D&D 5E A simple houserule for martial/caster balance.

[UngeheuerLich]

Simply cap spells known to 4th level or less (maybe 5th level or less). Casters can keep the slots.

Thoughts?

Possibly create magical items that allow casters access to higher level spells for atunement and sufficient class level.

Probably you can cap it to level 4 and below, but treat spells of higher levels as magic items. Maybe even attach them to powerful items.

So a fighter gets their +3 swords of sharpness while the caster gets a staff that allows them to cast certain higher level spells 1 time per day/short rest each using their available slots.

I like this, because both fighter and wizards can use their attacks/higher level slots but not at full capacity when not having access to their tools.

I might try actually try that approach. It really balances out casters vs martials by making both equally DM dependent.

 

[FrogReaver]

Probably you can cap it to level 4 and below, but treat spells of higher levels as magic items. Maybe even attach them to powerful items.

So a fighter gets their +3 swords of sharpness while the caster gets a staff that allows them to cast certain higher level spells 1 time per day/short rest each using their available slots.

I like this, because both fighter and wizards can use their attacks/higher level slots but not at full capacity when not having access to their tools.

I might try actually try that approach. It really balances out casters vs martials by making both equally DM dependent.

Yea. I was also picturing items that might give a caster a package of spells. A wand that gives misty step, dimension door and teleport might be an example. It’s also something you could potentially drop low level that they grow into.

 

[le Redoutable]

so... ego items ?
( sorry if I can't use much of Emotions / Empathy )

 

[FrogReaver]

In another thread, a point is being made about how much players hate nerfs, and how placing any limits on the PCs is extraordinarily difficult to get them to accept. That has been my experience as well as that of many others, and cutting that much off the spellcasters, even if you leave the slots, if something i can't imagine any player I've ever gamed with being accepting of. It would seem needlessly cruel and I'd have a riot on my hands.

Actually running a campaign that ends around levels 6-9 for everybody would work a lot better, imo. You just need to slow down advancement until you get the campaign length you want.

On the second paragraph, I don’t think it works better for my purposes - which is balancing the game for tier 3 and 4. It is a fine solution though, and appears to occur by default as most campaigns end near the end of tier 2.

On the first, IMO, players are generally fine with nerfs. There are some specific conditions there though. If the nerf happens midgame, especially after they invested/optimized with the unnerfed abilities in mind, that’s a problem. But if the nerf is happening before the campaign/season then that’s much less of an issue. In this case the only bad nerf is one that takes away balanced options. Of course getting people to agree on what’s balanced is not always easy. People also get upset about nerfs they feel went to far - which is common in video games.

So i don’t really buy the nerfs are bad narrative. They can be, but often they are the most effective route to achieve balance, theme and gameplay goals.

*players that believe something is really unbalanced are typically fine with having that thing nerfed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

On the second paragraph, I don’t think it works better for my purposes - which is balancing the game for tier 3 and 4. It is a fine solution though, and appears to occur by default as most campaigns end near the end of tier 2.

On the first, IMO, players are generally fine with nerfs. There are some specific conditions there though. If the nerf happens midgame, especially after they invested/optimized with the unnerfed abilities in mind, that’s a problem. But if the nerf is happening before the campaign/season then that’s much less of an issue. In this case the only bad nerf is one that takes away balanced options. Of course getting people to agree on what’s balanced is not always easy. People also get upset about nerfs they feel went to far - which is common in video games.

So i don’t really buy the nerfs are bad narrative. They can be, but often they are the most effective route to achieve balance, theme and gameplay goals.

*players that believe something is really unbalanced are typically fine with having that thing needed.

We have to agree to disagree. If I were to severely nerf spellcasters like that, the best case scenario is the player chooses another class and resents me for the entire campaign.

 

[clearstream]

I really struggle with the virtue of E6 rather than just slowing down progression and running a campaign over 6 levels.

But every time I think about that I also think about how much I enjoy levels 6-9.

Characters gain power incrementally from several sources, with in most cases watersheds at the start of each tier. Those sources include

• class features
• sub-class
• ASIs (feats if you include them)
• PB scaling
• HD scaling

It's important to recognise that each class has a slightly different progression. Some gain more earlier, some later. After anlysis I found that capping overall advancement at 12th is fair across classes, given that I'm also capping spell levels (but not slots,) PB, HD, and at-will attacks at 6th.

Before reaching this design I researched several alternatives proposed by others. A common lacuna was to focus on just one dimension and suppose that did the job, but unfortunately 5e isn't like that. Power increments are coming from multiple places, and differing cadences per class. My aim, generally, was to permit increases to character options while balancing out character power.

 

[FrogReaver]

We have to agree to disagree. If I were to severely nerf spellcasters like that, the best case scenario is the player chooses another class and resents me for the entire campaign.

#1 are you sure?
#2 why do you believe would your players resent you for nerfing casters? Do they view casters as balanced. Do they prefer caster dominance? What’s their reasoning there?

 

[Micah Sweet]

#1 are you sure?
#2 why do you believe would your players resent you for nerfing casters? Do they view casters as balanced. Do they prefer caster dominance? What’s their reasoning there?

I am sure. They like casting spells, don't see the power imbalance as nearly the issue many here seem to, and want to be able to do what the class in the book lets them do. Doing what you're saying would be seen as nothing but punitive.

 

[FrogReaver]

I am sure. They like casting spells, don't see the power imbalance as nearly the issue many here seem to, and want to be able to do what the class in the book lets them do. Doing what you're saying would be seen as nothing but punitive.

So they are under exception of viewing casters as already balanced. The solution there is to show them the truth.

You may even find that perhaps the reason they don’t like martials currently is because they feel like they are weak compared to casters.

Out of curiosity do they play in tier 3 and 4 regularly?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Yes, this what I have been think about for a long time. Lvl 1-10 are hero levels and 11+ are superheroes, anime, whatever you want to call it.

Well, unless you're a fighter then a 30 foot jump is too far.