D&D 5E 5th Edition -- Caster Rule, Martials Drool?

[pemerton]

For me, when I think of fighters vs wizards I think of the old barbarian esque movies (like Conan). You would have wizards that can raise elementals, summon giant scorpions, steal the souls of man, etc...but when it was Conan vs the Wizard....Conan just couldn't be stopped. In a straight up fight, he was simply superior.

That is martial vs caster balance to me

<snip>

of all the classes in a group, a high level fighter should have the least to fear in any situation. He laughs at high level magic....runs right into the monster's jaw with a smile on his face, because he simply...WILL NOT DIE!!

That is part of why I miss the old Indomitable ability. To me that was it right there. A fighter who said "I do not fear magic"...and could back it up.

This is certainly one way to go for fighter/wizard balance. AD&D did a version of this. I agree that the nerfing of indomitable is a pity, because it moves fighters away from this.

You must have missed the point of that comment. The point is, teleport is a feature of the party, not just of the wizard. The more versatile the wizard is, the more versatile the party is.

I don't think I missed the point. My point is that the more versatile the party, the more the party can control the length of the adventuring day, which is an advantage to those PCs with the highest proportion of time-rationed abilities.

People seem to be wrapped around the axle that one PC can do something more versatile than another PC when the point is, it's advantageous to the entire party. This is a player cooperative game, not a player competitive game.

An additional factor, at least in my experience, is the extent to which one character and his/her choices influence the overall direction of play. A party can be cooperative, but one character might still be first among equals.

Saying "the wizard is balanced because he's limited" assume that a DM will place time limits or other such stresses into an adventure, and not every DM will know to do that; especially since the game won't tell them about that practice and why it's important.

I have been in many games where a retreat on the part of the party typically means an adjustment of NPC forces if the PCs did not wipe out the entire dungeon (fortress, tower, whatever). If the spellcasters nova every encounter and then use teleport to rest up, the next time they come back, the NPCs nova (typically with numbers).

D&D's class design lends the game to a certain kind of adventure design. Exploring that point more might help clarify the vastly differing opinions that are held on the QWLF issue.

I think that assymetric suites of resources depend upon a certain sort of adventure design to support balance. This is also why I don't think 5e is as versatile as some are touting it: a game doesn't become more versatile just because the rulebook doesn't actually describe the mode of adventure design that makes it play optimally.

A classic D&D adventure is ToH - both that particular dungeon, and more generally the abandoned tomb/dungeon/lair, guarded by demons, undead, golems etc, which is a largely static environment. This is one adventure site where there are no NPCs to adjust their forces.

Another adventure where "ajustment of forces" isn't relevant is the generic scouting/exploration mission - whether in the city, the wilderness, or underground. In that sort of adventure, the PCs have no particular reason to be speedy. And wizards have no reason not to nova then rest.

Yet another adventure along those lines is a "surgical strike": the PCs go in, nova as best they can, get what they need, and pull out.

In these sorts of scenarios, wizards and other casters have no reason not to nova then rest.

 

[Morty]

1) Fighters can inflict status effects: prones, daze, stuns etc etc. So its not just pure damage.

2) For me, when I think of fighters vs wizards I think of the old barbarian esque movies (like Conan). You would have wizards that can raise elementals, summon giant scorpions, steal the souls of man, etc...but when it was Conan vs the Wizard....Conan just couldn't be stopped. In a straight up fight, he was simply superior.


That is martial vs caster balance to me... in some ways giving martial classes more of the "monk like defenses". I will give casters their versatility, and I will even give them decent damage. But of all the classes in a group, a high level fighter should have the least to fear in any situation. He laughs at high level magic....runs right into the monster's jaw with a smile on his face, because he simply...WILL NOT DIE!!


That is part of why I miss the old Indomitable ability. To me that was it right there. A fighter who said "I do not fear magic"...and could back it up.

