Rebalancing Spellcasting 5e

[Man_Over_Game]

I think the two sides, martial and caster fulfill different wish fantasies. One being the eventual master of his reality and the other being the common man rising above to conquer. At least at my table, I've not seen one over shadow the other, I've seen them tackle different things. When I play a wizard, even at high level, I need the guy in the party who likes to play the fighter. If I tried to replace him with magic I'd find myself depleted and vulnerable. The guy playing the fighter needs my magic. Overcoming some challenges without magic will leave him depleted and vulnerable.

I hope that makes some sense.

It does, but I don't know if you'd actually be that vulnerable or depleted.

Fighters only have about 60% more HP than Wizards. Taking armor into account, Fighters live for roughly twice as long. Which sounds like a big deal, but that's saying that a Fighter that'd die on turn 6 is the same thing as a Wizard that'd die on turn 3. And in most instances, it takes a lot longer than that for a Fighter to provide more in combat than 3 rounds (that is, replacing the Fighter with a Wizard would just result in the fight being finished sooner).

Put another way, since damage only matters when you hit 0, the Fighter's HP only matters when he has received as much damage as would have killed a caster. Which is about half HP. If a Fighter's HP doesn't get below half, it's almost guaranteed that the same scenario would have been easier as a caster.

Even Cantrips only do about 25% less than ranged weapon attacks. Except casters do a lot more than cast Cantrips. Casting a Cantrip is literally the least amount of contribution they can do. But for a martial, that's the standard.




For another perspective, if I was a Warlock and just invested into Eldritch Blast (Agonizing Blast), I'd deal almost exactly the same amount of damage as a ranged Fighter, but with a few extra features on my basic attacks (slow a target, push them back, pull them forward, etc).

Now compare the other features, unrelated to attacks, that the Fighter got vs. the Warlock.

Action Surge vs. Short Rest Max Slot casting (Hex contributes +3.5 damage per attack, Action Surge contributes ~10 damage per attack but once per fight, Hex = Action Surge after 3 rounds)

Invocations + Patron vs. Martial subclass (such as the consistency of the EB invocations with Hexblade's Curse vs. Battlemaster Superiority Dice that have similar effects, Auto-success vs. requiring a save)

Now consider that the EB build is one of the most narrow-minded and limited builds the Warlock can create, when options like At-Will Disguise Self and Silent Image are available, while Battle Master is considered one of the most robust and versatile martials.

Lastly, consider the spot of the Warlock compared to the other casters. As far as public opinion goes, it's the bottom of the totem pole due to it's lack of consistency and versatility.

Or, to put simply:

• Battlemaster ≥ Other ranged Martials
• Ranged Warlock ≥ Ranged Battlemaster (probably the stronger of the two Battlemaster builds)
• Non-Warlocks > Warlocks (All casters)
• Ranged Casters > Ranged Martials

Spoiler: Why Battlemaster was used instead of Samurai

Show

In overall niche, Martials have a specialty for single-target damage, while casters have a niche towards AoE damage and status effects.

Using a Samurai for a damage comparison wouldn't be an accurate assessment, because that'd be like comparing a Martial to the Evocation Wizard to track AoE damage.

However, the Battlemaster and the Warlock fit a very similar niche: Single Target Damage AND common combat conditions that are applied onto an attack.
Many of the Battlemaster Maneuvers are duplicated using spells and invocation effects. Public opinion of the Battlemaster is that it's popular, which implies that it's not a weak outlier of the capabilities of the martial concept, but at least a median. The Samurai is good at doing only one thing, but that doesn't accurately describe a mage, not even a specialized Warlock for that matter.

Comparing melee combat is a bit more complicated, since it's hard to determine how much that doubled survivability that Martials have makes an impact, when considering things like healing or buff spells. But I think that is the same situation with things like Hypnotic Pattern, Sleep, Force Wall, and any other powerful defensive spell, so I think it's fair to not compare either and just use what's comparable.

[Sigreid]

It does, but I don't know if you'd actually be that vulnerable or depleted.

