some horizontal flexibility and overlap. But most of the power should be in that one, almost entirely-unique thing. And anyone reaching in to also do <unique thing> should be at significant disadvantage vs the "owner" of the unique thing. So if "transforming into creatures" is a class's Thing, polymorph effects need to be weakened severely. No spell should be able to outshine a class's Thing in its own domain. To a large degree, Polymorph does exactly that. And Shapechange does it 100% better.

I'd say that (for a hypothetical shapeshifter class) the capstone should basically be Shapechange. And no one else should get that effect. By the time the shifter can shapechange (as the spell is now), other people might be able to turn someone into a T-rex.

[Segev]

Then you end up right back where you started ,or worse, you end up like PF2e.

You can't just say martials should get cool things to allow them to match <spells> when spells themselves have little boundaries. The only limits spells have is if a certain option has been printed yet. That's it. It has no built in limits or logic. Martials will always run into limits regardless on how high you take the relative fiction.

No matter what you add to martials they will always be a thing that isn't spells as long as to have this massive flaw.

That last sentence could use some cleanup; I can't parse it.

The rest of this is...just wrong.

"If martials can do things that spells can do, martials having those things doesn't count," or something like that? Or am I misunderstanding you? I don't see how PF2e comes into this, either.

Martials can have nice things. Stop obsessing over whether those nice things are things spells can also do or not.

[stoutstien]

That last sentence could use some cleanup; I can't parse it.

The rest of this is...just wrong.

"If martials can do things that spells can do, martials having those things doesn't count," or something like that? Or am I misunderstanding you? I don't see how PF2e comes into this, either.

Martials can have nice things. Stop obsessing over whether those nice things are things spells can also do or not.

So everything can do everything? No limits? No reasoning for anything past keeping up with Infinity?
For the supposed evergreen edition that seems like an odd direction.

[Segev]

So everything can do everything? No limits? No reasoning for anything past keeping up with Infinity?
For the supposed evergreen edition that seems like an odd direction.

Nothing can do everything. Not even the vaunted wizard. Schroedinger's Wizard, that always has exactly the perfect spell loadout for any situation because his spells aren't defined until the situation is defined, doesn't exist in play.

What things do and how they do them matters to the fantasy. This is why generic stat blobs for wild shape are such a bad idea, too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Nothing can do everything. Not even the vaunted wizard. Schroedinger's Wizard, that always has exactly the perfect spell loadout for any situation because his spells aren't defined until the situation is defined, doesn't exist in play.

What things do and how they do them matters to the fantasy. This is why generic stat blobs for wild shape are such a bad idea, too.

The only thing limiting the wizard is the spells written for him. Which is an open, unbounded set. There's no conceptual limit on his power. You could write wish++ as a 1st level spell without breaking any rules of magic. Because magic, fundamentally, has no rules.

So any balance is contingent on them not writing any new spells that upset that balance. Which is a losing proposition.

[stoutstien]

Nothing can do everything. Not even the vaunted wizard. Schroedinger's Wizard, that always has exactly the perfect spell loadout for any situation because his spells aren't defined until the situation is defined, doesn't exist in play.

What things do and how they do them matters to the fantasy. This is why generic stat blobs for wild shape are such a bad idea, too.

Eventually they will. That is the point.

The current state is meaningless because eventually they will print another twilight cleric or Chrono wizard AND spells that are better. Then you would need to add more stuff to catch up. Repeating until the system is bloated with dead options and traps it's another 3.X.
That was kinda one of the big selling points of 5e was the idea this wasn't needed. They failed but at least at first it wasn't so blatantly due to not caring. Just bad design.

[Segev]

The only thing limiting the wizard is the spells written for him. Which is an open, unbounded set. There's no conceptual limit on his power. You could write wish++ as a 1st level spell without breaking any rules of magic. Because magic, fundamentally, has no rules.

So any balance is contingent on them not writing any new spells that upset that balance. Which is a losing proposition.


Eventually they will. That is the point.

The current state is meaningless because eventually they will print another twilight cleric or Chrono wizard AND spells that are better. Then you would need to add more stuff to catch up. Repeating until the system is bloated with dead options and traps it's another 3.X.
That was kinda one of the big selling points of 5e was the idea this wasn't needed. They failed but at least at first it wasn't so blatantly due to not caring. Just bad design.

What does any of htat have to do with what I wrote? And how does it support either of your positions, especially the one regarding the notion that martials must be forbidden nice things so that casters will always be stronger, and thus casters must be nerfed, and that makes this PF2e somehow?

"Well, they COULD print something that breaks it, because there's NO LIMIT!!!!111!!!1!" (except, you know, that the existing spells at existing levels serve as guidelines and people can instantly recognize 'wish++ as a level 1 spell' would be hideously broken and therefore NOT something to be allowed, which belies the notion that there are, in fact, no limits) is not a very strong argument. They could print a Fighting Style that lets Fighters have infinite AC, auto-succeed on all saving throws, resist all damage, and do infinite damage and auto-hit on every attack with no range limits. That doesn't break the rules of Fighting Styles, because there "are no rules." Except, again, that there are, because we have other examples of them. Same as with spells and their spell levels.

Again, this sounds an awful lot like, "We don't want Martials to have nice things, because if they do, we can't insist spellcasters be nerfed on the basis that it's totally unfair how Martials can't have things that spellcasters can." I should emphasize that that may not be what you mean, but you need to do a better job getting across what you're arguing for, and how you justify it, because right now, it seems to me that the only argument against, "Give martials nice things," is, "But then they have things spellcasters have," which, given that the whole complaint is, "Spellcasters have things that Martials never are allowed to," comes across as complaining that your house is on fire, and when somebody offers to put it out, you reject their help on the basis that then your house wouldn't be on fire.

[Pex]

I think the HP gap between martials and just generic casters is too small. Any caster can walk around with a 16 Con if they want to, and the difference between the d6 and the d10 might not even be a single attack at later levels. Casters are simply too resilient. So in that sense I agree that martials need better HP buffs (or more like casters need to be toned down).

I don't agree with Segev that the druid's two additional hit point pools per short rest is the baseline.

Mind in doing so one doesn't knee-jerk into making spellcasters very fragile. Having d4 hit points may have existed in the past, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to bring back.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What does any of htat have to do with what I wrote? And how does it support either of your positions, especially the one regarding the notion that martials must be forbidden nice things so that casters will always be stronger, and thus casters must be nerfed, and that makes this PF2e somehow?

"Well, they COULD print something that breaks it, because there's NO LIMIT!!!!111!!!1!" (except, you know, that the existing spells at existing levels serve as guidelines and people can instantly recognize 'wish++ as a level 1 spell' would be hideously broken and therefore NOT something to be allowed, which belies the notion that there are, in fact, no limits) is not a very strong argument. They could print a Fighting Style that lets Fighters have infinite AC, auto-succeed on all saving throws, resist all damage, and do infinite damage and auto-hit on every attack with no range limits. That doesn't break the rules of Fighting Styles, because there "are no rules." Except, again, that there are, because we have other examples of them. Same as with spells and their spell levels.

Again, this sounds an awful lot like, "We don't want Martials to have nice things, because if they do, we can't insist spellcasters be nerfed on the basis that it's totally unfair how Martials can't have things that spellcasters can." I should emphasize that that may not be what you mean, but you need to do a better job getting across what you're arguing for, and how you justify it, because right now, it seems to me that the only argument against, "Give martials nice things," is, "But then they have things spellcasters have," which, given that the whole complaint is, "Spellcasters have things that Martials never are allowed to," comes across as complaining that your house is on fire, and when somebody offers to put it out, you reject their help on the basis that then your house wouldn't be on fire.

You can give martials all the nice things you want. But you won't actually fix the problem. That's the point. It's moving the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I fully support martials having nice things. But for that to mean anything without just pushing the power-creep speed selector even further, spells need to be reined in.

[Goobahfish]

It is interesting really. Does giving Druids and entire extra bank of hit points break the game.

Not really. The main offender... Brown Bear? Gives you 34 HP at level 2, twice. Which is A LOT. There isn't anything even close to comparable to that through any other mechanism I can think of off the top of my head.

But... if I cast a cure spell at level 2... it gives me... 8-9 HP or something in that range. At level 3, you can get 12-13 HP maybe? Brown Bear is AC 11, so those HP don't actually last very long. Compared to an AC = 18-19 PC, those HP are really closer to 17ish against melee combatants, maybe less? Healing an AC 20 Fighter is far more efficient compared to a AC 11 Druid.

So in table experience, the HP side of things is probably not where people 'notice' the difference. Moreover, PCs not dying doesn't generate the same animosity as having 2 big attacks while everyone else has 1.

It is however HP bloat... which is...
What happened to D4 HP wizards eh?

[Pex]

I think that that's a slight misinterpretation of the quote--

The injunction is against hybrid "warriors" being better than warriors at being warriors. A warrior + buffs should be better than a warrior without buffs. But a hybrid warrior/mage should have to give up enough to gain that magic to be worse at being both a warrior (than a pure warrior) and a mage (than a mage). That is, self-buffs should be disfavored.

A "magic martial" should be worse at being a martial than a pure martial.

This is pretty obviously true, at least for me--opportunity cost has to be a thing. And 5e doesn't do enough for it--the opportunity cost for a "mage" to play in martial territory is way smaller (often just a feat or racial pick or maybe a few spells, sometimes a subclass) than it is for a martial to play in mage territory (where even taking a subclass only gets you a pale imitation of a mage). And hybrids (cough paladin, hexblade) are too efficient both as casters and as martials.

Mind not at the cost of being significantly worse either. I disagree whole heartedly such a character should be denied self-buffs. The hybrid is allowed to do stuff the warrior and mage can't do themselves or as effectively in exchange for not doing the warrior or mage shtick as effectively as they. There needs to be a reason to play the hybrid, not congratulations you now suck at both warrior and mage.

[stoutstien]

Mind not at the cost of being significantly worse either. I disagree whole heartedly such a character should be denied self-buffs. The hybrid is allowed to do stuff the warrior and mage can't do themselves or as effectively in exchange for not doing the warrior or mage shtick as effectively as they. There needs to be a reason to play the hybrid, not congratulations you now suck at both warrior and mage.

They don't need to suck they just need to "suck" when compared to a straight warrior at being a warrior and a straight mage at being a straight mage. This doesn't mean they can't be the best at something it just can't be those things.

For example the class I reference has good attack but not the automatic hitting of the warrior and slightly lower HP and it has arts like a mage but not nearly as much depth.
In exchange it has a bunch of options only they get. Full stop. You want this cool weapon/spell thing you are this class.

The point is to avoid the trap of framing stuff as magic means it automatically can be added on top of something else and it's just better.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Mind not at the cost of being significantly worse either. I disagree whole heartedly such a character should be denied self-buffs. The hybrid is allowed to do stuff the warrior and mage can't do themselves or as effectively in exchange for not doing the warrior or mage shtick as effectively as they. There needs to be a reason to play the hybrid, not congratulations you now suck at both warrior and mage.

True. Where exactly that breakpoint is is a real question that needs answering and will probably differ for each hybrid. But the core principle that (warrior + self-magic - tradeoffs for getting self-magic) < (warrior) (in warrior-capable things) is, I think, correct.

[Kane0]

Again, this sounds an awful lot like, "We don't want Martials to have nice things, because if they do, we can't insist spellcasters be nerfed on the basis that it's totally unfair how Martials can't have things that spellcasters can." I should emphasize that that may not be what you mean, but you need to do a better job getting across what you're arguing for, and how you justify it, because right now, it seems to me that the only argument against, "Give martials nice things," is, "But then they have things spellcasters have," which, given that the whole complaint is, "Spellcasters have things that Martials never are allowed to," comes across as complaining that your house is on fire, and when somebody offers to put it out, you reject their help on the basis that then your house wouldn't be on fire.

They straight up do want nice things for noncasters, without casters getting those things too on top of what they already have. Like say thievery skills long ago. If you give martials the things that caster have… then that just turns them into a different flavor of caster.

[Segev]

You can give martials all the nice things you want. But you won't actually fix the problem. That's the point. It's moving the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I fully support martials having nice things. But for that to mean anything without just pushing the power-creep speed selector even further, spells need to be reined in.Let's start with the easier thing, and give martials nice things. We can discuss reigning in spells after we get rid of the "MArtials can't have nice things," complaint, because demanding that somebody else have their deluxe PHB taken away from them because you can't afford a basic PHB, even when that own't GET you a basic PHB, is not really solving any problems. It's just demanding other people stop having fun because you feel like you're not able to.


They straight up do want nice things for noncasters, without casters getting those things too on top of what they already have. Like say thievery skills long ago. If you give martials the things that caster have… then that just turns them into a different flavor of caster.

