D&D (2024) Martial vs Caster: Removing the "Magical Dependencies" of high level.

[Incenjucar]

Okay, if you had just said "strength 25 with medium creature size isn't strong enough with the current rules" I would have agreed. Instead you kept trying to make some categories about inhumans and superhumans and then decide that this thing is superhuman and that thing is merely human, and I never got you actual point.

Lifting between 375 lbs and 750 lbs with a 25 strength character isn't enough. But, also, lifting rules aren't good enough for even ogres and giants. So, my solution was to fix the lifting rules.

I posted it in my compilation, but by working with exponents instead, my system would give a fighter with 25 strength the ability to lift between 625 and 1250 lbs without a check, and DC 20 check would give them 2500 lbs. Which I feel is closer to what we want.

Instead of trying to figure out some sort of categorization system to determine what we want to call things, just work on fixing the issue. We don't need to figure out what limits martials are exceeding with lift capacity, because every other aspect of strength doesn't care about that. It is a single subsystem divorced from the rest of the ability score. Instead you just need to know how much stuff weighs, and get the fighter capable of moving the things you want them to move.

Average Strength defined by people who consider "gym" a four-letter word. Sigh.

WotC seriously needs to hire some consultants who play D&D but also do things like MMA or Ren Fair combat and/or are veterans to get an idea of what an active body is capable of in conflict.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Unless you’re randomising these elements you’re making conscious choices and need to own up to these. If your conscious decision means only one spell is capable of solving the problem then it’s just bad on several levels. In other words ‘single point of failure’ adventures are just not very good.

But it isn't just when there is only a single point of failure.

I don't remember who it was, but one poster proposed the idea that a great way to make martials relevant would be with puzzle traps. If two people have to step on a pressure plate at the same time, then the mage can't possibly do it alone right? Wrong. Animate dead, summoning spells, find familiar, the mage is actually fully capable of coordinating with magic and activating up to five simultaneous pieces. There are multiple spells that could be utilized for this.

And what about options that the DM didn't consider? I was playing my druid character in a set piece encounter with a bunch of pirates. A fleet of small ships was approaching the docks and everyone had to prepare. Most of the characters.... hid. There was literally nothing they could do until the ships were close enough for them to engage in melee. My druid swam out and cast control water. Using the spell, I took out two or three full ships of pirates. Then when they were closer, I cast Wall of Fire and took out ANOTHER full ship, by myself. By the time anyone else could participate, I'd massively changed the encounter. "Oh but it was just the one time"? No. I was also a better and more reliable scout than the rogue, I also was on the front lines with the barbarian, I also was the healer.

It wasn't just "the DM designed this encounter with only one solution" but also "The DM wanted someone to lockpick or break down the door and didn't realize Unseen Servant could be cast through the small open window and unlock the door for us without a check". Casters often can use their abilities in surprising ways, because they have SO MANY abilities. Meanwhile... martials just have skills. That's it.

 

[James Gasik]

One of the best rules of thumb for adventure writing is that if the players are to have no choices but ride the rail, the adventure gives them their choice of Train.

Plus, such in-adventure detours when you build them in also help with that pesky Adventuring day problem. Having to detour to find the Thingamajig that the BBEG uses to keep that Wall of Force going is fodder to further depress the parties resources.

I agree, but now we're talking about DM skill, and that's not a universal constant. Also, I've on occasion seen what I like to call "emergent challenges" arise during play, when the DM has, in fact, taken steps to give the players a way to deal with something, but the players independently say "hey, this is a problem, we need to deal with it" and start brainstorming on their own before the DM solution has been put into play.

This happens to me a lot. I usually seed consumables and specialized items into my games to deal with future threats. That way I'm secure in the knowledge that they have the ability to deal with challenges (that they sometimes forget they have things, or even sell them, is another kettle of fish). But on occasion, my players will do end runs around my planning.

For example, they were exploring a forest and came upon a lot of devils roaming around. They eventually found a portal to the Iron City of DIs just sitting in a forest clearing. Now I had a whole adventure for them to find a way to seal the portal, but the players actually stopped and said "oh man, we need to deal with this portal, right now!", and started looking through their options.

In the end the solution was to take a feather token and block the portal with a massive tree as a short-term solution.

 

[Krachek]

IF the DM makes those available, and IF you have time to seek these things out. In the middle of an adventure, however, magic is, by default, the primary solution. The DMG, last I checked, doesn't say "make sure your players can steal a flying ship", lol.

As for curses, it depends on the curse. There are fun curses. And then there are ones that give you a 50% chance to do nothing on your turn, or cause you to waste away to nothing.

Do you trust your DM to provide a good adventure for all players?

You seem to struggle with the Invulnerability paradox.
Wanting to be challenged while being invulnerable and having all solutions at hand.

 

[Gammadoodler]

One of the best rules of thumb for adventure writing is that if the players are to have no choices but ride the rail, the adventure gives them their choice of Train.

Plus, such in-adventure detours when you build them in also help with that pesky Adventuring day problem. Having to detour to find the Thingamajig that the BBEG uses to keep that Wall of Force going is fodder to further depress the parties resources.

Sure. But ultimately the point is thay there are spells and effects hard-coded into the game that only have spell-related solutions.

Should the DM or adventure writer use those judiciously and provide other options to non-magical characters?

Yes.

Do they have to?
No.

So in the interest of making adventures better generally, for the whole population, it would be useful for players of non-spellcasters to have options at their disposal to interact with these types of challenges independent of the competence of the DM and adventure writer.

