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

[Dausuul]

There's no stores near me that broke the release date so I don't have the PHB for the latest rules, but isn't Knock a ritual spell (10 minutes spellcasting for no expended spell slot)? Also, how often does that drawback to knock actually come into play? Last night in a 3E campaign I'm in we broke into a prison, released some prisoners, and then escaped... And only once out of five lock pick attempts would we have had something negative happen to us. How do you balance unlimited, loud, lengthy lock picking with stealthy, unreliable lock picking?

Nope, not a ritual. You can look it up in the Basic rules.

As for the drawback, it depends on the campaign, I suppose, but most of the time when I've been in a party that needed to pick a lock, stealth was important.

 

[pemerton]

This is all still a far cry from 3.x blink-enabled master thrower rogues, no?

My knowlede of 3E is patchy (I've played very little of it). So I'm not sure what a blink-enabled master thrower rogue is capable of.

As to whether battle-master enchanced rouges are over-powered or not? When a battle-master enables a character with extra attacks to spend a reaction, does that reacting character get one attack, or an action's worth of attacks? If the former, then a battle-master seems stronger in a party with a rogue than with another fighter.

 

[pemerton]

The impression that the game is/has-always-been imbalanced in favor of casters comes, in part, from a preponderance of campaigns with too-short days compared to loo-long ones. (The greater versatility and more dramatic impact of caters also plays a role, of course.)

That versatility also gives casters the ability to control the length of the adventuring day. Hence the preponderance that you describe.

The limited casting resources vs. all-day martial resources demands very specific adventure design to make work.

<snip>

guidelines and advice for it has never appeared in a D&D book, leaving a lot of groups struggling with the problem.

I agree with this.

D&D (especially non-4e D&D) is promoted as a "versatile" game compared to other RPGs, but a big part of that is simply a lack of advice on the particular techniques that make it play to its strengths.

Burning Wheel is "versatile" too - it's just that Luke Crane also tells you what approach to play he thinks will get the best out of his game!

all-day martial resources are mythical. They still run on hp

Even more basic than that, he has to have something in front of him he has reason to kill.

Both good comments.

I don't understand the reality of high-level play at all--in virtually any edition of D&D (including 5e). High-level characters are bound by realism in some regards and not in others, in a seemingly arbitrary manner. A 20th level fighter can fall 4000ft onto solid stone and walk away, but can't leap 40ft? The same fighter can fight a 100ft long dragon head-on, but can't throw a boulder at it?

This is also a good point.

 

[Manbearcat]

I see 2 ways to make fighter options = caster options so everything is fair:
1) reduce the PHB spell section to 16 different spells total, so it roughly = # fighter maneuvers.
2) give fighters a list 100 maneuvers that can do all the stuff spells can.

And that's cool ... that game would not be my personal cup of tea, though

There is an infinitely easier way to do this:

1) All manner of noncombat conflict resolution is mediated by a single (or perhaps 2) unified conflict resolution framework.

2) All player purchased and deployed resources interface with this framework symmetrically and facilitate the resolution of the conflict in a "fiction-first" fashion that plays to class archetypes and genre tropes.

3) Proficient/creative GMs and players.

There are lots of systems that do this and do it well.

 

[Morty]

Knock and similar spells would be a lot less of a problem if the rogue didn't have the extremely fragile niche of 'the person that unlocks doors and disarms traps'. With that said, making it extremely noisy isn't a bad solution, really. It becomes the magical equivalent of just breaking the door down with force. But it still doesn't treat the underlying problem.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That versatility also gives casters the ability to control the length of the adventuring day. Hence the preponderance that you describe.

While I accept that spells like Rope Trick have contributed (now it only sets up a Short Rest) to the phenomenon, I also suspect that DMs simply wanting a different pacing for their campaigns has something to do with it. 4 (or, now 8) encounters per day is kinda a lot going on. If traveling around caught you that many encounters a day, for instance, people would just be huddled in fortresses all the time, so you'll often see overland travel with just only a few encounters spread out over days or weeks. Or, campaigns that emphasize the other two 'Pillars' might have relatively infrequent combats (while, in the past, that might mean Vancian caters would prep lots of non-combat spells and thus have few available when an actual combat happened, under neo-Vancian, you only need a scalable combat spell or two prepped 'just in case' to be able to cut loose with a lot of slots in combat).

