D&D (2024) Martial/Caster fix.

[Distracted DM]

A PC's "weight class" is a set of numbers on a page compared to another page with a different set of numbers. Erase a number on the second page, the one next to "CR", and replace it with a lower number. Ta-da. We just got a new set of scales.

Encounter balancing is always something of an arcane art. Do the game designers and the players/dms enjoy the same level of difficulty? Are the assumptions on relative effectiveness between creature abilities and PC abilities valid? Are they predicated on a certain level of finesse in implementation by player/DM? Are they materially impacted by pacing or sequencing? Are DMs made aware of those factors and given guidelines to adjust accordingly?

Milestone leveling is effectively a way GMs can communicate to players "don't bother doing monster/xp math, this is my own thing". A GM who is, relatively, a tactical genius may throw monsters -2CR at players. One who is outclassed by their players, or constantly forgets monster abilities, or who gave out too much loot, may use +2CR challenges.

The game's provided monsters and their difficulty, compared to the capabilities of the player characters, are the measuring stick for what's "powerful" and "weight classes" in a system.

Can a level 3 group handle an ogre? Can they handily handle 6 ogres? How likely is it that there are a dozen ogres to pose a threat to the village, rather than one or two ogres?

A tier 3 party can handle a CR23+ ancient dragon... how many ancient dragons are there in the land? How many do I have to add to the setting to consistently challenge the party?

You say I can just change the numbers on the sheet... OK but now I'm basically rewriting the monster manual, especially since I'm making an ancient dragon CR16, I'm going to need to make a SuperAncient dragon for the new CR23.

5e's power scale is a bit whacky after tier 2; I'm comfortable saying that.
Increasing PC power, and then increasing monster power to compensate, just means that we're throwing higher and higher numbers at each-other; I'd prefer to avoid that, and keep the numbers lower... crazy high numbers are why I got out of PF1e, and why I didn't turn to PF2e.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Well, you could always get the slots back by multiclassing.

The most important thing it does is truncate their effective spell list to 5th level and below.

That's the thought experiment I'm bouncing around right now. If you changed nothing except that you chopped off the 6th level plus spells from every class's spell list, how balanced would the game be, especially at upper Tier 3 into Tier 4?

I've played in a game where access to spell levels was restricted to the same progression as half-casters, but spell slots weren't. (So full casters had more limited access to higher level spells, but still had high level spell slots with which they could upcast them.) That worked out OK, but simply making the half-caster progression the maximum (so full-casters would likely multiclass with martials) might be a simpler method of achieving the same effect.

I really don't love the idea of buffing PC things in 5e even further
Ideally they'd be brought down in power.. but my 5e bother is PCs punching so high above their weight class, so ofc I want to avoid buffing to balance.

I think that a lot of martials would be happy to have the ability to sacrifice damage to perform more interesting maneuvers. So they don't punch any harder, but have the ability to be more tricksy if they're willing to punch more softly. (Similar to the Rogue cunning strike but without being shackled to sneak attack's non-ideal progression.)

And of course more interesting non-combat versatility shouldn't affect combat punch too much.

You know, I also wonder how much of this Simulacrum abuse really happens at actual tables. Are you folks all seeing this in your own games, and that's why everyone seems bent out of shape? Or is this a more of a potential and theoretical issue?

I've seen Simulacrum being used to great effect in a 2014 game. No multiple-simulacrum cheese, but when the bladesinger decided to get serious they blew even a fairly optimised martial character away just through the sheer number of attacks they could apply.

Most of the time the wizard just used it like a very reliable NPC or hireling, handling their business while the wizard was adventuring. It was only ever a Sending and Teleport away if the group was going to do something particularly strenuous. however.

 

[Distracted DM]

I think that a lot of martials would be happy to have the ability to sacrifice damage to perform more interesting maneuvers. So they don't punch any harder, but have the ability to be more tricksy if they're willing to punch more softly. (Similar to the Rogue cunning strike but without being shackled to sneak attack's non-ideal progression.)

I think someone here mentioned Book of 9 Swords; A5E's martial maneuvers are basically that.. except I don't think they give up much damage potential. It's more a straight-up buff :'D
But it's not WotC 5e, I imagine folk want the change there.

