D&D (2024) Martial/Caster fix.

[Minigiant]

So you weaken fighters and Monks in tier 2 to be more in line with Clerics and Druids and now all 4 of them are weaker than Wizards and Sorcerers

No you don't.

Like I said before, the Barbarian, Fighters, and Monks (I'll use the Playtest term Warrior Group) are balanced with Priests at tiers 1&2.

Warriors have the best damage
Priests have the best support.
Experts have the best skills.

And all 3 are decent in the skills and damage that they don't have Group specialization in.

It's the Mages who are off in Tier 2+ due to being able to nova in short days.

The solution is very easy.

Tier 2.
Warriors get a damage feature
Priests get a support.feature
Experts get a skill feature
Mages get nothing.

Tier 3 & 4
Determine if you are going for more specialization or versatility

Specialization?
Warriors get 2 damage features and a defense feature
Priests get 3 support.features
Experts get 3 skill features
Mages get nothing.

Versatility?
Warriors, Priests, Experts get 3 bonus feats
Mages get nothing

 

[Minigiant]

It thinks that the Martial Caster divide is solved by determining which 3? "Powers" each martial has.
Then giving them a scaling class feature for each. I think like Fate Accelerated RPG powers.

1. Barbarian:
   1. Might
   2. Toughness
   3. ????
2. Fighter
   1. Swiftness
   2. Recovery
   3. Might or Hand Eye Coordination
3. Monk
   1. Speed
   2. Swiftness
   3. Intuition
4. Paladin
   1. Might
   2. "Aura"
   3. Oath
5. Ranger
   1. Hand Eye Coordination
   2. Perception
   3. Wilderness Lore
6. Rogue
   1. Speed
   2. Hand Eye Coordination
   3. Underhandness

Basically 3 self scaling feats.
This would also free up their base feats for flavor stuff.

 

[Theory of Games]

I'd say it is broadly seen as a problem but nobody agrees on the best solution.

I've formed a few groups over the years at different locations (west coast and east coast). I talk to gamers IRL weekly. There just isn't this discussion about "the problem of martials vs. casters" in the real world. It's only a thing on forums like this.

But like...what does magic actually do better than a weapon? In fact, even talking about magic vs. weapons implies that it's really about damage, but that isn't really much of an issue in 5e as I understand. Fighters do good damage. And it's an easy fix, too - just up the damage.

You're refusing to see the real issue: there is no issue. Wizards can do more with magic than Fighters can do with weapons & skills. So what? Why is that an issue for you? Better yet, what do you mean when you say "balance" as it relates to ttrpgs?

 

[Minigiant]

I've formed a few groups over the years at different locations (west coast and east coast). I talk to gamers IRL weekly. There just isn't this discussion about "the problem of martials vs. casters" in the real world. It's only a thing on forums like this.

You're refusing to see the real issue: there is no issue. Wizards can do more with magic than Fighters can do with weapons & skills. So what? Why is that an issue for you? Better yet, what do you mean when you say "balance" as it relates to ttrpgs?

The issue is players not staying in their lane.

D&D moved away from being a company of adventurers to small squads.

So "redundant" PCs moved from being a welcome help to overshadowing selfish jerks.

 

[CreamCloud0]

You're refusing to see the real issue: there is no issue. Wizards can do more with magic than Fighters can do with weapons & skills. So what? Why is that an issue for you? Better yet, what do you mean when you say "balance" as it relates to ttrpgs?

the issue as i see it is that it creates an inequality in the viability of my options based primarily on the flavour/archetype of the character i want to play, why should i be penalized for wanting to play a badass claymore swinging knight or a skilled and sneaky dagger throwing rogue rather than a mysterious magic-weaving mage?

 

[I'm A Banana]

You're refusing to see the real issue: there is no issue. Wizards can do more with magic than Fighters can do with weapons & skills. So what? Why is that an issue for you? Better yet, what do you mean when you say "balance" as it relates to ttrpgs?

I just want to be more precise about what we're talking about when we say that martials are "weak." Weak is a sloppy term. It's subjective and vibes-based. So I want to know: What is the actual experience a player is having in the moment? What are they missing out on? Then, we can explore why that's happening and get useful solutions in place.