So... casters are just a different flavor of martial, by this argument, since the argument goes that there's nothing martials can have that casters don't already have and casters have everything martials have. Is that correct?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Let's start with the easier thing, and give martials nice things. We can discuss reigning in spells after we get rid of the "MArtials can't have nice things," complaint, because demanding that somebody else have their deluxe PHB taken away from them because you can't afford a basic PHB, even when that own't GET you a basic PHB, is not really solving any problems. It's just demanding other people stop having fun because you feel like you're not able to.


Setting precedent that means you're shoving the power creep into "full gallop" mode. And then you're rebuilding the entire system to accommodate that. Without materially changing the balance.

[stoutstien]

Let's start with the easier thing, and give martials nice things. We can discuss reigning in spells after we get rid of the "MArtials can't have nice things," complaint, because demanding that somebody else have their deluxe PHB taken away from them because you can't afford a basic PHB, even when that own't GET you a basic PHB, is not really solving any problems. It's just demanding other people stop having fun because you feel like you're not able to.



So... casters are just a different flavor of martial, by this argument, since the argument goes that there's nothing martials can have that casters don't already have and casters have everything martials have. Is that correct?

It's not easy or they would have done it.
They attempted with some of the content in Tasha and admittedly the martial stuff is closer to what is needed.

Guess what else they did? Star druids, twilight and peace domains, summoning spell that are as good as a moderately kitted out fighter on a class that has limited single target potential before, and a bunch of other stuff.

They can't help it because it's just easier to add content where you have no limits. Nothing needs to be justified, spells especially. Either it's better and you use it, worse and you disregard it, or somewhat equal but probably still an upgrade for someone. Nothing to lose because you get free reign to avoid the bad stuff and take the good stuff in equal portions.

Now if you would to argue that one takes Tasha level fighter, monks, barbarian, and rogues and just retrofitted them to the rest who have Similar levels as the PHB content it would gets a lot better. Mostly due to spell and cherry picked npc block reduction.

[Kane0]

So... casters are just a different flavor of martial, by this argument, since the argument goes that there's nothing martials can have that casters don't already have and casters have everything martials have. Is that correct?

In a sense, yes. Casters have HP, Hit Dice, weapon and armor proficiencies, saving throws, skill and tool proficiencies, languages, attack and damage bonuses, shoves, jump distances, carry capacities, action/bonus action, access to Attack/Dodge/Disengage/Dash/Hide/Search, etc.

All of these are comparable between characters on the martial-caster spectrum, with casters being able to use spells to supplement their numbers and abilities. The reverse is also true, but not to the same degree. Maneuvers, rage and ki vs channels, cantrips and spell slots for example.

But going back to practical steps, lets say you give the Barbarian the Hulk Leap ability. Awesome! The Jump spell still exists, plus racial/feat jump boosts of course, and in both cases you can't jump beyond your movement speed anyways. As an additional concern, casters have things like longstrider, haste, fly, and teleports as additions or alternatives plus the ability to just not prep Jump and instead pick something else in its place. Can the Barbarian swap Hulk Leap for say Boulder Throw or Ground Pound, or better yet just have all those available at the same time? But wait, the casters can also ape this by using Catapult, Earth Tremor, Erupting Earth and so on as well.
What's the best solution? Because it looks like this way leads to an arms race that one side or the other will lose, and one side already has a headstart on. What some of us are advocating for is providing something to the martials to call their own, that the casters cannot duplicate or replicate, and use that to create an asymmetric balance of sorts rather than what has been the historical path of resetting the race without necessarily addressing the linear vs quadratic root cause. Some of us want quadratic martials to match the quadratic casters, others want linear casters to match the linear martials. Either way, if you want to tackle this it is best done at the most fundamental level and it will not be pretty.

[Brookshw]

I feel like everyone deserves a medal for making it to March without a caster vs. martial thread :smallcool:

[Kane0]

I feel like everyone deserves a medal for making it to March without a caster vs. martial thread :smallcool:

Honestly I think Reddit absorbs a lot of the brunt of it nowadays.

[Willowhelm]

I feel like everyone deserves a medal for making it to March without a caster vs. martial thread :smallcool:

I think you missed the 7th level optimisation thread. Pages of martials vs caster…

[Psyren]

Give Barbarians a Hulk Jump. Give rogues a sixth sense for magic, wealth, and danger. Let fighters use harpoons to pull dragons out of the sky to fight them on the ground.

I'm fine with the third one (well, maybe not doing that with a run of the mill harpoon), but I would definitely need to better understand what you mean by the first two.


I feel like everyone deserves a medal for making it to March without a caster vs. martial thread :smallcool:

I would have much, much rather had that than the other thing dominating the community until now :smallsigh:



Guess what else they did? Star druids, twilight and peace domains, summoning spell that are as good as a moderately kitted out fighter on a class that has limited single target potential before, and a bunch of other stuff.

To be fair the Tasha summons were vastly better balanced than the Conjure line we had before.

[Xihirli]

Whenever a balance problem is given the proposed solution "just buff ALL classes" inevitably comes up.

I wonder if the people recommending that know how much work that is. Not just designing the class changes or anticipating how proposed homebrew fixes will change the game balance before picking one. And then there's going to my players and selling the whole "Betty, because you're a moon druid I had to change the game" and make that player feel like they're a problem because they wanted to turn into a tiger.
THEN I have to balance the rest of game around increasing the HP of half the party, or just make it a cakewalk.

Or, crazy idea, I could run a game that actually works without me having to do all that work.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Whenever a balance problem is given the proposed solution "just buff ALL classes" inevitably comes up.

I wonder if the people recommending that know how much work that is. Not just designing the class changes or anticipating how proposed homebrew fixes will change the game balance before picking one. And then there's going to my players and selling the whole "Betty, because you're a moon druid I had to change the game" and make that player feel like they're a problem because they wanted to turn into a tiger.
THEN I have to balance the rest of game around increasing the HP of half the party, or just make it a cakewalk.

Or, crazy idea, I could run a game that actually works without me having to do all that work.

I completely agree. Balance by addition only just spirals. And balance only based on relative performance doesn't work at all. Instead, balance comes by
1) deciding what range of power the system will support. This is a priori--it comes before anything else and its' the standard everything is measured against.
2) Build stuff, shooting for the range.
3) iterate, dropping the stuff that's above the range down a bit and bringing the stuff below the range up a bit. And then not touching anything (power wise) that's in the range.

Relative balance doesn't matter, only absolute balance. Having absolute balance will create relative balance, but having relative balance can destroy the rest of the game that's not player options.

[Kane0]

1) deciding what range of power the system will support.
2) Build stuff, shooting for the range.
3) iterate, dropping the stuff that's above the range down a bit and bringing the stuff below the range up a bit.


Presumably by not making 12 variations of the same thing, which is admittedly not easy.

Though a thought occurs, CR might not be a perfect tool but it could be a useful one to adapt? Use the Monster Building rules, or a variation thereof, as that measuring stick?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Presumably by not making 12 variations of the same thing, which is admittedly not easy.

Though a thought occurs, CR might not be a perfect tool but it could be a useful one to adapt? Use the Monster Building rules, or a variation thereof, as that measuring stick?

I think the monster building rules[1] serve as a decent proxy for the measuring stick, at least for the low end of the range. A party of proposed characters who can't measure up to "appropriate" encounters when played blindly[2] is too weak. You could probably get an ok (but successively less accurate) proxy for a high end by basically dropping the difficulty windows by one or two steps so that a stock Hard encounter is now a new Medium/Easy and a stock Deadly is the new Medium/Hard (and generating new bands above that). Or maybe by raising the effective level of the party by X (what X is is yet to be determined).

Of course, that's only a proxy for the designers' intended balance point at best. Because the supported range is an input, not an output. And using the proxies assume that the monsters are balanced well and indicative of their intent. Which we all know they're not particularly.

Another "floor" proxy would be a "basic rules" party--use only the options found in the free basic rules PDF. Not the SRD, the one with 4 races, 4 classes, and only a limited selection of spells and magic items. No multiclassing or feats either. Again, that's a floor--if you're much below that, you need buffs. But that party should be valid for any content the game has to offer. So if you're above that, you don't need buffs from a pure playability standard. That is, you're viable. You might have janky mechanics (cf old beastmaster ranger), but numerically you're fine.

[1] or really reverse engineering from the published monsters, as the Monster Building rules themselves give the impression that offense and defense are balanced among other flaws. They're not, at least for published monsters. The median difference between reverse-engineered offensive and defensive CRs[3] in my data set is 0.46 (ie offense > defense by about half a CR), but the variance is enormous, ranging from the green abishai at -18(!!!!) to the beholder at +15. The median is +1.
[2] For a floor, you need low-optimization (not anti-optimization) and the absence of particularly good tactics. Basically "stand and slug it out". And the absence of hand-picked magic items.
[3] Which actually match the book CRs relatively well, with an average deviation of 0.14 (calculated > book) and a standard deviation of 1.47, with a median of 0 difference.

[Tanarii]

On paper.
No. At the table, Druids break the resource model of 5e in Tier 1 and Tier 2.

From personal experience both in my own campaign, one shots (repeats of the same material) and in AL, I can tell you that a party with a Druid in it can go significantly further / extended adventuring day compared to one without. Including in many cases running through the same material.

Not "Healing Touch before errata" broken, but it's still broken.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No. At the table, Druids break the resource model of 5e in Tier 1 and Tier 2.

Not "Healing Touch before errata" broken, but it's still broken.

I have yet to see this and I've had lots of moon druids. Expect table variance.

[Tanarii]

I have yet to see this and I've had lots of moon druids. Expect table variance.
I haven't seen any variance, across multiple tables.

I might expect variance if the table is 5MWD oriented however.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I haven't seen any variance, across multiple tables.

Do note that your dominant play style is vastly non-standard from what I understand. Extrapolation from a limited, biased data set is hazardous.

[Tanarii]

Do note that your dominant play style is vastly non-standard from what I understand. Extrapolation from a limited, biased data set is hazardous.
AL and my one shots don't follow that dominant play style. Which boils down to "more short rests and longer adventuring days before a long rest". Even without that, even without me being the DM, it holds true.

As per my edit above though, I can see variance is someone is running 5MWD and significantly less short rests and shorter adventuring days per long rest.

[PhoenixPhyre]

AL and my one shots don't follow that dominant play style. Which boils down to "more short rests and longer adventuring days before a long rest".

As per my edit above though, I can see variance is someone is running 5MWD and significantly less short rests and shorter adventuring days per long rest.

My table isn't neatly either a 5mwd or not. Other than level 2, I've not noticed any significant issues with druids in general or moon specifically. I do play significantly more narratively than you do (or AL does), with no fights or other strongly-resource-intensive actions per session being, if not constant, at least common. Moon druids run out of resources just about as significantly as anyone else who engages in melee combat. The bear form may buffer a round's worth of hits, but that's about it. They're getting hit way more than anyone else, so it evens out.

[Pex]

No. At the table, Druids break the resource model of 5e in Tier 1 and Tier 2.

From personal experience both in my own campaign, one shots (repeats of the same material) and in AL, I can tell you that a party with a Druid in it can go significantly further / extended adventuring day compared to one without. Including in many cases running through the same material.

Not "Healing Touch before errata" broken, but it's still broken.


I have yet to see this and I've had lots of moon druids. Expect table variance.


I haven't seen any variance, across multiple tables.

I might expect variance if the table is 5MWD oriented however.


Do note that your dominant play style is vastly non-standard from what I understand. Extrapolation from a limited, biased data set is hazardous.


AL and my one shots don't follow that dominant play style. Which boils down to "more short rests and longer adventuring days before a long rest". Even without that, even without me being the DM, it holds true.

As per my edit above though, I can see variance is someone is running 5MWD and significantly less short rests and shorter adventuring days per long rest.

Me:

https://i.postimg.cc/Y0cYNcNG/popcorn.gif

[Dr.Samurai]

Mind in doing so one doesn't knee-jerk into making spellcasters very fragile. Having d4 hit points may have existed in the past, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to bring back.
I'm not suggesting they get d4 hit points. But 2hp/level can be easily outpaced by enemy damage and caster buffs. So... screw that. Let's have an edition where casters aren't the end all be all. But... not like 4E, since it didn't go over very well. I'm sure there's no correlation...

[Kane0]

Doesn't have to be a reduction in HP. You could reintroduce armor/shields getting in the way of spellcasting, remove class skills (keep those from race/background), take away one or both save proficiencies, etc.

Personally I wouldn't go down that path, but it's there.

[Goobahfish]

I feel like everyone deserves a medal for making it to March without a caster vs. martial thread :smallcool:

Lolz, what is dead can never die :D


Right. And you can't fix this (stupid, IMO) design approach by just adding on more features unless you just go ahead and make them all full-casters. Because no amount of limited options can compete with options that have no limit. More spells will be printed that will further encroach on previously untouched areas.