Fighters only have about 60% more HP than Wizards. Taking armor into account, Fighters live for roughly twice as long. Which sounds like a big deal, but that's saying that a Fighter that'd die on turn 6 is the same thing as a Wizard that'd die on turn 3. And in most instances, it takes a lot longer than that for a Fighter to provide more in combat than 3 rounds (that is, replacing the Fighter with a Wizard would just result in the fight being finished sooner).

Put another way, since damage only matters when you hit 0, the Fighter's HP only matters when he has received as much damage as would have killed a caster. Which is about half HP. If a Fighter's HP doesn't get below half, it's almost guaranteed that the same scenario would have been easier as a caster.

Even Cantrips only do about 25% less than ranged weapon attacks. Except casters do a lot more than cast Cantrips. Casting a Cantrip is literally the least amount of contribution they can do. But for a martial, that's the standard.




For another perspective, if I was a Warlock and just invested into Eldritch Blast (Agonizing Blast), I'd deal almost exactly the same amount of damage as a ranged Fighter, but with a few extra features on my basic attacks (slow a target, push them back, pull them forward, etc).

Now compare the other features, unrelated to attacks, that the Fighter got vs. the Warlock.

Action Surge vs. Short Rest Max Slot casting (Hex contributes +3.5 damage per attack, Action Surge contributes ~10 damage per attack but once per fight, Hex = Action Surge after 3 rounds)

Invocations + Patron vs. Martial subclass (such as the consistency of the EB invocations with Hexblade's Curse vs. Battlemaster Superiority Dice that have similar effects, Auto-success vs. requiring a save)

Now consider that the EB build is one of the most narrow-minded and limited builds the Warlock can create, when options like At-Will Disguise Self and Silent Image are available, while Battle Master is considered one of the most robust and versatile martials.

Lastly, consider the spot of the Warlock compared to the other casters. As far as public opinion goes, it's the bottom of the totem pole due to it's lack of consistency and versatility.

Or, to put simply:

• Battlemaster ≥ Other ranged Martials
• Ranged Warlock ≥ Ranged Battlemaster (probably the stronger of the two Battlemaster builds)
• Non-Warlocks > Warlocks (All casters)
• Ranged Casters > Ranged Martials

Spoiler: Why Battlemaster was used instead of Samurai

Show

In overall niche, Martials have a specialty for single-target damage, while casters have a niche towards AoE damage and status effects.

Using a Samurai for a damage comparison wouldn't be an accurate assessment, because that'd be like comparing a Martial to the Evocation Wizard to track AoE damage.

However, the Battlemaster and the Warlock fit a very similar niche: Single Target Damage AND common combat conditions that are applied onto an attack.
Many of the Battlemaster Maneuvers are duplicated using spells and invocation effects. Public opinion of the Battlemaster is that it's popular, which implies that it's not a weak outlier of the capabilities of the martial concept, but at least a median. The Samurai is good at doing only one thing, but that doesn't accurately describe a mage, not even a specialized Warlock for that matter.

Comparing melee combat is a bit more complicated, since it's hard to determine how much that doubled survivability that Martials have makes an impact, when considering things like healing or buff spells. But I think that is the same situation with things like Hypnotic Pattern, Sleep, Force Wall, and any other powerful defensive spell, so I think it's fair to not compare either and just use what's comparable.

I think our key difference, which you did bring up earlier, is I don't need the classes to be equal, I need them to be different. I need them to fulfill different fantasies when people play them.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think our key difference, which you did bring up earlier, is I don't need the classes to be equal, I need them to be different. I need them to fulfill different fantasies when people play them.

I agree, but I need that as: "Everyone fails from their weaknesses, but you can cover for someone else's".

Followed by "Casters don't have nearly enough weaknesses, and Martials don't have nearly enough strengths".

It doesn't have to be numbers. Martials don't need to deal more damage, and casters less. But that seems to be one of the easiest solutions and comparisons, which is why it comes up often.

[Yakk]

Again, another comparison of a ranged character to a warlock that takes neither XBE or SS under consideration.

If you said "in a featless game" you'd have a point. But you don't.

A SS+XBE fighter will blow a EB warlock's DPR out of the water.

Then the archer gets a quiver of +X arrows and a +X crossbow. Both add to accuracy and to damage, while the warlock equivalent doesn't add to damage.

