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

[FrogReaver]

One interesting mechanic that could encompass both martial and casters and add some interesting tactical gameplay to battles would be.

There needs to be a roll that models our tactical opportunity. My proposal is that abilities (especially martial but can also include spells) can only be used when there is sufficient opportunity to use them. Assign every player activated ability in the game an opportunity requirement. Roll opportunity dice 2d6. You can only use an ability when the roll equals or exceeds your opportunity requirement. Oh and if you don't have an ability that you could activate or have expended all uses of such abilities then you failed to find an opportunity to use said ability.

Now you've been provided a fictional reason why sometimes you can use abilities and sometimes you can't. The funny thing is that this reasoning also applies if you remove the dice and make you have a 100% opportunity to use an ability - so long as you have it and if not then you actually just aren't finding opportunities to use said abilities.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think ultimately it's a particular ingrained mindset about the relationship of mechanics and fiction that is the issue.

There's always an easy fictional reason that you didn't use an ability - there was no opportunity to do so - because it's just as hard to justify not using a strong player activated martial ability when you could have as it is to justify not using one after you've ran out - because ultimately the concept of running of or rationing use of a martial ability makes no fictional sense.

But that fictional reason of opportunity means that the player is getting to define in the fiction when the opportunities arise and when they don't. In short - the player is getting control of the fictional for a limited purpose that's a little beyond his character.

I understand why someone may dislike this concept - but it really is the only way to make fighters as fun to play as wizards. Fighter's must be able to exert some limited form of control over the fiction - and because they can't rely on an artificial construct like spells to provide them that ability while veiling the player's control over the fiction then it must be granted to the player explicitly

 

[TheCosmicKid]

It's weird. When I look at The Three Musketeers or Seven Samurai or Ocean's Eleven, not one of the enumerated protagonists can fly or breathe water or do anything else magical whatsoever, and yet somehow despite this handicap they still manage to have thrilling adventures. But when it comes to D&D, people talk as if everything interesting in the world is either deep underwater or high in the sky.

Hell, even in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, where the party has an actual wizard who can do actual magic, he flies or breathes water precisely zero times. (And there's pretty strong circumstantial evidence that he can't.) When they need to open an impassable magical door, an ordinary hobbit figures out the riddle. When they need to cover a lot of ground very quickly by air, they call upon eagle allies. When they need to raise an army of the dead, well, that seems like a wizardly task if ever there was one, but nope! The ranger does it.

So if our D&D adventures come to a grinding halt because the party can't cast some certain specific spell, maybe we shouldn't be bewailing the inadequacies of martial characters. Maybe instead we should be saying, "Hey, this is crappy adventure design."

 

[abirdcall]

It's simple.

Spells are limited.

Yes, a spellcaster can have a magnificent spell that turns the tide of battle. But what about the next battle?

In 5e this divide is usually in short rest vs long rest classes. Usually that means 'martial' vs caster but some classes blur the lines. Paladin is a martial type who relies on long rest resources. Warlock is a caster type who has short rest spell slots.

Rogues are the ultimate of the 'martial' archetype because their abilities never deplete.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's weird. When I look at The Three Musketeers or Seven Samurai or Ocean's Eleven, not one of the enumerated protagonists can fly or breathe water or do anything else magical whatsoever, and yet somehow despite this handicap they still manage to have thrilling adventures. But when it comes to D&D, people talk as if everything interesting in the world is either deep underwater or high in the sky.

Hell, even in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, where the party has an actual wizard who can do actual magic, he flies or breathes water precisely zero times. (And there's pretty strong circumstantial evidence that he can't.) When they need to open an impassable magical door, an ordinary hobbit figures out the riddle. When they need to cover a lot of ground very quickly by air, they call upon eagle allies. When they need to raise an army of the dead, well, that seems like a wizardly task if ever there was one, but nope! The ranger does it.

So if our D&D adventures come to a grinding halt because the party can't cast some certain specific spell, maybe we shouldn't be bewailing the inadequacies of martial characters. Maybe instead we should be saying, "Hey, this is crappy adventure design."

Magic in fiction is always different than magic in a game that's for player characters. They are 2 different conceptions of magic.

Anyways - the point isn't that you can't adventure as totally mundane peasents - it's that if you are adventuring as mundane peasents and 1 guy brings a level 20 wizard to the adventure then suddenly those things that would challenge the peasents can't challenge the wizard and the things that challenge the wizard are too hard for the peasents. That's the kind of complaint that we are dealing with here - to a lesser extent obviously

 

[Eubani]

It's simple.

Spells are limited.

Yes, a spellcaster can have a magnificent spell that turns the tide of battle. But what about the next battle?

In 5e this divide is usually in short rest vs long rest classes. Usually that means 'martial' vs caster but some classes blur the lines. Paladin is a martial type who relies on long rest resources. Warlock is a caster type who has short rest spell slots.

Rogues are the ultimate of the 'martial' archetype because their abilities never deplete.

Unfortunately spells being limited in the method presented has not been enough.

 

[FrogReaver]

Unfortunately spells being limited in the method presented has not been enough.

Would halfing the number of spell slots be enough?

 

[abirdcall]

Unfortunately spells being limited in the method presented has not been enough.

Experiences vary I guess.

Martial/short rest class usually has something great to do every round.
caster/long rest class usually needs to spend many turns not being very effective.

If you prefer the caster paradigm, then play one.

 

[Eubani]

Would halfing the number of spell slots be enough?

Your sarcasm is cute and if it is not sarcasm I apologize, but to be honest I do not have an exact answer at the moment. At any rate I have not asked for a reduction in the agency of spellcasters, just an improvement in the agency of martial characters. Well maybe I suppose you could say in asking for more effort to be put into the agency of martial characters instead of just creating more spells I am kind of asking for that.

At any rate can anyone honestly say spell slots being a limited resource has done anything of note to increase the agency of martial characters or has it just affect the adventuring day? Between cantrips, rituals and spell casting items the average spellcaster is rarely caught short on means to have agency.

 

[Eubani]

Experiences vary I guess.

Martial/short rest class usually has something great to do every round.

As you say experiences vary.