Simple Fixes for Toning Down Casters at Higher Levels?

[Necrosnoop110]

So my group in which I DM, is switching over from 3E to 5E. Back in 3E game I had a list of houserules for ways to try and keep the martials from not being overshadowed by the casters (or at least my best attempt). I have been runing as a PC in another 5E campaign for years so I have a decent understanding of the rules set. As a DM, we are soon starting a new 5E campaign that will run from 1st to 20th character levels. What I was curious to know is does anyone have any simple houserules or fixes that could do the same for 5E in the later tiers of play?

One thought I had was requiring at least 4 levels of multiclassing by 20th level so as to limit the highest level of spells (maybe requiring 2 class levels taken before reaching 10th character level, and 2 after 10th). I am not interested in doing any extensive rewrites or "line-item" houserules I am just looking for a simple "patch" that will tone the casters down a bit after 10th level so the martials don't begin to feel worthless. Half my table only plays martials (they literally refuse to play casters) and I don't what them to become obsolete in the back half of the campaign.

Any suggestions?

[J-H]

At 20th level, the fighter can make his 4th attack every round. The barbarian has +2 to hit, damage, AC, 2 saves, and +40 hit points all day long.

The casters, meanwhile? They still only get one 9th level spell for the entire day. Their big gun has only one bullet per day in it.
If you make them multiclass, you take away the capstones (which generally help lower level spells), and you block them off from their big gun. As long as you don't have single-encounter adventuring days it's not that big of a deal. 8th level spells are (mostly) mediocre, and they still only get one per day of those.

Martials are still very relevant, as long as they maintain mobility. A Paladin or Barbarian can out-burst a wizard against tough foes in most circumstances, and can usually keep it up for several rounds. The chief beneficiaries of some of the staple buff spells (like Haste) are martials.

I don't think it's a problem.

[Xervous]

Cutting off level 7+ spells is a decent (compared to various nonsensical or otherwise tedious suggestions) hack. Though a big thing you should acknowledge is Handcuffs for Casters and Red Carpets for Martials.

Adventure design and options provided need to take the massive difference between Martials and casters into account. The system assumes but does not explain that different classes need to be treated differently if you want to give them equal opportunity for spotlight moments, decision making and interaction. Casters have a wealth of options, but these options should not always be checkboxes that solve obstacles. It is on you as the GM to build your scenarios around the casters capabilities and to not let them get away with more than they should. On the flip side Martials have low to no unique options and will depend on GM permissiveness when attempting actions for which there are no rules, or GM accommodation providing scenarios they can be relevant to. Write the fighter into the story, write the boring wizard six second solutions out.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's pretty tricky, as you don't want stuff that cuts down on people's game time (like Animagic fields).

The easier solution is just to scale everything else up, by adding improvised effects to skills or attacks. It's a lot easier to add than it is to remove in 5e.

There is a lot of contention as to whether there needs to be any balance changing, and all that both sides can agree on is that Rangers suck (even talks about Sorcerers running into problems with spells-learned always has that one guy that pulls out a calculator and starts finnagling some weird min-max shenanigans with 7 Fireballs).

I'm calling it now, there's gonna be the main conversation piece that you're looking for in like 30% of the thread, and the rest is going to be about a bunch of nerds saying how someone else shouldn't have an opinion.

For what it's worth, I hope you find a decent answer.

I have a few solutions of my own (cap spell levels to 6 at level 20, add 50% more spell slots to compensate, save spells 7-9 as special stuff to be earned), but they aren't simple.

[CheddarChampion]

I am also of the opinion that casters outshine martials at high levels.

My preferred solution is not running games much past level 10. That's not a solution for high level play, though.

High level fights will become harder, possibly by too much, if you nerf spellcasters. I suggest you do something to buff martials instead.

One method I've heard of but haven't tried yet is: giving martials more attunement slots, proportionally to how few spell slots they have. A wizard would have the normal 3, a ranger 5, and a rogue 7, for example. You can adjust the specifics.

The idea is that there's a lot of cool magic items out there and letting martials use more of them makes them more competitive: it increases their power and gives them more options.

