What would you do to rebalance martials vs casters?

[Kane0]

Fact is, if you nerfed spellcasting, someone is going to complain. Who'd complain about more martial options or a better skill system?

At some point you just have to roll up your sleeves and get it done for the benefit of the game, no matter the outcry.

[KorvinStarmast]

At some point you just have to roll up your sleeves and get it done for the benefit of the game, no matter the outcry.

Somewhere in the back of my brain is a comment from a dev that this is what they tried so hard to do with 4e, and the outcry was sufficient to get them back to the 'roll up the sleeves' stage again.

So gut the spells

Edit: or the easy access to them

We have a poster here whose sig used to say that "balancing a part of the game by making it annoying to use isn't a best practice" or something like that.

I like the spell, pass without a trace, but it represents an opportunity cost in an adventure day where using that second level spell is a hard decision to make since it means another spell can't be used either earlier or later in the day. In the 5 minute adventure day, or a session where resources do not get stressed, it's close to an "I Win" button for movement to contact without being detected.

Someone made an interesting suggestion further up: no more than one arcane caster in a party. I can't see the devs making that a hard and fast rule, but I think that might be a good table rule. Depends on the players. (Hmm, or that might be in that other thread about screwed martials ...)

[Kane0]

We have a poster here whose sig used to say that "balancing a part of the game by making it annoying to use isn't a best practice" or something like that.
Someone made an interesting suggestion further up: no more than one arcane caster in a party. I can't see the devs making that a hard and fast rule, but I think that might be a good table rule. Depends on the players. (Hmm, or that might be in that other thread about screwed martials ...)

Yeah that’s Grod’s Law.

The immediate response to that idea broke it down IMO, not the right approach.

As i stated previously in this thread, I would rather curb what an individual caster has access to and spread that around a bit, including to martials.
A character can have a primary and two secondary strengths and not be one-note, there’s no need for the mage to be able to mind control and summon and nuke and turn people to newts and provide shelter, then change it all up tomorrow because they want to play something almost completely different.

[Asisreo1]

It might just be better to go straight to the source if you want to nerf casters. Rebalance each problematic or game-breaking spell.

Rather than forcecage being a no-save, make it a save to be shunted out. Or you could make the force spells require a large amount of damage to be destroyed.

Wish can replicate all spells 5th-level and lower. It's still massive versatility, but it isn't nearly as game-breaking and sorta fits in-line with other 9th level spells. Maybe up to 6th or 7th level.

Simulacrum and Clone can only have one instance of each. And simulacrum be 1/4 the hp and clone be half. They're still extremely powerful spells but they don't have implications of raising an army of martials.

Teleports across long distances have a chance to fail and put the caster in a state of lethargy if they do. Making teleportation too risky to be totally reliable but still available when needed.

Instead of having spells incapacitate, have them just make the target have disadvantage. That is, unless the target saves at the beginning of the turn, in which case keep it as is.

It might be a bit more work, but I think removing the "brokeness" of the spells would be better, as well as more manageable for new DM's than having all characters have reliable ways to screw your entire adventure up.

[ezekielraiden]

I didn't say successful hits. I said attacks. It doesn't matter if the attack is successful or not, it refreshes a tech slot. You can then swap the techs in place of your regular attacks-per-round, but the techs themselves do not refresh level 1 slots, they build up to level 2 slots. It's just another way of reflecting the earlier mentioned momentum gauge.

Okay so...that really wasn't clear from the description given, but if I'm getting this right:
You must attack 4 times (whether or not you hit) in order to obtain two level 1 slots.
You must use two level 1 slots to obtain a level 2 slot.
You must use two level 2 slots to obtain a level 3 slot.
Etc.

This still means you have to have a constant influx of extra level 1 "slots acquired" (hopefully we come up with a better term for this), because each level N slot has to sit on a pyramid of previous-level slots. It takes six attacks to generate one 2nd level slot: two regular attacks per 1st level slot, and then expending those 1st level slots. It takes 14 attacks (successful or otherwise) to generate a 3rd level slot: you had to spend two level 2 slots, each of which required six attacks (two 1st level slots and four attacks to generate those slots). It takes 30 attacks to generate a 4th level slot, and in general, we can recursively define the amount as 2(N+1) where N is how many slots were required for the previous level. (Counting 1st level as coming from "zeroth level" regular attacks, of course.) This quickly becomes impossible even for groups that fight many combats per day with a large number of rounds each (compared to the typical 3-5 that 5e generates, from what evidence I can gather). You need to make 126 attacks just to generate a single 6th level slot. Even for an 11th level Fighter in ideal circumstances (making 3*(rounds+1) attack rolls per fight via Action Surge, never being denied any attacks due to lacking targets in range etc.), at an average of 4 combat rounds per fight, you would need at least 7 combats per day just to generate that singular 6th level slot.

Unless I have (again) radically misunderstood your statements here, this is completely untenable. To get a 9th level slot (presuming we use the same "cap at 9" of spells) you have to make over a thousand attacks in a single day. Even if a Fighter makes five per round from some kind of bonus action or the like, that's over 200 rounds of combat--completely untenable even for the most combat-happy group. (If you're curious, the formula is 2^(n+1)-2, where n is the level of the slot, and regular attacks are "zeroth" level slots.)

And this is a (rather, another) problem with designing alternate resource schedules. It can seem like something is completely tenable and realistic, until you actually crunch the numbers and realize it would take ages to achieve things.

The point here is that the slots don't empty at the end of an encounter, they empty at the end of the day. Every time the Barbarian takes damage, they get a tech slot. If they hold back from using the low-level techs, once they are all set up they can fill their high-level ones really quickly. I do admit this sort of thing would require giving Barbarians another class feature, allowing them to take damage on a skill check to roll again or gain advantage (thereby improving their out-of-combat functionality AND helping them fill their tech levels).
Additionally, maybe it needs to not be damage, but rather the threat of damage. If the barbarian evades an attack or completely negates its damage, they should still get credit for their techs from it.

This may help, but again, if it works anything like the Fighter formula above, being attacked/making a save even 62 times a day (fifth-level slot: 2^(5+1)-2), whether or not one takes damage, is somewhat unlikely. That would require, even if we assume 8 combats per long rest, being subject to attacks/saves 8 times every combat. That is just not realistic for most groups.

Thanks! I was bound to have at least one good idea!

I am honestly trying not to be a ****ty naysayer here, so I hope I'm not coming across as one. I am openly skeptical, but willing to listen and evaluate. I hope that I have been reasonably respectful of your proposals.

