D&D (2024) Martial/Caster fix.

[KentHusker]

@KentHusker Don't smiley spam like a coward. If you want to laugh at me, do it in a post.

I don't take orders from you. And maybe when you post something actually intelligent, you won't get laughed at. But I'm pretty sure that'll never happen.

 

[Morrus]

I don't take orders from you. And maybe when you post something actually intelligent, you won't get laughed at. But I'm pretty sure that'll never happen.

You only joined on Wednesday, and you seem to have gone on a namecalling rampage across multiple threads. Please review the rules you agreed to very recently. In the meantime, you won't be posting again in this thread.

 

[Morrus]

Don't smiley spam like a coward. If you want to laugh at me, do it in a post.

If you think somebody is breaking the rules, please use the report button rather than starting a fight.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

If the party gets a long rest after every combat the DM is seriously messing up.

"After you finish a Long Rest, you must wait at least 16 hours before starting another one." That's in the rules for long rests.

The party is doing nothing but sitting around in you example. IME, we continue playing the game instead of having our characters sit around all day doing nothing.

There's practically only one way to make sure that the players cannot long rest after each combat, and that is to make sure every combat is chained into every other combat, and you need to have time pressure.

It's known that the best way to run D&D is to make it very dungeon focused and to have it take place far from a town or civilisation.

As I said, I think the easiest fix to this problem is to make all classes rely equally much on long rests and short rests.

 

[ezo]

Which is functionally a useless quality if you never actually need to use it that much.

But an extremely valuable quality when you need to use it. Just like novaing is extremely useful when you need that. IME the issue is more too many players nova when it really isn't necessary. There is nothing worse IME for a caster player than to "run out of gas".

5E is designed around attrition. If the DM doesn't use that model (at least sometimes) that isn't the fault of the game design. It is like playing chess with different rules and complaining the game doesn't play like you expect.

Casters run out of spell slots often enough in my own games, for example. My DMPC is a healer, and in our session last week I was tapped out after two combats (actually, he died in the second combat which was beyond Deadly). As DM, I can tell you the "three" enemy casters (a hag coven) was practically tapped out (one 1st and one 2nd slot remaining... that's it) and we had to stop before the encounter was technically over. The PCs are fleeing and the hags are trying to stop them. I'm sure they will use their last remaining spell slots soon enough.

If a DM feels casters are too "free" with their spell slots since spells tend to have more "power" or impact on encounters compared to martial features, the options presented in this thread can fix that easily enough IME. For example, I HATE the warlock class (as both player and DM) because of the two spell slot limit per rest. Having just two spells, even at maximum spell level, feels like it hamstrings casters way too much. I've never had a warlock at higher levels, so I don't know how much the extra 3rd slot would help.

As I said, I think the easiest fix to this problem is to make all classes rely equally much on long rests and short rests.

And how do you purpose to do that?

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

But an extremely valuable quality when you need to use it. Just like novaing is extremely useful when you need that. IME the issue is more too many players nova when it really isn't necessary. There is nothing worse IME for a caster player than to "run out of gas".

5E is designed around attrition. If the DM doesn't use that model (at least sometimes) that isn't the fault of the game design. It is like playing chess with different rules and complaining the game doesn't play like you expect.

But this is a design problem imo.

The design requires the GM to run adventures in a non-natural way in order to prevent one class type from dominating, simply because the attrition model is weak.

In a better designed system the pacing of encounters should be something that impacts every player character. No particular class should be more or less punished by choosing not to rest.

Just to make it clear: I actually agree with what you are saying that it is possible to avoid the problems by playing in a particular way, but I think the system would benefit if you redesigned it so this wasn't a necessity.

Casters run out of spell slots often enough in my own games, for example. My DMPC is a healer, and in our session last week I was tapped out after two combats (actually, he died in the second combat which was beyond Deadly). As DM, I can tell you the "three" enemy casters (a hag coven) was practically tapped out (one 1st and one 2nd slot remaining... that's it) and we had to stop before the encounter was technically over. The PCs are fleeing and the hags are trying to stop them. I'm sure they will use their last remaining spell slots soon enough.

If a DM feels casters are too "free" with their spell slots since spells tend to have more "power" or impact on encounters compared to martial features, the options presented in this thread can fix that easily enough IME. For example, I HATE the warlock class (as both player and DM) because of the two spell slot limit per rest. Having just two spells, even at maximum spell level, feels like it hamstrings casters way too much. I've never had a warlock at higher levels, so I don't know how much the extra 3rd slot would help.

Yeah I think this is a situation where we are probably playing in entirely different campaign styles.

The (very long) campaign I have played in involved mostly city adventures and overland travel and very few dungeons.

And how do you purpose to do that?

The easy way is to make standard attacks and cantrips weaker (!) and then give martial characters daily abilities which pack extra punch...

But you can also look at other systems for inspiration.

• In Lancer, almost everything you can do is at will. With only a few abilities per "class" being once-per-mission.
• In Dragonbane, most abilities use a will power resource with a uniform recovery.
• In Call of Cthulhu, all "abilities" are at will, but you can be limited by ammo and such.
• In Triangle Agency, everything uses the same resource

The problem is easily solvable, but I suspect there will be incredible amounts of backlash against any attempts at modernising the system.

 

[ezo]

The design requires the GM to run adventures in a non-natural way in order to prevent one class type from dominating, simply because the attrition model is weak.

I disagree. I run my game in a very "natural" way because I actually use creature and encounter frequency and place monsters in lairs, etc. according to the game-world and story when PCs get to those lairs.