[quindraco]

So my group in which I DM, is switching over from 3E to 5E. Back in 3E game I had a list of houserules for ways to try and keep the martials from not being overshadowed by the casters (or at least my best attempt). I have been runing as a PC in another 5E campaign for years so I have a decent understanding of the rules set. As a DM, we are soon starting a new 5E campaign that will run from 1st to 20th character levels. What I was curious to know is does anyone have any simple houserules or fixes that could do the same for 5E in the later tiers of play?

One thought I had was requiring at least 4 levels of multiclassing by 20th level so as to limit the highest level of spells (maybe requiring 2 class levels taken before reaching 10th character level, and 2 after 10th). I am not interested in doing any extensive rewrites or "line-item" houserules I am just looking for a simple "patch" that will tone the casters down a bit after 10th level so the martials don't begin to feel worthless. Half my table only plays martials (they literally refuse to play casters) and I don't what them to become obsolete in the back half of the campaign.

Any suggestions?

Casters are a lot more forgiving in 5E - your table might want to try them. Gone are the days of assigning specific spells to specific spell slots.

Since most classes are casters (especially with subclasses), it's hard to give you a very simple patch on them. It's probably easier to buff the martials than nerf the casters. Here are buffs for the four non-caster classes half of your table will be limiting themselves to:

• If you are a Barbarian who can't cast spells, while raging you gain the Mage Slayer feat's benefits.
• If you are a Fighter who can't cast spells, you gain proficiency in Athletics and Acrobatics, or if you are already proficient, expertise; if you ever gain the ability to cast spells, you lose these benefits.
• If you are a Monk who can't cast spells, you gain Jack of All Trades (half proficiency if not proficient) and Reliable Talent (rolls of less than 10 are 10) in Perception and Insight; if you ever gain the ability to cast spells, you lose these benefits.
• If you are a Rogue who can't cast spells, you gain 1 luck point, which otherwise works like the Lucky feat. If you ever gain the ability to cast spells, you lose this luck point.

[Xervous]

I am also of the opinion that casters outshine martials at high levels.

My preferred solution is not running games much past level 10.

High level fights will become harder, possibly by too much, if you nerf spellcasters. I suggest you do something to buff martials instead.

One method I've heard of but haven't tried yet is by giving martials more attunement slots, proportionally to how few spell slots they have. A wizard would have the normal 3, a ranger 5, and a rogue 7, for example. You can adjust the specifics.

The idea is that there's a lot of cool magic items out there and letting martials use more of them makes them more competitive: it increases their power and gives them more options.

As much as I know some people will dislike it, Christmas tree has been the forever classic solution to martial relevance at high levels / high tier play.

[Trask]

I don't think martials ever become obsolete like in 3.5, but they do become overshadowed.

I wouldn't do the multiclassing requirement personally because it does lock you out of a lot of capstone features.

Honestly one of the simplest ways to tone down casters is to make long resting harder to do. They benefit from long rest the most by far. Making a long rest not as simple as a night's sleep can make spells more important to use judiciously and prevent the willy-nilly sort of spell-throwing that does lead to overshadowing.

I've done long rests require a "base" of some kind, or take longer, like 24 hours.

This has been mentioned in the thread about strength, but you could also make spellcasting a little harder or easier to interrupt, like having the restrained condition require a concentration save to successfully cast a spell with a somatic component, or bringing back an opportunity attack for casting a non touch spell within 5 feet. I have a houserule that a caster can only possess like 3 material components with a cost at a time. Very gamey yes, but it does help limit them.

Obviously these use a light touch, and I've tried to be conservative with them because I think little changes can snowball in unforseen ways.

[Unoriginal]

So my group in which I DM, is switching over from 3E to 5E. Back in 3E game I had a list of houserules for ways to try and keep the martials from not being overshadowed by the casters (or at least my best attempt). I have been runing as a PC in another 5E campaign for years so I have a decent understanding of the rules set. As a DM, we are soon starting a new 5E campaign that will run from 1st to 20th character levels. What I was curious to know is does anyone have any simple houserules or fixes that could do the same for 5E in the later tiers of play?