QFT

I remember thinking long and hard about this very thing when designing my RPG. Can a wizard, with the click of his fingers, destroy a city? If this is possible, the game doesn't make sense. Not only will class balance be completely impossible, but even in the world-building sense, there wouldn't be cities... every world leader would have to be a wizard right?

I think D&D played its cards on the table really early on this one. 'Wish' is a spell. 'Magic Missile' is a spell. These are perhaps the most representative spells in the design space. Magic missile 'always hits', unless you use shield in which case it 'always misses'. Magic... at some level has rules where non-magical people are not even invited to the table. Wish is just this same thing but multiplied by a very large number.

----

However, lets look at D&D and work out what are the specific assumptions that break this.

What are martials good for? Lifting drawbridges? Breaking down doors? Sneaking? Killing? Yeah... sort of? With spells like levitate, knock, invisibility... that indicates where martials don't really have a monopoly. What about endurance? Like a castle filled with heavy doors to knock down. Not 1, but... 15? Maybe...

Fine... Killing. Martials should be good at killing. That means... High DPS, High AC, High HP.

Except... the wizard player doesn't want to have their character just die. That wouldn't be fun. No more D4 HP +1/level. We need to add +CON (so the classes hit dice are actually pretty irrelevant). Con 20 gives you more HP than D8/level. +4 Con turns a wizard into a fighter.

Also, the wizard doesn't want to feel useless when they run out of spells. Cantrips! Also, they need to scale!

Because D&D firmly put their cards in the 'monster massacre' side of the RPG world, every class needs something to do to feel useful every turn. Classes shouldn't feel too flimsy. Wizards need a spell that gives them more AC etc etc etc.

5e even did away with BAB progression. Now a feat makes you equivalent to a fighter level 1-4. Getting to level 5 basically gives you 90% of the dps of most classes (except fighter)... dip cleric and you have fighter-level AC!

Unless you start unpicking some of these assumptions... reduce the influence of high CON on HP, reduce the base HD of flimsy classes. Giving martials a random bonus AC for being good at fighting at higher levels. Make cantrips a little less effective.

That comes before giving all martials superiority dice or UCT. I only say this because fighters need to be better at killing because they will never be able to fly or turn invisible. They have to be better at something.

[Kane0]

Unless you start unpicking some of these assumptions... reduce the influence of high CON on HP
Now this one I have tried. Instead of +Con bonus each level you add +Con score at level 1, then after that its class die only unless you are a hill dwarf/strongheart halfling or took tough. You still add your Con mod when resting with Hit Dice though.
Slightly more health in tier 1, about the same in tier 2, noticeably less in tier 3. If you expand the gap between classes hit die size the gulf expands in kind.

[Sigreid]

Whenever a balance problem is given the proposed solution "just buff ALL classes" inevitably comes up.

I wonder if the people recommending that know how much work that is. Not just designing the class changes or anticipating how proposed homebrew fixes will change the game balance before picking one. And then there's going to my players and selling the whole "Betty, because you're a moon druid I had to change the game" and make that player feel like they're a problem because they wanted to turn into a tiger.
THEN I have to balance the rest of game around increasing the HP of half the party, or just make it a cakewalk.

Or, crazy idea, I could run a game that actually works without me having to do all that work.

If I were designing the system, which I'll never be motivated enough to do, I'd have fighters be the anti-wizard if you will. What I mean is the fighter would be gradually become extremely resistant to magic of all sorts as he levels up. I think it would allow someone to fulfill the trope of the hero that resists the evil overlord's mighty, continent conquering magics to strike that final blow.

[Segev]

If we are talking about individual tables and games, just limit your game's level to the ceiling of power you want. Your game probably isn't getting to tier 4anyway, so stop worrying about the balance at a level you won't reach. If you are reaching that level, why do you want to restrict things to the power level of ten levels ago? Run the game you want to; don't let the tools dictate that you must extend into power levels you don't want. You can stop granting new levels at level five if you want that level of power. Or six, or ten, or thirteen, or any level you feel is the sweet spot.

[Psyren]

My table isn't neatly either a 5mwd or not. Other than level 2, I've not noticed any significant issues with druids in general or moon specifically. I do play significantly more narratively than you do (or AL does), with no fights or other strongly-resource-intensive actions per session being, if not constant, at least common. Moon druids run out of resources just about as significantly as anyone else who engages in melee combat. The bear form may buffer a round's worth of hits, but that's about it. They're getting hit way more than anyone else, so it evens out.

...Can you define "run out of resources" then? Because I have a truly hard time imagining combats below 6th level that are exhausting 68+ HP from the druid and all their spell slots (and racials too?) that wouldn't straight up annihilate a fighter or barbarian in that same position :smallconfused:


If I were designing the system, which I'll never be motivated enough to do, I'd have fighters be the anti-wizard if you will. What I mean is the fighter would be gradually become extremely resistant to magic of all sorts as he levels up. I think it would allow someone to fulfill the trope of the hero that resists the evil overlord's mighty, continent conquering magics to strike that final blow.

Seems like that should be monk.

[stoutstien]

To be fair the Tasha summons were vastly better balanced than the Conjure line we had before.

This is true besides summon celestial. They just over shot the runway a bit and by a bit I mean around double. Not only do you get either a ranged striker that deals decent damage or a half decent meat shield with shareable spamming thp, you also get a nice little healing effect. For a class that people frequently call out for having a somewhat boring spell progression starting around this point it's a lot to be pinned on with no real cost.

Conceptually it is a very good approach for generic summoning. They just should have taken a little bit more time before they printed it to make sure the numbers added up.

*They could fix a lot of the minion spells by having a longer casting time as the norm. Never made sense you could just instantly summon hordes/ or powerful beings as an action that last for any noticable duration.*

[Silly Name]

I'm not suggesting they get d4 hit points. But 2hp/level can be easily outpaced by enemy damage and caster buffs. So... screw that. Let's have an edition where casters aren't the end all be all. But... not like 4E, since it didn't go over very well. I'm sure there's no correlation...

IMHO, the issue isn't that casters have a d6 Hit Die instead of a d4, but rather that 5e heavily directs casters towards having CON as their second-best stat. A primary caster has little reason to invest in any other stat other than CON and their spellcasting ability, and so they tend to be pretty close to martials in term of HP due to overall having similar CON bonuses. And this honestly is a flaw for me, because it goes against the general idea of the "squishy caster" that I feel is an useful element of balance - even if I agree it's not enough, having the casters be actually frail to melee enemies helps bring them down a notch.

The solution to this would be to make every caster at least a little bit MAD, and to make it possible to pump Concentration saves without pumping CON - in fact, pumping CON should be the least efficient way to increase your Concentration checks.

So, you'd want every caster wanting to increase at least two mental stats (or at the very least, have a +1 or +2 in a mental stat other than their primary casting score), and probably Concentration to be a skill you can be proficient in, making CON slightly less important.

[stoutstien]

If we are talking about individual tables and games, just limit your game's level to the ceiling of power you want. Your game probably isn't getting to tier 4anyway, so stop worrying about the balance at a level you won't reach. If you are reaching that level, why do you want to restrict things to the power level of ten levels ago? Run the game you want to; don't let the tools dictate that you must extend into power levels you don't want. You can stop granting new levels at level five if you want that level of power. Or six, or ten, or thirteen, or any level you feel is the sweet spot.

I'm probably one of the biggest supporters of the idea that GMs make the game using the rules rather than the other way around and even I find this argument to be dismissive to a large portion of players. It's gatekeeping and passing more responsibility off on to the person that already has the most responsibility.

It may be an opt-in by design but it's not opt in by presentation. 5e just doesn't have the tools or GM support laid out in such a way to make this a valid option without enough system knowledge and Mastery to recognize when it's needed in the first place. There's no way of accurately predicting what you need to do in making the game you want besides running a bunch of games that don't work.
A DM doesn't need a working knowledge of every mechanic. they need a working knowledge of every interaction with every mechanic because the system itself has no inherent logic.

*Not to mention the majority of the issues that people have start occurring right at level one. It doesn't take tier 4 spell casting to cause issues. It just takes spell casting.*

[stoutstien]

IMHO, the issue isn't that casters have a d6 Hit Die instead of a d4, but rather that 5e heavily directs casters towards having CON as their second-best stat. A primary caster has little reason to invest in any other stat other than CON and their spellcasting ability, and so they tend to be pretty close to martials in term of HP due to overall having similar CON bonuses. And this honestly is a flaw for me, because it goes against the general idea of the "squishy caster" that I feel is an useful element of balance - even if I agree it's not enough, having the casters be actually frail to melee enemies helps bring them down a notch.

The solution to this would be to make every caster at least a little bit MAD, and to make it possible to pump Concentration saves without pumping CON - in fact, pumping CON should be the least efficient way to increase your Concentration checks.

So, you'd want every caster wanting to increase at least two mental stats (or at the very least, have a +1 or +2 in a mental stat other than their primary casting score), and probably Concentration to be a skill you can be proficient in, making CON slightly less important.

A handful of HP won't make a difference one way or the other. The better armor proficiencies should be as hard to get as third level spell slots in regards to their usability in tangent with spellcasting and spell casting inherently needs to be more difficult to do in combat.
Also fortifying concentration check should be a lot more difficult. Not impossible but at least a little bit harder than deciding between a secondary stat and a massive jump in your action and spell slot economy.

Defensive features are just too cheap and stack readily. They also have a relatively low ceilings so you can clearly see where the opportunity cost stops being worth it.

[noob]

Nothing can do everything. Not even the vaunted wizard. Schroedinger's Wizard, that always has exactly the perfect spell loadout for any situation because his spells aren't defined until the situation is defined, doesn't exist in play.

What things do and how they do them matters to the fantasy. This is why generic stat blobs for wild shape are such a bad idea, too.

I believe that a deity in 3.5 could technically have a pet shroedinger wizard with the wizard class substitution that grants you a familiar that can become any creature that would be eligible as a familiar and the divine ability that allows to pick any creature as a familiar however unlike a shroedinger wizard, that familiar would need a simple action before being the wizard you need at the moment.
But then everything about dnd 3.5 deities was absolutely broken.

[Segev]

I'm probably one of the biggest supporters of the idea that GMs make the game using the rules rather than the other way around and even I find this argument to be dismissive to a large portion of players. It's gatekeeping and passing more responsibility off on to the person that already has the most responsibility.

It may be an opt-in by design but it's not opt in by presentation. 5e just doesn't have the tools or GM support laid out in such a way to make this a valid option without enough system knowledge and Mastery to recognize when it's needed in the first place. There's no way of accurately predicting what you need to do in making the game you want besides running a bunch of games that don't work.
A DM doesn't need a working knowledge of every mechanic. they need a working knowledge of every interaction with every mechanic because the system itself has no inherent logic.

*Not to mention the majority of the issues that people have start occurring right at level one. It doesn't take tier 4 spell casting to cause issues. It just takes spell casting.*It isn't "gatekeeping" to say, "Please stop demanding that the higher levels be nerfed down to match the lower levels just so you can keep saying your levels advance while continuing to play as if you were lower-level." It's pointing out that the solution to their problem is to stop advancing levels at the power level sweet spot they like. Seriously, how on Earth is that "gatekeeping?" It's advice AND a plea that they stop trying to convince the designers to ruin the higher levels of the game.

Considering that this is in response to, "Casters are just too powerful as you get to higher levels! And no, I don't want martials ramped up to keep up with them! That just makes them Casters!" I think the inherent demand that entire aspects of the game be changed is the unreasonable one, not the response to it that says, "You can have what you want with what exists; here's how."


I believe that a deity in 3.5 could technically have a pet shroedinger wizard with the wizard class substitution that grants you a familiar that can become any creature that would be eligible as a familiar and the divine ability that allows to pick any creature as a familiar however unlike a shroedinger wizard, that familiar would need a simple action before being the wizard you need at the moment.
But then everything about dnd 3.5 deities was absolutely broken.Maybe, but we are in the 5e forums. So I don't even really want to go off into a discussion of whether that was possible in 3.5; it certainly isn't in 5e.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's as simple as people having a different idea of what a high level martial is.

D&D martials are "magical" as PhoenixPhyre calls it, but there's still a spectrum of preference there for people as to what that means and in what way they are "magical".

As an example, Pug and Tomas from Magician Apprentice. As Pug "levels up", he learns a new method of spellcasting, masters it, this in turn allows him to master the traditional method etc etc. But all along, Pug is Pug.

Tomas, a warrior, on the other hand, finds some magic armor. And this magic armor belonged to some powerful ancient warlord. And the spirit of this warlord possess Tomas and slowly his soul begins to merge with it and his body begins to transform and Tomas is no longer "Tomas", but some fusion of the young man that was Tomas and this ruthless ancient king. And Tomas' power comes from losing himself partially in this way and living out the destiny of this other being. Tomas is not really Tomas anymore.