A level 20 BM fighter with a +3 hand xbow and +3 quiver can attack at +14 to hit for 1d6+23 (26.5) per hit 4x per action, plus once on a bonus action.

The warlock with a +3 rod and hex is attacking at +14 to hit for 1d10+5+1d6 (14) damage 4x per action.

That is 90% more damage for the fighter, who also gets 2 action surges and a bonus action attack.

Next we can look at party support. Get an ally to cast holy weapon on the fighter and it deals another 2d8 (9) damage per hit, and at 4 high accuracy attacks she is the best target you are going to find.

Of course, if you want to get crazy, equip a ring of spell storing, cast swift quiver into it.

None of these buff options are available to the warlock.

+3 heavy crossbow, +3 quiver, ring of spell storing, bracers of archery. Round 1: action surge, swift quiver, ally casts holy weapon on the crossbow.

284 damage at +14 to hit

Turn 2, action surge and use quiver bonus action. 355 damage at +14 to hit.

Turn 3, back to baseline. Only 213 damage at +14 to hit.

This is insane amounts of buffing. But even without this, the fighter is putting out way more damage than the warlock was.

And none of this is using BM dice yet.

[Man_Over_Game]

That's a pretty extreme comparison at level 20, though. Most games I've played sit around levels 3-8, and WotC seems to agree that that's the average for most people, too. Magical ammunition, in particular, is unlikely to be readily available by that level.

Additionally, you're including the extra damage from Sharpshooter, but you don't mention the penalty that comes with it.

Lastly, there are very few feats that compare to GWM and SS. In order for a martial to get anywhere near that level of damage potential, they would need these feats. But that doesn't aptly describe a Fighter. That can be just as big of a boon on a Ranger, or hell, a Monk.

What I'm trying to say is that what you've posted doesn't show that Fighters are overpowered, but that Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert are.

Unless you're willing to back the idea that those need to be chosen for a martial to stay relevant, and your choice of ASI/Feat is mostly an illusion of choice, I don't think it's a fair assessment to base the power of a class based around a single feat when there are about ~50 to choose from.

[MrStabby]

I think our key difference, which you did bring up earlier, is I don't need the classes to be equal, I need them to be different. I need them to fulfill different fantasies when people play them.

Whilst I kind of agree with this there are some reservations:

1) Balance can't be too bad. i.e not being equal is fine, being as out of whack as they are at the moment, at least for high level play is an issue for me.

2) Each class must have a point: no class should be better in all major combat functions than any other class. No class should be better in all three pillars of the game than any other class.

[Ryuu Hayato]

What I'm trying to say is that what you've posted doesn't show that Fighters are overpowered, but that Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert are.

Unless you're willing to back the idea that those need to be chosen for a martial to stay relevant, and your choice of ASI/Feat is mostly an illusion of choice, I don't think it's a fair assessment to base the power of a class based around a single feat when there are about ~50 to choose from.

And that's the main problem with feats in 5th edition.

Some people claim about feats be cool, because they add some source of "customization". But, in the end, is all about optimization. Or you play GWM/SS fighter, or you are doing wrong. That's sucks too much.

That's why I and others say that the fighter needs some rework. They should not rely too much to feats to be relevant. Feats like Sentinel (don't let people pass to you), Mage Slayer (don't let a spell be cast in front of you), Shield Master (put your shield in from of you) should be fighter's core abilities.

But then, even in a featless and multiclassless game, fighter still good. However, they only need some half proficiency, or even proficiency, in their saves. If you don't want to be too conservative, let they have legendary resistance.

Lastly, I agree with you. Feats are illusion of choice.

[Sigreid]

Whilst I kind of agree with this there are some reservations:

1) Balance can't be too bad. i.e not being equal is fine, being as out of whack as they are at the moment, at least for high level play is an issue for me.

2) Each class must have a point: no class should be better in all major combat functions than any other class. No class should be better in all three pillars of the game than any other class.