One thought I had was requiring at least 4 levels of multiclassing by 20th level so as to limit the highest level of spells (maybe requiring 2 class levels taken before reaching 10th character level, and 2 after 10th). I am not interested in doing any extensive rewrites or "line-item" houserules I am just looking for a simple "patch" that will tone the casters down a bit after 10th level so the martials don't begin to feel worthless. Half my table only plays martials (they literally refuse to play casters) and I don't what them to become obsolete in the back half of the campaign.

Any suggestions?

5e martials stay relevant for the entire game, just like casters.

If you feel like things don't go well at your table when you reach those levels, then you will have to see how to adjust things for the specific problems your table is facing.

There is no blanket solution, because there is no blanket problem.

As much as I know some people will dislike it, Christmas tree has been the forever classic solution to martial relevance at high levels / high tier play.

It was never a solution. Especially because casters got the same ton of magic items.

[PhoenixPhyre]

First-pass fix:

Spells do exactly and only what they say. If it doesn't say it does something, it doesn't. If there are doubts, resolve them in favor of deny. Enforce things like components making casting obvious (ie no subtle casting unless you are a sorcerer with the metamagic and use it). Don't hand out scrolls like candy.

Sounds harsh, but it's actually the default setting. And goes a huge way to tamp down the power of casters, because now each arrow in their quiver only does one specific thing.

Second-pass fix:

Apply the exact opposite level of permissiveness to non-spell ability checks. If the attempted action seems even remotely plausible, let them try (and don't set the DC above 20 unless you're at high level and it's something super absurd). Roughly, take your 3e DCs and cut them in half. Don't assume that they need magic to solve problems--allow mundane means.

Third-pass fix:

Have a variety of adventuring days. Including really really long ones. With varied encounters (from mobs of little guys to a few bruisers to mixed forces). And don't do MMO-style "only hit the tank". Go for the squishies/back-line where it's appropriate.

I know it's not what you want to hear, but together those two remove a lot of the differential without further side effects.

[Xervous]

Second-pass fix:

Apply the exact opposite level of permissiveness to non-spell ability checks. If the attempted action seems even remotely plausible, let them try (and don't set the DC above 20 unless you're at high level and it's something super absurd). Roughly, take your 3e DCs and cut them in half. Don't assume that they need magic to solve problems--allow mundane means.

Do be aware this puts said deeds in everyone’s reach unless you impose arbitrary limitations on who can even attempt the check.

[Tanarii]

Don't include the following feats: Resilient (Con), Warcaster. Or eliminate the concentration bonus from the latter but otherwise include it.

Don't permit Multiclassing dips for armor for casters.

(Remember Feats and Multiclassing are optional. You choose to allow them, potentially on a case by case basis. You don't ban them.)

Do make sure you're not running five minute work day adventures.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Do be aware this puts said deeds in everyone’s reach unless you impose arbitrary limitations on who can even attempt the check.

Feature, not bug IMO. The point is to incentivize people to do things without relying on spells. And setting the DCs low lets them have a reasonable confidence that they have a chance, even if their modifier isn't maxed.

I, personally, detest the "multi-headed hydra" approach, where the party seamlessly pivots to put the "specialist" up front. It's horribly unnatural to me. I want everyone to feel like they can contribute and won't make things worse, even if they don't have proficiency/expertise. Proficiency and expertise are supposed to be bonuses, not requirements. At least in my mind.

The flip side is that I don't have a problem telling players "your character would know that <approach> won't work <based on information the character would have but the player might not, especially setting-based stuff>". I'd say well over half of my "checks" end up in automatic success or automatic failure (with the latter type generally being flagged ahead of time so they can do something else; the exception being things they wouldn't know would be automatic failures/would think would be plausible but aren't for hidden reasons).

And no single check/action/spell should solve a situation, at least if that situation should be an actual challenge. Challenges should, IMO, require actions from multiple people (ideally) or multiple actions from a single person (less favorably). Now if they find the perfect thing to say/do (ie something I hadn't anticipated but that fits perfectly), they can turn a challenge into not-a-challenge. Which is fine. I don't use XP, so nothing lost.

[Doug Lampert]

Third-pass fix:

Have a variety of adventuring days. Including really really long ones. With varied encounters (from mobs of little guys to a few bruisers to mixed forces). And don't do MMO-style "only hit the tank". Go for the squishies/back-line where it's appropriate.

