Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I played and ran 4e for over a year, and looked at it pretty hard. Not everyone who rejected 4e personally is ignorant of it.
D&D (2024) Martial/Caster fix.
- Thread starter mellored
- Start date
Corinnguard
Hero
Who gets to define the basic standard?
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
This is why there are different games with different degrees of complexity, and some of those games are compatible so we can mix and match. Everybody wins!
Corinnguard
Hero
In other words, every edition of D&D, PF 1&2, ToV and A5e have their own set standards that we can choose to follow, dismiss, or mix and match to get something better.
Willie the Duck
Hero
I certainly don't think that (ex.) 16th level play is too caster-centric because the 16th level caster is casting too many level 2-4 spells. Although that they are casting 1+ levelled spell every round might be an issue (and that is a symptom of not enough encounters per rest).
Someone else mentioned cantrip scaling, and that's another thing that doesn't seem like the issue to me -- although if we went ahead with any of the proposed fixes, we might get high level casters who actually used their cantrips (meaning we would have to look at their balance).
What I have found (and I have found some LFQW tendencies in 5e 2014/24) is that they mostly center around specific spells (Force Cage, Simulacrum), nuances within spells (magic missile's nuclear wizard effect, 2014 conjure animals and pixies, simulacrum+wish), combinations (CME+scorching ray), or save DCs in the long tail of plausible given rolled stats and purchasable magic items (being dominated by a Int 22 wizard with a +3 arcane grimoire).
People tend to selectively stop playing most of those situations after they've had their fun with them, and then high-level play tends to settle into a different style. That later is much more just that the difference in damage output (and martials win out in this format) between martials and casters is insufficient (IMO) considering all the OOC things casters can do.
To me, it seems like the optimal way to address this is less fixing casting per day and more address individual spells, along with OOC abilities that go to the martial classes.
You can have multiple levels of complexity in the same game.
You just have to get over your biases.
Many popular ideas are not in the base system of a game only because either the designers or the preferred audience of the designers had a bias that kept it from being included.
Corinnguard
Hero
Only if the base game was a sentient construct. It's more likely that the designers of a given RPG set the standard. WoTC set the standard for 3e, 4e, 5e and 5.5e. Kobold Press has its' own standard for ToV and EN Publishing did the same for Level Up. Ditto for Paizo with regards to PF1, PF2 and PF2.5The base game
D&D is a game of adding onto the base standard. (Can't get the bold off
)
Fans make things more complex and harder than it is.
It's our job as fans to make the RPG we like/love simple or complex. We would be amiss if we didn't.
MuhVerisimilitude
Hero
You are overcomplicating this thing something fierce.
We already have a standard for basic. The champion. We can use that as a starting point.
I don't think You understand what I'm calling a base standard.
The base standard is the attack roll followed by the damage roll that all of those game systems all use.
From there you can add on complexity at different amounts which fall on the same balance curve.
The issue becomes when the different companies determine which level of complexity they want to deal with and which levels of complexity they want to not support.
If you have multiple companies creating compatible items within different levels of complexity then technically you could have had one company produce all of those compatible items.
It's literally just one group saying "I don't want to support X".
Similar Threads
