D&D (2024) Martial/Caster fix.

[Ashrym]

I'm not a big believer in the caster/martial divide, but there's a much simpler solution than changing those classes. If a person thinks there's an issue then just ban bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards from the table. Allow artificers.

This leaves 8 classes to play (artificer, barbarian, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, rogue, and warlock) and moves the spellcaster roles to artificer, paladin, ranger, warlock, and possibly arcane trickster or eldritch knight. That reduces the number of slots, slows down the spell progression, and removes high level problematic spells.

It's effective and practically zero effort. ;-)

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not a big believer in the caster/martial divide, but there's a much simpler solution than changing those classes. If a person thinks there's an issue then just ban bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards from the table. Allow artificers.

This leaves 8 classes to play (artificer, barbarian, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, rogue, and warlock) and moves the spellcaster roles to artificer, paladin, ranger, warlock, and possibly arcane trickster or eldritch knight. That reduces the number of slots, slows down the spell progression, and removes high level problematic spells.

It's effective and practically zero effort. ;-)

In 3.X one game I ran all the primary masters were gone kinda like Jedi. You could multiclass into them at level 3 if you could find a mentor or awaken the bloodline etc.

NPC ones were thinning the herd/police state.

Add in no buying of magic items.

 

[ezo]

It's mostly an npc spell for me. Should probably go back to something similar to AD&D one

Our other DM used it to great effect when we confronted the BBEG of our 1-20 campaign a few years back.

First, the wizard we were supposed to be pursuing actually joined us as an NPC warlock. Then helped us to defeat his three simulacrums (the first two were already weaker in HP and spells, so easier to defeat--so we thought the last one WAS the wizard!!!) and "rescue" is kidnapped love. We ended up returning as heroes, with him with us, getting the blessing from the elf-king to marry his daughter...

We didn't learn all this until the game had ended for about a year. Needless to say, we felt a bit foolish, but the DM said if we ever decide to play an epic game, we will return to these PCs and route out the truth, maybe finally ending his evil.

 

[ezo]

I'm not a big believer in the caster/martial divide, but there's a much simpler solution than changing those classes. If a person thinks there's an issue then just ban bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards from the table. Allow artificers.

This leaves 8 classes to play (artificer, barbarian, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, rogue, and warlock) and moves the spellcaster roles to artificer, paladin, ranger, warlock, and possibly arcane trickster or eldritch knight. That reduces the number of slots, slows down the spell progression, and removes high level problematic spells.

It's effective and practically zero effort. ;-)

This is a good idea aside from the artificer part, I would probably just use the spellcaster sidekick class and do the same thing.

It sounds interesting, actually.

 

[TwoSix]

A simpler nerf would be, regardless of the stat block or classes, a simulacrum cannot cast spells above 7th level.

I said “can’t cast spells above 6th”, but otherwise I have the same rule.

A general good rule of thumb is that you can’t use a spell slot to create something that can then cast the same level slot. No using wish to gain something that also has a 9th level slot would be another example.

 

[Ashrym]

This is a good idea aside from the artificer part, I would probably just use the spellcaster sidekick class and do the same thing.

It sounds interesting, actually.

A person doesn't have to have artificers added. I would do it to fill out the classes a bit more but I think the seven without artificers can work a campaign just fine too.

 

[Zardnaar]

Our other DM used it to great effect when we confronted the BBEG of our 1-20 campaign a few years back.

First, the wizard we were supposed to be pursuing actually joined us as an NPC warlock. Then helped us to defeat his three simulacrums (the first two were already weaker in HP and spells, so easier to defeat--so we thought the last one WAS the wizard!!!) and "rescue" is kidnapped love. We ended up returning as heroes, with him with us, getting the blessing from the elf-king to marry his daughter...

We didn't learn all this until the game had ended for about a year. Needless to say, we felt a bit foolish, but the DM said if we ever decide to play an epic game, we will return to these PCs and route out the truth, maybe finally ending his evil.

Clever use I saw was the damsel in dustress was a simulacrim. She was rescued while the real one was still a captive.

 

[ezo]

Clever use I saw was the damsel in dustress was a simulacrim. She was rescued while the real one was still a captive.

Yeah, no he wanted her rescued and used us to help him play the "hero" to win over her father. We were dupes... 20th-level dupes...

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, no he wanted her rescued and used us to help him play the "hero" to win over her father. We were dupes... 20th-level dupes...

Lol. Sounds fun. It's a great DM spell even 2014 one was fine ish if you didn't do the clone exploit.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

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.

I think the problem here is that there is an untapped group of players who are not being reached by D&D.

Right now you have a situation where a player who wants to play a martial has to play a low-influence class. For these people thus they have to make a choice. What is, to them, most important? Do they want to play a martial, or do they want to play an influential class?

Arguing that fighters are good because they are popular misses the fact that a lot of people might make the deliberate choice of playing the class not because it is well designed, but because it is relevant to their character concept.

It's like when I played a battlemaster fighter and retired it because I felt I had no influence, I made another fighter and that time I made an echo knight instead. Why? Because I both wanted to play someone who hits things, I did not want to play a magic user, and I wanted to have more influence (Echo Knight still has less influence than casters, but better than nothing).

So like imagine you put maximum priority on wanting to play a martial just because. Now you have to suck it up and accept that you're not going to have as much influence as a caster.

My point is that that should not be a sacrifice that you have to make. You should be able to play influential martials.