The problem with this is that long days don't make martials vital, it makes the CLERICS vital.

A cleric (or druid, or some bards) can melee well enough. The cleric likely has full armor proficiencies and nearly as many HP as a fighter. And he does adequate damage on the front line with one spell per encounter (and he can afford more than that).

The fighter can only swing his sword all day if he's swinging it at a training dummy that doesn't hit back or if he's a champion in the final 15% of a 20 level campaign. Otherwise, he's limited by short rests and HD and the cleric's spells. Martials can mitigate damage (fighter second wind, barbarian resistance), but they can't function at high level over a long day without a cleric or other healer supporting them, even that level 18+ champion needs to have a cleric unless he LIKES adventuring with only half his HP.

Reliable really short days are golden for casters, and thus mixing it up helps, but really long days are dominated by clerics, not martials.

[Necrosnoop110]

The easier solution is just to scale everything else up, by adding improvised effects to skills or attacks. It's a lot easier to add than it is to remove in 5e.

What specifically did you have in mind?

[x3n0n]

I agree with what PhoenixPhyre and Tanarii said: make magic do only what it says it does, and don't allow concentration save buff feats.

There are a few spells that tend toward the most egregious abuse/unbalancing. If your players are not interested in such "foolishness", then this is probably a non-issue.

Some potential offenders:
Tier 2: Conjure Animals, Conjure Woodland Beings, Animate Dead, Animate Objects.
Tier 3+: Magic Jar to steal an awesome body "forever", Simulacrum, Wish, True Polymorph.

(Animate Dead might have consequences in-world that will discourage its abuse. The Conjure spells can probably be balanced enough by just allowing 1/2/3/4 by CR instead of 1/2/4/8.)

[Man_Over_Game]

What specifically did you have in mind?

I like to change skills out of combat to 2d10, as this cuts down on randomness and rewards stat buffs more. I then make DC 30 checks the rough equivalent of level 3 spells. So a 30 Stealth Check literally makes you invisible with Nondetection, or a 20 Athletics Check lets you throw a boulder like the Catapult spell.

If someone says it's OP, remember that a DC 30 is supposed to be around a level 20 challenge with a lot of investment, and check out the Wizard capstone around that same level. 2d10 cuts out "positive flukes", so you're not able to pull off DC 30's at level 4 or something without getting extraordinarily lucky.

I also made a "Called Shot" feature to attacks that just lets you halve your damage and spend a BA for the chance to inflict Exhaustion on a target on your next hit, which gives martials stuff to do against big bosses other than straight damage (for example, focusing down their legendary resistances).

I also added a mechanic I called Adrenaline Surge, which is basically a Short Rest mid-combat at the cost of Exhaustion (for the players that opt into it). At the same time, the encounter gets modified as more reinforcements show up or the boss mechanics get changed as he chugs his super potion or whatever the fight has going for it. It's basically a way to split the encounter into two fights, making balance easier for when you only want one big fight in a day (so you don't do something stupid like we all do where we overtuned our random encounter and melted the players in 3 rounds).

Since you're essentially adding more encounters to your day (without changing the actors or scene), this drains more of your casters' resources than your hitmen, and gives your martials a chance to use their Hit Dice when it's needed most.

[Xervous]

I like to change skills out of combat to 2d10, as this cuts down on randomness and rewards stat buffs more. I then make DC 30 checks the rough equivalent of level 3 spells. So a 30 Stealth Check literally makes you invisible with Nondetection, or a 20 Athletics Check lets you throw a boulder like the Catapult spell.

If someone says it's OP...

I wouldn’t call OP on this, but I will question what it looks like and feels like to players. Is it a DC 20 Athletics check at level 1? Is it a DC 20 for everyone? You end up needing some alternate means of filtering the inputs to keep out nonsense like the wizard succeeding (or even being allowed to try) while the barbarian fails, assuming you have a desired target for consistency with the themes of the campaign.

[Man_Over_Game]

You end up needing some alternate means of filtering the inputs to keep out nonsense like the wizard succeeding (or even being allowed to try) while the barbarian fails, assuming you have a desired target for consistency with the themes of the campaign.

The same thing is possible with the normal 1d20 system, but with a 1d20, the current solution is choosing to make skills boring for the Barbarian because you don't want a Wizard to accidentally have supernatural strength.

