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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Oh, I agree. I love when a player can use a clever solution to work around a problem. It is the best.

But it also ends up being frustrating for other players when those clever solutions are things that would be impossible for them to ever have done, and are better than the things their characters are supposedly designed to do. I like your take on the skills, they are entirely reactive and offer no real choice. To the point where there is common advice to never roll a skill check if you can avoid it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
A gorilla is actually a great comparison. Or a chimp, for that matter, which is roughly 1.35 times as powerful as a human. Humans are extremely weak for primates because we evolved to focus on other things like being able to walk prey down, but giving a human standard primate muscles and agility would turn them into Captain America in one go.
 

Oh, I agree. I love when a player can use a clever solution to work around a problem. It is the best.

But it also ends up being frustrating for other players when those clever solutions are things that would be impossible for them to ever have done, and are better than the things their characters are supposedly designed to do. I like your take on the skills, they are entirely reactive and offer no real choice. To the point where there is common advice to never roll a skill check if you can avoid it.
Yeah, I generally contend the issue with mundane character classes is that it's unfair to offer them as PC options in the first place, if they can't engage with gameplay the same way. If Stoneshape and Fly are the expected level of utility that people are supposed to grow into, then it's basically just design malpractice to build an archetype that's categorically locked out from engaging with them and present it as an equally potent player choice.

Which is not to say I think everyone should be specifically casting spells, VSM components, levels 1-9 and all, but that supernaturally powerful effects should be an expected/assumed part of PC growth.
 
Last edited:

Got diseased, cursed, turned to stone, polymorphed? Need a caster to fix it.
Have to travel 1000 miles in a day? Caster.
Can't find a way into the Fortress of the Warlock King? Caster.
In the playtest I played a warlock/wizard (and we most likely will wrap it up Friday) and I had the ability to remove mummy rot

It was a chance. All I knew going in was it was high level and “not orca and goblins”. So I picked pretty at random. Then game 1 multi players got hit by mummy rot. If I didn’t have what I thought was a waste of a spell we would have been screwed.
 



DND would be a lot more interesting if it embraced the Dying Earth magic system more deliberately. So much design fodder in there to build classes around.
I actually had worked on a campaign idea like that. Everyone would be a rouge arcane trickster or fighter eldritch knight (but not multi class both) picking any 2 schools of magic instead of the normal 2 listed. But spells would be 100% vancian prep per slot but most spells would be treasure found.

Never got to run it. Covid closed my FLGS before I could.
 

Okay, so here's the thing about all the talk about tearing down casters: as much as I am a fan of deleting the wizard, casters lost all their fiddly, annoying restrictions so as to allow their players to be able to play the fantasy of being a wizard and not the world's worst gun. That and to offer the experience of a pop culture wizard while desperately holding on a legacy casting system from a specfic novel the creators really liked that doesn't mesh with any other pop culture wizard.

The main problem here vis-a-vis martial characters is that once they got their fantasy, the wizard players who would become designers pulled the ladder up after them and now simply refuse to let martials get the fantasy, hiding behind the fig leaves of 'simplicity' and 'verisimilitude' and 'just give up and be magic already'.
We must play at very different tables. I cannot think of a time when I DM'ed or others DMed and allowed for a single use solution that only a wizard could solve. The designers did not cast out the martial or pull up the ladder on them. They looked at and applied the martial tropes people have for each class (especially modern-day cinema), and then tried to build a class around them. Old school tropes like Conan and Lancelot and Aragorn are in there. In books, Forgotten Realm's characters like Drizzt and Wulfgar are in there. Newer cinema versions like Cap'n Jack Sparrow and John Snow. Female tropes are in there too: Katniss Evergreen, Brienne of Tarth, Arya Stark, Xena the Warrior Princess, Holga... The list goes on and on. And they did a pretty good job at letting people create their characters in a resemblance fashion. To say otherwise seems shortsighted.

On a different note, I guess there is another solution, or at least, thought experiment. They could try to make the wizard just like they want it, but only at higher levels. The low-level wizards would not be nearly as strong as martials, and as they progressed, they would be equal, and then eventually surpass. It definitely holds true to the old character tropes.
 


Oh my.

Can you imagine the outrage a wizard would have at being told they could only learn X number of spells.

Let’s look at a 9th level fighter and compare to a 5th level wizard RAW

Fighter gets a fighting style action surge second wind extra attack and indomitable.

So let’s say that fighting style and extra attack is equal to 3 cantrips maybe 4

Action surge second wind are both short rest so let’s say each is equal to 3 spells. And indomitable 1

So 4 cantrips and 4 spells at 9th level,
Wizard at 5th have 6 spells to start and 2 per level after (assuming no treasure) so 14

Ouch if we say cantrips don’t count and that second attack and fighting style both give +1 spell known instead that’s 6. Maybe a feat would be an extra spell so at 9th that is 7 compaired to a wizard at 5th knowing 14. We got HALF way there.
One, why compare a 9th level and 5th?

Two, the solution (an in-house rule) I spoke of works as a tit-for-tat. Class feature = Spell. The complaints are that casters are the do everything, must have, only class that can solve problems, etc. This would limit that. An in-house rule for those people that feel that way.

The real issue is, one person at the table feels that way, and the rest don't. So those (one people at the table) want justification to think they are correct.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top