Herein lies another subtlety of the language. I didn't say "Advantage in combat". I said "Advantage". Any action a rogue takes during the day with advantage (ANY action) will refresh one of their level 1 tech slots. If they save up their tricks, they get to nova during one fight of the day. Or they can do little things all day, with boosts from their level 1 techs.
I will admit Rogue and Barbarian have a problem that I didn't see when I was coming up with the idea, though, and that is that the lower level techs will quickly outnumber the higher level ones as they level (so it becomes harder to get high-level slots refreshed as they become more powerful). The only alternative I can think of is to set it up so that for every 2-3 techs they refresh in level 1, they refresh one in level 2, and so on in that fashion... though that brings them towards Fighter in an uncomfortable way (considering the cries of "same-y" heard up-thread).

Whether it's in or out of combat doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned. Getting advantage on even 62 rolls a day, let alone over a thousand, is just not realistic for most groups.

Except it increases the duration between long rests, because tech players won't want to be forced to dump their resources on a trivial fight or waste them (both of which will come as those resources reset to empty on a long rest). The caster's attrition is meant to be counteracted by the martial's stockpile so that encounter choices remain at roughly the same level throughout the day, but the players who make them shifts.

Here's a subtlety of the language back at you: It should increase the duration of long rests. But it won't. That's the problem.

We have already had--we currently have--a situation where, in theory, long-rest-based classes SHOULD be accepting that, some of the time, they just run out of juice and have to rely on their short-rest-based/non-rest-based friends. But because that is boring, most players in that position will complain, and they will have perfectly reasonable justification for doing so: "I want to play my character, I want to enjoy the process of being a cool wizard, not sit around plinking at things." It doesn't matter that cantrips are pretty good now (once they scale up, anyway). It doesn't matter that the game is specifically designed so that this SHOULD happen at least SOME of the time in order to keep things balanced. These players will, pretty regularly, request a faster turnover of long rests, because they can do so, and because it really is helpful to the group if they get what they're asking for.

So now you have created a situation where there really is a clear, specific, and direct benefit for taking long rests quickly...which now openly (as opposed to implicitly) shafts the "anti-long-rest" characters in the party. You now have the casters saying, "Well look, we don't know how many fights we might have today. But we do know that, if we rest now, I get all my spells back. It's clearly a more direct benefit to the group that I get my spells than that we wait and hope you get your techs." I do, of course, believe that it is better to have such discussions openly--but that doesn't actually solve the problem, it just makes the problem obvious.

Casters "dominating" or "trivializing" encounters is a DM problem. In my 5 years of playing casters I have never once been able to trivialize anything. Our DMs know every player's abilities, scores, saves, and spells known.
Then get this, they customize each encounter to match the party's abilities, ensuring a challenging and exciting game for all involved! WHAT A CONCEPT!!!!!
You guys should try it. It's way easier and more fun than reinventing the wheel.

I, on the other hand, have seen this repeatedly. I have had multiple DMs throw in the towel because it became impossible for them to balance things correctly due to either crushing certain characters while challenging others, or never even getting to challenge some characters because the others breezed through it. I have even had a DM sour on the very idea of DMing, because he thought he'd figured out how to do balanced encounters for 5e and then ran for a new group (that included me) only to completely gorram DESTROY us because our group wasn't his previous group.

It really isn't as simple as you make it sound.

Fix skills. Make attacks have more options. Not perfect, but seems like a good start. Fact is, if you nerfed spellcasting, someone is going to complain. Who'd complain about more martial options or a better skill system?

Who complained about the Book of Nine Swords? There's your answer.

It might just be better to go straight to the source if you want to nerf casters. Rebalance each problematic or game-breaking spell. <snop> It might be a bit more work, but I think removing the "brokeness" of the spells would be better, as well as more manageable for new DM's than having all characters have reliable ways to screw your entire adventure up.

This helps, but it is only a half measure. 5e already did a fair amount of this with introducing the Concentration mechanic and cutting back on several spells, and arguably 3rd edition (and the 3.5e update) was an attempt to do the same. Each time it has failed both because playtesters (and designers, importantly) don't actually want to make deep enough cuts to matter,* and because bringing casters down closer to non-caster power levels doesn't address the problems of versatility (non-casters have little to none), resources (non-casters have very few), and the aforementioned 5MWD problem (non-Warlock casters have a valid argument that their resource schedule is more important than that of non-casters.)

And, as others have said, even if you do do this, and make cuts deep enough to matter, the fanbase is likely to riot. As much as the same-resource-schedule thing might be a factor in the response to 4e, I'm pretty dang sure the wholesale restriction of the power of magic was much more to blame. It's just a lot easier to claim that Fighters were Wizards (even though they weren't) than to say that Wizards had been brought down to Fighter levels.

*I would even argue that many of your examples aren't deep enough cuts to matter, but that's a discussion for a different topic IMO.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Fix skills.
Make attacks have more options.

Not perfect, but seems like a good start.

Fact is, if you nerfed spellcasting, someone is going to complain. Who'd complain about more martial options or a better skill system?

You are correct regarding the complaining. Though boosting martials just makes the issue of 5e set to 'easy' even worse, leading to more balancing.

[C-Dude]

I am honestly trying not to be a ****ty naysayer here, so I hope I'm not coming across as one. I am openly skeptical, but willing to listen and evaluate. I hope that I have been reasonably respectful of your proposals.

Certainly. I did not intend to sound defensive (though reading my response, I could have had a better lead-in). You've been perfectly cordial, thank you for your honesty and your criticism.

Okay so...that really wasn't clear from the description given, but if I'm getting this right:
You must attack 4 times (whether or not you hit) in order to obtain two level 1 slots.
You must use two level 1 slots to obtain a level 2 slot.
You must use two level 2 slots to obtain a level 3 slot.
Etc.

This still means you have to have a constant influx of extra level 1 "slots acquired" (hopefully we come up with a better term for this), because each level N slot has to sit on a pyramid of previous-level slots. It takes six attacks to generate one 2nd level slot: two regular attacks per 1st level slot, and then expending those 1st level slots. It takes 14 attacks (successful or otherwise) to generate a 3rd level slot: you had to spend two level 2 slots, each of which required six attacks (two 1st level slots and four attacks to generate those slots). It takes 30 attacks to generate a 4th level slot, and in general, we can recursively define the amount as 2(N+1) where N is how many slots were required for the previous level. (Counting 1st level as coming from "zeroth level" regular attacks, of course.) This quickly becomes impossible even for groups that fight many combats per day with a large number of rounds each (compared to the typical 3-5 that 5e generates, from what evidence I can gather). You need to make 126 attacks just to generate a single 6th level slot. Even for an 11th level Fighter in ideal circumstances (making 3*(rounds+1) attack rolls per fight via Action Surge, never being denied any attacks due to lacking targets in range etc.), at an average of 4 combat rounds per fight, you would need at least 7 combats per day just to generate that singular 6th level slot.