This strikes me as focusing a bit too much on PvP balance, so to speak. It's not about Fighter versus Wizard, it's about Fighter and Wizard versus the challenges of the adventure. Or heck, even Fighter versus Fighter as opposed to Wizard versus Wizard - the latter is an exciting duel of magic, the former is a race of who depletes the other's HP more quickly. Making fighters, or warriors in general, super-durable and able to withstand anything the enemies throw at them doesn't really solve the problem and continues to pigeon-hole them as tanks. Of course, being super-durable should be an option for high-level warriors. Just not something they all get and not something that serves as their whole shtick.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't think I missed the point. My point is that the more versatile the party, the more the party can control the length of the adventuring day, which is an advantage to those PCs with the highest proportion of time-rationed abilities.

Which is good for the party.

You do seem to have a player competitive or at least a player comparison mindset.


Plus, the DM should actually control the game with regard to timeframe, not the players. The players controlling it should be a form of illusion where the players think that they are controlling the length of the adventuring day. But, the DM should always be firmly in control. If a DM allows the players to control it, that's his decision.

An additional factor, at least in my experience, is the extent to which one character and his/her choices influence the overall direction of play. A party can be cooperative, but one character might still be first among equals.

There are many ways to enjoy the game. One such style is with a party leader. In the vast majority of the games that I have ever been a player, I have almost always played the laid back PC. He doesn't care which way the party goes, or what decisions are made. Occasionally, he will speak up and offer a suggestion, but most of the time, he just goes with the flow. My schtick is often to save resources and when needed, throw out the big guns and save the party's bacon.

For this next campaign, I decided to play the party leader instead. Large and in charge. I'm hoping that my fellow players will be ok with me taking charge. Not so much a desire to tell others what to do, as it is (both in roleplaying and combat) a way to be the assertive PC that avoids pitfalls beforehand instead of fixing things after the fact (way outside my comfort zone as a player).

So for this campaign, my PC will consider himself a first among equals. It's a style that I have never played before and I will be taking steps to make sure that I do not step on other player's toes. But I think that it is totally ok to have a first among equals, regardless of whether that is PC class or personality.

In these sorts of scenarios, wizards and other casters have no reason not to nova then rest.

With a good DM, they might. Good DMs play a game of illusion. Things are often not what they appear to be. Go rescue the captive in the tower and nova, fine. When the trap is sprung, the spellcasters are low on resources and the situation just became tougher.

I do agree with you that there are exploration scenarios where the spellcasters can nova because the party is not expecting multiple encounters. Just like there are dungeon scenarios where the spellcasters cannot nova a lot or they will run out of spells, hence, they conserve and the non-spellcasters shine. But, this is moot. There are scenarios where spellcasters shine and there are scenarios where non-spellcasters shine. You seem to be focusing on the one and ignoring the other. That's a bit of a logical fallacy in that you are throwing on the floor all of the scenarios (many in my experience) where nova-ing will just mean not having the resources later on when really needed. Nova-ing on the first 6 rooms in a dungeon on the rank and file just mean that spellcasters have fewer resources when facing the real BBEG later on.

And if the spellcasters are casting fireballs in room #1, then at least when I was a DM, half of the rest of the dungeon knew about it and (when appropriate) consolidated their forces. The concept of a dungeon with 20 rooms in it, all with tightly closed doors that sound did not penetrate is illogical. You want to nova, fine. You'd better be careful though.

WotC really has a problem with this in their adventure design. At least with the Starter Set, it looks like they tried to address this issue a little (although the ruined village still had this problem in spades).


As for the original TOH, it was a joke then and it's still a joke now. A one shot beer and pretzel adventure, not a campaign adventure (although I'm sure some people got through with some PCs and moved on). Using it as a reasonable example in a discussion is a bit misleading. It was the classic example of poor adventure design and nothing more. It's a classic because so many old timers went through it, not because it actually made sense. A single trap at the front door killing everyone would have sufficed. It was a showcase of how clever Gary could get with traps, not a good adventure and not an example of an adventure I, at least, would run players through today as part of a campaign.

 

[Jack the Lad]

Jump Spell vs. Jumping
I don't have the PHB yet so I don't know what the Jump spell does exactly. However, we do know that you can long jump a distance equal to your strength score in feet (up to 20 feet) with a running start. Furthermore, characters with the Remarkable Athlete sub-class feature add their Strength modifier in feet (for a total of up to 25 feet). That's approaching world record range...wearing armor and carrying a backpack no less!

