D&D (2024) Martial/Caster fix.

[aco175]

I would be more in favor of combining spells like the monster statblock for the mage or invoker does. Your 18th level, you get an 3 at-will attacks that does 4d10 damage pick the type. Now get rid of all your damaging 0-2 level spells. This would make things easier for the player.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It would create an even larger divide IMO.

Giving casters more powerful spells at higher levels seems like it would just widen the gap for people who feel there is one.

my intent was to try reign in the sheer quantity of slots that casters accumulate, push towards a more warlock-esc design where the majority of power is invested in a smaller number of more powerful slots so they can't spam magic quite as much, i might not have gotten the numbers quite right to balance the concept but do you think it is a viable direction?.

my spell progression results in a 20th level caster with nearly half the amount of slots (12 instead of 22) that they have right now.

 

[Clint_L]

I don't thinks martials are ineffective in 5e but they seem boring at many points. At every level, full casters get 1-2 notable new spells. Martials tend to hit stretches of "just more of the same".

They seem boring to you. Yet somehow, they are the most popular classes. So...

And the sudden proliferation of "buff fighter/nerf caster threads" (same difference) makes me wonder how many folks on this forum are actually playing the 2024 rules. Fighters, barbarians, and monks are ridiculously strong right now (monks are arguably broken). If you nerf casters, the disparity will be ridiculous, especially at the lower levels where almost all games are played (WotC: 97% of campaigns end before level 10).

I could get onboard with throwing rogues an extra attack, though.

 

[Horwath]

i wonder how something like this would work out?
View attachment 396337

might as well then just do the spell point variant when you can do 4 9th level spells.

 

[ezo]

my intent was to try reign in the sheer quantity of slots that casters accumulate, push towards a more warlock-esc design where the majority of power is invested in a smaller number of more powerful slots so they can't spam magic quite as much, i might not have gotten the numbers quite right to balance the concept but do you think it is a viable direction?.

I see what you did and figured that was your intent, but IME it comes down to three factors why many people view casters as more powerful than martials:

1. The sheer number of spells you can cast (spell slots).
2. The number of spells you have prepared (versatility).
3. The power of the spells themselves (spell level).

Which you adjust and how depends on what manner of limitation you want to put on casters.

IME, simply reducing the slots isn't enough, and doing so while giving higher-level slots just increases the issue with point #3.

my spell progression results in a 20th level caster with nearly half the amount of slots (12 instead of 22) that they have right now.

Sure, like the OP with only 14. My charts have more--17 in the end, but I would start with a bit few slots, but then decrease spells known/prepared. IME that has a huge impact on the power of casters if you decrease their versaility.

 

[TwoSix]

now, dont get me wrong, I like the idea that they tried to give something for the martials, but locking down masteries to a single weapons is poor design and still limiting and boring.

masteries should have been "battlemasters maneuvers light".

I,E;
you know Nick mastery: you can apply it to every Light weapon you are proficient
you know Slow mastery: you can apply it to any weapon.
you know Vex mastery: you can apply it to any Light, Finesse or Ranged weapon
you know Graze mastery: you can apply it to any 2Handed or Versatile weapon
you know Push mastery: you can apply it to any non-Light weapon
etc....

then fighters get ability to apply 2 masteries to a single attack instead of 1 as normal.

Masteries are in the annoying "bitter spot" (opposite of the sweet spot). They're a decent power boost, enough to that you don't really want to ignore them, but also super annoying to track and monitor. It's extra narration on like every single attack. "I do 12 damage, AND you have to have disadvantage on your next attack".

Other than making two-weapon fighting better, I'm trying to avoid them as much as possible.

 

[TwoSix]

I see what you did and figured that was your intent, but IME it comes down to three factors why many people view casters as more powerful than martials:

1. The sheer number of spells you can cast (spell slots).
2. The number of spells you have prepared (versatility).
3. The power of the spells themselves (spell level).

Which you adjust and how depends on what manner of limitation you want to put on casters.

IME, simply reducing the slots isn't enough, and doing so while giving higher-level slots just increases the issue with point #3.


Sure, like the OP with only 14. My charts have more--17 in the end, but I would start with a bit few slots, but then decrease spells known/prepared. IME that has a huge impact on the power of casters if you decrease their versaility.

Agreed. My ideal change would be to keep number of spells roughly the same (I don't mind having my mages be casters), but I would want to heavily limit the types of spells casters have by paring down their spell lists into distinct themes.

I'd also like to remove 6th+ level spells from progression, and make them treasure.

 

[Corinnguard]

Other than making two-weapon fighting better, I'm trying to avoid them as much as possible.

To be honest, I like Laser Llama's solution to Two-Weapon Fighting better than the 5.5e version because it gives you an opportunity to use your Bonus action for other things. If you are playing LL's Magus class, you can make an attack with both your primary and offhand weapons as part of your Action and then cast any spell that requires the Bonus Action.

 

[mellored]

Is your chart really having the number of spells of a particular level change up and down as the character levels up?

They get 1 extra slot every other level.
And it increases slots level increase every other level.

Moving it half way to warlock style.

 

[ezo]

Agreed. My ideal change would be to keep number of spells roughly the same (I don't mind having my mages be casters), but I would want to heavily limit the types of spells casters have by paring down their spell lists into distinct themes.

I'd also like to remove 6th+ level spells from progression, and make them treasure.

I wouldn't mind distinct themes, but I am fine with having versaility within the spells known, but reduce it.

If you're a 20th-level caster with just 10 spells you can cast, for example, your choices have to be precise, well thought out, etc. When you're 20th-level and you have 25-35 spells at your disposal, things are different. You can easily cover a lot more ground.

As for "high magic" (6+ level), I like the idea of casters having ONE slot per day eventually. All that changes is at higher levels you have access to more powerful high magic.

Otherwise, I am a big fan of E6, 10, whatever so limiting the game to 5th level spells, 6th tops, is fine with me personally.