This means sometimes I have one encounter between rests, a couple, more, and sometimes a dozen before the PCs get a chance to long rest... But the point is the PCs never know which is going to happen, so to choose to nova without need often leads to trouble for the caster later on. Most martials with more at will or several use abilities, or who can more easily get in a short rest, don't have to worry as much about that--the sole exception being the paladin's nova capabilities.

In a better designed system the pacing of encounters should be something that impacts every player character. No particular class should be more or less punished by choosing not to rest.

Every player character is impacted, just in different ways.

Just to make it clear: I actually agree with what you are saying that it is possible to avoid the problems by playing in a particular way, but I think the system would benefit if you redesigned it so this wasn't a necessity.

Fair enough, but I think that redesign would result in a game which does not feel like D&D to many players.

Yeah I think this is a situation where we are probably playing in entirely different campaign styles.

The (very long) campaign I have played in involved mostly city adventures and overland travel and very few dungeons.

Maybe. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is maybe not. To me location matters not, it is about pacing.

My "hag lair" could have just as easily been in the sewers beneath the city, where the hags have more humanoids to trick, manipulate, employ them, exploit them, etc. The same situation could have easily happened with one or two encounters before reaching the lair in the sewers.

Overland travel and random encounters are more likely the time when PCs will have none, one, or maybe two random encounters between rests. However, IME in such cases the martials handle them just as easily as casters.

The easy way is to make standard attacks and cantrips weaker (!) and then give martial characters daily abilities which pack extra punch...

I agree with (at the high end) making cantrips weaker. They are meant to be a fall-back for casters IMO, not a "go to". This is one way I like to differentiate between casters and martials. Martials attacking with weapons is their "go to", casters "go to" should be using "more meaningful" magic, not cantrips.

Giving martials even more "punch" (as I said upthread I think) makes D&D too superheroic IME. Not a lot of people like that, especially below 10th level. I think many would argue martials already have daily abilities with extra punch. Action Surge, Rage, Smites, etc. are all limited daily abilities which are the martials "novas". An issue, again, is when these are used to end an encounter more quickly, but are overkill for it really. Same is true for spellcasters who waste higher level slots.

But you can also look at other systems for inspiration.

• In Lancer, almost everything you can do is at will. With only a few abilities per "class" being once-per-mission.
• In Dragonbane, most abilities use a will power resource with a uniform recovery.
• In Call of Cthulhu, all "abilities" are at will, but you can be limited by ammo and such.
• In Triangle Agency, everything uses the same resource

The problem is easily solvable, but I suspect there will be incredible amounts of backlash against any attempts at modernising the system.

I am only slightly familiar with Dragonbane and none of the others, so I can't say how much they might or might not work in a D&D-style game. I think the backlash would be more about losing the feel of D&D than anything else.

But I also think any changes will likely just make the 5MWD a bigger thing again. Regardless of when features get recovered, the fact they have be recovered following a rest will mean PCs will want to rest after each encounter, or few encounters, or when attrition sets in... depending on how the DM controls the flow of the narrative and encounters.

 

[jasper]

First of all this thread has little to do with damage dealing.

Secondly, if you are arguing the hypothetical that it is fine for casters to be better at damage dealing than fighters, then what is the purpose of fighters in the first place?

because the game was team game. And again was not set up to do damage per round must be equal to each class. you can play aragon or gandalf. or the hobbit.

 

[Distracted DM]

I disagree. I run my game in a very "natural" way because I actually use creature and encounter frequency and place monsters in lairs, etc. according to the game-world and story when PCs get to those lairs.

Ok I guess it's just agree to disagree- when someone says "naturally" I take their meaning as "not having to artificially inflate the number of encounters per day to make it so the party is challenged."

If I have a city campaign, I COULD have the party: accosted by thieves, have to catch a burglar, fight off an otyugh, negotiate with a guild, fight some guards, have to burgle something, and fight a sewer dragon.

But is that every day in the city? What if, organically, they just need to negotiate with a guild and catch a burglar? Yes, I could add a bunch of crap to that adventuring day to make it stretch their resources and challenge them, buuut maybe I want to have a couple adventure in the day AND challenge them because I want to move the session and story along without getting bogged down in fight after fight.

Having to have 5/6+ encounters per day so the party isn't going nova is, I think, what they mean by not being natural.

That might be a hard ask for DnD, but it's not wrong to ask.

 

[ezo]

Ok I guess it's just agree to disagree- when someone says "naturally" I take their meaning as "not having to artificially inflate the number of encounters per day to make it so the party is challenged."

I think we just have different definitions of what "naturally" means more than disagreement.

For me "naturally" is what the game-world dictates is likely to be there. Different regions will have different encounters with different probabilities of encounters happening.

If I have a city campaign, I COULD have the party: accosted by thieves, have to catch a burglar, fight off an otyugh, negotiate with a guild, fight some guards, have to burgle something, and fight a sewer dragon.

But is that every day in the city? What if, organically, they just need to negotiate with a guild and catch a burglar? Yes, I could add a bunch of crap to that adventuring day to make it stretch their resources and challenge them, buuut maybe I want to have a couple adventure in the day AND challenge them because I want to move the session and story along without getting bogged down in fight after fight.

This really isn't what I was talking about... but ok. Or you adjust the difficulties for the fights if you want to follow the attrition model.

Having to have 5/6+ encounters per day so the party isn't going nova is, I think, what they mean by not being natural.

Good, it isn't what I meant either.

That might be a hard ask for DnD, but it's not wrong to ask.

What ask? I don't even know which "ask" you are referring to?