Where you'd normally roll between 4-18 on a 1d20, it's now a 7-16 with the 2d10, so things are a lot more consistent and stat-reliant. The 2d10 makes those freak events rare enough that you don't have to care as much about outliers that don't make sense, and you don't often run into issues where a Barbarian doesn't know how far he can throw or how high he can jump.

The world's magical. Blame it on magic and let people have fun.

[Snail_On_Speed]

Preface: I've never played anything but 5e, so I don't know how much of an issue this is in earlier editions

As someone who has both dm'ed and played martials and casters. The best thing I've seen is running multiple encounters each long rest. If you always run one or two per long rest, casters will begin to expect that and use all their big spells early on, knowing they will get a long rest soon. If you create an environment where you often run 4-7 encounters between long rests, your casters will save their spells for when they 'actually' need them, even if that point never comes. Since martials, comparatively, have fewer abilities that refresh on a long rest, they can give each fight their all without fear of missing something they might need later.

[Eldariel]

Simply fix the few broken spells. There are really powerful spells but the (Tier 3+) spells that truly break the game are mostly just:
- Planar Binding
- Magic Jar
- Simulacrum
- Shapechange
- True Polymorph
- Wish

There are some other really high-powered spells (Conjure Animals, Animate Dead, Conjure Woodland Beings, Animate Objects, Danse Macabre) and then Forcecage and Wall of Force as other spells that are worth noting, and then Glyph of Warding. Other than that, there isn't really that much that completely and utterly annihilates the game though of course, high level casters are better than high level everyone else. But you could easily just write up some useful class features for Fighter/Barb/Rogue/Ranger/Monk/etc. 12-20. Most of them suck pretty bad over that range so you can ramp the power up by one whole multiplier without really damaging balance at all. Fighter could get Legendary Resistance instead of Indomitable, Barb could get 3rd attack and Zealot's immortal rage earlier and easier and such, Rogue could get better skill bonuses (or some real skill bonuses) & second sneak attack per turn, etc. Make mundanes excel at what they do and they'll have at least one thing going on for them if the casters aren't pulling off all the stops.

[Snail_On_Speed]

Simply fix the few broken spells. There are really powerful spells but the (Tier 3+) spells that truly break the game are mostly just:
- Planar Binding
- Magic Jar
- Simulacrum
- Shapechange
- True Polymorph
- Wish

While I agree with most of this list, I don't think wish is game-breaking. It's base effect of copying an 8th level spell is really good, but not game-breaking in the context of it being a 9th level spell. Anything else you do with it, you have a 1/3 chance of losing it forever, and it comes with a caveat allowing the dm to grant the wish as they see fit. It literally has a built-in balancing mechanic.

[Doug Lampert]

While I agree with most of this list, I don't think wish is game-breaking. It's base effect of copying an 8th level spell is really good, but not game-breaking in the context of it being a 9th level spell. Anything else you do with it, you have a 1/3 chance of losing it forever, and it comes with a caveat allowing the dm to grant the wish as they see fit. It literally has a built-in balancing mechanic.

Largely agreed, wish is unbalanced when used to cast an unbalanced spell (simulacrum, we're all looking at you) while ignoring the casting time and material components that are "supposed" to balance the other unbalanced spell.

So removing the other unbalanced spells probably "fixes" wish.

[Bobthewizard]

There are a few spells that tend toward the most egregious abuse/unbalancing. If your players are not interested in such "foolishness", then this is probably a non-issue.

Some potential offenders:
Tier 2: Conjure Animals, Conjure Woodland Beings, Animate Dead, Animate Objects.
Tier 3+: Magic Jar to steal an awesome body "forever", Simulacrum, Wish, True Polymorph.

I agree with this list. I would add wall of force, mass suggestion, force cage, and maze to this. I don't really have a problem with animate objects. It's good, but it doesn't make the other players sit around and watch the wizard.

Other silly things to watch are coffeelocks, nuclear wizards, conjure spells with planar binding, glyph of warding/portable hole. Take the downtime shenangians and no save spells out and you should be good.

Without those, spell casters need martial characters at higher levels. Sometimes you need high, single-target damage.