Because if they're missing out because they deal less damage or have fewer action denial options, the solution space looks very different from if the player is jealous of teleporting and granting wishes. If the root of the problem is that the player thought they were in a different genre, or don't like how high-level D&D changes, those are also separate problems. The problem might also be "message boards keep telling me martials are weak, so I assume they are."

I'm interested in talking about potential problems and fixes to this game I spend too much time thinking about, but the vagueness of the issue negatively impacts the potential utility of conversation in this case. Folks just talk past each other.

 

[Theory of Games]

I just want to be more precise about what we're talking about when we say that martials are "weak." Weak is a sloppy term. It's subjective and vibes-based. So I want to know: What is the actual experience a player is having in the moment? What are they missing out on? Then, we can explore why that's happening and get useful solutions in place.

Because if they're missing out because they deal less damage or have fewer action denial options, the solution space looks very different from if the player is jealous of teleporting and granting wishes. If the root of the problem is that the player thought they were in a different genre, or don't like how high-level D&D changes, those are also separate problems. The problem might also be "message boards keep telling me martials are weak, so I assume they are."

I'm interested in talking about potential problems and fixes to this game I spend too much time thinking about, but the vagueness of the issue negatively impacts the potential utility of conversation in this case. Folks just talk past each other.

I agree that we should nail down what the actual definition of "imbalance" is. Just commenting that "Martial weak, caster strong" isn't productive. But, a few people are explaining their position (I think).

the issue as i see it is that it creates an inequality in the viability of my options based primarily on the flavour/archetype of the character i want to play, why should i be penalized for wanting to play a badass claymore swinging knight or a skilled and sneaky dagger throwing rogue rather than a mysterious magic-weaving mage?

How is it a "penalty" if the PCs are all on the same team? Looks more like a discussion players should have about what kinds of characters everyone is playing and what roles those characters will fill.

The issue is players not staying in their lane.

D&D moved away from being a company of adventurers to small squads.

So "redundant" PCs moved from being a welcome help to overshadowing selfish jerks.

If you're group has "selfish jerks", that's a "gaming expectations" discussion the group should have. The rules can't be blamed for that.

 

[Clint_L]

I'd say it is broadly seen as a problem but nobody agrees on the best solution.

I strongly disagree that it is "broadly" seen as a problem. I've seen no evidence of that. I think D&D has done a very good job of balancing disparate classes, though as I posted above, if there is a current problem it is with the updated rules making martial classes distinctly OP at tier 1 play.

 

[Clint_L]

the issue as i see it is that it creates an inequality in the viability of my options based primarily on the flavour/archetype of the character i want to play, why should i be penalized for wanting to play a badass claymore swinging knight or a skilled and sneaky dagger throwing rogue rather than a mysterious magic-weaving mage?

How are you being "penalized"? Having fewer options is a feature, not a flaw, for a lot of folks - I am currently playing a martial class as my main, and in general I have never much cared for wading through a catalogue of spells or other options as part of my game play. It's good that there are different options for different tastes, and if you want a more complex fighter or rogue, there are options for that as well.

I played a berserker barbarian (2014 rules) for a campaign and loved it. I never felt like my character wasn't making strong contributions - they were both the primary tank and strong damage dealer, plus pretty decent at the exploration aspect! Why should I be "penalized" by having that option taken away?

Having different options for different tastes is not "penalizing" folks. It's just having different options. You're not being "penalized" when a class isn't exactly to your personal taste.

 

[Minigiant]

I just want to be more precise about what we're talking about when we say that martials are "weak." Weak is a sloppy term. It's subjective and vibes-based. So I want to know: What is the actual experience a player is having in the moment? What are they missing out on? Then, we can explore why that's happening and get useful solutions in place.

Because if they're missing out because they deal less damage or have fewer action denial options, the solution space looks very different from if the player is jealous of teleporting and granting wishes. If the root of the problem is that the player thought they were in a different genre, or don't like how high-level D&D changes, those are also separate problems. The problem might also be "message boards keep telling me martials are weak, so I assume they are."

I'm interested in talking about potential problems and fixes to this game I spend too much time thinking about, but the vagueness of the issue negatively impacts the potential utility of conversation in this case. Folks just talk past each other.

I think the issue is that some people want to play non-traditional archetypes like the smart, wise, Barbarian chief or muscle wizard or charismatic Ranger Lord but since every class does not care about every ability score nor do they gain much from ability scores if their core class does not lean heavy into the.