That bothered me when I read it. And that aesthetic I'm still not partial to. In D&D, wizards are Pug as they level up. They remain the same, but get stronger spells. [Though now I'm wondering if Pug also becomes Macross? Does that happen? That'd be similar to Raistlin and Fistandantilus. I get too attached to protagonists to see them lose themselves lol.]

If my martial has to transform into some flying elemental force of nature in order to stay relevant, it's not an aesthetic I like. And I don't think that means I'm throwing my hands in the air and saying "I need to stay at lower levels of the game". You might think that, but prepare to make your case :smallsmile:.

[stoutstien]

It isn't "gatekeeping" to say, "Please stop demanding that the higher levels be nerfed down to match the lower levels just so you can keep saying your levels advance while continuing to play as if you were lower-level." It's pointing out that the solution to their problem is to stop advancing levels at the power level sweet spot they like. Seriously, how on Earth is that "gatekeeping?" It's advice AND a plea that they stop trying to convince the designers to ruin the higher levels of the game.

Considering that this is in response to, "Casters are just too powerful as you get to higher levels! And no, I don't want martials ramped up to keep up with them! That just makes them Casters!" I think the inherent demand that entire aspects of the game be changed is the unreasonable one, not the response to it that says, "You can have what you want with what exists; here's how."

It is gatekeeping. You are saying you should have control on what high level play is and others who don't agree shouldn't be allowed to make suggestions to make it more approachable. If the game has some frame to support this it be different. Seeing how there is an utter lack of any support or suggestions in the provided content to help GMs/tables find this "sweet spot" we have to assume they intended for 1-20 play to be "bounded" enough most tables wouldn't have issues.

We could do this without "nerfing" magic but it would mean never adding anything new to anything that can interact with it. No new spells, NPCs blocks, subclasses, and so on. Eventually everything would even out but it would take a long time and you'd have a jige subset of players would probably be happier with a less extreme approach.

High level play shouldn't be drastically different for one subsection of character compared to others nor should they all be so similar that any differentiation is pointless. Somewhere in the middle there is a point where you can have your barbarian and wizard and druid functioning But to have a point of reference you have to have some form of boundaries on both sides. Right now we have a floor and ceiling for some and a floor and a vector for the rest. I'd like to believe adding a ceiling is a lot easier than playing keep up with the Joneses with Infinity.

[Segev]

It's as simple as people having a different idea of what a high level martial is.

D&D martials are "magical" as PhoenixPhyre calls it, but there's still a spectrum of preference there for people as to what that means and in what way they are "magical".

As an example, Pug and Tomas from Magician Apprentice. As Pug "levels up", he learns a new method of spellcasting, masters it, this in turn allows him to master the traditional method etc etc. But all along, Pug is Pug.

Tomas, a warrior, on the other hand, finds some magic armor. And this magic armor belonged to some powerful ancient warlord. And the spirit of this warlord possess Tomas and slowly his soul begins to merge with it and his body begins to transform and Tomas is no longer "Tomas", but some fusion of the young man that was Tomas and this ruthless ancient king. And Tomas' power comes from losing himself partially in this way and living out the destiny of this other being. Tomas is not really Tomas anymore.

That bothered me when I read it. And that aesthetic I'm still not partial to. In D&D, wizards are Pug as they level up. They remain the same, but get stronger spells.

If my martial has to transform into some flying elemental force of nature in order to stay relevant, it's not an aesthetic I like. And I don't think that means I'm throwing my hands in the air and saying "I need to stay at lower levels of the game". You might think that, but prepare to make your case :smallsmile:.
Nobody has said nor suggested that your fighter must stop being himself. That's one depiction of one character in a fantasy novel. As well say that all rangers must be rebels against their own people, and dual-wield scimitars, because Drizz't did it that way.

I am saying that, if you count any and every possible thing that Tomas could possibly have done as a superhuman feat as "ceasing to be Tomas," while allowing Pug to be Pug even though he learned newer and more powerful magic, then, yes, you've written your constraints such that your warrior is not allowed to be a high-level character without "losing himself."

Is going from (stereotypical, if not exactly faithful-to-the-source-material) Conan to He-Man "ceasing to be the same person?" He-Man is blatantly magical/supernatural/superhumanly strong, and does impossible things with his strength. I'm not saying "He-Man is the one and only and complete solution to the problem of making Martials catch up with casters;" I am, however, holding him up as an example of something that Martials cannot currently be, but Tier 3 and 4 Martials should probably be able to aspire to, if not beyond. So, please, take the discussion point as what it is - a possible exapmle - and don't run with it as if it's the one, only, complete-and-true solution I'm proposing. (I have had that happen way too often in these sorts of discussions. :smallyuk:)

What if, instead of Tomas merging with the spirit and destiny of an ancient tyrant-king, he had instead gotten the ancient tyrant-king as his mentor, and learned all the techniques and powers that the tyrant-king "merged" with him to grant him, instead as his own powers? Presumably, the ancient-and-powerful tyrant-king had these abilities in his own right, without having to merge with a long line of ancient-er and more powerful and more tyrannical kings, each subsuming the next's destiny.

If Tomas-the-merged represents what you think an adequate high level warrior would be, abilities-wise, what's wrong with Tomas learning all the cool techniques and stuff without having to "lose himself?" Either from his ghost mentor, or just by virtue of training and experimenting and mastering these things, himself? Learning from a ghost-mentor doesn't mean becoming him, and could even lead to a falling-out if the ghost-mentor tried to push him to fulfil the ghost's dreams and Tomas, being himself, refused. But nothing about "having cool and suitably powerful abilities" says "I must lose myself and live the destiny of another.

It has been so long since I read those novels that I don't remember Tomas's story at all, though (nor do I remember anything about Pug except that the annoying "became a slave and that's ohw he learned REAL magic that was even better than anything his home culture could teach him" plot line was a big part of it), so I don't even remember what powers Tomas got that you say represents a warrior's high-level progression.

So, I ask you again: If Tomas hadn't had to merge with the ancient spirit and "lose himself," as you put it, but got all the powers he got by training and learning as himself, would you still have the same problem with it? If so, why?

[Dr.Samurai]

It's been ages, but if I remember correctly, Tomas received incredible physical power ups and martial prowess, dominion over dragons, and I think there was like something about their relationship with elves... maybe his people had originally enslaved elves, and instead Tomas marries the elf queen and is not a tyrant, because there's still Tomas somewhere in there.

Anyways... the point is that I want my fighter to be recognizable as my fighter when I reach higher levels. I know you didn't suggest anything, but that stuff always gets thrown around when high level martials are discussed in the context of this disparity.

I think martials don't get enough at low levels, let alone at high levels.

But also, even the people that cry out "Guy at the Gym Fallacy" every other sentence have their limits; see the "Can you grapple a Gaseous Form" thread. I think you can. But some people were quite dismissive and thought the idea was ludicrous because "come on man, real life!". Some of these people probably wouldn't mind it if their high level fighter could swing his sword so quickly he ignites the air. I would not like that at all.

All to say, I have my specific likes and dislikes on this and will make the plea I always do; leave me a subclass or two at higher levels, then make all the anime combat gods that you want.

But to answer your question, I have no issue with high level fighters learning from a mentor, and yes, Tomas learning from that dragon warlord instead of merging with him would have hit different for sure. But what techniques are high level martials learning? That's where I think we'll find all the disagreement.

[Pex]

I'm not suggesting they get d4 hit points. But 2hp/level can be easily outpaced by enemy damage and caster buffs. So... screw that. Let's have an edition where casters aren't the end all be all. But... not like 4E, since it didn't go over very well. I'm sure there's no correlation...

D4 hit points is just one example.

I tire of the commonality when people (in general, no one in particular) demand spellcasters get nerfed they want it to the point of not worth playing anymore. Obligatory: That is not the same thing as not wanting any nerfs whatsoever.

I want reasonableness. A wizard not able to learn every spell everywhere is fine. A wizard needing to roll to cast any spell at all to see if it works then have to make an attack roll/monsters makes a save, and then loses his next two turns due to fatigue and risk insanity is too much (speaking hyperbolically but not too far from suggestions in the past).

[Eldariel]

It's been ages, but if I remember correctly, Tomas received incredible physical power ups and martial prowess, dominion over dragons, and I think there was like something about their relationship with elves... maybe his people had originally enslaved elves, and instead Tomas marries the elf queen and is not a tyrant, because there's still Tomas somewhere in there.

Anyways... the point is that I want my fighter to be recognizable as my fighter when I reach higher levels. I know you didn't suggest anything, but that stuff always gets thrown around when high level martials are discussed in the context of this disparity.

I think martials don't get enough at low levels, let alone at high levels.

But also, even the people that cry out "Guy at the Gym Fallacy" every other sentence have their limits; see the "Can you grapple a Gaseous Form" thread. I think you can. But some people were quite dismissive and thought the idea was ludicrous because "come on man, real life!". Some of these people probably wouldn't mind it if their high level fighter could swing his sword so quickly he ignites the air. I would not like that at all.

All to say, I have my specific likes and dislikes on this and will make the plea I always do; leave me a subclass or two at higher levels, then make all the anime combat gods that you want.

But to answer your question, I have no issue with high level fighters learning from a mentor, and yes, Tomas learning from that dragon warlord instead of merging with him would have hit different for sure. But what techniques are high level martials learning? That's where I think we'll find all the disagreement.

Honestly, I think Tome of Battle in 3e did "high level martial" quite well in many of the mundane disciplines. Simple stuff like "attack/act twice in round", "do obscene damage", "move fast and make a devastating charge attack", "inflict stun/inaction/etc.", "penetrate Resistances/Hardness/etc.", "weaken enemy by attacking", "move really fast", "react really fast", etc. You can do a ton with basic numbers at least on the combat level. I think if 5e martials were just like twice as strong as they are now (in terms of durability and offense, and with significantly improved save game), many of the problems could be solved and there's a lot you could give them out of combat (for starters, let them be masters of the skill system and give them some extra abilities to codify that e.g. Barbarians and Strength Fighters can actually do feats of immense strength out of combat too).

That said, if we look for an edition where casters and martials are still quite different but martials are quite possibly better at combat and the edition is nevertheless extremely popular, Pathfinder 2e is right there. It did that really well. Casters were nerfed, nobody took umbrage since they were still under their own systems and still clearly magical and did cool stuff. The martial stuff just got stronger and saves buffed so that you need critical fail to truly land much stuff. It has its own share of issues but in the caster/martial-split, I think it's the closest D&D-likes have ever landed on actual balance (aside from the wonky balance of the days of yore, though I did enjoy it too - but dying to your leg hitting a spike that deals 1d4 was kinda stupid).

[Segev]

It's been ages, but if I remember correctly, Tomas received incredible physical power ups and martial prowess, dominion over dragons, and I think there was like something about their relationship with elves... maybe his people had originally enslaved elves, and instead Tomas marries the elf queen and is not a tyrant, because there's still Tomas somewhere in there.

Anyways... the point is that I want my fighter to be recognizable as my fighter when I reach higher levels. I know you didn't suggest anything, but that stuff always gets thrown around when high level martials are discussed in the context of this disparity.I mean, "dominion over dragons" and "alliance with elves" is not really a class-based thing, generally speaking. Attempts to do the former have happened in 3.5-style PrCs and are always rather disappointing. Even spellcasters at best manage to have "domination" type spells that can bring a few - at most - under their sway.

I'd be all for mechanics that enable either ability-based or straight-up class-based dragon-taming, though. As one small example. If ability-based, make it something martials are naturally good at. e.g. how the Champion Fighter will always be able to add at least half his proficiency bonus to it (though that probably isn't tipping the odds significantly, honestly, for something like this). But things LIKE that.


I think martials don't get enough at low levels, let alone at high levels.And, yet, when I suggest giving martials more things, I'm told, "Harumph! There's nothing to give them! Everything is in spells, now, and if ANYTHING they can do RESEMBLES what a spell can do, they're just spellcasters! Harumph harumph!" (I exaggerate my pharaphrasing a bit to illustrate my frustration with the basic, "It's your fault martials can't have nice things; stop trying to give them nice things because having nice things makes them not martials!" catch-22 this "reasoning" sets up.)


But also, even the people that cry out "Guy at the Gym Fallacy" every other sentence have their limits; see the "Can you grapple a Gaseous Form" thread. I think you can. But some people were quite dismissive and thought the idea was ludicrous because "come on man, real life!". Some of these people probably wouldn't mind it if their high level fighter could swing his sword so quickly he ignites the air. I would not like that at all.What if "grapple the air" and "ignite my sword with my fire-sword technique" were something like Martial Maneuvers or other class features, rather than being innately-doable? Garpal the Grappler is so good at grappling that he can wrestle a tornado (because he spends a superiority die when he initiates the grapple and adds that to his ability check, and it explicitly allows him to grapple even things that say they are immune to grappling).


All to say, I have my specific likes and dislikes on this and will make the plea I always do; leave me a subclass or two at higher levels, then make all the anime combat gods that you want.

