D&D General Compelling and Differentiated Gameplay For Spellcasters and Martial Classes

[Manbearcat]

There are solutions out there in the wild that bring cross-class parity in (a) player decision-point breadth access and (b) player decision-point potency:

1) Make spellcasting actually dangerous and unpredictable. "Cast a Spell" is an action that requires mechanical resolution. Perhaps you always succeed, but some form of magical complication (of greater or lesser degree) emerges as a result of your slightly askew sorcery.

2) Conflict/scene resolution mechanics for action/obstacles outside of combat. An actual mechanical framework to resolve conflict naturally contracts the potency disparity between spellcasters and martial characters.

3) Make relationship/influence/cohort mechanics robust, specifically for non-spellcasters.

4) Player-facing "say yes or roll the dice" abilities and action resolution handling for martial characters .

5) Effective control riders on combat moves for martial characters (covering fire, deft footwork or overwhelming force imposing a catch-22 on enemies; do this thing you don't want to and x happens...do this other thing and y happens).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think one of the barriers to martial classes being able to pull off some clutch play is the core mechanics. HP are not a hindrance to casters. If fighters could target spellcaster’s fingers, eyes or mouths fights would end.

Imagine if a fighter and a wizard were engaged in battle on an ice rink. The fighter could pull the jersey over the wizard’s head and pound him til’ the ref pulled them apart. Can’t see can’t target.

HP came from wargames.
If wargames included charm person or player controlled weather effects things might have a different shape.

This touches on one of the things I’ve been discussing a lot with my fellow DMs in my group.

Martial characters need more ways to interfere with spellcasters. Without anything baked in, most groups won’t allow “stunting” to fill that gap, and so casters can run the field as long as they can stay alive.

Also, for some groups, not having any rules for stuff like gathering allies (followers), and inventing mundane devices, expanding on poisons, salves, alchemical stuff, etc, means that they just aren’t going to feel comfortable doing any of that. Because they don’t know how to keep it in check, or where to start homebrewing it, or simply because they like sticking to the rules. The game is overdue for some optional guidance on that stuff.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’ll also add,

* use flanking, and the DMG general use Trip, Overrun, Mark, etc. well, don’t ya ether DMG Mark, bc it’s kinda bogus IIRC. But something like it.

*Add 1 skill and 1 tool to Fighters.

*Allow History checks for Tactics, and come up with some standard benefits for good rolls. Let Fighters (and mastermind rogues?) make Tactics checks as a bonus action, but everyone else it’s an Action.

*Let Religion, Nature, and Arcana give benefits to successful lore checks about monsters.

* let even a non-spellcaster mess with magic stuff using those skills, depending on the type of magic. Eg, sabotage or redirect a teleportation circle or portal, disable an Alarm spell, etc. maybe require magically enhanced tools with a notable but not prohibitive cost to disable anything more powerful than a first level ritual spell. The benefit here for Dispel Magic becomes that it just works, where Arcana/Nature/Religion requires time and skill checks.

*Use the Xanathar’s rules for tool use, that expands their utility and establishes benefits for skill checks made where a tool prof is also relevant.

*Let physical skill checks of a high success level accomplish stuff on par with record holders, and surpass world records in later levels. Actually look up relevant world records. A college athlete with training can throw a halfling-weight ball with a handle over 50 feet, IIRC. Let your Athletics trained strong folks throw heavy stuff to stunning affect.

*encourage improvisation. Hard. Do it with NPCs to show the players what can be done. Tell them to watch Patrick Rothfuss on Acquisitions Incorporated if you have to.

 

[Manbearcat]

Having read through this thread, I have to admit I am not certain at all what you are talking about. To me and the games I have played in making the game compelling and different for each class all comes down to the DM and the players and the direction the adventure goes in. As a DM, I try to get each character involved in a significant way, highlighting what their strengths and weaknesses are to drive the story. I get to each one in turn eventually so they can all share the limelight.

Unless you are talking about something else, I just don't see the issue.

I think you have to understand here that there are approaches to GMing that not only don't subscribe to the idea that "tailoring play" and "rationing spotlight" are virtues...but that they're basically at cross-purposes with what a GM/table is trying to achieve and expecting from their players. A GM possessing such a profound role on the trajectory of play through the continuous proactive nature of tailoring moments of play and rationing spotlight are anathema.

Challenge-based play paradigms require GMs to create an array of obstacles (a dungeon or a hex or a series of hexes) and referee reactively from an entirely neutral position.