So far we've had games go up to level 14 and haven't had this problem. It may be because of how we play. When I was doing a 14th level wizard, it is 100% true that I could shut down a major enemy for a little while, but unless it was an enemy I could banish I actually taking it out would take all of my significant resources and leave me more or less useless for the rest of the day. Since we don't generally play in a way that that would be the only significant challenge between long rests, that's a bad idea. A more efficient use of my resources was nearly always arranging it so the Monk, cleric and arcane archer could focus on the toughest opponents without having to worry about most of the lesser support.

[TheUser]

This thread seems like a classic example of textbook analysis; casters look absolutely broken on paper until you start going up against the plethora of magic resistant enemies and bosses with high saves on top of condition immunities, true sight, damage resistance/immunity (omg elemental damage what happened?), legendary resistance and sometimes even spell immunity below a certain spell level.

Then the level 15 elven samurai busts into the 1st round of the encounter dropping down 7 triple-advantage sharpshooter longbow attacks with their +2 longbow dealing 7d8+119 damage and a continual follow up of 4d8+68 which the boss can do very little about and then wonder who's reliant on who. (Average roll with triple advantage is 15 with standard deviation of 3 and the fighter is still attacking at +9 with shaprshooter deduction).

Spell casters can do lots of great battlefield control and clear up mooks but martials are what kill bosses and big bads. In tier 4 it gets a bit weird (because wish, true polymorph and shapechange are silly) but who plays tier 4 anyway? Also wtf can a caster do about anti-magic field? There are venues that can be explored but the notion that your 17th level character is almost completely countered by a single spell is ridiculous.

[MrStabby]

This thread seems like a classic example of textbook analysis; casters look absolutely broken on paper until you start going up against the plethora of magic resistant enemies and bosses with high saves on top of condition immunities, true sight, damage resistance/immunity (omg elemental damage what happened?), legendary resistance and sometimes even spell immunity below a certain spell level.

Then the level 15 elven samurai busts into the 1st round of the encounter dropping down 7 triple-advantage sharpshooter longbow attacks with their +2 longbow dealing 7d8+119 damage and a continual follow up of 4d8+68 which the boss can do very little about and then wonder who's reliant on who. (Average roll with triple advantage is 15 with standard deviation of 3 and the fighter is still attacking at +9 with shaprshooter deduction).

Spell casters can do lots of great battlefield control and clear up mooks but martials are what kill bosses and big bads. In tier 4 it gets a bit weird (because wish, true polymorph and shapechange are silly) but who plays tier 4 anyway? Also wtf can a caster do about anti-magic field? There are venues that can be explored but the notion that your 17th level character is almost completely countered by a single spell is ridiculous.

I am not quite sure where you are going with this? Are you saying that everyone claiming to have actually experienced this is making it up? That we never actually played these games and our experiences didn't actually happen? Or maybe you are suggesting that we did play but remembered things wrong? Or maybe all of us just happened to get the rules wrong and in a case of mass coordinated amnesia forgot about resistances and immunities?

And yeah, it can suck as a caster if an enemy is immune to all your spells, resistant to all your damage. So you know... you can take a second spell that does damage. Casters can know more than one! It can even be of a different damage type to get round this! Imagine! Or you can take spells like wall of force that does stuff even against magic resistant enemies. Or even use spells like animate dead and planar binding and just use attack rolls.

And as to who plays tier 4 - well apparently you do, if you have experience of level 15 samurais. But you do have a point. Relatively few people play Tier 4. Why? What could it possibly be about tier 4 that makes it less appealing to people? What changes at this level to stop it being fun? That makes people not want to play it? Wouldn't it be a great topic to talk about and to try and fix?

[Zuras]

I am not quite sure where you are going with this? Are you saying that everyone claiming to have actually experienced this is making it up? That we never actually played these games and our experiences didn't actually happen? Or maybe you are suggesting that we did play but remembered things wrong? Or maybe all of us just happened to get the rules wrong and in a case of mass coordinated amnesia forgot about resistances and immunities?

And yeah, it can suck as a caster if an enemy is immune to all your spells, resistant to all your damage. So you know... you can take a second spell that does damage. Casters can know more than one! It can even be of a different damage type to get round this! Imagine! Or you can take spells like wall of force that does stuff even against magic resistant enemies. Or even use spells like animate dead and planar binding and just use attack rolls.