I wasn't honestly expecting any tech slots above level 3, since I was working under the assumption that martials would unlock them at the 1/3 caster rate. Indeed the system falls apart if the highest slot is much higher than 3rd level, because it is inherently exponential... as you've demonstrated, even the 1/2 caster rate is too high for this method of resource generation.

I was also picturing that player fighters might spar with their teammates after short rests, filling some of their slots at the cost of their friends' hp (hits with wooden practice weapons still hurt! If they're holding back, they won't pump up the adrenaline needed to use their techs!). Then again, depending on the table composition, that might lead to cheese like say... beating up a tree [Durkon would be pleased].

Still, I was hoping that having tech slots up to level 3 would be enough to give the martials some out-of-combat utility. Martials are already designed for combat with their regular attacks, but the techs could let them do cool things out of battle like those described up-thread (like, say, letting a rogue sneak perfectly by mimicking invisibility, or letting a barbarian leap 30 feet as a special action).

The fighter idea feels like it wants to have merit... there must be a way to make their multiple attack actions pump up more flexible techs at a more appropriate rate.
Having techs count as regular attacks would give the fighter an inexhaustible supply of L1s, which is treading on that at-will power territory of 4e again: there'd be no reason to make regular attacks, ever.
On the other hand, making them a 1-1 upgrade exchange will just make the fighter ramp up in waves: here's three attacks, then three L1s, then three L2s, then three L3s... oops, back to three attacks. Actually that might not be so bad if the max slot rank stays low, say 4-5, though it doesn't help with the sleepy casters and their long rests.

Coming up with thematic recharge mechanics for the other two (Barbarian and Rogue) is proving a much more difficult challenge.
For the Barbarian, tying it directly to rage means adopting a Ranger approach (where the high slots fill and the player has to distribute them down). It might also frustrate the player because I'd imagine their barbarian can't actually USE techs while they're raging. Finally, it has the problem of breaking at level 20 when rages become unlimited. Then again, the house-rule could leave the rage limit at its L19 benchmark.

For the Rogue, it's a matter of coming up with something thematically appropriate. Advantage was a low-hanging fruit because it implies the accessibility of the sneak attack in combat, and out-of-combat it calls to stacking the deck in their favor at any given opportunity. The problem here, though, is that advantage doesn't come up enough for the recharge to work. Preventing the long rest from resetting the Rogue might help... their slots could be filled by advantage and remain so until used (for so long as the campaign shall run). But that does little to address the 5-minute workday quandary presented by the casters... or the gain of L1 slots harming their access to higher-level techs (unless they adopt a trade-up approach, two L1s for an L2 and so on). It also would make Rogues feel slow, their big guns locked out, sometimes for several sessions at a time.

...What if advantage gave a number of L1 techs equal to the number of sneak attack dice the Rogue has? At an exchange rate of 2-1 to upgrade them (traded, not used like Fighters), that'd make a level 3 rogue get an L2 slot for each advantage action, and a level 20 rogue get an L4 slot for each advantage action. If their max is only L5, they get a highest level charge after only two actions. If they go all the way to L9, it takes 32 advantage actions... still a bit high over the course of one day, but a lot closer than the first draft!
Also... perhaps this is evidence that Rogue techs shouldn't go that high.

So here are my proposed revisions:

* Fighter
+ Attacks generate L1 techs, L1 techs generate L2 techs, et cetera.
+ The Fighter's utility comes in waves, a typical fighter will take a turn to make attacks, then a turn to use L1 techs, then a turn to use L2 techs, and so on. Upon using their highest tech rank, they drop back to regular attacks.
+ Fighters looking for utility out of combat would do well to fill in their extra tech slots during combat so they can be used in dungeoneering and in towns, to bypass or enhance their skill checks (Heroic leaps, inspiring words and the like).
+ Fighter techs should be an even mix of utility and extra damage. Utility techs like Message, Guidance, and Protection from Energy should be paired with offensive techs like Shatter (changed to slashing damage, localized on weapon) and Thunderwave (Shockwave, sonic or crushing damage).

* Barbarian
+ Entering a Rage refills all max-rank techs.
+ Techs can be traded down a level at a rate of 1 for 2. For instance, an L5 becomes two L4s.
+ Barbarians (probably) cannot use techs while raging, or at least they'd need a list reduction during rages.
+ The Barbarian tech list should mostly focus on utility out of combat, such as Alarm (mental only, radius around Barbarian), Fear, Jump, Knock (well, Bash), or Longstrider.

* Rogue
+ Acting with advantage refills a number of L1 techs equal to your sneak attack dice
+ Acting with advantage does this even when out of combat
+ Rogue combat techs should focus on control (such as Hold Person or Grease), while their utility techs should help them fulfill their role as dungeoneers (such as See Invisibility, Misty Step, and Secret Chest)

* Ranger (If converting from half-caster to martial)
+ After an extended rest, refill all max-rank techs.
+ After a short rest, refill one max-rank tech.
+ Trade down techs for those one level lower at a rate of 1 for 2 (as Barbarian).
+ If using this scheme for recharge, re-flavor the Ranger version of their spells as exertions of physical prowess (turn them into techs).

* Monk
+ Ki points = Tech level cost. A L5 tech costs 5 ki.


For balance purposes, we assume that max tech rank is 5 and tech slots are unlocked at the 1/2 progression rate. Tech slots may or may not transfer their recharge rates to spell slots and vice versa (leaning towards no; techs should probably be tracked separately for multi-class characters).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If we assume that "Casters are stronger/better than Martials" is true, what would you do to put them on a more even footing?

The M vs C topic is certainly a contentious one, but let's leave that aside. The idea is to share ideas that some DMs might use in their home games.

If you're going to critique an idea, don't say that the perceived imbalance is not accurate, just critique on the basis of how OP or UP a change would be, or how the change would not address the stated imbalance.

Format:
1. What is the main cause of uneven footing in your opinion?
2. What would you implement (aka what house rule) to fix the cause you listed?

Spoiler: Here's three examples (that I am not advocating for at this time):

Show

1. Cause: martials don't get enough variety in their turn to turn tactics. Change: remove the battlemaster subclass, give maneuvers to all characters. The save DC is as normal, the number of maneuvers known/maneuvers usable per rest/size of the maneuver die is as a battlemaster of the character's level.

2. Cause: martials' numbers are too low compared to casters'. Change: at class level 8, all characters get one extra weapon attack per attack action, stacking with any extra attack class features they get.

3. Cause: martials don't synergize with multiclassing as much as casters do. Change: any martial that takes levels in more than one class that gets extra attack adds the levels together to see if it would have more attacks (or Improved Divine Smite) if the character only had a single class at that level. If the character would have more attacks, they may optionally give up the most recent class feature(s) from their main class (if any, or choose if their classes have the same amount of levels) but gain the extra attack (or IDS). Subsequent levels the character takes in that class give them class features as if they were one level lower in that class. When/if they reach a class level that gives them the extra attack (or IDS) class feature, they have caught up and are treated as having normal levels of class features.

