D&D (2024) Martial/Caster fix.

[ECMO3]

Funny enough, there is one concept that resolved that.

AEDU ( At will, encounter, daily, utility). While i heard numerous times that all classes feel samey in 4e, it's mostly because everyone is on the same page resource wise.

Yeah, my 4E experience is one big reason why I think balance hurts the game and is far less fun overall.

Despite many, many people saying they want class balance, I have not seen any actual evidence it leads to a more fun game.

 

[Distracted DM]

I don't know, which is why I said "apparently", since I've never even seen 4E and barely know of the AEDU system.

Yes, 4e largely resolved the issue. It failed for many other reasons.. BUT having "solved" the issue by bringing balance, it turns out a lot of folk didn't love that because it made everything more similar (to make an example: a caster and a martial could both potentially impose difficult terrain and area damage on an area, the only difference was the flavor- the martial dashing to and fro rapidly harrying foes passing through, the caster covering the area in hoarfrost/grasping shadows). It was very gamist, as opposed to simulationist, it used very little to no natural language, its mechanics were all laid bare for good (rules clarity) or ill (killed verisimilitude for many).

If you want to see, what I consider, a happy compromise between 3e and 4e, go look at 13th Age. Made by many of the same designers, it did a great job of making a heroic DnD-like and quashed the martial/caster thing while also avoiding 4e's mistakes. It has some issues itself, but I ran that system for years and loved the heck out of it.

 

[cbwjm]

I don't actually feel like spell slots need to be reduced and, in fact, I'd have a slight increase gaining an extra 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level spell slot at class levels 12, 14, and 16 to get rid of those levels where no additional spell slots are gained. This is assuming that 5.5 kept the same number of spell slots/level as 5e.

 

[ezo]

Yes, 4e largely resolved the issue. It failed for many other reasons.. BUT having "solved" the issue by bringing balance, it turns out a lot of folk didn't love that because it made everything more similar (to make an example: a caster and a martial could both potentially impose difficult terrain and area damage on an area, the only difference was the flavor- the martial dashing to and fro rapidly harrying foes passing through, the caster covering the area in hoarfrost/grasping shadows). It was very gamist, as opposed to simulationist, it used very little to no natural language, its mechanics were all laid bare for good (rules clarity) or ill (killed verisimilitude for many).

If you want to see, what I consider, a happy compromise between 3e and 4e, go look at 13th Age. Made by many of the same designers, it did a great job of making a heroic DnD-like and quashed the martial/caster thing while also avoiding 4e's mistakes. It has some issues itself, but I ran that system for years and loved the heck out of it.

Thanks for the input on 4E! I can certainly see why players would not like the approach, given the flavor of the example. I, myself, prefer more of a simulationist approach.

I remember looking at 13th Age a few years back and didn't really find it that compelling--although off-hand I don't recall why.

I'd have a slight increase gaining an extra 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level spell slot at class levels 12, 14, and 16 to get rid of those levels where no additional spell slots are gained.

I don't see that being an issue at all for most games since they rarely get to those levels IME. If the tables had been like that from the beginning, I doubt anyone would blink an eye about it.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Yes, 4e largely resolved the issue. It failed for many other reasons.. BUT having "solved" the issue by bringing balance, it turns out a lot of folk didn't love that because it made everything more similar (to make an example: a caster and a martial could both potentially impose difficult terrain and area damage on an area, the only difference was the flavor- the martial dashing to and fro rapidly harrying foes passing through, the caster covering the area in hoarfrost/grasping shadows). It was very gamist, as opposed to simulationist, it used very little to no natural language, its mechanics were all laid bare for good (rules clarity) or ill (killed verisimilitude for many).

The bolded bit was effing excellent. You could play a non-caster who could actually have an effect on the battlefield. You didn't have to just hit things with standard attacks.

The system definitely had issues, though. Not a fan of what they did to all the lore.

If you want to see, what I consider, a happy compromise between 3e and 4e, go look at 13th Age. Made by many of the same designers, it did a great job of making a heroic DnD-like and quashed the martial/caster thing while also avoiding 4e's mistakes. It has some issues itself, but I ran that system for years and loved the heck out of it.

13th Age does indeed look like a great system.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Was there really problems with that part specifically or was it just the stigma of 4e the designers tried to avoid showing in 5e, regardless of how well the design actually worked?

I know I had a problem with AEDU on every class at the time, but if you're talking about commercial viability I can't say.

 

[M_Natas]

Well, this is the case in any system-- if you don't have "pressure" after an encounter, the party can recover everything before moving on.

But some things make it harder for the GM. A long rest after 8 hours of not doing anything? Hard to keep up pressure in a lot of scenarios without it being feeling forced.

Long rest only after a week of not doing anything in a safe location? Much easier to handle for a DM - but can kill momentum quickly.

Long rest only gives back 20% (adjust number to your liking) of total HP and Spell Slots? Now you can easily challenge a party with one encounter a day, but can also challenge them with 6 encounters in a day when they are at a 100%, or deplet them over time with 1 to 2 encounters a day. Now the party can also trade time for ressources.

Getting back 100% after an 8 hour sleep? A no brainer.

Resting 8 hours and getting back 20% - maybe that is enough and we can push on or maybe we need to rest two days and risk losing our goal? Much more strategic decision.

Building pressure is so hard in 5e because of the 8 hour rest get 100% back rules. Building up pressure with rest variants is way easier.

 

[GrimCo]

4th edition was probably best designed one, hands down. Sure, it's gamist, classes feel samey (feel is operating word), they took massive poop on lore. But, from pure mechanics, they had singular playstyle in mind and designed rules around it. Clear party roles, meaningful tactical choices, everyone on same resource level. It's most structured and coherent in it's design philosophy with unified and consistent mechanics. Both martials and casters can do cool stuff, at the same rate. Late 3.5 did something similar with Bo9s, with manouvers/stances and some other classes.

5/5.5 returns to pre 4 e days of martials and casters operating with different sub mechanics. Martials don't get anything similar to spells.

 

[Corinnguard]

5/5.5 returns to pre 4 e days of martials and casters operating with different sub mechanics. Martials don't get anything similar to spells.

Until EN Publishing came out with Level Up: A5e and had every martial class come equipped with a proficiency in two to three Combat Traditions (ala the 3e Book of Nine Swords).

 

[CreamCloud0]

I know I had a problem with AEDU on every class at the time, but if you're talking about commercial viability I can't say.

that's a matter of personal taste though isn't it? what i was referring to was the effectiveness of the balance of the design.