Dramatic-conflict-based play paradigms require hugely proactive players with GMs who push/pull/prod specifically at character premise/dramatic need (typically putting the PC in a difficult spot to test their mettle and find out what happens...which is the inverse of tailoring a situation to their strength). The GM is initially proactive but then entirely reactive as play snowballs.

So there needs to be solutions that work for the needs of those latter two forms of play (which is what @Campbell is looking for). "Just tailor play" and "actively ration spotlight" aren't solutions...they're abandonment of play paradigm.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I think you have to understand here that there are approaches to GMing that not only don't subscribe to the idea that "tailoring play" and "rationing spotlight" are virtues...but that they're basically at cross-purposes with what a GM/table is trying to achieve and expecting from their players. A GM possessing such a profound role on the trajectory of play through the continuous proactive nature of tailoring moments of play and rationing spotlight are anathema.

Challenge-based play paradigms require GMs to create an array of obstacles (a dungeon or a hex or a series of hexes) and referee reactively from an entirely neutral position.

Dramatic-conflict-based play paradigms require hugely proactive players with GMs who push/pull/prod specifically at character premise/dramatic need (typically putting the PC in a difficult spot to test their mettle and find out what happens...which is the inverse of tailoring a situation to their strength). The GM is initially proactive but then entirely reactive as play snowballs.

So there needs to be solutions that work for the needs of those latter two forms of play (which is what @Campbell is looking for). "Just tailor play" and "actively ration spotlight" aren't solutions...they're abandonment of play paradigm.

This line of reasoning is part of why i make necessary xp per level much higher than standard and give out xp on a very dynamic basis affected by what the players actually did. I want them to feel like every ounce of strength their character gained was in some way directly related to the characters experience, acheivements, and challenges. A very real feeling connection to the fruits of the characters labors. The world feels less alive when you prosper due to prescription and not a reactive chaotic system like how life actually works. Just my two cents.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

In this initial post I am going to try to stay away from targeted criticism of specific versions of Dungeons and Dragons. Instead I will lay out a problem I see across most versions of the game so we can discuss it and possible solutions.

Much has been made about balance between spell casters and martial classes in the various versions of Dungeons and Dragons, but by making it about only about efficacy I think we all largely miss the point. Besides the most egregious cases I think most complaints about spell caster and martial class balance are more about a desire for more compelling game play for martial characters, both inside and outside of combat.

Playing a spell caster is fun because the decisions you make shape and alter the outcomes of events in a way that is usually not true for players of martial characters. A well timed and well chosen spell can completely turn the tide of an encounter or problem that the players are dealing with. Generally speaking the decisions martial characters make do not have much impact on how things go. Their prowess definitely does, but there is little in the way of being able to distinguish yourself. It is difficult to play a martial character skillfully in the same way you can play a spell caster skillfully.

Some versions of the game have tried to address this gap in compelling game play by using a similar structure for martial classes and spell casters. While it does work I find it not artful because it removes the game play distinction between classes. I think we need more distinct play experiences, not less. Just like the play experience between a fighter and a wizard should be distinct so should difference between either a fighter and barbarian or wizard and sorcerer. We need more compelling and distinct game play.

So how do we create an environment for skilled play where distinctions that reflect how it should feel to be a fighter or a monk or a sorcerer or a cleric are felt in play?

I have some opinions here including some targeted criticisms, but I am curious what everyone else thinks.

I think so much of this issue is based around the adventuring day, and that is key to the balance between caster and martial classes.
A spell can, as you say, turn the tide of an encounter or problem. If a caster can do this every time that there is an encounter or problem, the martial classes are going to be left out.
In general the issue is between limited-use but more powerful abilities, and consistently-available but more limited abilities. - If the "limited-use" limitation of the former can be ignored, then it is going to be able to marginalise the latter.

If casters have to (or at least believe that they have to) conserve the encounter-turning spells for when they are really needed, then the martial class' skills will have more chances to shine. In the wilderness, that can simply be as simple as switching requirements to take long rests as mentioned in the DMG

Something else to bear in mind for social situations:
Remember casting a spell is still casting a spell. Unless a sorceror is using Subtle spell, spells use components and these are noticeable. Play up the point that starting a mystic chant is something that most people will recognise, or at least believe to be casting a spell, and is something that will arouse suspicion. Definitely not the sort of thing done mid-conversation.
Treat casting a spell around other people like pulling out a gun or knife: unless there is obviously a legitimate use for it, it is going to make people uneasy even in areas where carrying that sort of thing is legal.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think you have to understand here that there are approaches to GMing that not only don't subscribe to the idea that "tailoring play" and "rationing spotlight" are virtues...but that they're basically at cross-purposes with what a GM/table is trying to achieve and expecting from their players. A GM possessing such a profound role on the trajectory of play through the continuous proactive nature of tailoring moments of play and rationing spotlight are anathema.

