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!

 

[Zardnaar]

The game is designed. All levels matter. Just because some are rarely reached doesn't make them irrelevant.

This is half of why I say I don't care that these levels are rarely reached.

The other half is: If the Wizard class is balanced around having to slog through a ton of intentionally boring crap before you gain PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER....and then you openly admit that you'll never actually GET the phenomenal cosmic power...isn't that then an admission that the Wizard class is badly designed?

It's a class you play to have no fun at all until you inevitably lose. That's...bad design.


I don't understand. Why would official material be exclusively beneficial to the Fighter and never the Wizard?


"dpkat"?

Look. I'm not saying that Fighters like, somehow objectively suck under all conditions no matter what. That would be stupid. I'm saying that there is a good reason that the vast majority of characters we hear much about from early-D&D were spellcasters.

Because spellcasters that survive? They take over. That's my point here.

It doesn't matter if 99.9% of Wizards die, if the 0.1% that live become functional GODS.


Sincerely: Why does it matter if it's common or not? This whole line of reasoning is utterly irrelevant to the topic, but people keep bringing it up as if it should have any relevance at all. I don't get it.

The way I see it, we have a dilemma here. It is agreed fact--as far as I had understood it!--that the Wizard and Fighter are supposed to be balanced against each other because the Wizard is comparatively weak early and strong late, while the Fighter is comparatively strong early and weak late. At the very least, it seems all here agree that if a Wizard does reach max level, their power level completely blows the Fighter's out of the water. Hence why no one argues that a Wizard casting wish is irrelevant, and instead arguing that the Wizard never actually casts it at all, and thus it can't matter.

But that leads straight to the horns of the dilemma.

On the one hand: The design of early-edition D&D is supposed to be such that the Wizard metaphorically "pays for" their eventual enormous power by facing even more nearly-impossible odds at low level, aka, the lethality rate is even more near-guaranteed than it is for a Fighter or Cleric. Hence, the only way for the Wizard class to be balanced is for it to eventually get to actually USE that phenomenal cosmic power. But, by the admission (indeed, insistence) of several folks in this thread, that doesn't happen. So....the Wizard pays through the nose...in order to never actually get much of anything, except an awful lot of bookkeeping. That sounds like a frank and open admission that the Wizard is badly designed, because it just sucks to play and never pays off.

On the other hand: Basically the arguments I've already made, that the design is what the design is, and it doesn't matter if people actually do play the levels, it's bad design to have something that utterly overwhelms every other option in the long-run. Hence, if we don't have the claim that Wizards never get to cast wish, then all a Wizard does is wait through some finite amount of tedium in order to gain grotesque levels of power, far outstripping anything anyone else can do or even attempt. Which...is bad design in a cooperative game where everyone is supposed to need other people.

Unless you can find a third hand, it seems to me that whether or not the Wizard actually does cast wish much, it's a badly-designed class! Either it's paying out the nose for a benefit it functionally never receives, or it's just paying a finite (if horrendous) period of tedium and frustration in order to Win Forever.

Theres stories of DMs screwing players over equipment wise snd reverse Monty haul.

Official adventures had a lot of loot and they were skewed towards fighters generally along with the magic item tables.

We did use random item tables early on and yeah fighters were eating well.

It was the thief that was kinda crap although one optional rule in 2E was absurd and we had one hit level 10 or so with everyone else being level 6 or 7.

Ironically made that thief a good one.

So different levels in pre 3E isnt really s problem . Basic line had better tables for xp than AD&D that could get funky eg wizards, druids and espicially 1E druids.

Ironically playing the clones and 2E after 3.5/Pathfinder/4E balance was a lot better and games ran smoother. Ascending AC B/X clones are very easy on DM.

Its the poor old thief tends to get screwed (C&C ones amazing skill monkey/assassin).

 

[Zardnaar]

Splat i think

Yeah typos. Hate this phone.

 

[Maxperson]

You can REWRITE REALITY.

Most wizards never got to that level. Not because play stopped like @Lanefan was getting at, but because at level 1 they typically had 2.5 hit points and an AC of 10. They'd be knocked out if the PC in front of them stopped suddenly and they collided.

Even if they did make it to 17th level, they'd typically have around a 20% of just plain dying if they cast the spell. The reality re-write doesn't really matter much to a corpse. As a result, most wizards never cast Wish even if they made it to 17th level and managed to successfully learn the spell.

 

[Maxperson]

We don't live in a world where that playstyle is common or desired. We live in a world where most people do not want to play games that way. It is not productive to tell them "stop finding fun in things you like, and start liking the things I, Lanefan, like." Indeed, such a thing is simply going to end with people resenting the things, and thus actively fighting against them, not coming around to them.

We don't live in a 1e or 2e world, either. The overwhelming majority of people who played those editions did it in the prior era where that playstyle WAS common and desired. Furthermore, most of those who play 1e and 2e today are grognards who still want to play that way, which is why they are playing those two editions.

Trying to apply modern sensibilities to those two editions is doomed to fail.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Most wizards never got to that level.

I. Don't. Care.

The design is what the game is, and not only can but should be evaluated for all of its contents, not merely the commonly-used parts. The whole thing matters, and if there are designs in it that are ill-considered or outright deleterious, they should be addressed (fixed if fixable, cut if not.)

Whether or not it shows up at the table with meaningful frequency, as argued above, is irrelevant to whether it is good design or not. If Wizards genuinely almost never get there, then they're paying out the nose with horrendously weak early levels, to get nothing for it. If Wizards do get there, then they're altering reality, and so the power is real. Or if you don't like wish, what about time stop or various other incredibly powerful things?

Either way, there's a design problem here. We have a class built around the idea of struggling mightily for ages until you finally come into Phenomenal Cosmic Power that overwhelms basically anything else except...other people who have Phenomenal Cosmic Power. If the power never arrives...then it's a class that struggles mightily for ages for no reason. If the power does arrive...then it blows everything else out of the water. Frequency of achieving that power is irrelevant.

We don't live in a 1e or 2e world, either. The overwhelming majority of people who played those editions did it in the prior era where that playstyle WAS common and desired. Furthermore, most of those who play 1e and 2e today are grognards who still want to play that way, which is why they are playing those two editions.

Frankly, I don't really care whether they're grognards or not; that's not particularly relevant to me. They're part of the D&D community, and their gameplay desires have entirely valid expression. They can and should receive well-constructed, effective support for their preferences, so that they can enjoy the game the way they like to.

Trying to apply modern sensibilities to those two editions is doomed to fail.

But that isn't what's happening here at all. Instead, it is precisely the reverse. People--most specifically @Lanefan but to a lesser extent @Zardnaar and others--are saying that we should be doing the reverse of what you're saying. That we should be dismissing modern sensibilities and forcing anyone who plays D&D to have the old-school experience.

That's why I said what I said. You are treating my rebuttal to the claim that we should enforce the old-school style as though it were the initial argument. It was not, and is not. It was, and is, a rebuttal.