Not going to speak for anyone else, but using numerical analysis to compare damage dealt per round and implying those differences relate to actual play indicates lack of experience with actual high level play.

Additionally, framing the issue as a “caster supremacy” issue seems disingenuous. I haven’t seen Clerics, Druids, Warlocks or Bards run completely rampant over a Tier 3 session. Martials actually dominate combat to a great extent, unless you need an AoE to clear out the riff-raff. Simulacrum, Wall of Force and Forcecage are absolutely bonkers, but other than that, combat effectiveness is pretty even.

Using Fighter as your base line of comparison also artificially magnifies the issue, because Fighters don’t get any ridiculous cinematic powers with odd applications, ever. High level monks, for example, end up doing all sorts of odd things by virtue of running on walls. A swashbuckler with expertise in Persuasion has a decent chance to fast talk a god for a minute using Panache. High level fighters just get more options and incremental improvements on the same powers they already had.

I’ll agree that higher level fighter abilities are boring and inflexible in higher level play, especially when compared to a Wizard with an expansive spellbook. In particular, they don't get to contribute to the exploration pillar much. Based on several hundred hours of high level play, though, I can say any complaints about raw damage output are way off the mark.

[Man_Over_Game]

This thread seems like a classic example of textbook analysis; casters look absolutely broken on paper until you start going up against the plethora of magic resistant enemies and bosses with high saves on top of condition immunities, true sight, damage resistance/immunity (omg elemental damage what happened?), legendary resistance and sometimes even spell immunity below a certain spell level.

Then the level 15 elven samurai busts into the 1st round of the encounter dropping down 7 triple-advantage sharpshooter longbow attacks with their +2 longbow dealing 7d8+119 damage and a continual follow up of 4d8+68 which the boss can do very little about and then wonder who's reliant on who. (Average roll with triple advantage is 15 with standard deviation of 3 and the fighter is still attacking at +9 with shaprshooter deduction).

Spell casters can do lots of great battlefield control and clear up mooks but martials are what kill bosses and big bads. In tier 4 it gets a bit weird (because wish, true polymorph and shapechange are silly) but who plays tier 4 anyway? Also wtf can a caster do about anti-magic field? There are venues that can be explored but the notion that your 17th level character is almost completely countered by a single spell is ridiculous.

But are any of those good things?
I think having rigid denial effects actively make the game worse, especially since spells are already less consistent with weapon attacks (that is, 2 spells are more expensive and slower to act than 2 attacks) and spells have a higher chance of failure (average chance to hit is about 70%, but chance to fail a save is closer to 55%).

Additionally, many spell effects appear the same upon failure, whether that failure is caused by a good save stat, a good roll, or a good feature. It doesn't really provide any feedback.

Lastly, a missed attack is a missed attack, but a missed spell is a spent resource. A player spent a resource to do something, and it failed without a chance for success.

I've always held the philosophy that a player that can't blame themselves should blame the DM. So who's fault was it that the spell failed regardless of the roll?

If you want your players to adapt, they need feedback. It's hard to provide that feedback when it's 100% successful or 0% successful. All of the things you mentioned are things that force the chance of success on those spells to be 0%. They make the caster unable to contribute.

Am I wrong, or does it seem odd that we have to put casters in time-out for martials to stand out?

[Pex]

And as to who plays tier 4 - well apparently you do, if you have experience of level 15 samurais. But you do have a point. Relatively few people play Tier 4. Why? What could it possibly be about tier 4 that makes it less appealing to people? What changes at this level to stop it being fun? That makes people not want to play it? Wouldn't it be a great topic to talk about and to try and fix?

Maybe it's because players like to start at level 1, and it takes a long real world time to get to such a level. By the time they are within that level real life has many chances to make the game end. As it happens, though, I'm in two high level games. One was started at level 6. I'm now level 16. I'm the only player left from the first day 6 years ago. One joined the second game. Another joined game 5. Everyone else only joined within the last two years as the bulk have left long ago for personal life reasons. DM was stingy with XP in the beginning. He has gotten better. In the second game we're level 15 having started at level 3 a year and a half ago. We use milestone leveling as plot continues relatively quickly, especially when compared to the other game. Both DMs are planning for the campaign to reach level 20.