Challenge-based play paradigms require GMs to create an array of obstacles (a dungeon or a hex or a series of hexes) and referee reactively from an entirely neutral position.

Dramatic-conflict-based play paradigms require hugely proactive players with GMs who push/pull/prod specifically at character premise/dramatic need (typically putting the PC in a difficult spot to test their mettle and find out what happens...which is the inverse of tailoring a situation to their strength). The GM is initially proactive but then entirely reactive as play snowballs.

So there needs to be solutions that work for the needs of those latter two forms of play (which is what @Campbell is looking for). "Just tailor play" and "actively ration spotlight" aren't solutions...they're abandonment of play paradigm.

Yeah... um... okay I am out. I still have no clue what you are talking about. If players want to be more active, let them. Different classes are by their very nature better at different things. I don't want or need fighters messing around with magic, wizards doing amazing combat moves, etc. It is the purpose of the DM to create the experience the players have. You choose the challenges and do so to make the game fun. What the players do is up to them and hopefully they get the most out of their play experience.

Anyway, I hope the OP gets what he wants. Best of luck all.

 

[DEFCON 1]

A well timed and well chosen spell can completely turn the tide of an encounter or problem that the players are dealing with.

And this is why I suspect most of the people here don't have the same issue. Most D&D players just aren't that good at accomplishing what you state here. They DON'T know how to cast a "well-timed" spell or "turn the tide" of an encounter or problem using spells. Rather... they decide to prepare a few spells in the morning, and they cast them as the need arises. But there's no fanciful pre-cognitive sensitivity towards having "just the right spell" for "just the right time". They have some spells, they cast some spells... just like the martials have a weapon, and swing a weapon.

I mean, my spellcasting players are just as casual and lacking in tactics as my martial players. And as a result, they all have moments to shine, as well as moments of them thinking "Aw, man... if only I had done X!"

If someone finds their spellcasting players are hogging all the spotlight... perhaps it might just be as simple as the players who don't wish to delve deep into game and encounter theoretics are playing martial characters so that they they don't HAVE to think about them. Or their more ingenious players are taking spellcasters simply because they do have all the options at their disposal, and even if you raised the capabilities of martial characters it wouldn't go high enough for them.

 

[Oofta]

I don't see a problem. Encounters don't hinge on a single spell or action, they hinge on the players interacting with the scene and engaging in the fiction. My next PC will probably be a dirt simple champion fighter because I'd rather focus on characterization and interactions, not tactics. I'm perfectly okay with just running around hitting things because combat isn't that big a part of our games and sometimes I just want to turn my brain off for a bit.

As far as 5E balance, I get in a reasonable number of encounters (5-8 lately) between long rests by using alternate rules where a short rest is overnight and a long rest is a week or more.

It depends on what kind of game you play, what's fun for your players. Just count me as one of those people who don't see an issue. Not everyone is motivated by "what cool schtick can I come up with".

 

[Undrave]

Augh... so many of the good ol' nuggets in this thread...

"A good GM..." not every GM is good and not everybody starts with a mentor GM to teach them to BE a good GM.

"Fighters don't need more mechanic, they can improvise!" EVERYBODY can improvise, especially the spellcasters that can have infinite Minor Illusions and fine moto control at like 30 feet all day long. Furthermore this is, again, punishing players for not being experienced enough and depends on the GM being good.

People play games with classes because it's easy to grab a bundle of stats and abilities matching the archetype you want to play compared to a classless game where you have to go over every option in the book to cobble together the character you want. The mechanical complexity of a class should not be wedded to its archetype just because of sacrosaint traditions say that fighters are simple and Wizards are complex.

Like it or not, mechanical support IS important and the truth is that outside of combat there's basically no mechanical support for most martial classes. The best you get is the obtuse Stealth rules and maybe the use of Thieves' Tools. Everything is up to 'good GM'... or a perfectly well defined spell that can let you charm people or go invisible, or have a perfect disguise in a flash or climb walls...etc.