In this last change, a Barbarian 3/Fighter 2 has extra attack but loses the Barbarian subclass feature. A Barbarian 3/Fighter 3 chooses which subclass to give up. A Barbarian 5/Fighter 3 would ignore the listed change. A Barbarian 9/Fighter 2 would not get any extra attacks because the main class is Barbarian, which only has the two attacks at level 11. A Paladin 6/Fighter 6 would have their choice of Extra Attack (2) or Extra Attack (1) and Improved Divine Smite. A Fighter 2/Ranger 2/Monk 1 would have extra attack but would give up the class abilities gained from Ranger 2 or Fighter 2.

Only version one but look at my signature for how I would go about it.

Also, balance is not about making each class as strong as each other, but about letting everyone be useful versus the game along multiple legs of the game (combat, exploration, and social).

[AdAstra]

I do wonder if we could modify the recharge "rate" of spells to better avoid 5 minute work days and allow caster resources to be balanced to the sort of encounter-rate that most DMs use, or preferably, create a system that allows you to adjust the rate to whatever type of campaign you want.

Gritty rest variant does alright with this, but it's kinda annoying in some cases, since it also affects HP and non-spellcasting abilities, often ones that are far more limited in use to begin with.

I think having casters only recharge a portion of their spells per rest seems like a good way to set it up. Casters are still forced to ration, but taking a Long Rest still has a benefit for everyone. For example, let's say on a long rest, a conventional full caster can recharge spell slots of a total level equal to their class level plus their proficiency bonus. So a 5th level caster that expended all their slots and took a long rest could recover 2 3rd level slots and 1 2nd level slot, or 1 3rd level slot, 2 2nd level slots, and 1 1st level slot. So you can burn through your slots in one day, but it might take you several to recharge back to full, longer if you keep using slots.

This system could be adjusted, depending on what kind of recharge rate you want, though it would probably need to be tweaked for the half casters and the Warlock.

[djreynolds]

1. Hit points. I give out max HP at my table than this silly die portion.

The difference a 20th level barbarian has 240hp at my table. The wizard has 120hp.

At some AL tables, 20th level wizards have 82hp and barbarian has 145hp. (Assuming max hp at 1st)

The barbarian gets 7 out 12, 58%.
The wizard gets 4 out of 6, 66%
The fighter get 6 out of 10, 60%
Cleric gets 5 out 8, 62%

That's clearly unfair from 2nd level on.

Is it fixing issues... no.... but it's a start.


2. Speed does not increase. My movement as a 1st level dwarven fighter with an 8 strength is 25ft in plate armor.... the same as a 20th level dwarven fighter with even a belt of giant strength. I'm not more dangerous even over short distances.

All PCs, even monks, should get a bonus to speed for every 5 points in athletics.... +5 to speed. A fighter at 17th level with an 11 athletics check will get +10 to speed if unencumbered.

3. Yes cantrips are silly... because the wizard or cleric who needed a decent dex or strength no longer even need one (toss out GFB and BB). And the damage increases by character level.... not class as extra attack does. Cantrips are very strong, a wizard can use shocking grasp or firebolt and needs only intelligence to do so.

Cantrip power should stop at 5th character levels (aside a warlock with eldritch blast and this requires 17 levels for 4d10)

4. Acrobatics... it's purpose is... what? Nothing? A.C. bonus may not work and mobile feat is good for avoiding AoO.

Well here is an idea... every 5 ranks in this (in the champion's case his/her rank is rounded up from 8 to 10)... how about an extra reaction... period. 10 ranks... 2 reactions.

5. Take those weapon feats that were created... like fell handed, etc... and give these out for free every 5 levels of a class proficient in martial weapons

To me this shows a fighter or paladin or barbarian or ranger or even war cleric maybe who started with proficiencies at 1st level .... are better at 15th level with there weapons...
There are 4 of them... spear and blade and fell handed and flail... 5th 10th 15th ... maybe 20th. But 10 levels of paladin and you can get spear and blade.... not bad.

6. Martials exist IMO to have a constant in the realm of the possible and probable..... casters from level one break the rules of this realm.

Maybe fighters deep down really fear casters and get huge bonuses to their perception check that allows them when a caster casts a spell... they can use their reaction at the moment of casting to take the dodge action... doesn't work for all spells... but what do fighters know.... other than to run when a wizard starts to wiggle their fingers.

[Mjolnirbear]

1. Hit points. I give out max HP at my table than this silly die portion.

The difference a 20th level barbarian has 240hp at my table. The wizard has 120hp.

At some AL tables, 20th level wizards have 82hp and barbarian has 145hp. (Assuming max hp at 1st)

The barbarian gets 7 out 12, 58%.
The wizard gets 4 out of 6, 66%
The fighter get 6 out of 10, 60%
Cleric gets 5 out 8, 62%

That's clearly unfair from 2nd level on.

Is it fixing issues... no.... but it's a start.


2. Speed does not increase. My movement as a 1st level dwarven fighter with an 8 strength is 25ft in plate armor.... the same as a 20th level dwarven fighter with even a belt of giant strength. I'm not more dangerous even over short distances.

All PCs, even monks, should get a bonus to speed for every 5 points in athletics.... +5 to speed. A fighter at 17th level with an 11 athletics check will get +10 to speed if unencumbered.

3. Yes cantrips are silly... because the wizard or cleric who needed a decent dex or strength no longer even need one (toss out GFB and BB). And the damage increases by character level.... not class as extra attack does. Cantrips are very strong, a wizard can use shocking grasp or firebolt and needs only intelligence to do so.

Cantrip power should stop at 5th character levels (aside a warlock with eldritch blast and this requires 17 levels for 4d10)

4. Acrobatics... it's purpose is... what? Nothing? A.C. bonus may not work and mobile feat is good for avoiding AoO.

Well here is an idea... every 5 ranks in this (in the champion's case his/her rank is rounded up from 8 to 10)... how about an extra reaction... period. 10 ranks... 2 reactions.

5. Take those weapon feats that were created... like fell handed, etc... and give these out for free every 5 levels of a class proficient in martial weapons

To me this shows a fighter or paladin or barbarian or ranger or even war cleric maybe who started with proficiencies at 1st level .... are better at 15th level with there weapons...
There are 4 of them... spear and blade and fell handed and flail... 5th 10th 15th ... maybe 20th. But 10 levels of paladin and you can get spear and blade.... not bad.

6. Martials exist IMO to have a constant in the realm of the possible and probable..... casters from level one break the rules of this realm.

