D&D 5E (2024) CoDzilla? Yeah Na Its CoDGFaW.

[CreamCloud0]

IMO all the page space a caster’s spells take up ought to also be functionally counted as space in their class entry, and martials ought to have a similar chapter full of established abilities for those classes to reference too.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

IMO all the page space a caster’s spells take up ought to also be functionally counted as space in their class entry, and martials ought to have a similar chapter full of established abilities for those classes to reference too.

While I would not require that myself (since it would imply that every class that can cast spells should have spell lists of equal length, for example, which I don't think is necessary--and likely harmful!), I certainly agree with the underlying conception.

Functionally, all of a class's spells are part of its class mechanics. That's one of the easiest ways to show just how powerful spellcasters are compared to martials. Like, for example, the Cleric--shortest spell list of all "proper" full-casters in 5e, aka excluding Warlock--has "only" 117 spells. If we presume each spell is roughly 1/4 of a page (which is a roughly-decent average), this means that the Cleric class does not have 9 pages. It has 9+(116/4) = 9+29 = 38 pages of mechanics. And don't even get me started on the Wizard! It has, not 11 pages, but 11+(242/4) = 71.5 pages of mechanics.

All compared to the Fighter's measly 9 pages. By this comparison, the Wizard has nearly nine times as much mechanical weight to it as the Fighter does. (And no, I'm not going to include the EK spells. That's literally "your Fighter chose to become part-Wizard"--you aren't getting more Fighter mechanics, you're literally becoming a crappy Wizard.)

Now, again, I do not think it's necessary, nor even positive, to try to force every class to have identical breadth. I think that's a pretty serious error (and, because I know folks will jump on this, no I do not believe 4e did this, BUT I would prefer NOT to discuss that further here please). But this analysis really does show just how much MORE you are when you play a Wizard, or a Bard, or whatever, vs anything like Rogue or Fighter.

There are, IMO, several ways to address this, some better than others. I would personally like to see, for lack of a better term, "Deeds of Derring-Do". Deeds require practice; you can't just trot out any Deed whenever you like, you have to be prepared for the opportunity when it strikes. Deeds require triggers (most of the time, anyway): you can't just declare that you blind an enemy or whatever, the enemy needs to be sighted in a way that could be taken away, etc. I'm sure there are more do's as well don'ts for how to make this work reasonably, but I'd like to think it's entirely possible. Deeds are organized into Disciplines, reflecting the general...kind of thing those deeds do. Perhaps they can be tied to being trained in specific skills? That seems like a reasonable choice--and a great reason for Fighters and Rogues to have more skills than most characters!

Then, each innately non-caster class (Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, and possibly Monk) picks a few Disciplines at 3rd level, and then one or two of those to unlock the deepest secrets therein at, say, 12th level. Innately part-caster, part-non-caster classes, like Paladin and Ranger (and possibly Monk), qualify for a feat (or perhaps a fighting style?) that lets them pick up a single Discipline, no advanced options. Classes that innately support combat, but require build-up, such as Artificer and Warlock, can spend other resources to acquire a Discipline (perhaps a one-time Invocation for Warlocks, and a delayed subclass feature for Armorer Artificers?), and again, no advanced options.

This creates a space of play that casters have to try to dabble in, if they even qualify at all, and where casters simply cannot reach the highest heights. There's now a reason to be a Fighter instead of a Paladin or Blade Warlock or whatever else: there are secrets of blade and body and bone that only those wholly dedicated to it can reach them.

 

[CreamCloud0]

@EzekielRaiden oh for sure I’m not advocating for 1-1 page count, but like you say fighter 9 to cleric 38, just something for people to keep in mind.

 

[Tigris]

@EzekielRaiden oh for sure I’m not advocating for 1-1 page count, but like you say fighter 9 to cleric 38, just something for people to keep in mind.

I think the bigger peoblem is that for casters there will most likely be some powercreep or at least some natural power increase through more options while for martials thats a lot less the case.


Like for casters new spells are released meaning they get potential better abilities. Martials maybe get more powerfull subclasses, but thats about it and that does not help if you want to play another subclass.


A 5.0 caster right before 5.24 released was a lot stronger than a caster which used only PHB material.


For some druids its even more extreme with new animal forms. And potentially for summons (if you can choose them) its similar.

 

[James Gasik]

Suddenly that popular argument that anti-magic areas make casters weak but the non-casters can carry on happily looks a lot less convincing when so much of the offensive potential comes from ,agic gear.



I think I saw Wiah cast two or three times in two BECMI campaigns which reached level 25+. Once by a genie, once off a scroll, and I think our M-U in the first of those campaigns used it once. Certainly neverr a common spell IME.

Especially with the existence of creatures immune to non-magical weaponry! Imagine a 1e Lich who just drops anti-magic shell rather than engaging in some kind of spell duel with PC's, knowing full well that there's nothing they could do to hurt it!