Sometimes the spellcaster wins the day. We're happy about it. It was still a party effort. Just today the druid in the second campaign polymorphed a beholder twice until finally getting rid of it for good with Plane Shift. The beholder wasn't the BBEG of the fight but still dangerous of course. Because of the druid the beholder hardly mattered at all.

[Man_Over_Game]

And as to who plays tier 4 - well apparently you do, if you have experience of level 15 samurais. But you do have a point. Relatively few people play Tier 4. Why? What could it possibly be about tier 4 that makes it less appealing to people? What changes at this level to stop it being fun? That makes people not want to play it? Wouldn't it be a great topic to talk about and to try and fix?

The best theory I've heard about it is DM fatigue. Epic magic is pretty world-changing, and it gets more and more difficult for DMs to create encounters, stories and villains that challenge the players and utilize all of their talents evenly.

[TheUser]

And as to who plays tier 4 - well apparently you do, if you have experience of level 15 samurais. But you do have a point. Relatively few people play Tier 4. Why? What could it possibly be about tier 4 that makes it less appealing to people? What changes at this level to stop it being fun? That makes people not want to play it? Wouldn't it be a great topic to talk about and to try and fix?

I mean I -have- played tier 4 but level 15 samurais aren't tier 4....you know that right?

[Misterwhisper]

The best theory I've heard about it is DM fatigue. Epic magic is pretty world-changing, and it gets more and more difficult for DMs to create encounters, stories and villains that challenge the players and utilize all of their talents evenly.

It is not possible to use everyone evenly because the classes are not made to be balanced.

People with little in the way of resources, like non-casters get to last much longer at being at top efficiency, but people with a tight resource to manage, like full casters get to be the best at just about everything, as long as they have the spell slots to do it.

The issue is, you can't make people spend resources, especially when everyone knows how all encounters are set up.

There are only 4 kinds of encounters:

Encounters that are solved through RP, which is always fun, but anyone can do it.
Encounters that are solved through the use of skills, also cool, everyone gets to shine.
Encounters that are solved through combat. This begins the problem.
A non-caster solves every problem the same way, target AC, do HP damage, kill it before it kills you. You may have some bells and whistles on how you do it, but it is all the same really.
Casters can either be conservative and pound away with cantrips that do somewhat OK damage and may have a nice rider if the enemy does not look that dangerous, they can through out one of the better spells and have a decent chance of ending the encounter mostly right there, or make it a forgone conclusion.
If it is the first encounter of the day, casters know this is not the big fight so they just sit back and plink away.

The biggest issue is the 4th type of encounter an encounter that was supposed to be one of the first 3, but the caster just bypasses it all with spells.
Martial can't do that.

Casters are also, ALWAYS in charge of when a rest is taken.

I can not even count the number of times this has happened:

Team: Ok, we got through that, lets see what is next.
Caster: Nope, I am taking a long rest.
Team: The rest of us are fine, just don't blow all your spells next time.
Caster: Well I am taking a rest anyway.
DM: This is not a safe area to rest, like at all.
Caster: So, we will take our chances, or you can TPK the group, how bad do you want your game to die?

That or everyone just runs a 15min adventure day anyway, so every fight starts at full resources and casters just smash things and move on.

[Luccan]

It is not possible to use everyone evenly because the classes are not made to be balanced.

People with little in the way of resources, like non-casters get to last much longer at being at top efficiency, but people with a tight resource to manage, like full casters get to be the best at just about everything, as long as they have the spell slots to do it.

The issue is, you can't make people spend resources, especially when everyone knows how all encounters are set up.

There are only 4 kinds of encounters:

Encounters that are solved through RP, which is always fun, but anyone can do it.
Encounters that are solved through the use of skills, also cool, everyone gets to shine.
Encounters that are solved through combat. This begins the problem.
A non-caster solves every problem the same way, target AC, do HP damage, kill it before it kills you. You may have some bells and whistles on how you do it, but it is all the same really.
Casters can either be conservative and pound away with cantrips that do somewhat OK damage and may have a nice rider if the enemy does not look that dangerous, they can through out one of the better spells and have a decent chance of ending the encounter mostly right there, or make it a forgone conclusion.
If it is the first encounter of the day, casters know this is not the big fight so they just sit back and plink away.