Maybe fighters deep down really fear casters and get huge bonuses to their perception check that allows them when a caster casts a spell... they can use their reaction at the moment of casting to take the dodge action... doesn't work for all spells... but what do fighters know.... other than to run when a wizard starts to wiggle their fingers.

I'm only gonna comment on the cantrips... You realise, don't you, that cantrips aren't a caster's strength?

The at-will damage of a caster is below that of a fighter, excepting only warlock, and that exception was built in on purpose.

In fact, very few casters rely on cantrips at all. Here are the times a caster relies on cantrips:

1. When a caster has run out of spell slots or is preserving them for some reason. Because spells are almost universally a better use of a caster's actions
2. When you're a warlock, because warlocks don't have many spell slots like other casters.
3. When you have a specific build: arcane trickster or eldritch knight with SCAG cantrips, or Artillerist (I'd happily save all Artillerist spells for cannons), or some other niche build (maybe quickened booming blade builds). Note that most examples in this slot involve SCAG.

So the first example you almost never see, the second is intentionally built to have fighter-like at-will damage, and the third requires niche builds or SCAG cantrips. None of these examples glorify normal cantrips usage. Certainly none of them are powerful examples of what the caster can do with its options. Even warlocks would rather use a spell slot for faerie fire or Fireball than Agonizing Eldritch Blast if they have the option (they just rarely have the luxury of casting 'real' spells.

Even abilities that buff spells (clerics, dragon sorcerers, evocation wizards) aren't enough to make cantrips the primary option unless you're a warlock or you have a niche build (like an artillerist/storm sorcerer with Quicken).

I won't bother discussing your other ideas as I simply have no thoughts on them. But nerfing cantrips isn't nerfing casters; it's nerfing fun, much like two-weapon fighting in general or throwing weapons are nerfed and unnecessarily sub-par.

It is also always a better idea to buff the sub-par rather than nerf the powerful. It's better to make martials more fun than making casters less fun.

[djreynolds]

It's a good point on cantrips.

Fighters only have really at will damage... they just have a sword.

We never be able to really close the gap between casters and martials.

I think though that a lifetime spent really living in heavy armor and depending on certain skills should make a martial better at these skills.

An increase in HP is one way. As shown before the numbers very from 58% to 66.7%... that's a big difference. 8%

An increase of speed is warranted. As your strength increases your speed should increase.

Even a fighter in light armor should be faster than a fighter in heavy armor... right?

Skills could be a way to showcase this. We've seen skill feats in the UA.

[Skylivedk]

It's a good point on cantrips.

Fighters only have really at will damage... they just have a sword.

We never be able to really close the gap between casters and martials.

I think though that a lifetime spent really living in heavy armor and depending on certain skills should make a martial better at these skills.

An increase in HP is one way. As shown before the numbers very from 58% to 66.7%... that's a big difference. 8%

An increase of speed is warranted. As your strength increases your speed should increase.

Even a fighter in light armor should be faster than a fighter in heavy armor... right?

Skills could be a way to showcase this. We've seen skill feats in the UA.

I like:
5 feet per +1 strength
- 5 for medium armour
- 10 for heavy armour

Extra attack also gives extra AoO. They can be spread at own risk (allows for better lockdown from Martials).

Int gives extra languages/tool proficiencies (not much of a martial boost, but I'd still want it).

If not a redo of the entire skill system, then new skill unlocks for Martials in each tier. Half-casters will be 1 or 2 tiers behind.

Remove some spells/make them NPC only. Planar Binding, Simulacrum, Awaken, Clone, Wish, Scrying, maybe a few others.

[Mjolnirbear]

More encounters.

If I were rebuilding this part of the game, maneuvers would be available to all martials, and they would get out-of-combat utility. Things like bonuses to intimidation, insight, or persuasion. Possibly something about leadership (though maybe not, it's basically down to role-play at that point). Practical abilities like awareness of danger, quickness to react (initiative anyone?), and useful rituals (like Alarm).

It's a good point on cantrips.

Fighters only have really at will damage... they just have a sword.

We never be able to really close the gap between casters and martials.

I think though that a lifetime spent really living in heavy armor and depending on certain skills should make a martial better at these skills.

An increase in HP is one way. As shown before the numbers very from 58% to 66.7%... that's a big difference. 8%

An increase of speed is warranted. As your strength increases your speed should increase.

Even a fighter in light armor should be faster than a fighter in heavy armor... right?

Skills could be a way to showcase this. We've seen skill feats in the UA.

I like:
5 feet per +1 strength
- 5 for medium armour
- 10 for heavy armour

Extra attack also gives extra AoO. They can be spread at own risk (allows for better lockdown from Martials).

Int gives extra languages/tool proficiencies (not much of a martial boost, but I'd still want it).

If not a redo of the entire skill system, then new skill unlocks for Martials in each tier. Half-casters will be 1 or 2 tiers behind.

Remove some spells/make them NPC only. Planar Binding, Simulacrum, Awaken, Clone, Wish, Scrying, maybe a few others.

I'm not sure we're approaching the problem in the best way.

1. Martials are great at combat. It's one of the tenets of this edition that martials have top tier damage. That they can fight all day long. But
2. Martials have extremely limited non-combat options in comparison to casters. And
3. The most powerful combat feats are already most useful to martials.

I don't think we need to make martials better at combat. I mean I don't object particularly to martials getting fun thinks like more hit points or better Armour or damage or speed, but it doesn't solve the problem, because martials are already pretty awesome that way. And we don't really need to improve on that. The balance is pretty fine-tuned and we don't want to end up like rangers with exploration: i.e. Obviating the need for the exploration piller.

I also don't know that skills are the way to go. Skills are pretty universal; everyone uses them. 5e flirts with KISS ideals, and making skills do different things for martials vastly complicates matters.

So if we're improving the balance between casters and martials, we need for martials to have

1. More decisions and choices
2. Ways to contribute beyond damage dealing

1. Create intuitive rules for social and exploration pillars.

This is missing from the game. Crucially, the best interactions (in some cases the only ones) are with casters. Casters get enchantment and illusions to manipulate social stuff and teleportation or flight or scrying to intersect with exploration.

But if instead we had rules for combat and exploration, we could then give martials abilities to interact with those rules. For instance, rogue and paladin gain abilities that intersect with social rules, while rangers and barbarians can interact with exploration rules. With such rules, and martials being updated to use those rules, martials would have a more complete way to engage the game. We could then evaluate the spells casters get to interact with these rules and eliminate ones that, like current rangers, eliminate the need to interact with that pillar at all.