[follacchioso]

In my humble opinion: don't change anything.

As a player, I hate when the DM changes the rules under my feet, every time I do something that seems overpowered. Instead, you should focus on understanding the rules yourself, and create RP opportunities from them.

A high level wizard can cast true polymorph once per day, to create a CR9 monster every day.
Instead of nerfing it, you can just create a story out of it. Make a villain wizard who releases a chain devil every day to the nearby town, or a bard who created a kingdom of ents and other creatures.

Changing rules will only bring to more changes, because any thing you'll change will bring more imbalance. This will make your players unhappy and reduce interest. Your players want to spend hours and hours of their IRL time building the it characters using the 5E rules. There is nothing wrong with, just let them have the fun.

[Battlebooze]

Honestly I wouldn't nerf casters, I'd buff tier 4 martials.

Fighter should get their 4th attack at 17th, just to match pure casters having their 9th level spells coming on line. Fighters should then get a real capstone like 2 auto crits/hits per short rest.


I'd probably give the other martial classes 3rd attacks around 17th or so level as well.

[HPisBS]

I'd say this is the inverse of what should be done. Don't nerf OP options; buff weak ones instead.

Edit:

Honestly I wouldn't nerf casters, I'd buff tier 4 martials.

Fighter should get their 4th attack at 17th, just to match pure casters having their 9th level spells coming on line. Fighters should then get a real capstone like 2 auto crits/hits per short rest.


I'd probably give the other martial classes 3rd attacks around 17th or so level as well.

Eh, extra extra attacks are nice and all, but not particularly interesting or exciting - as you alluded to above. I'd rather do something like let martials pick 1 maneuver to use X times per short rest for free, or maybe give them a blessing, boon, or charm (tweaked for balance, if necessary).

[LudicSavant]

So my group in which I DM, is switching over from 3E to 5E. Back in 3E game I had a list of houserules for ways to try and keep the martials from not being overshadowed by the casters (or at least my best attempt). I have been runing as a PC in another 5E campaign for years so I have a decent understanding of the rules set. As a DM, we are soon starting a new 5E campaign that will run from 1st to 20th character levels. What I was curious to know is does anyone have any simple houserules or fixes that could do the same for 5E in the later tiers of play?

One thought I had was requiring at least 4 levels of multiclassing by 20th level so as to limit the highest level of spells (maybe requiring 2 class levels taken before reaching 10th character level, and 2 after 10th). I am not interested in doing any extensive rewrites or "line-item" houserules I am just looking for a simple "patch" that will tone the casters down a bit after 10th level so the martials don't begin to feel worthless. Half my table only plays martials (they literally refuse to play casters) and I don't what them to become obsolete in the back half of the campaign.

Any suggestions?

4 levels of multiclassing won't stop things like, say, the fact that it's difficult for anyone without Simulacrum to match anyone who has Simulacrum and knows how to use it.

As such, I recommend making targeted tweaks to especially troublesome spells (like Animate Dead, Conjure Animals, or Simulacrum). Bonus points if you can preserve or even enhance what makes them fun when doing so, rather than simply nerfing them into oblivion such that they're never used (some very memorable RP has resulted from Simulacrum, it's a classic for a reason).

I mean, I know you said you didn't want to do "line-item" houserules but I think that's really the way to do it: Address some of the specific, game-changing spells.

[HPisBS]

I am just looking for a simple "patch" that will tone the casters down a bit after 10th level so the martials don't begin to feel worthless. Half my table only plays martials (they literally refuse to play casters) and I don't what them to become obsolete in the back half of the campaign.

If half of the players are that adamant about playing martials, they must not feel that martials are much weaker than casters. In which case, they don't need you to make any major changes to the game.

It sounds like your concerns are not shared by the people you're concerned about.

[Necrosnoop110]

If half of the players are that adamant about playing martials, they must not feel that martials are much weaker than casters. In which case, they don't need you to make any major changes to the game.

It sounds like your concerns are not shared by the people you're concerned about.

They legit complain about it, or have done so in 3E. They don't enjoy playing casters as a preference not because they thing they are weak.

I'm not above revising my position by being convinced that 5E handles the caster/marital disparity better. But “linear fighters, quadratic wizards” is thing.