D&D (2024) Martial/Caster fix.

[TwoSix]

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.

Yea, something like warlock-style casting, 10 spells prepped max, and then an invocation style menu to customize your options is pretty much ideal for me.

 

[ezo]

Here is a new level progression I am experimenting with for 5E:

While it does have more low-level slots, the total number (17) is similar to the other charts I posted.

More importantly, you have fewer spells available, maximum just 15. You also don't learn new spells at every level, nor do you get more spell slots at each level.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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 like your ideas, but I am curious what your players think of all this. Are they cool with drastic caster nerfs from the published text?

 

[Horwath]

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.

with removal of 6th+ level spells, just add more low level slots:

or just go pure spell points, with or without ability to upcast to 6th+ level spell slots.

 

[TwoSix]

I like your ideas, but I am curious what your players think of all this. Are they cool with drastic caster nerfs from the published text?

Nah, which is why I don't it. I just enjoy the brainstorming.

Some of my groups do enjoy my radical brainstorming; my "classless 5e" hack was pretty popular. My current old school/5e hybrid, where the players all started as Sidekick classes, gain new classes from magical items found in the dungeon, and dungeon gold is actually a magical source that gives "diegetic XP", is also going over quite well.

 

[aiouh]

Why does the martial/magic divide need to be "fixed" in the first place?

Casters have a much higher damage output than Martials, making Martials less useful and feel like they have less agency

Because generally accepted adventuring practices (splashy 2-3 combat difficult combat encounters packed in a 4 hour session then long rest) hugely deviate from design intent (6-8 resource draining encounters per Long Rest)

In this style of play, Wizards and Magic-Users are problematic because they are consistently powerful and efficient (difficult encounters decrease chance of "overkill" and spell waste). This issue is compounded at open tables (AL) where characters need a reset between every session for logistical reasons.

So there are few ways to remedy this:

1. Tinker around with spell slot numbers
Technically, this should be a sound solution, but I do not like this. While this does reduce the total damage output of Casters, this discourages utility spell usage even further, reducing spell diversity and caster agency. While restricting agency does fix the problem, I think one should aim for a fix that does not do this.

2. Run more encounters per long rest
Easiest way, but not always feasible due to meta reasons

3. Scale up encounters appropriately if you have less of them
Instead of messing with the numbers on the PC side, maybe DMs would be advised to acknowledge the damage potential of Casters by making the Encounters you do have, more challenging. Adding a CR (fuzzy in math but something in that area) per caster in the party if you don't have many encounters. In this solution the Casters will still be powerful, but be more dependent on Martials to succeed together because their resources are taxed more.

 

[Voadam]

For simplicity I like just having spells provoke opportunity attacks the way they did in prior editions with either a concentration check to keep casting or just any damage meaning the spell is disrupted and the slot expended.

 

[Stormonu]

If there's an issue, I'd rather see the martials being brought up, rather than forcing casters down more. Maybe take away the spellcaster's ability to regain a few slots after a short rest.

I would like to see more powerful maneuvers for fighters - and not just limited to the likes of beheading an enemy better, but I don't think they need to go Wuxia. Beowulf, Arthurian legend, Charlemange tales and the like have some pretty fantastic things their warriors pull off and I'd rather see the subtle than outward obviously magical effects like leaving behind a line of fire as your run or such of the ToNB (some abilities might fit Paladins or Rangers, but they already have spells anyways).

 

[Corinnguard]

If there's an issue, I'd rather see the martials being brought up

Which was Level Up did by having all of the martial classes gain proficiency in 1 to 3 combat traditions.

 

[mellored]

Consider the way 13th Age does it? As you level up, get rid of the lower-level spell slots. You can dismiss the exact numbers on the table and just take the concept.

That's mostly what I did.

Actually, check that: with the 2024 rules, martial classes are OP until high levels, when casters start to catch up through greater versatility. They probably need a nerf, not casters.

At what levels?

IMO, casters are weak from 1-4, it's balanced 5-10, ahead at 11-15, and completely dominate 16+.

Giving them an extra slot at 1, and removing slots at higher level should align them much better.