But to answer your question, I have no issue with high level fighters learning from a mentor, and yes, Tomas learning from that dragon warlord instead of merging with him would have hit different for sure. But what techniques are high level martials learning? That's where I think we'll find all the disagreement.Well, here's the next question, based on the first sentence in this quote, here: What are your limits for your high-level martials? If you are already limiting them to the point that they are not allowed to be as powerful as high level casters without being "anime combat gods" (which you do not want to have to play), then you really should just be looking for games that don't go into those high levels.

But the question is, what defines "anime combat god" vs. "acceptable superhuman feats?" Should Barbara the Barbarian be able to hurl a javelin so hard and so far that she can hit a fleeing phoenix with it? Should she be able to do so with her specially-commissioned chain harpoon, and then drag a dragon speared by it back to the ground? Or is that too "anime combat god(dess)" for your taste? Should Rydre the Rider be able to leap onto a dragon's back (or a pegasus's back, or a couatl's back, or a kirin's back) and, through a course of several rounds of grappling and riding checks, break it into submission and force it to let him use it as a controlled mount until he dismounts? Should He-Man be able to push on the walls of a tower and have the entire tower slide off its base and collapse to the ground? What about crushing an iron golem down into a basketball-sized sphere with sheer strength?

[stoutstien]

D4 hit points is just one example.

I tire of the commonality when people (in general, no one in particular) demand spellcasters get nerfed they want it to the point of not worth playing anymore. Obligatory: That is not the same thing as not wanting any nerfs whatsoever.

I want reasonableness. A wizard not able to learn every spell everywhere is fine. A wizard needing to roll to cast any spell at all to see if it works then have to make an attack roll/monsters makes a save, and then loses his next two turns due to fatigue and risk insanity is too much (speaking hyperbolically but not too far from suggestions in the past).

How about:

-You round down instead of up when deciding what amor Prof works with spells casting. For example the EK stays the same but a wizard dipping cleric scan't cast wizard spells in armor. Especially focus on shield proficiencies. It should be roughly as difficult for a wizard to get access to the ability to cast while holding a shield as it is for a barbarian to learn fireball.

-Each class spells slots and spells are separate. Could modify this based on source if you wanted some to work better together than others.

-cut the 3-7 really broken spells out. I don't use the word broken lightly. Alternatively you can take those spells and make them explicit class features to prevent mix and match.

-clean up corner cases that circumvent concentration limits and rework concentration checks to be a tad more difficult to bulletproof.

-Remove easy access to circumventing casting in close combat. There's no reason that spell casters get a way to avoid the attack roll in melee penalty when they also have access to other effects that already bypass it. You can make exception with warlocks and at the same time make EB a class feature.

- casting provokes opportunity attacks unless it's a bonus action. Alternatively you could base it on the components needed. it would be nice for those to matter again.

[PhoenixPhyre]

How about:

1. You round down instead of up when deciding what amor Prof works with spells casting. For example the EK stays the same but a wizard dipping cleric scan't cast wizard spells in armor. Especially focus on shield proficiencies. It should be roughly as difficult for a wizard to get access to the ability to cast while holding a shield as it is for a barbarian to learn fireball.

2. Each class spells slots and spells are separate. Could modify this based on source if you wanted some to work better together than others.

3. cut the 3-7 really broken spells out. I don't use the word broken lightly. Alternatively you can take those spells and make them explicit class features to prevent mix and match.

4. clean up corner cases that circumvent concentration limits and rework concentration checks to be a tad more difficult to bulletproof.

5. Remove easy access to circumventing casting in close combat. There's no reason that spell casters get a way to avoid the attack roll in melee penalty when they also have access to other effects that already bypass it. You can make exception with warlocks and at the same time make EB a class feature.

6. casting provokes opportunity attacks unless it's a bonus action. Alternatively you could base it on the components needed. it would be nice for those to matter again.

Numbered for ease
1. I like the "cast in what brung ya" model. You can't cast wizard spells in any armor at all because the wizard class doesn't give proficiency itself. Bladesingers can cast in light armor, but no shields.
2. Meh.
3. Agreed.
4. Agreed, especially the latter part. It should be much harder to keep concentration when getting hit, even by scratch damage. I'd say removing War Caster (and other effects) giving advantage goes a long way. Let sorcerers be good at it, but no one else.
5. Goes for ranged combat generally as well.
6. I'd say based on components. Any S/M should provoke, even if you're using a focus. And casting should be obvious (unless components are nullified via silent spell).

[stoutstien]

Numbered for ease
1. I like the "cast in what brung ya" model. You can't cast wizard spells in any armor at all because the wizard class doesn't give proficiency itself. Bladesingers can cast in light armor, but no shields.
2. Meh.
3. Agreed.
4. Agreed, especially the latter part. It should be much harder to keep concentration when getting hit, even by scratch damage. I'd say removing War Caster (and other effects) giving advantage goes a long way. Let sorcerers be good at it, but no one else.
5. Goes for ranged combat generally as well.
6. I'd say based on components. Any S/M should provoke, even if you're using a focus. And casting should be obvious (unless components are nullified via silent spell).

Number two is mostly for 2 cases. Divine smite and warlock's upcasting. Both are mechanically sound in isolation but they just mix with other stuff too readily. Alternatively you could just make Divine smite to function solely off paladin spell slots and have pact magic do something similar. It just functionally odd that pack magic can be used to cast spells that didn't come from the agreement that is fueling it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Number two is mostly for 2 cases. Divine smite and warlock's upcasting. Both are mechanically sound in isolation but they just mix with other stuff too readily. Alternatively you could just make Divine smite to function solely off paladin spell slots and have pact magic do something similar. It just functionally odd that pack magic can be used to cast spells that didn't come from the agreement that is fueling it.

Meh was just "I don't have an opinion about this," not agreement or disagreement. I can see arguments on both sides.

[Eldariel]

How about:

-You round down instead of up when deciding what amor Prof works with spells casting. For example the EK stays the same but a wizard dipping cleric scan't cast wizard spells in armor. Especially focus on shield proficiencies. It should be roughly as difficult for a wizard to get access to the ability to cast while holding a shield as it is for a barbarian to learn fireball.

-Each class spells slots and spells are separate. Could modify this based on source if you wanted some to work better together than others.

-cut the 3-7 really broken spells out. I don't use the word broken lightly. Alternatively you can take those spells and make them explicit class features to prevent mix and match.

-clean up corner cases that circumvent concentration limits and rework concentration checks to be a tad more difficult to bulletproof.

-Remove easy access to circumventing casting in close combat. There's no reason that spell casters get a way to avoid the attack roll in melee penalty when they also have access to other effects that already bypass it. You can make exception with warlocks and at the same time make EB a class feature.

- casting provokes opportunity attacks unless it's a bonus action. Alternatively you could base it on the components needed. it would be nice for those to matter again.

Last two coupled with something like simultaneous Initiative to make it more expensive to get out of melee when someone gets to you is about where I am with my houserules at this point. Though I haven't removed Smiting with other classes' slots but I could see that being reasonable. The first one has the issue of feats and racials; Mountain Dwarf, Moderately Armored, etc. need to be defined to either work or not work (given the goal, probably to not work at least not without an additional feat) with casting. I do like the idea though.

EDIT: Also, I play with Restrained preventing Somatics and Grappled requiring an opposed Athletics/Acrobatics to do so. I find it odd that RAW doesn't penalize having your hands bound up in something else if you need them for casting.

[stoutstien]

Meh was just "I don't have an opinion about this," not agreement or disagreement. I can see arguments on both sides.

Fair.

I wish there was a better way of fielding stuff like this with players so they can see what limitations are actually enjoyable to interact with compared to feeling like it's just punishment for the sake of balance.

I'm particularly interested in ways that others can interact with it as well such as potentially allowing grappling to cause concentration checks or EKs feeling more like the arcane magic knight because they have that niche preserved.

[Aimeryan]

They don't need to suck they just need to "suck" when compared to a straight warrior at being a warrior and a straight mage at being a straight mage. This doesn't mean they can't be the best at something it just can't be those things.

Not sure how this got replied to, but I didn't want to lose the train of thought.

I think the problem I have with having something like a Champion do X amount of damage per round and then something like a Bladesinger Wizard doing X-Y damage (where Y is greater than 0) is that the Champion is doing this by literally saying 'I attack'. If that is all that is required to reach the ceiling than it is inherently too dull for my tastes.

This is the problem with having super simple martials that do one thing - there is no room for anyone else in that equation. If the martials do many things, and the casters do many things, then there is now room for give and take. This is the why I will always argue that martials should be capable of more; if the DM has a party of 5 year olds and so require simple options, then great, they can just use lower challenge levels to compensate and tell their players to not worry about XYZ features - but DM and players trying to work with such simple options being balanced around is much more difficult.

[stoutstien]

Last two coupled with something like simultaneous Initiative to make it more expensive to get out of melee when someone gets to you is about where I am with my houserules at this point. Though I haven't removed Smiting with other classes' slots but I could see that being reasonable. The first one has the issue of feats and racials; Mountain Dwarf, Moderately Armored, etc. need to be defined to either work or not work (given the goal, probably to not work at least not without an additional feat) with casting. I do like the idea though.

EDIT: Also, I play with Restrained preventing Somatics and Grappled requiring an opposed Athletics/Acrobatics to do so. I find it odd that RAW doesn't penalize having your hands bound up in something else if you need them for casting.

Something I have done is open up reaction attacks for everyone. They can trade either their movement speed or one of their attacks from The following turn. The downfall is this attack is always made at disadvantage. However if this attack hit somebody while they're casting a spell they immediately have to make a concentration check or it's lost.


Not sure how this got replied to, but I didn't want to lose the train of thought.

I think the problem I have with having something like a Champion do X amount of damage per round and then something like a Bladesinger Wizard doing X-Y damage (where Y is greater than 0) is that the Champion is doing this by literally saying 'I attack'. If that is all that is required to reach the ceiling than it is inherently too dull for my tastes.

This is the problem with having super simple martials that do one thing - there is no room for anyone else in that equation. If the martials do many things, and the casters do many things, then there is now room for give and take. This is the why I will always argue that martials should be capable of more; if the DM has a party of 5 year olds and so require simple options, then great, they can just use lower challenge levels to compensate and tell their players to not worry about XYZ features - but DM and players trying to work with such simple options being balanced around is much more difficult.

I don't know if this is necessarily true. Just because something simple doesn't mean it can't be cool and powerful nor does something being simple mean it's uninteresting. At the same time there should be a few incredibly dull options that are not lagging behind just because they're dull. Some players enjoy dull. They should be punished for that fact. They don't have to be as good but the Gap should be small enough that anybody without a spreadsheet and a calculator shouldn't see the difference.

Like rage itself is a very simple feature. It's not perfect but it has a lot of potential and it's easily grasped even if it's actual effect is rather elegant and complex when it it's cross reference with reckless attack.

I would say that there should be more subsystems in play other than spellcasting. Both the weapon and armor tables are anemic and there's a great opportunity there to have throttled complexity.

Crafting can go in this area as well. I know crafting isn't universally liked as far as the heroes doing but having it as a option would give them more avenues.

[sithlordnergal]

How about:

1) You round down instead of up when deciding what amor Prof works with spells casting. For example the EK stays the same but a wizard dipping cleric scan't cast wizard spells in armor. Especially focus on shield proficiencies. It should be roughly as difficult for a wizard to get access to the ability to cast while holding a shield as it is for a barbarian to learn fireball.

2) Each class spells slots and spells are separate. Could modify this based on source if you wanted some to work better together than others.

3) cut the 3-7 really broken spells out. I don't use the word broken lightly. Alternatively you can take those spells and make them explicit class features to prevent mix and match.

4) clean up corner cases that circumvent concentration limits and rework concentration checks to be a tad more difficult to bulletproof.

5) Remove easy access to circumventing casting in close combat. There's no reason that spell casters get a way to avoid the attack roll in melee penalty when they also have access to other effects that already bypass it. You can make exception with warlocks and at the same time make EB a class feature.

6) casting provokes opportunity attacks unless it's a bonus action. Alternatively you could base it on the components needed. it would be nice for those to matter again.

1) I can be ok with that. I personally prefer gishes, but I know a lot of people dislike them because they "break" the game. Though from my experience I've yet to see a Wizard in armor actually break anything...Correction, I have seen ONE spell caster break the game via AC. However, that caster had +2 Plate Armor, +3 shield, Ring of Protection, Cloak of Protection, the Defense Fighting Style, and a Staff of Power. It was also in AL, which was the only way you'd be able to reliably get those items. I'd be shocked if anyone could get all of that in a non-AL style game. And if they do...well...I mean, the DM kiiinda made that beast themselves at that point. The items themselves were more of an issue than the Shield spell, since they had a base AC of around 30.