2. Options
Martials lack choices. This isn't (necessarily) a bad thing, especially given the system knowledge needed to play a caster without slowing the game down by asking the DM questions. But at the bare minimum, even sorcerers get to switch out a spell once per level. The recent class and subclass options UA filled a road of potholes that had been ignored to that point. But once you've picked your fighting style and subclass and expertise, martials choices mostly involve picking a target for an attack. Even switching weapons offers no meaningful choices

2a) so we give martials choices. The easy place to start is a resource like maneuvers, with maneuvers expanded to include more pillars. The goal is not to make martials better at combat, but give them a little variety. Imagine an Intimidation maneuver. A simple and easy way for a martial to interact with a pillar.

2b) martials get a feat. Feats are excellent ways to get additional options. It's modular, self-contained, adaptable. The problem is the best feats are combat feats. Martials don't need more combat feats (we can add some if we're doing this anyways, but martials are already awesome at combat).

Sooo... A minor change to the Feat structure would be to seperate current feats by pillar. Then fill out the Social and Exploration feats, and give martials one extra pick.

3. Tweak all the things

What other dials could we fiddle with after updating the pillars, granting more ways for martials to interact with said pillars, and giving martials more choices besides "I Attack".

First, comb through the spell list. Do we really need Knock anymore except as a sop to wizard superiority? Is Pass Without Trace now a good Exploration option or is it too much? Should Spider Climb or Fly be higher level spells?

Here too is where I'd decide if skills needed work. Currently skills are almost completely social and exploration. Is it good at doing this? Expansion of skills in combat could be useful, such as expanding on grappling, or incorporating feints and bluffs.

Recast all classes to intersect with at least two pillars. Many casters are set; druids/exploration, bards/social, warlocks/any role they want. But clerics, artificers and wizards are kinda all over the place. You'd think clerics would be social, because priests deal with people, but clerics don't really tend the flock in a concrete way. You'd think artificers would be exploration, but most infusions are about combat. Wizards are supposed to be a utility knife of sorts, how does utility knife count as a pillar?

TD;DR:
1. Recast rules for social and exploration
2. Insert class abilities into martials to interact with said pillars
3. Rejig/revamp maneuvers and feats to allow martials more choices, some of which must be social/exploration abilities
4. Fine tune spells, skills and casters to better match having access to at least two pillars and not overshadow martials

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I forgot to drop this earlier, but, 13th Age gives everyone cool things, plays rather well with minis or theater of the mind, and is typically balanced (class versus the game).

https://www.13thagesrd.com/

Best way to play it is to have a table where you place your minis approximately where they would be in relation to each other and don't sweat the small distance details.


+Edit+

Also the skill system is basically what 5e wanted to do, but stopped halfway. 5e's skill system is both free form and ridged and it makes me giggle.

[Xervous]

+Edit+

Also the skill system is basically what 5e wanted to do, but stopped halfway. 5e's skill system is both free form and ridged and it makes me giggle.

Though I suspect this to be a typo the first thing that comes to mind being both of malleable form and capable of having ridges is Playdoh wherein it takes the shape of whoever last grasped it, which is a great analogy for how the skill system uh... behaves. Feels like a half truth to say it works.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Though I suspect this to be a typo the first thing that comes to mind being both of malleable form and capable of having ridges is Playdoh wherein it takes the shape of whoever last grasped it, which is a great analogy for how the skill system uh... behaves. Feels like a half truth to say it works.

Leave Play-Doh out long enough and you get 5es system. You can still move it a bit... But it isn't Play-Doh as it doesn't play as play doh is sold to play as.

5e's skill system has plenty of flaws but the most serious is that you have to pick out specific skills... And not know what they actually do until you roll. Not if you pass or fail, but what your character can do with Arcana prof. Like, how much knowledge does prof get you? If the system is going to be so ridged, why is the result trying to be freeform?

Part of this is because 5e is a combat focused RPG. Notice with the skill checks... The ones relating to combat have specific concrete results. Weird, right?

If my character is trained in history... Why is it all history? Why not an area of expertise? Why is it that **I, the player** determine what I roll? I want to intimidate using my intelligence or strength (explaining what a vat of acid does to the body textbook style or showing off my muscles)? That's what my character would do... But then again I don't know the end result at all because there isn't one.

13th Age works so much better because it knows what it is and is what it is. Not perfect, but so much better.

At the end of the day, I'm tired of having to make excuses as to why I play 5e and needing to homebrew stuff to make it half way playable. I love the base of 5e but like the skill system, I'm not sure they knew what they really wanted from the system (outside of nostalgia and making money).

[Mjolnirbear]

Part of this is because 5e is a combat focused RPG. Notice with the skill checks... The ones relating to combat have specific concrete results. Weird, right?

If my character is trained in history... Why is it all history? Why not an area of expertise? Why is it that **I, the player** determine what I roll? I want to intimidate using my intelligence or strength (explaining what a vat of acid does to the body textbook style or showing off my muscles)? That's what my character would do... But then again I don't know the end result at all because there isn't one.

Because you only get four skill picks so the difference between history: chult and history: calimshan is pointless; you don't choose the roll, you decide your character's action and the DM tells you what to roll; choosing non-standard ability is a variant in the DMG; NO ONE knows the result of the roll, that's why you are rolling; and like all D&D, the DM will determine the result based on your roll. If you succeed, your target is intimidated.

I'm really not sure what, exactly, your complaint is, here. That there is no pre-populated list of DCs with what DC is required for which result? Perhaps without using comparison to a game other than D&D (there are enough confusions with the game everyone is on these boards to discuss; adding a game which is less well understood fails to properly clarify your argument for many people.

[Skylivedk]

I'm not sure we're approaching the problem in the best way.

1. Martials are great at combat. It's one of the tenets of this edition that martials have top tier damage. That they can fight all day long. But
2. Martials have extremely limited non-combat options in comparison to casters. And
3. The most powerful combat feats are already most useful to martials.

I don't think we need to make martials better at combat. I mean I don't object particularly to martials getting fun thinks like more hit points or better Armour or damage or speed, but it doesn't solve the problem, because martials are already pretty awesome that way. And we don't really need to improve on that. The balance is pretty fine-tuned and we don't want to end up like rangers with exploration: i.e. Obviating the need for the exploration piller.

I also don't know that skills are the way to go. Skills are pretty universal; everyone uses them. 5e flirts with KISS ideals, and making skills do different things for martials vastly complicates matters.

So if we're improving the balance between casters and martials, we need for martials to have

1. More decisions and choices
2. Ways to contribute beyond damage dealing

1. Create intuitive rules for social and exploration pillars.

This is missing from the game. Crucially, the best interactions (in some cases the only ones) are with casters. Casters get enchantment and illusions to manipulate social stuff and teleportation or flight or scrying to intersect with exploration.