Knock and similar spells would be a lot less of a problem if the rogue didn't have the extremely fragile niche of 'the person that unlocks doors and disarms traps'. With that said, making it extremely noisy isn't a bad solution, really. It becomes the magical equivalent of just breaking the door down with force. But it still doesn't treat the underlying problem.

In theory, at least, the 5e rogue can apply his Expertise feature to any skill. So, while the stereotype may be sneaking around, picking locks, and getting killed by traps, a rogue could be really good at two completely unrelated skills from his background. If you want to get back at the magic-users for casting knock all these years, build a high INT rogue with the Sage background and Expertise in Arcana, and just lecture the casters in your party about their technique all the time, and show them up whenever actual arcane knowledge is called for. ;P

 

[Dausuul]

That versatility also gives casters the ability to control the length of the adventuring day. Hence the preponderance that you describe.

How does a 5E caster control the length of the adventuring day? (At semi-reasonable levels, say 12-14. I don't care what happens at level 20, most campaigns never get anywhere near that high.)

 

[mcintma]

There is an infinitely easier way to do this:

1) All manner of noncombat conflict resolution is mediated by a single (or perhaps 2) unified conflict resolution framework.

2) All player purchased and deployed resources interface with this framework symmetrically and facilitate the resolution of the conflict in a "fiction-first" fashion that plays to class archetypes and genre tropes.

3) Proficient/creative GMs and players.

There are lots of systems that do this and do it well.

I'm listening, I just don't how that solves the problem of "Fighter can't teleport across continents so it's not equal" - must you not, for true options balance, either remove the caster's ability to teleport continents OR give that ability to the fighter?

Because, if you give the fighter some asymmetrically 'balancing' awesome ability like he can tear down a building, it will still be uneven "... but that caster over there can teleport continents"

I get that options balance has been achieved in other games, but in all the many RPGs I've played it's been by either ratcheting up 'fighters' to have spell-like powers, or limiting the 'casters' to a small subset/variety of spells. Which as I said, is AOK and cool, but it's not my cup of tea For D&D.

 

[Morty]

In theory, at least, the 5e rogue can apply his Expertise feature to any skill. So, while the stereotype may be sneaking around, picking locks, and getting killed by traps, a rogue could be really good at two completely unrelated skills from his background. If you want to get back at the magic-users for casting knock all these years, build a high INT rogue with the Sage background and Expertise in Arcana, and just lecture the casters in your party about their technique all the time, and show them up whenever actual arcane knowledge is called for. ;P

Yes, this particular example may not apply as much as it used to. But it's part of a larger issue in which non-magicians always roll the same way, just with bigger numbers, whereas magicians can spend magic juice and just make things happen. Also, non-magicians are more sharply limited in their competences - the rogue isn't so much a skill specialist as it actually has decent combat utility.

I'm listening, I just don't how that solves the problem of "Fighter can't teleport across continents so it's not equal" - must you not, for true options balance, either remove the caster's ability to teleport continents OR give that ability to the fighter?

Because, if you give the fighter some asymmetrically 'balancing' awesome ability like he can tear down a building, it will still be uneven "... but that caster over there can teleport continents"

I get that options balance has been achieved in other games, but in all the many RPGs I've played it's been by either ratcheting up 'fighters' to have spell-like powers, or limiting the 'casters' to a small subset/variety of spells. Which as I said, is AOK and cool, but it's not my cup of tea For D&D.

You're still beating up a strawman. Nobody has suggested that, and there's a lot of middle ground between the two extremes you're claiming are the only options.

As far as Vancian-esque daily spells go, I think the game basically outgrew it. It might work in a classical dungeon crawl, where the GM can control the pace of the game with traps and random encounters. But changes in environment and frequency of situations in which the caster needs to use spells throw it off-kilter.

 

[mcintma]

You're still beating up a strawman. Nobody has suggested that, and there's a lot of middle ground between the two extremes you're claiming are the only options.

As far as Vancian-esque daily spells go, I think the game basically outgrew it. It might work in a classical dungeon crawl, where the GM can control the pace of the game with traps and random encounters. But changes in environment and frequency of situations in which the caster needs to use spells throw it off-kilter.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree, on all fronts. Play the game you like (4e?) etc. I like this D&D, I think balance looks OK albeit asymmetrical, casters took a serious nerf from 3.x but still look decent, but clearly (which was my point) there's no way to please everyone with one game design direction.