 

[Emberashh]

So a player having the foresight to deal with a problem rather than going "oh no, I need outside help!" isn't good play?

Not to speak for them, but my answer to this is that it wouldn't be good or bad play because, with how 5e is set up, the choice to do that was basically preordained, and to not make that choice just results in "this game feels bad" not "this was a good time".

Part of what makes any game feel satisfying is that engaging with it took some effort and success was not guaranteed except by the skill of the player.

When problems in game are preordained because the magic system frames what problems are going to pop up in a given adventure, then theres no real skill or effort required. You either had the spell or you didn't.

This part of why I moved towards making utility magic all improv in my game; outside of some very specific tropes (like busting open locks, for instance) the game isn't going to hand deliver you solutions that then go on to frame what adventure writers use as problems.

Instead the problems could be practically anything and there is seldom a fixed solution, in or out of the magic system.

So in the interest of making adventures better generally, for the whole population, it would be useful for players of non-spellcasters to have options at their disposal to interact with these types of challenges independent of the competence of the DM and adventure writer

I would say both that and my solution above are ideal. The stance for me has always been that Martials need more to do but also that everyone else needs considerably less, and that how the system frames adventures plays into how both should be designed.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Disease and curse, I would say « At last! ». Two years ago I play a character under a curse for a some sessions, it was cool, he didn’t die of that.

Turn to stone, can be a good time to play another character for some sessions giving time for the party to find a solution.

Travel 1000 miles. Being force to stole a flying ship. My dream!

Cant find way. Black mail, corrupt guards, find some traitors to the King.

In all cases the party didn’t need the solution on board. External Npc or buying items can do the job.

Not everyone is happy to have their character ruined or replaced because of a single bad roll. I had a character infected by lycanthropy once, and I immediately had to do everything I could to get a solution as fast as possible. Because I had zero interest in my character turning into a bloodthirsty, savage, evil character. The DM seemed to think it would be "interesting" and I had to be firm that, no, I didn't think it would be interesting or fun. Playing the character I had made was what I thought would be interesting, not being forced to be something I wasn't.

I also had a character once who (because of multiple reasons) died a lot. I didn't really want to roll a new character while waiting for ressurections so the DM gave me an NPC... and I hated that. It wasn't the character I wanted to play and the party was constantly using my real character's dead body as a gag prop. I was just counting the sessions until I could get back to playing the game instead of waiting.

Also, most diseases are debilitating. Being permanently blind isn't an interesting thing, it is a death sentence if you need to get through more than one fight. And losing a bunch of your hp? Even worse.

 

[James Gasik]

Do you trust your DM to provide a good adventure for all players?

You seem to struggle with the Invulnerability paradox.
Wanting to be challenged while being invulnerable and having all solutions at hand.

So what, I should tie one hand behind my back and hope that another means to overcome a problem arises independently? Given that I've seen people posting on this forum say that their campaign world is the way it is, and they won't alter it to suit the players, why would anyone?

The game I'm in right now is a canned adventure. I know my DM is going to run it as is as much as he can because he has little time to do otherwise. So now I have to put my faith in an adventure writer I've never met, when, by design, the game itself gives me the tools to overcome challenges?

If you're going into a cave, you bring a flashlight, you don't hope that you find viable torches. If you go deep into the woods, you bring a compass. If you go on a road trip, you bring a map.

Having a spell to open locked doors or remove nasty curses is the same line of thinking, to me.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Average Strength defined by people who consider "gym" a four-letter word. Sigh.

WotC seriously needs to hire some consultants who play D&D but also do things like MMA or Ren Fair combat and/or are veterans to get an idea of what an active body is capable of in conflict.

Honestly, it is part of why I end up using comparisons so often.

I might not be able to clearly picture what is reasonable, but I can say "Hey, gorilla's are medium creatures with 16 strength? Okay, my fighter should be able to be as strong as gorilla, what does that look like?" because I HAVE seen gorillas fighting in shows and comics, so I can picture that easily.

 

[Pedantic]

It wasn't just "the DM designed this encounter with only one solution" but also "The DM wanted someone to lockpick or break down the door and didn't realize Unseen Servant could be cast through the small open window and unlock the door for us without a check". Casters often can use their abilities in surprising ways, because they have SO MANY abilities. Meanwhile... martials just have skills. That's it.

The thing is, that's exactly the sort of gameplay I think is interesting and fun in these games. Coming up with novel solutions to novel problems (ideally particularly efficient solutions) is kind of the whole game. Skill-usage, especially skills in a system without pre-specified tasks/DCs, is rarely interesting as a gameplay decision. You're mostly just reacting to circumstances, and rolling to see if the obstacle goes away.

What is the decision making involved in a rogue picking a lock? You can zoom out far enough to make it a strategic choice, picking a particular route of entry based on your odds of succeeding at lockpicking or you can get some juice out of time pressure, but neither of those is really any different than deploying a limited resource like spells. Spells do specific, incontrovertible things, so you can try to plan and manipulate the situation around making those effects more useful, and they're a limited resource so picking which ones to bring and when to use them is another choice.

I'm really resistant to calls to run everything through skills, or to more sharply limit spells to force skills to come into play more, precisely because skills aren't generally as fun or interesting to use. Frankly, using low-level spells to solve problems is a better game than occasionally rolling skill checks. Far better to give every class access to that gameplay.