But if instead we had rules for combat and exploration, we could then give martials abilities to interact with those rules. For instance, rogue and paladin gain abilities that intersect with social rules, while rangers and barbarians can interact with exploration rules. With such rules, and martials being updated to use those rules, martials would have a more complete way to engage the game. We could then evaluate the spells casters get to interact with these rules and eliminate ones that, like current rangers, eliminate the need to interact with that pillar at all.

2. Options
Martials lack choices. This isn't (necessarily) a bad thing, especially given the system knowledge needed to play a caster without slowing the game down by asking the DM questions. But at the bare minimum, even sorcerers get to switch out a spell once per level. The recent class and subclass options UA filled a road of potholes that had been ignored to that point. But once you've picked your fighting style and subclass and expertise, martials choices mostly involve picking a target for an attack. Even switching weapons offers no meaningful choices

2a) so we give martials choices. The easy place to start is a resource like maneuvers, with maneuvers expanded to include more pillars. The goal is not to make martials better at combat, but give them a little variety. Imagine an Intimidation maneuver. A simple and easy way for a martial to interact with a pillar.

2b) martials get a feat. Feats are excellent ways to get additional options. It's modular, self-contained, adaptable. The problem is the best feats are combat feats. Martials don't need more combat feats (we can add some if we're doing this anyways, but martials are already awesome at combat).

Sooo... A minor change to the Feat structure would be to seperate current feats by pillar. Then fill out the Social and Exploration feats, and give martials one extra pick.

3. Tweak all the things

What other dials could we fiddle with after updating the pillars, granting more ways for martials to interact with said pillars, and giving martials more choices besides "I Attack".

First, comb through the spell list. Do we really need Knock anymore except as a sop to wizard superiority? Is Pass Without Trace now a good Exploration option or is it too much? Should Spider Climb or Fly be higher level spells?

Here too is where I'd decide if skills needed work. Currently skills are almost completely social and exploration. Is it good at doing this? Expansion of skills in combat could be useful, such as expanding on grappling, or incorporating feints and bluffs.

Recast all classes to intersect with at least two pillars. Many casters are set; druids/exploration, bards/social, warlocks/any role they want. But clerics, artificers and wizards are kinda all over the place. You'd think clerics would be social, because priests deal with people, but clerics don't really tend the flock in a concrete way. You'd think artificers would be exploration, but most infusions are about combat. Wizards are supposed to be a utility knife of sorts, how does utility knife count as a pillar?

TD;DR:
1. Recast rules for social and exploration
2. Insert class abilities into martials to interact with said pillars
3. Rejig/revamp maneuvers and feats to allow martials more choices, some of which must be social/exploration abilities
4. Fine tune spells, skills and casters to better match having access to at least two pillars and not overshadow martials

I agree that out of combat is more important to fix than in combat, but I also find martial combat way too repetitive. I've just started looking at the combat system of Mythras where the base layer itself seems a lot more exciting.

Besides that, I know I haven't reposted all of my out of combat option suggestions on the last post, but so far they include:

- remove a lot of the utility/world altering spells from the individual casters

- give specific non-combat perks to Martials (heroic, epic and legendary perks which could, or could not, be based on the skills they have proficiency in; delay with a tier or two for half casters)

- allow Martials a wider access to the noon-combat perks that are currently feat/level/class/subclass gated

- change the skill system to be less random and have a higher progression (either with lower DC and multiple dice like suggested by MOG or by doubling proficiency and expertise)

- make combat more interactive for Martials (more reactions for AoO, better base options for alternate uses of attack, grapple progression, interactions between imposed conditions and attacks)

- give Martials unique resource mechanics (ie. Rogues get luck points for pulling off crazy ability checks, Barbarians charge rages from taking/giving damage, Fighters regain superiority dice from AoOs or defeating enemies [NEW])

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Because you only get four skill picks so the difference between history: chult and history: calimshan is pointless; you don't choose the roll, you decide your character's action and the DM tells you what to roll; choosing non-standard ability is a variant in the DMG; NO ONE knows the result of the roll, that's why you are rolling; and like all D&D, the DM will determine the result based on your roll. If you succeed, your target is intimidated.

I'm really not sure what, exactly, your complaint is, here. That there is no pre-populated list of DCs with what DC is required for which result? Perhaps without using comparison to a game other than D&D (there are enough confusions with the game everyone is on these boards to discuss; adding a game which is less well understood fails to properly clarify your argument for many people.

When you do something, that you are trained to do, you generally know WHAT you can do.

This isn't how 5e works.

I'm 5e you have to guess if your character might be able to do something at all. If the action is even possible.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/decipherScript.htm

With this you know how well you have to do in order to succeed. You can train your character to have a specific proficiency in deciphering texts. You know what a DC 20 gets you, DC 25 gets you, and DC 30 gets you.

In 5e, if you rolled and hit a DC 15 (changing the DC based on the different systems)... You don't know what that means until after the DM tells you.

This is just how non-combat skills work in 5e. I know 5e is a combat game now, but dang.

Imagine playing Mario and not knowing how long his power ups will last. Sometimes the Starman lasts for 15 seconds, sometimes it lasts for 5 seconds, sometimes it just doesn't work at all (but you get the visuals).

The utter lack of consistency is annoying.

Easy, Hard, and Impossible don't tell you what you can and can't do. Just how difficult it will be to do what you don't know you can or can't do.

[AdAstra]

When you do something, that you are trained to do, you generally know WHAT you can do.

This isn't how 5e works.

I'm 5e you have to guess if your character might be able to do something at all. If the action is even possible.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/decipherScript.htm

With this you know how well you have to do in order to succeed. You can train your character to have a specific proficiency in deciphering texts. You know what a DC 20 gets you, DC 25 gets you, and DC 30 gets you.

In 5e, if you rolled and hit a DC 15 (changing the DC based on the different systems)... You don't know what that means until after the DM tells you.

This is just how non-combat skills work in 5e. I know 5e is a combat game now, but dang.

Imagine playing Mario and not knowing how long his power ups will last. Sometimes the Starman lasts for 15 seconds, sometimes it lasts for 5 seconds, sometimes it just doesn't work at all (but you get the visuals).

The utter lack of consistency is annoying.

Easy, Hard, and Impossible don't tell you what you can and can't do. Just how difficult it will be to do what you don't know you can or can't do.

This approach has its own serious issues. For example, Decipher Script is unclear as to whether it includes codes or actual ciphers, despite the fact that it almost certainly should. Is the exclusion deliberate? In a more generic system it’s usually easier to tell. In addition, the suggested DCs make zero sense. What the heck is a “standard text” as compared to “the simplest messages”? A page, a book, a sentence? The system also makes no distinction between languages, unless they are “intricate, exotic, or very old writing”. Does Elvish count as Intricate? Why would a person trained in deciphering script be equally proficient in deciphering all script, as opposed to having a few specialties as real world linguists tend to have?