The biggest issue is the 4th type of encounter an encounter that was supposed to be one of the first 3, but the caster just bypasses it all with spells.
Martial can't do that.

Casters are also, ALWAYS in charge of when a rest is taken.

I can not even count the number of times this has happened:

Team: Ok, we got through that, lets see what is next.
Caster: Nope, I am taking a long rest.
Team: The rest of us are fine, just don't blow all your spells next time.
Caster: Well I am taking a rest anyway.
DM: This is not a safe area to rest, like at all.
Caster: So, we will take our chances, or you can TPK the group, how bad do you want your game to die?

That or everyone just runs a 15min adventure day anyway, so every fight starts at full resources and casters just smash things and move on.

I also can't count the number of times that happens, because why would you willingly play with someone who acts like that?

[Misterwhisper]

I also can't count the number of times that happens, because why would you willingly play with someone who acts like that?

It is just the way it is, people are far too used to Carebear DMing as I call it.

[TheUser]

And here I thought you could only long rest once in a 24 hour period....

[Trask]

I can not even count the number of times this has happened:
Team: Ok, we got through that, lets see what is next.
Caster: Nope, I am taking a long rest.
Team: The rest of us are fine, just don't blow all your spells next time.
Caster: Well I am taking a rest anyway.
DM: This is not a safe area to rest, like at all.
Caster: So, we will take our chances, or you can TPK the group, how bad do you want your game to die?

This happened to me a lot as well, until I started making actual rules that you cant long rest just anywhere you want, you have to be in a sanctuary place. The concept of the hard limit did wonders, and my players stopped trying to make camp every 5 minutes in dank dungeon rooms and desert dunes. Highly recommended method

[Misterwhisper]

This happened to me a lot as well, until I started making actual rules that you cant long rest just anywhere you want, you have to be in a sanctuary place. The concept of the hard limit did wonders, and my players stopped trying to make camp every 5 minutes in dank dungeon rooms and desert dunes. Highly recommended method

I was not running those games, I am much more brutally logical.
If you try to hole up in a dungeon for 8 hours where you have already killed multiple people or monsters, you will get noticed.

[AdAstra]

If you did want to have some kind of "charge-up" mechanic for high level spells, a far more sensible solution would be to require the caster to declare the high-level spell a certain number of turns in advance (like 1 or 2). They don't have to cast that spell, but if they want to cast a different high level spell they have to declare a different one and wait. Requires a little forethought as to which spells will be most useful next turn or the turn after that, reduces the ability to wipe an encounter before it starts, and gives enemies/the DM some time to actually react. At the same time, it doesn't require multiple turns of potentially wasted actions or messing with concentration.

To deal with excessive long rests/not enough resource strain for casters without messing with rest structures, some campaigns might benefit from having higher-level spell slots recharge on a different timer than normal ones. So perhaps if one were to cast a spell of 6th level or higher, it takes spell level-4 long rests or something to regain that spell slot. Upcasting using a 6th level+ slot might get around this restriction, so an 8th level spirit guardians will recharge as normal, but casting Earthquake would take 4 long rests to replenish the spell slot.

[Cikomyr2]

If you did want to have some kind of "charge-up" mechanic for high level spells, a far more sensible solution would be to require the caster to declare the high-level spell a certain number of turns in advance (like 1 or 2). They don't have to cast that spell, but if they want to cast a different high level spell they have to declare a different one and wait. Requires a little forethought as to which spells will be most useful next turn or the turn after that, reduces the ability to wipe an encounter before it starts, and gives enemies/the DM some time to actually react. At the same time, it doesn't require multiple turns of potentially wasted actions or messing with concentration.

To deal with excessive long rests/not enough resource strain for casters without messing with rest structures, some campaigns might benefit from having higher-level spell slots recharge on a different timer than normal ones. So perhaps if one were to cast a spell of 6th level or higher, it takes spell level-4 long rests or something to regain that spell slot. Upcasting using a 6th level+ slot might get around this restriction, so an 8th level spirit guardians will recharge as normal, but casting Earthquake would take 4 long rests to replenish the spell slot.