2) They did that at the very beginning of 5e. It didn't work very well, and they changed it with an errata. To quote the errata itself "Divine Smite (p. 85). “Paladin spell slot” has been changed to “spell slot.”" I wouldn't walk back changes that even WotC felt the need to change with an errata. XD


3) You say there are spells that are "broken". What are these spells? I've yet to see a broken spell, not even Wish/Simulacrum. If you have trouble working around something like Wish or Teleport...I mean, make better adventures? There are ways to deal with both. For Teleport, Private Sanctum and Forbiddance are both spells that can be made permanent, and prevent Teleportation. Nondetection can be cast on a person, place, or object to prevent any form of Divination Magic from being used on it. From what I've found, every single spell in the game has a counter of some kind.


4) Ehhh...What do you mean by Concentration limits? If you mean "concentrating on multiple spells", I'm curious what cases allow you to do so outside of Wild Magic? As for making Concentration easy to break...ehhh, I don't actually think this is something that should be changed. As it stands, Concentration isn't actually that hard to break, provided you're playing without feats or multiclassing. Concentration only becomes bulletproof if you have feats and multiclassing. And honestly, I'm ok if a player decides to spend an ASI or level to become really good at Concentration. Make Concentration easier to break by boosting the DC, and you'll break the balance of games without any bonus stuff. Removing feats and ways to get saves could be a way to go, but I honestly think its a fine trade off.


5) I assume you're talking about casting Ranged Attack spells in melee here? That's the only time you ever have a penalty for making an attack roll in melee after all. Again, I'm fine with them having to spend an ASI to get a feat. Especially since its a feat they very likely won't use outside of avoiding the disadvantage of making a ranged attack in melee. Its a waste of your ASIs. Also, they don't have other ways to bypass that, unless you mean "Cast a spell that uses a save instead of an attack roll" which...I mean, is that a bypass? I dunno...I don't think it is.


6) I'm all for this, if only because it adds more tactical depth!! I'd make an exception for Touch and Reaction spells, but all other spells give enemies an attack of opportunity against you. That said, I would not have the attack cause a Concentration Save since its happening before your spell goes off. As for components, I'm of two minds about it. It would be neat if they mattered more, but at the same time I like the image of a caster holding up a special item to cast their spells instead. Maybe make more spells that need components with a GP value?

[stoutstien]

1) I can be ok with that. I personally prefer gishes, but I know a lot of people dislike them because they "break" the game. Though from my experience I've yet to see a Wizard in armor actually break anything...


2) They did that at the very beginning of 5e. It didn't work very well, and they changed it with an errata. To quote the errata itself "Divine Smite (p. 85). “Paladin spell slot” has been changed to “spell slot.”" I wouldn't walk back changes that even WotC felt the need to change with an errata. XD


3) You say there are spells that are "broken". What are these spells? I've yet to see a broken spell, not even Wish/Simulacrum. If you have trouble working around something like Wish or Teleport...I mean, make better adventures? There are ways to deal with both. For Teleport, Private Sanctum and Forbiddance are both spells that can be made permanent, and prevent Teleportation. Nondetection can be cast on a person, place, or object to prevent any form of Divination Magic from being used on it. From what I've found, every single spell in the game has a counter of some kind.


4) Ehhh...What do you mean by Concentration limits? If you mean "concentrating on multiple spells", I'm curious what cases allow you to do so outside of Wild Magic? As for making Concentration easy to break...ehhh, I don't actually think this is something that should be changed. As it stands, Concentration isn't actually that hard to break, provided you're playing without feats or multiclassing. Concentration only becomes bulletproof if you have feats and multiclassing. And honestly, I'm ok if a player decides to spend an ASI or level to become really good at Concentration.


5) I assume you're talking about casting Ranged Attack spells in melee here? That's the only time you ever have a penalty for making an attack roll in melee after all. Again, I'm fine with them having to spend an ASI to get a feat. Especially since its a feat they very likely won't use outside of avoiding the disadvantage of making a ranged attack in melee. Its a waste of your ASIs. Also, they don't have other ways to bypass that, unless you mean "Cast a spell that uses a save instead of an attack roll" which...I mean, is that a bypass? I dunno...I don't think it is.


6) I'm all for this, if only because it adds more tactical depth!! I'd make an exception for Touch and Reaction spells, but all other spells give enemies an attack of opportunity against you. That said, I would not have the attack cause a Concentration Save since its happening before your spell goes off. As for components, I'm of two minds about it. It would be neat if they mattered more, but at the same time I like the image of a caster holding up a special item to cast their spells instead. Maybe make more spells that need components with a GP value?

Yep every single spell in the game has a counter and those counter happens to be other spells. Yay.....fun.... engaging.... If you want to interact with higher level magic you have to be a spellcaster or else. It's lazy, unimaginative, and inconsistent with any setting logic unless you remove half the classes from the game and just assume that the only reason the universe hasn't imploded yet is because of some weird Cold war era type peace treaty. Alternatively the first person/caster that gets one of these combos wins DND. Nothing short of DM fiat prevents them from just completely destroying the game. That's definitively broken.

I don't know about you but the fact that I can systematically tell you what the best way to do everything is and the best way is always involving spellcasting because spell Casting inherently doesn't have any limits and can be stacked with a lot of other things removes most options from the game. it's false depth. It's attrition by addition.

You want to be hard to hit you need the shield spell. The non-magical versions of it is either buried halfway through a specific subclass and/or cost a feat and is still not as good. Doesn't matter if it's not at will because it's not as good and the amount of attacks that a player will face never gets to the point where it matters. You can repeat this flow with just about everything. The more content you use with 5e the worst it gets and it's due to magic<spells> and oddly spell casting subclasses. They have yet to introduce a single non-spell casting subclass that inherently threatens the game.

[Pex]

How about:

-You round down instead of up when deciding what amor Prof works with spells casting. For example the EK stays the same but a wizard dipping cleric scan't cast wizard spells in armor. Especially focus on shield proficiencies. It should be roughly as difficult for a wizard to get access to the ability to cast while holding a shield as it is for a barbarian to learn fireball.

Wizard not able to cast in armor is fine with me. Clerics with armor is too traditional to remove.


-Each class spells slots and spells are separate. Could modify this based on source if you wanted some to work better together than others.

5E spell slots are fine as is. It's a feature low level spells remain relevant at high levels. Wizard 5/Cleric 5 is not casting Animate Objects or Raise Dead, but casting Bless in a 5th level slot to cover the entire party is not unreasonable. I was dubious in 2014 of using spell slots to improve spells instead of caster level, but I have come to accept it.


-cut the 3-7 really broken spells out. I don't use the word broken lightly. Alternatively you can take those spells and make them explicit class features to prevent mix and match.

Subjective which spells are the problem, but not an issue in concept.


-clean up corner cases that circumvent concentration limits and rework concentration checks to be a tad more difficult to bulletproof.

No. One Concentration spell is limit enough. They can benefit the whole party. It's the spellcaster doing his job.



-Remove easy access to circumventing casting in close combat. There's no reason that spell casters get a way to avoid the attack roll in melee penalty when they also have access to other effects that already bypass it. You can make exception with warlocks and at the same time make EB a class feature.

- casting provokes opportunity attacks unless it's a bonus action. Alternatively you could base it on the components needed. it would be nice for those to matter again.

No because gishes are a thing and should remain a thing. Also interferes with fun. A player will be upset he can't do anything just because an orc is next to him. AoO for spellcasting exist in 3E/Pathfinder, but it is still possible to cast. Removing it in 5E is a buff, but I've come to accept it as a feature. A spellcaster casts spells. It's what the player wants to do. It why he's playing the class. Let him cast spells. Stop forbidding him because he exists.

[sithlordnergal]

Yep every single spell in the game has a counter and those counter happens to be other spells. Yay.....fun.... engaging.... If you want to interact with higher level magic you have to be a spellcaster or else. It's lazy, unimaginative, and inconsistent with any setting logic unless you remove half the classes from the game and just assume that the only reason the universe hasn't imploded yet is because of some weird Cold war era type peace treaty. Alternatively the first person/caster that gets one of these combos wins DND. Nothing short of DM fiat prevents them from just completely destroying the game. That's definitively broken.

I don't know about you but the fact that I can systematically tell you what the best way to do everything is and the best way is always involving spellcasting because spell Casting inherently doesn't have any limits and can be stacked with a lot of other things removes most options from the game. it's false depth. It's attrition by addition.

You want to be hard to hit you need the shield spell. The non-magical versions of it is either buried halfway through a specific subclass and/or cost a feat and is still not as good. Doesn't matter if it's not at will because it's not as good and the amount of attacks that a player will face never gets to the point where it matters. You can repeat this flow with just about everything. The more content you use with 5e the worst it gets and it's due to magic<spells> and oddly spell casting subclasses. They have yet to introduce a single non-spell casting subclass that inherently threatens the game.

I mean, if you want to give non-magical ways to break through spells, that's easy enough to do. You can allow martials an opposed check of some sort, or you can give different martials an ability that potentially allows them to break the spell. Like a martial slicing through the magical energy itself, ending Concentration early without attacking the caster via an attack action they can use. Though I wouldn't make it guaranteed. Maybe scale it off spell level, so that higher level spells are harder to break, or make it so you can only do it once per round. You just need to balance it in a way that allows martials to be useful, without completely invalidating spells with a longer duration that Instantaneous.


That said, I'm not sure how its inconsistent, or why you'd need to assume that there's a peace treaty of some sort. Now, in the older versions of DnD where you actually did have massive, world changing spells that could make you into a literal deity, or a spell that can kill everyone in a world related to a specific being, then I could see how it could become inconsistent. But in 5e? Magic just isn't that strong. Its strong, sure, but its not strong enough that a single level 20 spell caster can upend the world on their own. Not unless the DM is specifically saying "Hey players, you can now cast the ritual <insert villain here> did to screw over the world". But for spells in the books? Not even Wish can do that.


As for the best way to do everything has to involve spellcasting, I'd say that's more on the developer's side of things. While I do agree that we need more mundane methods of doing something, I don't see why those mundane methods can't exist along side the magical/spell methods. I feel like 5e would benefit from a better crafting system. As it stands, crafting items is not viable for adventuring parties. It takes far too long, and can be extremely expensive. Hell, according to the DMG it takes 4 days and costs 100gp to make a single Healing Potion. Meanwhile that same Healing Potion costs 50gp on the Equipment List.

Meanwhile if we had an expanded crafting system, you could allow martials to make things that let them achieve the same results as a spell, but via mundane methods. And having those mundane methods would be a boon. Wizard casts Fly, Rogue hops on a magic broom, and the Fighter uses some mundane contraption they built. They pass through an Anti-Magic Sphere, the Wizard and Rogue fall to the ground while the Fighter keeps going.


Finally, the Shield spell. Is it good? Yeah. Is it game breaking? Gonna say no. Don't get me wrong, it can allow someone in Full Plate with a Shield to reach 25 AC, but I wouldn't call that broken. Now, it did allow the one character I mentioned in my post to reach 35 AC...but again, the issue came from the fact they had a 30 AC from the start, not the +5 from Shield. But that 25 AC loses value the longer you go on. As someone who enjoys high tier play, 25 AC is really nothing. Additionally, there are a few things you can do to help.

Shield may add +5 to your AC, but if its a Wizard in armor then I'm willing to bet they don't have a very high Athletics or Acrobatics. Shove them prone or Grapple them, every creature can do it. I have seen no rule that states an NPC is not allowed to Grapple or Shove. It takes an Attack Action, but all creatures are allowed to take the Attack Action. Shield won't help much if they're grappled and knocked prone.

[stoutstien]

Wizard not able to cast in armor is fine with me. Clerics with armor is too traditional to remove.






No. One Concentration spell is limit enough. They can benefit the whole party. It's the spellcaster doing his job.




No because gishes are a thing and should remain a thing. Also interferes with fun. A player will be upset he can't do anything just because an orc is next to him. AoO for spellcasting exist in 3E/Pathfinder, but it is still possible to cast. Removing it in 5E is a buff, but I've come to accept it as a feature. A spellcaster casts spells. It's what the player wants to do. It why he's playing the class. Let him cast spells. Stop forbidding him because he exists.

Clerics are fine but cleric/wizards give up very little for doubling there EHP and a domain on top of that. Armor should be cool and iconic. Currently it's a hop and skip to maximizing return regardless of theme. It's false choice. Clerics are the iconic moderately/heavy armor caster so that's fine but everyone else needs some more opportunity costs to even it out.

I was referring to the cases where casting can circumvent the one concentration limits one way or the other. It's a soft cap rather than a hard stop.


Gishes are fine. They can stay. Heck by limiting who can cast in melee gishes get more love because right now gish is just what you do when you aren't casting something better rather than an actual supported theme. If they can end scenes with an action then something needs to counter it besides another spell.