If I actually used the suggested DCs at all, they would be telling me that a character who only knows dwarvish trained in Decipher Script would need a DC30 to decipher any ancient dwarvish, but only a DC 20 to read a gnoll greeting card and know what it means.

Worst of all, if you actually tried to do something about these nonsense results, you’d be directly contravening the book, which despite any claims of rule 0, is still something people are loathe to do. And you risk getting complaints that you’re “messing with player expectations” and “making the results of their actions unpredictable”.

Being more specific can often be more confusing, and 3/3.5 has this in droves.

[heavyfuel]

Who'd complain about more martial options

So, so many people...

We have a poster here whose sig used to say that "balancing a part of the game by making it annoying to use isn't a best practice" or something like that.

Yeah that’s Grod’s Law.

I don't think Grod's Law means "no nerfing". You can nerf spells without making them annoying to use.

[Barny]

If we assume that "Casters are stronger/better than Martials" is true, what would you do to put them on a more even footing?

The M vs C topic is certainly a contentious one, but let's leave that aside. The idea is to share ideas that some DMs might use in their home games.

If you're going to critique an idea, don't say that the perceived imbalance is not accurate, just critique on the basis of how OP or UP a change would be, or how the change would not address the stated imbalance.

Format:
1. What is the main cause of uneven footing in your opinion?
2. What would you implement (aka what house rule) to fix the cause you listed?

Will you do anything to rebalance your body because your leg is longer than your arm?
Snipers are much stronger than assault rifles in gun power and accuracy, so is there a need to rebalance them on the tactical team?

The answer is no! If your story and encounters are interesting but challenging enough, PCs will experience it as a group/ a body/ a tactical unit.
They should not be in a competition to compare who has the highest dmg meter, unless your sessions/story/encounters are too simple/boring that they don't have any other memorable moments at all.

[heavyfuel]

They should not be in a competition to compare who has the highest dmg meter

Most people who think Caster vs Martials is a problem aren't talking about damage.

If you look at casters as a sniper rifle whose sole purpose is dealing damage, I suggest you actually take a look at the effect of some non-damaging spells.

[Barny]

Most people who think Caster vs Martials is a problem aren't talking about damage.

If you look at casters as a sniper rifle whose sole purpose is dealing damage, I suggest you actually take a look at the effect of some non-damaging spells.

lol, why don't you take my leg/arm analogy to say that I think casters are longer than melee?

[Kireban]

It feels as if the main reason for all this martial vs caster mambo jambo is that the martials are way too used to dominate the tir1 and 2.
Make the lovely GWF, SS, CE, PAM and sentinal feats with a limited amount of uses per rest. These feats make Martial way too strong in the lower levels.

[Kane0]

I don't think Grod's Law means "no nerfing". You can nerf spells without making them annoying to use.

The way i read Grod’s law was
“You cannot/should not balance mechanics by making them convoluted/difficult to use”

Snipers are much stronger than assault rifles in gun power and accuracy, so is there a need to balance them on the tactical team

Except the premise is that one of those guns can also cook your food, unfold into a tent and has a built in screwdriver set.

[heavyfuel]

The way i read Grod’s law was
“You cannot/should not balance mechanics by making them convoluted/difficult to use”

As have I, which is why I don't think you broke Grod's law when you said "gut spells"

[AdAstra]

Will you do anything to rebalance your body because your leg is longer than your arm?
Snipers are much stronger than assault rifles in gun power and accuracy, so is there a need to rebalance them on the tactical team?

The answer is no! If your story and encounters are interesting but challenging enough, PCs will experience it as a group/ a body/ a tactical unit.
They should not be in a competition to compare who has the highest dmg meter, unless your sessions/story/encounters are too simple/boring that they don't have any other memorable moments at all.

If each player plays as one member of said team, then generally, yes, there's an expectation that the sniper be balanced with the guy with an assault rifle. The guns themselves need not be balanced, but the people, guns and all, ideally should. This is also a nonsensical metaphor, since while most sniper rifles have more power and accuracy, they also generally have a lower rate of fire and are a good deal heavier. A sniper is not universally better than an assault rifle, and is in fact worse at the vast majority of tasks, which is why sniper rifles have always been niche items, especially compared to assault rifles. If anything, the assault rifle is the Wizard equivalent in this metaphor, since it's better suited to more tasks.

The way i read Grod’s law was
“You cannot/should not balance mechanics by making them convoluted/difficult to use”



Except the premise is that one of those guns can also cook your food, unfold into a tent and has a built in screwdriver set.

Funny enough, a Vickers machine gun can be used to boil water for food/drinks, is long enough that you could pitch a shelter half over it to make for a particularly crappy tent, and was as standard carried with a variety of tools, including screwdrivers, in a satchel that you could easily strap to the tripod if you wanted.

[Bosh]

I remember the yawning balance gap in 3.5ed. Compared to that 5e's issues are relatively minor. The single biggest thing that narrowed the balance gap was the concentration mechanic which was one of 5e's best ideas.

So more can be done to hit casters with the nerf bat. A lot can be done spell by spell. For example the knock spell can open a lock BUT it makes a loud noise. Scatter a whole bunch more of that kind of BUT on otherwise powerful spells and balance would improve by a good bit.

For skills I'd really like them to nail down exactly what skills do. Spells say what they DO. Skills are a bunch of hand waving. I like OSR games so I don't mind a good bit of hand waving but you get problems if one class's power is build on specifically nailed down rules (spells) and another is build on having big numbers to add ro hand wavey stuff (skills).

The problem is if you dump a whole bunch of rule info about every single skill on starting players and DMs it's just too much. If you try to make simple rules that cover everything you end up abstracting out a lot of the fun of D&D.

So here's what I'd do: keep ability checks as a hand wavey fallback for when there are no specific rules but replace skills with SPECIFIC abilities that have effects that are as nailed down as spells.

Players would start with a few but get more as they level up, same as with spells. Some examples off the top of my head:

Move silently: hit X DC with a dex check and you are 100% silent. NOTHING can hear you.

Hide in shadows: just having a shadow to stand in makes you lightly obscured.

Knowledge skills: hit X DC and you can ask certain question of the DM and get answers, like reading a sitch in Apocalype World. What questions you can ask depend on the skill used.

Climb: get a climb speed.

Eye for illusions: DM rolls a int check behind the screen for you every time you see an illusion and if you pass X DC you know they're wrong.

Ear for lies: blah blah DC you know when others are lying.

Oathspeaker: if you speak an oath and speak the truth others KNOW you're speaking truthfully if you pass X DC...

Etc. etc. etc.

Nail down more specifically the cool things that mundane PCs can do with skills. Nail them down as tightly as spells are nailed down.

Of course don't make rules for everything, keep ability checks just give players cool discreet things to super-charging their ability checks.