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

[CapnZapp]

As I see it, caster vs non-caster balance will not be meaningfully adressed until the rules take control over how long an adventuring day is.

Meaning, as long as the characters get to decide when to sleep, the tendency will be for casters to insist on going to bed before they reach the balance point.

The solution is break the tyranny of the daily rest to say something like "you get the benefits of a long rest every 4 (or 8) encounters, regardless of in-game time passed".

This will then automagically fix things so that an overland adventure where you cross a desert over a period of one month can feature the same 8 encounters as a 8-room dungeon does, with no change in caster vs non-caster balance.

If you now rage and punch your keyboard "but I like that sleeping restores spells" remember I'm only saying "but then you'll have to live with uncontrolled caster vs non-caster balance, and most probably, that casters will remain superior".

 

[LapBandit]

I'm all for giving the Fighter more of what he needs to be the best at what he does. That said, I think how easy resting is (and therefore allowing the caster to reclaim spell slots) makes the problem worse. I am starting a 5E campaign up soon and the players are not going to be able to rest where-ever/whenever they like. In addition, long rests in uncomfortable sleeping arrangements count as short rests for casters with regards to regaining spell slots. I feel that is where it should be best balanced.

 

[Cybit]

Question for those playing higher levels; what monsters were you using? The higher level monsters that existed in the open playtests were always pretty weak compared to what we were dealing with at higher levels in the closed playtest. They had some nasty, nasty anti-caster powers.

EDIT: Also note, you get either useful saving throws or feats, but generally not enough ability score improvements to get both.

 

[Quickleaf]

I've been following this thread with interest, and I think a poll might provide insight into perceptions of the 5e fighter. I'm thinking of wording the poll thus:

In past editions, the issue of "Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards" (LFQW) meant wizards vastly overpowered fighters in terms of their sheer power and utility as they leveled up. Based on your experience with 5th edition (including the latest playtest), is this issue present in 5e?

• No, LFQW is not present in 5e and, for that matter, it never was an issue in any edition of D&D.
• No, LFQW is negligible in 5e, though it was an issue in previous editions.
• Maybe a bit, but the 5e spellcaster nerfs make it less of an issue than in 3e, 2e, etc. I can live with the rules as written.
• Yes, LFQW is still present, but that's by design. Spellcasters *should* be more powerful than warrior types. Fighters, rogues, and the like should be marked as mechanically inferior choices for new players, but left as is because people like them for other reasons.
• Yes, LFQW is still an issue, and it's a problem. Either warriors need a boost, or spellcasters need further nerfing thru house rules or supplemental content. I share my thoughts on how to do this in my post.
• I haven't had enough 5e exposure to comment, but I have an opinionated post anyway.

How do those poll options look?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think the lfqw thing doesn't technically apply nearly as much in 5e, REGARDLESS of whether casters are overpowered at high levels. The whole "quadratic" part for wizards was because their low-level spells scaled without using higher-level slots. That's not the case anymore, so you might want to reword the poll to avoid using inappropriate terminology.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm all for giving the Fighter more of what he needs to be the best at what he does. That said, I think how easy resting is (and therefore allowing the caster to reclaim spell slots) makes the problem worse.

If one perceives that there is a problem.

Pure spellcasters gain about 1 extra spell slot per level.

Theoretically, this means that they can cast one major spell per 3 round encounter at level 2 with 3 encounters per day. That's still only a third of all rounds. The rest of the time, they are stuck with simple weapons or cantrips.

Also, in practice, that might not occur because the spell caster also uses his spells in the other two pillars.

In reality, even at high level, sure, the spell caster can do amazing things in combat nearly every single round if the DM has six 3 rounds encounters. But throw twelve or fifteen 3 round encounters at the party and the spellcasters do not seem quite as capable. They are back to casting cantrips part of the time.

This is all adjustable by the DM.

As a player or DM, I prefer 10 encounter days. The game is called "Dungeons" and Dragons after all. The spell casters suck at that at low level and still might not be quite overwhelming at high levels.

I am starting a 5E campaign up soon and the players are not going to be able to rest where-ever/whenever they like. In addition, long rests in uncomfortable sleeping arrangements count as short rests for casters with regards to regaining spell slots. I feel that is where it should be best balanced.

Do you penalize the heavy armor PCs in some way for resting/sleeping in armor? Maybe exhaustion?