Depending on what the Jump spell does, it may be that casters overshadow warriors here. I don't know yet.

It triples your jump distance (for all jumps, not just running long jumps) for 1 minute. So a 10 Str Wizard can clear 30 ft.

Also, 25 feet in armour is great, but you can't jump any further naked and the real world record is 29 ft 4.25 inches.

Also, the earliest you can jump 25 feet (i.e. have 2 Ability Score Increases to cap out on Strength) is level 6. The Wizard gets access to Fly at level 5.

Also, you have to be a Champion to get even 25 feet, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Levitate vs. Lifting
Levitate works on up to 500 lbs, but requires concentration. Lifting works on a weight (in pounds) equal to 30 x your Strength score, but limits your speed to 5 feet. A warrior with 17 Strength can thus lift 510 lbs, while a warrior with 20 Strength can lift 600 lbs. This is comparable to the Iranian Olympic lifter Hossein Rezazadeh lifting 263 kg (579 lbs) with a clean & jerk, which is a decent measure of functional strength. We all know lifters can lift more than that in ideal conditions for quick bursts, but a warrior in 5e can lift that amount, keep it above his head, and walk around slowly with it. That's pretty impressive.

Casters and warriors are comparable.

Unfortunately not.

Level 3: Using Enlarge, you can double your own lifting ability, allowing a 10 Str Wizard to lift as much as a 20 Str Fighter.
Level 5: Using Animate Dead, you can get some skeleton buddies to lift stuff for you - it only takes 2 of them to match a Fighter with 20 Strength, and you get those for 24 hours at the cost of a level 3 spell slot.
Level 9: Using Animate Objects, you can have anything up to a Huge object - no weight limit - become a creature under your control and lift itself. Oh, and also attack your enemies for up to one minute.
Level 11: Using Move Earth, you can lift 3,647,790 lbs - but only of earth, sand or clay. That's per round, mind you, and it lasts up to 2 hours.
Level 13: Using Reverse Gravity, you can lift anything that fits into a 100 foot tall 50 foot diameter cylinder to the top of the cylinder, no matter the weight. It falls upwards.
Level 17: Using True Polymorph, you can permanently turn yourself into an Adult Red Dragon and lift 6,480 lbs.

This is a big part of the thing - if you were just considering Telekinesis vs Strength, the problem would be contained. But casters just have so many ways to do things.

Also, I'd like to make a point about casters, Fighters and utility spells more generally, and I think it's an important one:

Fighters never get utility stuff. They can never read minds, fly, turn invisible, unlock doors, breathe water, speak any language, mind control enemies, teleport, raise the dead or control the weather.

Even if you take away every single bit of that from Wizards - even if you have a Wizard with no spells whatsoever - outside of combat they have the same number of skills as a Fighter and can roll at the same bonuses the Fighter is rolling at.

They can no longer do everything the Fighter does better than him, but they are actually better off than the Fighter is normally, because there is no Wizard to come along and obsolete them.

 

[pemerton]

You do seem to have a player competitive or at least a player comparison mindset.

You are correct that I have a player comparison mindset. I am comparing the impact upon play that a player is likely to be able to make, depending on class chosen.

the DM should actually control the game with regard to timeframe, not the players. The players controlling it should be a form of illusion

<snip>

Good DMs play a game of illusion.

I personally am not a big fan of illusionist GMing. In particular, I'm not a big fan of giving players a misleading impression of the control they are exercising over the shared fiction of the game.

If I am going to manipulate the ingame fiction so as to block nova-ing, by forcing a 4-encounter day whether by hook or by crook (eg as 13th Age is based around) then I will be upfront about that (as 13th Age is).

There are scenarios where spellcasters shine and there are scenarios where non-spellcasters shine. You seem to be focusing on the one and ignoring the other.

I'm not sure what scenarios you have in mind as ones in which non-spellcasters shine.