[stoutstien]

I mean, if you want to give non-magical ways to break through spells, that's easy enough to do. You can allow martials an opposed check of some sort, or you can give different martials an ability that potentially allows them to break the spell. Like a martial slicing through the magical energy itself, ending Concentration early without attacking the caster via an attack action they can use. Though I wouldn't make it guaranteed. Maybe scale it off spell level, so that higher level spells are harder to break, or make it so you can only do it once per round. You just need to balance it in a way that allows martials to be useful, without completely invalidating spells with a longer duration that Instantaneous.


That said, I'm not sure how its inconsistent, or why you'd need to assume that there's a peace treaty of some sort. Now, in the older versions of DnD where you actually did have massive, world changing spells that could make you into a literal deity, or a spell that can kill everyone in a world related to a specific being, then I could see how it could become inconsistent. But in 5e? Magic just isn't that strong. Its strong, sure, but its not strong enough that a single level 20 spell caster can upend the world on their own. Not unless the DM is specifically saying "Hey players, you can now cast the ritual <insert villain here> did to screw over the world". But for spells in the books? Not even Wish can do that.


As for the best way to do everything has to involve spellcasting, I'd say that's more on the developer's side of things. While I do agree that we need more mundane methods of doing something, I don't see why those mundane methods can't exist along side the magical/spell methods. I feel like 5e would benefit from a better crafting system. As it stands, crafting items is not viable for adventuring parties. It takes far too long, and can be extremely expensive. Hell, according to the DMG it takes 4 days and costs 100gp to make a single Healing Potion. Meanwhile that same Healing Potion costs 50gp on the Equipment List.

Meanwhile if we had an expanded crafting system, you could allow martials to make things that let them achieve the same results as a spell, but via mundane methods. And having those mundane methods would be a boon. Wizard casts Fly, Rogue hops on a magic broom, and the Fighter uses some mundane contraption they built. They pass through an Anti-Magic Sphere, the Wizard and Rogue fall to the ground while the Fighter keeps going.


Finally, the Shield spell. Is it good? Yeah. Is it game breaking? Gonna say no. Don't get me wrong, it can allow someone in Full Plate with a Shield to reach 25 AC, but I wouldn't call that broken. Now, it did allow the one character I mentioned in my post to reach 35 AC...but again, the issue came from the fact they had a 30 AC from the start, not the +5 from Shield. But that 25 AC loses value the longer you go on. As someone who enjoys high tier play, 25 AC is really nothing. Additionally, there are a few things you can do to help.

Shield may add +5 to your AC, but if its a Wizard in armor then I'm willing to bet they don't have a very high Athletics or Acrobatics. Shove them prone or Grapple them, every creature can do it. I have seen no rule that states an NPC is not allowed to Grapple or Shove. It takes an Attack Action, but all creatures are allowed to take the Attack Action. Shield won't help much if they're grappled and knocked prone.

If infinite angel armies doesn't break your games that's fine but it shouldn't be a baseline option in a game where having 4 attacks in a turn is the equivalent feature. In the same vien you can't have onion druids and barbarian's capstone. It just doesn't add up

[sithlordnergal]

If infinite angel armies doesn't break your games that's fine but it shouldn't be a baseline option in a game where having 4 attacks in a turn is the equivalent feature. In the same vien you can't have onion druids and barbarian's capstone. It just doesn't add up

I'd love to see the spell that allows for infinite angel armies. I mean, I love me some minionmancy, and I can do some fun stuff with Shepard Druid/Creation Bard via Conjure Animals and Dancing Object. And I have toyed with the idea of going all in worth Spore Druid minionmancy. Don't get me wrong, the Spore Druid can potentially have 149 creatures under their command at level 20. However, that requires you to dump every single spell slot from 3rd to 8th into Animate Dead, use your 9th level slot for Conjure Animals, and spend every use of Fungal Infestation all at once. Not to mention you need 112 bodies to animate

And even then, you're walking around with 149 creatures that can't deal magical damage at level 20, with only your 1st and 2nd level slots left to you. Good luck taking down the monster that's immune to non-magical weapons with that "army". Gonna go invade a city with it? You'll be able to take over the nearby town that only has 20 or so guards. But uh, that city with fortified walls, and possibly actual soldiers? Good luck.

[Pex]

I was referring to the cases where casting can circumvent the one concentration limits one way or the other. It's a soft cap rather than a hard stop.


It can still interfere with player fun. He casts his concentration buff/debuff then does absolutely nothing for the rest of the combat because he has to spend his action to maintain concentration while everyone else rolls dice and do stuff? No, he gets to play too.

[Amechra]

Yep every single spell in the game has a counter and those counter happens to be other spells.

There were a pair of blog posts that wrote up mundane countermeasures (http://throneofsalt.blogspot.com/2018/05/forth-and-fear-no-darkness.html)/detection (https://throneofsalt.blogspot.com/2018/05/methods-of-detection.html) methods for different kinds of magic. It wasn't written for 5e, but it shouldn't be too hard to adapt, and you could honestly do this with a lot of the spell list. Like, there's really no reason why you couldn't make most healing spells something that you use Healer's Kits or Medicine for, with healing magic being primarily focused on removing curses or supplying you with temporary HP.

...

As for giving martial characters nice things... I think martial characters need something like spellcasting, in the sense that it should scale nicely if you multiclass. Like, I dunno, there's a "martial level" that gives you Extra Attack + superiority dice + maneuvers + , with Barbarians/Fighters/Monks being full-martials, Paladins/Rangers being half-martials, and everyone else [I]maybe getting a third-martial subclass.

[stoutstien]

It can still interfere with player fun. He casts his concentration buff/debuff then does absolutely nothing for the rest of the combat because he has to spend his action to maintain concentration while everyone else rolls dice and do stuff? No, he gets to play too.

I was thinking ring of spell storing, glyphs, Arcane Abeyance, and SSI. Things that allow casters to shift concentration to some else in such a way they effectively bypass the limitations.

**SSI barely makes the list. The 1-2 spell level limit keeps it in check but I still don't like it.**

[sithlordnergal]

I was thinking ring of spell storing, glyphs, Arcane Abeyance, and SSI. Things that allow casters to shift concentration to some else in such a way they effectively bypass the limitations.

**SSI barely makes the list. The 1-2 spell level limit keeps it in check but I still don't like it.**

Oh, okay I see what you're talking about. So things like a spell caster putting Haste into a Ring of Spell Storing, and then the Fighter casts Haste from the Ring, basically allowing you to stack buffs. Honestly, I feel like that's working as intended. Yes, it does allow the Fighter to benefit from two different spells, like mixing Haste and Fly. But I don't think that's as much of an issue as you might think. The spells in question still require Concentration after all, the only difference is who is Concentrating on it. If a Wizard used Haste from a Ring, then cast Fly, Haste would end.

The only thing in the list that actually allows you to bypass Concentration is Glyph of Warding. It specifically calls out that if a spell requires Concentration, it lasts for the full duration instead. However, given that Glyph of Warding has some pretty harsh limitations on what can be cast into it and that it can't really be moved after being cast, I feel like its a fair trade.

[stoutstien]

I'd love to see the spell that allows for infinite angel armies. I mean, I love me some minionmancy, and I can do some fun stuff with Shepard Druid/Creation Bard via Conjure Animals and Dancing Object. And I have toyed with the idea of going all in worth Spore Druid minionmancy. Don't get me wrong, the Spore Druid can potentially have 149 creatures under their command at level 20. However, that requires you to dump every single spell slot from 3rd to 8th into Animate Dead, use your 9th level slot for Conjure Animals, and spend every use of Fungal Infestation all at once. Not to mention you need 112 bodies to animate

And even then, you're walking around with 149 creatures that can't deal magical damage at level 20, with only your 1st and 2nd level slots left to you. Good luck taking down the monster that's immune to non-magical weapons with that "army". Gonna go invade a city with it? You'll be able to take over the nearby town that only has 20 or so guards. But uh, that city with fortified walls, and possibly actual soldiers? Good luck.

Planar binding + wish + simulacrum + magic circle+ whatever. Mix them up in random orders and you get more chains of neverending minions than not.

Instant 180 days duration planar binding alone is busted let alone once a day for free for as long as you can cast.

Start tossing in true polymorph and *poof* your world is done.

*The new resent version is just to use create magen and either be a necromancy or use aura of life to avoid to costs. Sure individually they arent powerful but you have unlimited quantities.*

They can't be trusted to make power spells because they never double check their work.


Oh, okay I see what you're talking about. So things like a spell caster putting Haste into a Ring of Spell Storing, and then the Fighter casts Haste from the Ring, basically allowing you to stack buffs. Honestly, I feel like that's working as intended. Yes, it does allow the Fighter to benefit from two different spells, like mixing Haste and Fly. But I don't think that's as much of an issue as you might think. The spells in question still require Concentration after all, the only difference is who is Concentrating on it. If a Wizard used Haste from a Ring, then cast Fly, Haste would end.

The only thing in the list that actually allows you to bypass Concentration is Glyph of Warding. It specifically calls out that if a spell requires Concentration, it lasts for the full duration instead. However, given that Glyph of Warding has some pretty harsh limitations on what can be cast into it and that it can't really be moved after being cast, I feel like its a fair trade.

This is mostly a minor quibble compared to above. I just don't think it adds anything to the game besides showing that magic has no limits therefore it erodes the game.

[sithlordnergal]

Planar binding + wish + simulacrum + magic circle+ whatever. Mix them up in random orders and you get more chains of neverending minions than not.

Instant 180 days duration planar binding alone is busted let alone once a day for free for as long as you can cast.

Start tossing in true polymorph and *poof* your world is done.

*The new resent version is just to use create magen and either be a necromancy or use aura of life to avoid to costs. Sure individually they arent powerful but you have unlimited quantities.*

They can't be trusted to make power spells because they never double check their work.


Oh, you're talking about chain summoning like that. I actually feel like that's dealt with a lot easier than you might think:

- First, lets go with the Wish chaining to do the Infinite Simulacrum trick. Looking it over, I don't think you can chain Simulacrum. Simulacrum seems to have received an errata, or maybe it was always this way. Cause looking it up, the spell states the following:


You shape an illusory duplicate of one beast or Humanoid that is within range for the entire Casting Time of the spell...the Illusion uses all the Statistics of the creature it duplicates, except that it is a Construct.


Additionally, you can't have more than one Simulacrum, to quote the spell again:


If you cast this spell again, any duplicate you created with this spell is instantly destroyed.


Unless you have a way to turn a Construct into a Humanoid, a Simulacrum can't copy a Simulacrum. Now, you could use True Polymorph to turn the Simulacrum into a real creature, but we have some problems:

- First, I don't think you can use True Polymorph to turn a Simulacrum into yourself. The spell only lets you turn into a kind of creature, not a specific creature. So turning the Simulacrum into yourself should just turn it into a standard NPC version of your race. There is a way around this, but it leads directly into our second problem

- Second, you could use True Polymorph to turn the Simulacrum into a Metallic Dragon with a CR close to your level instead, and Concentrate on it for an hour. It'll be a dragon now for all intents and purposes, and Metallic Dragons can shapechange into a Humanoid. In fact, I'm pretty sure Metallic Dragons are the only creatures that have a Shapechange that also changes their creature type. Seems great. Only issue is that there are no Dragons that can cast Wish or Simulacrum. So you'd need to cast Simulacrum again, which risks destroying the Dragon because its not really clear if its still a Simulacrum that you made or not. DM could go either way with that. but more to the point

- Three, you have now employed a Metallic Dragon in your army. A Dragon that is either under your control as a Simulacrum, and can't be copied because its a Simulacrum, or just a regular Dragon. Even IF it turned into a Regular Dragon, and that Dragon remains Friendly towards you, why would it remain in your army? It might let you cast Simulacrum on it, letting you make another Dragon, but even then I wouldn't guarantee it. Don't get me wrong, Metallic Dragons are good aligned, but a Dragon is still a Dragon. Unless there is heavy DM fiat in your favor, that dragon isn't going to be a member of your army.


As for the other methods, we actually know what happens when Wizards and other Spell Casters start making/summoning armies of creatures. Cause remember, that army will not happen over the course of a day, or even a week. Even if you're a level 20 Necromancer Wizard casting nothing but Create Magen every day, that's 4 creatures a day. Gonna take a little while to have enough troops to deal with an army, or lay siege to a castle.

Know what generally happens to most folks that start raising an army like that? A group of 4 to 7 skilled adventurers are hired to go investigate, and potentially ruin that person's day. It would make for a really cool adventure though. You finish one campaign with your Wizard, your epilogue has your Wizard slowly building up an army to take over the world or whatever. Next adventure, you're hired on because there's something odd going on, lots of elementals/demons/celestials/whatever have been seen. Final boss is your old Wizard.



This is mostly a minor quibble compared to above. I just don't think it adds anything to the game besides showing that magic has no limits therefore it erodes the game.

Fair enough. I personally don't think it erodes anything, and I feel like stuff like that does add to the game over all. But I can see where you come from.