The point is that the game system has flattened significantly. Many (but not all) spells are quite a bit weaker (although still useable) and there are fewer of them per day. In addition, many classes have the ability to cast spells if the player wants to.

I'm going with a more wait and see approach.

For example, the earlier Teleport across the continent example. Teleport is back to no longer being safe. So sure, the spellcaster can cast it, but it tends to be more infrequent.

 

[Evenglare]

As always, if you are a DM, and you don't like how a spell works or think it's going to break your game etc etc. BAN IT. For the love of god, take control of your game. People ban classes and races, and restrict magic items but no one ever seems to talk about banning spells. Exercise your right in your game world. Or at the very least make the spell part of an adventure so the players have to actually work to get the spell. It's such a simple solution to the problem.

 

[jasin]

As always, if you are a DM, and you don't like how a spell works or think it's going to break your game etc etc. BAN IT. For the love of god, take control of your game. People ban classes and races, and restrict magic items but no one ever seems to talk about banning spells. Exercise your right in your game world. Or at the very least make the spell part of an adventure so the players have to actually work to get the spell. It's such a simple solution to the problem.

What if you aren't a DM, but a player? Not so simple anymore. In 3E, I've felt the caster vs. non-caster imbalance much more keenly as a player than a DM.

 

[Minigiant]

I've been following this thread with interest, and I think a poll might provide insight into perceptions of the 5e fighter. I'm thinking of wording the poll thus:

In past editions, the issue of "Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards" (LFQW) meant wizards vastly overpowered fighters in terms of their sheer power and utility as they leveled up. Based on your experience with 5th edition (including the latest playtest), is this issue present in 5e?

• No, LFQW is not present in 5e and, for that matter, it never was an issue in any edition of D&D.
• No, LFQW is negligible in 5e, though it was an issue in previous editions.
• Maybe a bit, but the 5e spellcaster nerfs make it less of an issue than in 3e, 2e, etc. I can live with the rules as written.
• Yes, LFQW is still present, but that's by design. Spellcasters *should* be more powerful than warrior types. Fighters, rogues, and the like should be marked as mechanically inferior choices for new players, but left as is because people like them for other reasons.
• Yes, LFQW is still an issue, and it's a problem. Either warriors need a boost, or spellcasters need further nerfing thru house rules or supplemental content. I share my thoughts on how to do this in my post.
• I haven't had enough 5e exposure to comment, but I have an opinionated post anyway.

How do those poll options look?

You missed

• Somewhat, LFQW has been turned sideways. Warriors and skill users are vastly better in combat and stealth than casters but casters do everything else better exponentially.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The whole "quadratic" part for wizards was because their low-level spells scaled without using higher-level slots. That's not the case anymore, so you might want to reword the poll to avoid using inappropriate terminology.

I'm in partial agreement, and I'm not sure fighters are exactly linear, anymore. Not if there are any ways to get static damage bonuses to go with those multiple attacks.

However, if you compare AD&D to 3e to 5e, the quatdratic thing moves around but never disappears entirely.

In AD&D, casters get more spells of all levels as they go up, /and/ all those spells scale with level - but, comparable-level enemy's saves just keep getting better, so while your raw power balloons increadibly, you might as well just cast Magic Missiles and Cones of Cold all day, because anything that says "save: neg" probably does nothing.

In 3e, your lower level spells /do/ cap out at some point, and your saving throw DC goes up /based on the slot/ - so the quadraticness is less even. Higher level slots are a /lot/ better, with higher save DCs and effects that scale to higher levels, while lower-level ones only grow to a point - what's more, you top out in your lower level spells at some point, and only gain higher level ones, so your total number of spells per day doesn't snowball as dramatically.

In 5e your spells' damage and such scale with /slot level/, like save DCs scaled in 3e, but your save DCs scale with proficiency regardless of slots, so, while you have fewer slots, and fewer high level slots for high-level or scaled-up low-level spells, /all/ your slots use your scaling save DC. On top of that, Vancian casters all have the added benefit of spontaneous casting, so, while you have fewer high-level slots, they're less likely to be 'wasted' - if a high level prepares spell would be unsuitable at a critical juncture, you can substitute a scaled lower level spell, instead.

(Obviously, 4e is omitted from this analysis because AEDU eliminated the LFQW issue, entirely.)