 

[Zardnaar]

You know, I also wonder how much of this Simulacrum abuse really happens at actual tables. Are you folks all seeing this in your own games, and that's why everyone seems bent out of shape? Or is this a more of a potential and theoretical issue?

Think its mostly theoretical to push the idea that 5E is broken by people who don't even play the game. Spells already been nerfed but people still act like you can create a clone army.

Wizards are kinda weak by spellcaster standards imho. A lot of their power was level 10. Powergamers are picking bards and sorcerers instead. 2014 and 24 rules.

At levels people actually play sorcerers can twin all their spells in effect double the spell slots.

 

[ezo]

Spells already been nerfed but people still act like you can create a clone army.

You can still create a clone army, even in 2024, via simulacrum and wish. I don't see anything in the 2024 descriptions preventing this from happening.

Correct me if I am wrong??

 

[Micah Sweet]

You can still create a clone army, even in 2024, via simulacrum and wish. I don't see anything in the 2024 descriptions preventing this from happening.

Correct me if I am wrong??

Does this actually happen?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think someone here mentioned Book of 9 Swords; A5E's martial maneuvers are basically that.. except I don't think they give up much damage potential. It's more a straight-up buff :'D
But it's not WotC 5e, I imagine folk want the change there.

A Warblade (which could double as a warlord-alike using white raven) with capabilities like those in the Bo9S would be the 14th class that I would really like to see. The ToB was a great way of playing a more fun, but still non-magical martial type.

 

[Ashrym]

Wizards are kinda weak by spellcaster standards imho. A lot of their power was level 10. Powergamers are picking bards and sorcerers instead. 2014 and 24 rules.

Bards are also weak. They gain much of their rep from magical secrets taking from the wizard list post level 10 as well.

I think arcane recovery is better than the small bonus to skills at low levels and bardic inspiration. I don't think there's much of an argument for any spellcaster at lower levels.

 

[ezo]

Does this actually happen?

I told you already I had to nerf the spell to stop it from happening...

You know, I also wonder how much of this Simulacrum abuse really happens at actual tables. Are you folks all seeing this in your own games, and that's why everyone seems bent out of shape? Or is this a more of a potential and theoretical issue?

I had one player a few years ago who wanted to do this once they hit 17th-level Wizard. Of course I nerfed simulacrum immediately, of course, by adding the following:

Only one simulacrum of a creature can exist at any time. If a simulacrum of the target creature already exists, the spell fails.

This stops the simulacrum, wish, wish, wish... abuse.

Worst cast scenario is Caster makes Sim A. Sim A makes Sim B. Done. Sim B does not have the spell slot to cast wish to continue the abuse.

If I hadn't nerfed it, the player would have had a few thousand simulacrums in less than 8 hours, tens of thousands in a week, and over one-hundred thousand in a month if they wanted to. Just needed downtime and there you go.

Of course, your reply earlier and my response.

I'm sure the player was super happy about that too.

The other option was they have NONE. So, yeah, they were pretty happy.

Maybe you don't mind a player making it to 17th-level Wizard and then having the ability to create near infinite simulacrums...? But no, thank you, not for me.

And guess what? As far as I can see there is nothing in the 2024 version of either spell to stop this from happening. You can bet your ass if I ever get to play a wizard to 17+ level I will spam the hell out of this unless the DM takes similar steps to nerf either simulacrum or wish.

Of course, you seem to prefer nerfing or removing wish entirely since you gave this post a like:

Easy solution is to ban the wish spell from the table.

That is certainly a solution, the other is to just add the line to simulacrum I have above:
Only one simulacrum of a creature can exist at any time. If a simulacrum of the target creature already exists, the spell fails.

That is another solution. Take your pick.

But, yeah, this can actually happen in a game, no theory-crafting or anything going on...

 

[Zardnaar]

You can still create a clone army, even in 2024, via simulacrum and wish. I don't see anything in the 2024 descriptions preventing this from happening.

Correct me if I am wrong??

Read the last sentence of the 2024 version.