That's it. That's where I took this idea. It's like the delay of ordering large ships around in Armada.

I like that mechanic.

[Man_Over_Game]

If you did want to have some kind of "charge-up" mechanic for high level spells, a far more sensible solution would be to require the caster to declare the high-level spell a certain number of turns in advance (like 1 or 2). They don't have to cast that spell, but if they want to cast a different high level spell they have to declare a different one and wait. Requires a little forethought as to which spells will be most useful next turn or the turn after that, reduces the ability to wipe an encounter before it starts, and gives enemies/the DM some time to actually react. At the same time, it doesn't require multiple turns of potentially wasted actions or messing with concentration.

To deal with excessive long rests/not enough resource strain for casters without messing with rest structures, some campaigns might benefit from having higher-level spell slots recharge on a different timer than normal ones. So perhaps if one were to cast a spell of 6th level or higher, it takes spell level-4 long rests or something to regain that spell slot. Upcasting using a 6th level+ slot might get around this restriction, so an 8th level spirit guardians will recharge as normal, but casting Earthquake would take 4 long rests to replenish the spell slot.

I kinda hobbled something like that on the "What do you nerf" thread, based on OP's original idea, although the goal was to make it a little simpler and easier to remember.

Channeling:
When you cast a spell who's level is equal or greater than your Proficiency, and has a casting time of an Action or a Bonus Action, it is first "Channeled" (Readied) until just before the start of your next turn when it is then cast.

If there are no valid targets at the time of casting, you can choose to cast a different spell, who's spell level is less than your Proficiency, using your channeled spell slot.

If you need to cast a spell with a casting time of Reaction while Concentrating on a Channeled spell, you can use the spell slot of the Channeled spell for the new spell instead of losing it (So if you're channeling on a level 3 spell, need to cast Shield, then you can use that level 3 slot for Shield).

[JNAProductions]

I kinda hobbled something like that on the "What do you nerf" thread, based on OP's original idea, although the goal was to make it a little simpler and easier to remember.

Channeling:
When you cast a spell who's level is equal or greater than your Proficiency, and has a casting time of an Action or a Bonus Action, it is first "Channeled" (Readied) until just before the start of your next turn when it is then cast.

If there are no valid targets at the time of casting, you can choose to cast a different spell, who's spell level is less than your Proficiency, using your channeled spell slot.

If you need to cast a spell with a casting time of Reaction while Concentrating on a Channeled spell, you can use the spell slot of the Channeled spell for the new spell instead of losing it (So if you're channeling on a level 3 spell, need to cast Shield, then you can use that level 3 slot for Shield).

Interesting. Doesn't actually affect PCs till level 7 (+3 Prof, 4th level slots) and I don't believe ever hits half-casters or third-casters. While I'm not sure it's NEEDED, it's definitely a solid idea!

[Man_Over_Game]

Interesting. Doesn't actually affect PCs till level 7 (+3 Prof, 4th level slots) and I don't believe ever hits half-casters or third-casters. While I'm not sure it's NEEDED, it's definitely a solid idea!

It's "Equal or greater than your proficiency". So it'd start being relevant at level 3 for level 2 spells, get bumped at 5, and so on.

[JNAProductions]

It's "Equal or greater than your proficiency". So it'd start being relevant at level 3 for level 2 spells, get bumped at 5, and so on.

Ah-that's me reading it too fast and not paying enough attention.

Still doesn't hit half-casters, though!

[Man_Over_Game]

Ah-that's me reading it too fast and not paying enough attention.

Still doesn't hit half-casters, though!

Yup! It wasn't intentional, but that worked out to be a good benefit.

I wanted to make a solution that required mages to rely on martials' protection to pull off game-changing effects so that both parties feel responsible for the success. It also makes magic a lot more interactive between opposing sides, so that martials can interrupt casters without needing to invest in Counterspell and adding value to Mage Slayer. I also wanted to push some of the focus away from so many powerhouse Concentration spells, but I also didn't want to screw around with the action economy of casting.

I'm gonna test it out with my two new groups, maybe put them up against a caster boss or something.