[stoutstien]

Oh, you're talking about chain summoning like that. I actually feel like that's dealt with a lot easier than you might think:

- First, lets go with the Wish chaining to do the Infinite Simulacrum trick. Looking it over, I don't think you can chain Simulacrum. Simulacrum seems to have received an errata, or maybe it was always this way. Cause looking it up, the spell states the following:




Additionally, you can't have more than one Simulacrum, to quote the spell again:




Unless you have a way to turn a Construct into a Humanoid, a Simulacrum can't copy a Simulacrum. Now, you could use True Polymorph to turn the Simulacrum into a real creature, but we have some problems:

- First, I don't think you can use True Polymorph to turn a Simulacrum into yourself. The spell only lets you turn into a kind of creature, not a specific creature. So turning the Simulacrum into yourself should just turn it into a standard NPC version of your race. There is a way around this, but it leads directly into our second problem

- Second, you could use True Polymorph to turn the Simulacrum into a Metallic Dragon with a CR close to your level instead, and Concentrate on it for an hour. It'll be a dragon now for all intents and purposes, and Metallic Dragons can shapechange into a Humanoid. In fact, I'm pretty sure Metallic Dragons are the only creatures that have a Shapechange that also changes their creature type. Seems great. Only issue is that there are no Dragons that can cast Wish or Simulacrum. So you'd need to cast Simulacrum again, which risks destroying the Dragon because its not really clear if its still a Simulacrum that you made or not. DM could go either way with that. but more to the point

- Three, you are now employed a Metallic Dragon in your army. A Dragon that is either under your control as a Simulacrum, and can't be copied because its a Simulacrum, or just a regular Dragon. Even IF that Dragon is friendly towards you, why would it remain in your army? It might let you cast Simulacrum on it, letting you make another Dragon. Don't get me wrong, Metallic Dragons are good aligned, but a Dragon is still a Dragon. Unless there is heavy DM fiat in your favor, that dragon isn't going to be a member of your army.


As for the other methods, we actually know what happens when Wizards and other Spell Casters start making/summoning armies of creatures. Cause remember, that army will not happen over the course of a day, or even a week. Even if you're a level 20 Necromancer Wizard casting nothing but Create Magen every day, that's 4 creatures a day. Gonna take a little while to have enough troops to deal with an army, or lay siege to a castle.

Know what generally happens to most folks that start raising an army like that? A group of 4 to 7 skilled adventurers are hired to go investigate, and potentially ruin that person's day. It would make for a really cool adventure though. You finish one campaign with your Wizard, your epilogue has your Wizard slowly building up an army to take over the world or whatever. Next adventure, you're hired on because there's something odd going on, lots of elementals/demons/celestials/whatever have been seen. Final boss is your old Wizard.


You just use sims as slot and concentration batteries. everything else is mostly cheesing planar binding and instant casting with wish which is 100% legal. Yup actually don't need the sim it just there and a low hanging fruit.

The rest is a DM fighting to apply "control" and "limits" to spells. Wouldn't it be easier to...not and just gut the few spells that are keystones to the whole issue.

[sithlordnergal]

You just use sims as slot and concentration batteries. everything else is mostly cheesing planar binding and instant casting with wish which is 100% legal. Yup actually don't need the sim it just there and a low hanging fruit.

The rest is a DM fighting to apply "control" and "limits" to spells. Wouldn't it be easier to...not and just gut the few spells that are keystones to the whole issue.

I mean, even with using Sims and such, you're still going to be taking an entire year off to get around 365 summons, maybe. And I say "maybe" because, unless you're summoning creatures that can't make that Charisma save, there are a few that will succeed on that save and either attack you or leave. Not to mention you'll need to refresh that Simulacrum constantly since it can't regain spell slots. Not only that, but since Planar Binding only lasts for one year at max, you're limited to the number of creatures you can summon in one year. After which you have to spend resources on a daily basis to keep that army around. You could use lower level spell slots for Planar Binding, but that just makes your upkeep even worse since those guys only last 24 hours to 180 days.

I honestly don't think its a thing you'd need to worry about, either for in game exploits or world building verisimilitude. I can't think of many ways where a player would be able to give their level 20 adventurer a full year off. Off the top of my head, I can think of:

- Epilogue for the character, at which point it no longer matters. And if you're going to play in the world again, you can actually make it an interesting side quest or plot point to have the players investigate the grand hero Wizard that seems to have gone mad and is spending their days summoning/binding outsiders.

- Doing a jump where a year of more has passed. This one could have the army be a problem for you as a DM. But at the same time, nothing is stopping the level 20 Fighter from starting their own army during that time skip via more mundane methods that are also 100% legal. And they may end up with more or less soldiers than the Wizard, depending on how their recruitment goes.

- If you use Downtime days like AL does, where you collect them and then can spend them without actually affecting the flow of time for everyone else. Which you could do this, but you're gonna break verisimilitude far, far more than a Wizard with a summoned army will.


EDIT: Honestly, the only time the spells you mentioned become a problem like that is if you have a level 20 character spending months, if not years, trying to make an army. And again, that just doesn't sound like something that would come up in gameplay, ever. As for world verisimilitude, you cannot tell me that the plot of "Wizard is making an army, check it out and maybe stop him" hasn't been used as a tried and true trope.

As such, I don't think you'd need to remove them. Heck, removing them would remove the ability to use that trope.

[stoutstien]

I mean, even with using Sims and such, you're still going to be taking an entire year off to get around 365 summons, maybe. And I say "maybe" because, unless you're summoning creatures that can't make that Charisma save, there are a few that will succeed on that save and either attack you or leave. Not to mention you'll need to refresh that Simulacrum constantly since it can't regain spell slots. Not only that, but since Planar Binding only lasts for one year at max, you're limited to the number of creatures you can summon in one year. After which you have to spend resources on a daily basis to keep that army around. You could use lower level spell slots for Planar Binding, but that just makes your upkeep even worse since those guys only last 24 hours to 180 days.

I honestly don't think its a thing you'd need to worry about, either for in game exploits or world building verisimilitude. I can't think of many ways where a player would be able to give their level 20 adventurer a full year off. Off the top of my head, I can think of:

- Epilogue for the character, at which point it no longer matters. And if you're going to play in the world again, you can actually make it an interesting side quest or plot point to have the players investigate the grand hero Wizard that seems to have gone mad and is spending their days summoning/binding outsiders.

- Doing a jump where a year of more has passed. This one could have the army be a problem for you as a DM. But at the same time, nothing is stopping the level 20 Fighter from starting their own army during that time skip via more mundane methods that are also 100% legal. And they may end up with more or less soldiers than the Wizard, depending on how their recruitment goes.

- If you use Downtime days like AL does, where you collect them and then can spend them without actually affecting the flow of time for everyone else. Which you could do this, but you're gonna break verisimilitude far, far more than a Wizard with a summoned army will.


EDIT: Honestly, the only time the spells you mentioned become a problem like that is if you have a level 20 character spending months, if not years, trying to make an army. And again, that just doesn't sound like something that would come up in gameplay, ever. As for world verisimilitude, you cannot tell me that the plot of "Wizard is making an army, check it out and maybe stop him" hasn't been used as a tried and true trope.

As such, I don't think you'd need to remove them. Heck, removing them would remove the ability to use that trope.

The entire point is it has no limits.
That is it. full stop.

Im not going to get into a endless circle of how DMs can attempt damage control over this fact. Unless a subsystem has at least some rough outline of existences it will eventually be a problem because content will continue to get better and better and stack in unintended ways. Today's magen Army is yesterday's sim chain, is tomorrow's up in coming new best thing.

You can't "fix" wild shapes until it has something concrete from preventing a new options restarting the martial HP fix unless you go full "DM fiat", which gets about all players up in Arms, or you put a cap on it.

You can't fix something by constantly chasing the edge of an expanding space.

[Aimeryan]

Oh, you're talking about chain summoning like that. I actually feel like that's dealt with a lot easier than you might think:

- First, lets go with the Wish chaining to do the Infinite Simulacrum trick. Looking it over, I don't think you can chain Simulacrum. Simulacrum seems to have received an errata, or maybe it was always this way. Cause looking it up, the spell states the following:


Additionally, you can't have more than one Simulacrum, to quote the spell again:


Unless you have a way to turn a Construct into a Humanoid, a Simulacrum can't copy a Simulacrum.

You don't have the Simulacrum cast Wish on another Simulacrum, you have it cast Wish on you:

1. You cast the Simulacrum Spell on yourself (paying the cost in resources and the Level 7 Spell Slot), creating S1 - a copy of you with all your Spells Slots except Level 7.
2. S1 casts Wish on you (using its Level 9 Spell Slot) to duplicate the effect of casting Simulacrum on you, creating S2 - a copy of you with all your Spell Slots except Level 7.
3. S2 casts Wish on you (using its Level 9 Spell Slot) to duplicate the effect of casting Simulacrum on you, creating S3 - a copy of you with all your Spell Slots except Level 7.
4. S3 casts Wish on you (using its Level 9 Spell Slot) to duplicate the effect of casting Simulacrum on you, creating S4 - a copy of you with all your Spell Slots except Level 7.
5. ...and so on.

Note that you are a Humanoid, and that you are not casting the spell again.

[sithlordnergal]

The entire point is it has no limits.
That is it. full stop.

Im not going to get into a endless circle of how DMs can attempt damage control over this fact. Unless a subsystem has at least some rough outline of existences it will eventually be a problem because content will continue to get better and better and stack in unintended ways. Today's magen Army is yesterday's sim chain, is tomorrow's up in coming new best thing.

You can't "fix" wild shapes until it has something concrete from preventing a new options restarting the martial HP fix unless you go full "DM fiat", which gets about all players up in Arms, or you put a cap on it.

You can't fix something by constantly chasing the edge of an expanding space.

But the premise of your entire point is wrong. All the the things you mentioned have limits. Even if you ignore the time sink required to pull stuff like that off, which you shouldn't, they still have limits. Simulacrum has the limits built into it, Planar Binding has a limit of 1 year maximum. Even Create Magen has limits. Ignoring the HP drop, cause we're assuming we bypass it via class abilities/spells, 500 gp may not sound like a lot, but it increases really quickly.

And I'm willing to bet the same will hold true for future options. Nothing is actually limitless here. The only time things break in the way you're talking about is during white room analysis where we try to take them to their extreme limits. Technically a Sorcerer/Warlock could have unlimited 5th level spell slots!!! Provided they never take a Long Rest again, have unlimited GP for the 100gp diamond for Greater Restoration every 24 hours, are level 20 with a Warlock 11/Sorcerer 9 split, went Divine Soul, chose Greater Restoration, and have an unlimited amount of Downtime to convert Warlock slots into Sorcery Points. But aside from all that, 100% legal.


All of which is to say, Wild Shape really doesn't need a "fix". Wild Shape does have concrete things preventing new options from upending the martial HP fix. It has a pretty hard limit on what CR you can be, and if you can have a Swim speed or flight. There are limits baked into it, which allow for interesting creatures to be added without running afoul a small fix for martials.

[Psyren]

All of which is to say, Wild Shape really doesn't need a "fix".

I think we'll all have to agree to disagree and duke it out in the survey at this point because there is no convincing.

[stoutstien]

But the premise of your entire point is wrong. All the the things you mentioned have limits. Even if you ignore the time sink required to pull stuff like that off, which you shouldn't, they still have limits. Simulacrum has the limits built into it, Planar Binding has a limit of 1 year maximum. Even Create Magen has limits. Ignoring the HP drop, cause we're assuming we bypass it via class abilities/spells, 500 gp may not sound like a lot, but it increases really quickly.

And I'm willing to bet the same will hold true for future options. Nothing is actually limitless here. The only time things break in the way you're talking about is during white room analysis where we try to take them to their extreme limits. Technically a Sorcerer/Warlock could have unlimited 5th level spell slots!!! Provided they never take a Long Rest again, have unlimited GP for the 100gp diamond for Greater Restoration every 24 hours, are level 20 with a Warlock 11/Sorcerer 9 split, went Divine Soul, chose Greater Restoration, and have an unlimited amount of Downtime to convert Warlock slots into Sorcery Points. But aside from all that, 100% legal.


All of which is to say, Wild Shape really doesn't need a "fix". Wild Shape does have concrete things preventing new options from upending the martial HP fix. It has a pretty hard limit on what CR you can be, and if you can have a Swim speed or flight. There are limits baked into it, which allow for interesting creatures to be added without running afoul a small fix for martials.

You don't need 180 Npcs. you just need "enough". Got 2 days? That's 2 NPCs that last a year and are roughly 1/2 as powerful as someone else's whole class. They die? Who cares! you make 2 more and if they live you keep stacking them. Giving a weeks time you can create roughly a party of 10th lv PCs without interfering with your own party.

And no, CR has no limits or wouldn't need to proofread ever splat book to make sure you don't get more crag cats that need to change types because "reasons".