D&D (2024) Martial/Caster fix.
- Thread starter mellored
- Start date
ezo
Hero
Meh -- IMO it is more "Rulings? WTF!?!"
RAI is a lazy way for game design. If you intend for something to work a certain way, right the rule (or whatever) so it works that way.
Honestly since the simalcra are simply illusions of snow and ice given partial reality and not real beings, if a mage in my game did that, I'd rule that having the simalcra cast wish to let an illusion of themselves break the rules of magic would require the mage to roll the wish roll for abusing the spell. Once they eventually failed and weren't ever able to cast a wish again the simalcra of them would lose that ability as well as only real beings can cast wish (my rule) and the simalcra are only able to cast it as a proxy for the mage.
I don't like to deviate from RAW, so in my campaigns I would totally allow this multiple simulacrums and every enemy they faced would also have Truesight and Dispel Magic, making them pretty ineffective and short-lived.
Also based on the wording of Dispel Magic, I would also say targeting the Wizard who cast it with Dispel Magic would dispel all of them.
In any case I have never seen this be the most effective PC in play and I don't forsee it being the most effective.
Also based on the wording of Dispel Magic, I would also say targeting the Wizard who cast it with Dispel Magic would dispel all of them.
In any case I have never seen this be the most effective PC in play and I don't forsee it being the most effective.
And if it were that effective a cabal of evil mages would after being shown how it works do it times 10 and overrun the world.
I love the Dispel magic thing, with the simalcrum having to stay within 5 ft that's a very nifty solution. Good Catch. It's like a line of magical domino's vanishing would be awesome to watch.
I love the Dispel magic thing, with the simalcrum having to stay within 5 ft that's a very nifty solution. Good Catch. It's like a line of magical domino's vanishing would be awesome to watch.
Duplicating the spell includes duplicating the restriction. That's why it becomes a semantic argument where I think both interpretations can be considered RAW based on how we interpret duplicating a spell.
If it looks broken then it's okay to say "no" to the players either way. That's why the DMG has information on the social contract, setting limits, and players who try to exploit the rules.
I’d allow multiple simulacrums - but based on the description it says, “and it can’t cast this spell.” So, if Wish was used, the next sim would have to cast simulacrum with the 12 hour casting time and cost - it can’t cast Wish. Also, since each sim would be the controller of another sim and the spell states the sim takes a combat action on the controller’s turn, if one sim suffers a mishap the chain is broken and all sims made after the now missing link no longer take actions in combat. Just a lot of time and cost to make a fragile army.
Kichwas
Half-breed
I'm quoting myself because a month after posting that I finally sat down with the Daggerheart playtest and...Being a Pathfinder 2E player/GM and NOT a DnD 5.5 player/GM I often see this exact same discussion, but in the opposite direction. Over in my game we have the balance problem being casters are often seen as too weak.
I think both games having the same problem but from opposite sides of the swing shows that it's the swing itself that is at issue - how magic works in these games based on daily slots.
The problem with any daily slot system is you need to make 'this spell' worth it despite only getting 'x uses a day', and then once you're a little higher level that same spell can become a balance issue. You can tune the spell for when it's available only once or twice a day or down for when it's around often.
And after 50 years of this no one has found the goldilocks zone.
The solution is present in both games in a limited form. Cantrips and Pathfinder's focus spells, or maybe DnD Paladin's lay on hands.
- these all hint at different ways of tracking the resource in attempt to track it at the speed of gameplay rather than at the speed of downtime.
I've got the DnD 5.5 PHB, but have only scanned it as I don't expect to ever play DnD 5.5E, so my best analogy for a solution comes from the Pathfinder 2.5 (remaster) alchemist. They have what amounts to a small number of daily slots, a medium number of 'recharge in short rests' slots, and then a spamable attack.
The spam attack is just a plain attack, that their 'subclass' alters. For the healer subclass it can be used as a heal every X-minutes, for the other subclasses it does something fitting the theme.
The 'short rest' recoverables are the key here. MOST of the class abilities come in through here. They get a pool of X charges, and can burn them on ANYTHING the class has unlocked, as fast as they want. They then get back 2 charges per 10 minutes (the pathfinder version of a short rest - except this class gets them back without needing to rest, other 'focus' classes in pathfinder do an activity that is similar to a DnD short rest).
The daily pool then can get used for the same things, but is gone until a long rest. As a result, players will use that pool for 'oddball things', and the short-rest pool for the stuff that works with most gameplay.
How would this solve the caster / martial problem?
Well, the game designers can now balance around a time frame for casters that is nearly the same as for martials. So a 'fireball' in the short rest pool would be able to be balanced to be just as potent as some special fighter attack at that same level. It wouldn't need to be more potent as an offset of having less uses.
That would then enable the designers to tune things to match power, but with different kinds of actions (as on: avoid the DnD 4E 'sameness' problem).
A solution like this though, would be a major overhaul for a potential DnD 6E or pathfinder 3E... as every single spell in the game(s) would need a rewrite to work around being balanced to be tracked as a resource at the speed of gameplay.
The resulting system would likely be rejected by players as too different. But it'd solve this 50 year old topic.
I think it does what I was describing.
Casters and Martials mostly work off the same 'time scale' for their resources.
There might be a few places where they're still trying to play with D&D like 'long rests'. But mostly they're beyond that. We'll see.
If they end up with balance problems down the road, they will just be number tweaks that are easy to patch. The core idea they have behind it all is sound.
I ended up pre-ordering Daggerheart. Even if the first edition has balance issues - having a core model right means the game has promise to evolve well. Assuming it succeeds.
I could end up being totally wrong in the final product. But it looks like it will solve this 50 year old problem.
Last edited:
First off this is not the easiest way. By far the easiest way to close the gap at levels where casters are better is to leave the casters alone and just give the martials spells (or more spells) at certain levels.
Also, your table is off and does not actually fix the problem for two reasons.
First casters actually need more spells at some levels (because non-casters are actually better at some levels) and less spells at other levels. For example a 3rd level fighter is MUCH better overall than a 3rd level Wizard, substantially better in all 3 pillars of the game. To balance these classes at 3rd level you would need to give the Wizard more spells than the rules do.
Second not all casters are the same. You also have to vary it for each caster class independently. Both a 3rd level Wizard and a 3rd level Druid need extra spells to close the divide with Fighters, but a 3rd level Wizard needs more extra slots than a Druid does.
Similar Threads