I can think of examples from my own experience with FRPGs based around assymetric resources, but for non-casters they tend to be memories of lucky dice rolls (and of course caster players can have hot dice also). They tend not to have the resources to put together successes-in-advance in the way that casters can, in that sort of game.

 

[pemerton]

Fighters never get utility stuff. They can never read minds, fly, turn invisible, unlock doors, breathe water, speak any language, mind control enemies, teleport, raise the dead or control the weather.

One thing that plays an important role in our 4e game is the fighter's utility abilities. They don't have the scope you describe in the passage I've quoted, but they still come into play quite a bit.

The fighter has Mighty Sprint, which is an encounter power that lets him move further than his normal speed, ignore difficut terrain (which becomes, in many situations, an effective doubling of speed) and gives a +5 to Athletics checks made as part of the move (for him, that is most often a bonus to jumping).

He also has a power (daily, I think, but maybe encounter) that lets him break domination (and maybe some other conditions) with no roll required.

These are the sort of "fiat" utilities that a rationing system like 4e's allows into the game. Rogues get comparable fiat abilities to improve their jumping, their Stealth (eg maintain hidden status, = invis, even if they lose cover provided various other conditions are met, depending on the power), etc.

To date, I feel that these are missing from 5e, in part because nearly everything seems to be set out on an "at-will" rather than rationed basis. Where is the option to spend Action Surge to life a condition, for instance?

 

[Morty]

I think one of the false assumptions that are often made on this subject is that only magical or otherwise extraordinary actions deserve or require discrete abilities to represent them. I don't think that's true.

 

[Jack the Lad]

I agree. It makes no sense to me whatsoever to give one group of classes their pick from a list of hundreds of concrete mechanical effects and to leave the other group to negotiate with the DM every time they want to do something.

 

[Ashkelon]

I love it anytime someone brings up improvisation as the means of making interesting martial PCs. Improvisation in combat in D&D sucks. Nine times in ten you will be better off simply attacking your foe. Improvisation usually comes with additional skill checks or penalties to the attack roll that make it far to unreliable. On top of that the conditions it allows for are often not worth the penalties or additional rolls. Sure, sometimes a string of lucky rolls might give the player a feeling of having done something cool, but more often than not their turn spent improvising is a wasted turn.

For the people who want tactically interesting martial warriors, improvisation simply doesn't cut it. They want reliable abilities that are not repeatable at-will. They want to be able to make a tactically interesting choice every round. They want tier choices to be meaningful. At-will improvisation does none of those things. What is worse, just because you have a few codified abilities, it doesn't mean you can no longer improvise! You can improvise in addition to using whatever maneuvers you have.

I want to see an awesome martial with capabilities worthy of the challenges he is facing. When fighting an ancient red dragon, the warrior should not play the exact same way he did when he was fighting rats in the basement.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm not sure what scenarios you have in mind as ones in which non-spellcasters shine.

I can think of examples from my own experience with FRPGs based around assymetric resources, but for non-casters they tend to be memories of lucky dice rolls (and of course caster players can have hot dice also). They tend not to have the resources to put together successes-in-advance in the way that casters can, in that sort of game.

The first level two weapon fighter doing 13 points of damage (8.15 DPR with 60% chance to hit) in a single round by hitting twice is shining compared to the wizard using a cantrip and doing 6 points (3.575 DPR with 60% chance to hit).

In fact, he is shining more than twice as much.

In your mind, though, this is not shining.

In my mind, the fighter dropping twice as many foes at low level as the wizard is shining. He's influencing most encounters significantly more than the wizard is. The fighter does more in most encounters, the wizard does more in a few encounters, but they might be more memorable because they are flashier.


This is why I am saying that you are ignoring those scenarios where the non-spell casters (or even semi-spell casters) shine and focusing solely on one narrow portion of the rest of the game.

5E has limited healing, but the DM controls that. If the DM amps up healing and number of encounters per day, then the fighter is shining even more as the wizard has to stretch his resources over a longer day.

It's pretty simple how to address many of the concerns people have on this issue. The DM takes control whenever something appears to be an issue.

It's not a flaw with game design. Game design is fine for the most part, in fact, it's the best D&D game design with regard to QWFL ever IMO.