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

[Quickleaf]

Casters don't suck. The thing is that casters have to devote all their spells to combat to match noncaster's in combat or constantly catch enemies in AOE. This means a caster is well behind a warrior if the party fights a solo or pair of monsters to often. Noncasters make little sacrifice because they can't do much but fight and sneak.

If the caster devotes all their spells to damage then they can match a noncaster but then they lose all their utility and get outshined by noncasters.

Every Jump is 3d6 less fire damage.
Every Knock is 6d4 less acid damage.
Every Fly is 8d6 less fire damage.
And there is no sack of scrolls for "in case spells" and tons of wands in this edition.

LFQW relied on the casters having enough firepower that they can go offensive and still have the control/healing/utility. In 5e, they nerfed the slots of the casters. If a caster wants to match a noncaster, they burn all their good slots and have none for utility, control, and healing. And if you use one of your highest slots for utility, control, or healing as a caster, your offense and defense really suffers.

I see, so your criticism is about (a) lack of separation between combat & utility magic (a la 4e), and (b) reduced number of spell slots than 3e compared to adventuring day length. Is that right?

In practice, the play experience is different than what you suggest. Casters Choose how powerful they are in combat according to which spells they cast; assuming they spend no spell slots on combat and rely entirely on a combat cantrip in battle, they still are effective. Maybe not as effective as their multi attacking fighter companion, but not entirely useless. And, furthermore, their diminished capacity (notice i say diminished and not useless) is their choice because, presumably, they've been highly effective in exploration and roleplaying.

 

[pemerton]

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.)

Leomund's Tiny Hut. I'm guessing also Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion. And Teleport.

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

Teleporting to a permanent circle, or using a focus object, has no chance of failure.

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".

There is that option, but it then makes a long rest no longer represent any action the PCs take within the game world. It also means that you have to very strictly define what constitutes an encounter and what does not.

I think that a better approach may be to change the definition of a long rest in order to suit your campaign.

To get the full benefits of a long rest, the PCs could have to return to a secure base of operations where they can replenish their provisions and supplies and where they aren't constantly worried about getting jumped in the middle of the night.

As Tony Vargas noted, 13th Age adoptes the "refresh after 4 encounters" approach. A lot of 4e GMs adopt versions of Keldryn's suggestion. (As Tony has also noted, 4e's balance is more forgiving in this respect because nearly all PCs have daily abilities in roughly comparable quantities.)

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?

In this case, the fighter needs a "ride his/her steed tirelessly across the continent" ability.

The problem in D&D (outside of 4e skill challenges) is a tendency to focus on relatively low-level, temporally and spatially granular, action resolution. And while a single teleport spell fits into that fraemwork, there is a tendency to want to resolve the fighter's riding of the steed tirelessly across the continent through multiple skill checks, encounter checks, chances of failure etc.

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.

There will still be plenty of core competencies that the wizard will have that the rogue can't emulate!

 

[KarinsDad]

Teleporting to a permanent circle, or using a focus object, has no chance of failure.

If you are talking about the associated object, err, so what?

The spellcaster is still limited in safe locations that he can teleport to. He will not have 5000 associated objects for 5000 different locations.

PCs might be able to teleport to a safe location and get closer to their destination, but they'll typically still want to hoof it the rest of the way instead of taking the risk, especially if going someplace new. Even "very familiar" locations have a 5% chance of a mishap, so a player knows that it will happen sooner or later if he uses Teleport a lot to those types of places. Most players will tend to do that only in an emergency.

So the point that I was making before is that sure, the Wizard has teleport, but he won't be using it to solve every travel problem.

 

[pemerton]

If you are talking about the associated object, err, so what?

The spellcaster is still limited in safe locations that he can teleport to. He will not have 5000 associated objects for 5000 different locations.

PCs might be able to teleport to a safe location and get closer to their destination, but they'll typically still want to hoof it the rest of the way instead of taking the risk, especially if going someplace new.

If it's a new place but they have an associated object they'll still teleport there, won't they?

I think teleport is a major resource to use to regulate the length of the "adventuring day", as well as solve a range of transport-related problems.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Quick note on the Teleport thing. I believe "Associated Object" description basically means "significant object from". Just picking up a shiny rock from the shore of some far away lake isn't going to cut it. If you want to get to that far away lake, you'd need something more significant in size/weight, and important. For a lake, I'd say something like a small (20lb) boat anchor you found half buried in the shore would do it, but a rock...no.

Kinda like when you're cleaning up the attic, garage, etc and you find a box. You look in side after blowing off the dust and you see a rock that is kinda in the shape of a skull? Suddenly you remember back 33 years to when you were 12; you're camping with your folks in some campground on another continent...you were forced to go for a nature hike with your folks, and you found a little grotto with a clear stream. You picked up rocks to throw and there it was, not 6'' into the water...the "Stone Skull of the Quiet Grotto" (as you and your buddies called it). At any rate, you can picture that day almost perfectly...weather, what you were wearing, how cold and clear the water was, the sounds, etc. That "stone skull" is an Associated Object. I believe that's how it "works"; clear memory of some area of significance to you...not just some rock you picked up.

You always see movies, pictures and read books where the wizards "lab" is cluttered with a thousand knick-knacks? Weird things, like strange skulls, odd animal hides, miniature trees in glass bottles, etc.? I think that's what they are going for; all that odd wizard-room miscellany....could be "associated objects". It also conjures up images of traveling to the one wizard who has ever found the Lost Dungeons of Sloshy and returned...just so the PC's can ask if he has anything significant from there so that they can teleport there to recover the Magical Foozle of Dreams, rumored to have been taken there by the wicked Ack-Ogre (guarded by the horribly vicious Jennerak, of course). In short, the object has to be of some kind of significance (either to the wizard or the person he gets it from; in effect, the object gets "charged" with a connection to that particular area).

Thats how I'm going to play it anyway.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Minigiant]

I see, so your criticism is about (a) lack of separation between combat & utility magic (a la 4e), and (b) reduced number of spell slots than 3e compared to adventuring day length. Is that right?

In practice, the play experience is different than what you suggest. Casters Choose how powerful they are in combat according to which spells they cast; assuming they spend no spell slots on combat and rely entirely on a combat cantrip in battle, they still are effective. Maybe not as effective as their multi attacking fighter companion, but not entirely useless. And, furthermore, their diminished capacity (notice i say diminished and not useless) is their choice because, presumably, they've been highly effective in exploration and roleplaying.

My experience is that fighters types and rogue types are noticeabley more effective that cantrip spamming caster in combat. Caster's aren't bad but they have to use spell slots to keep up. Then the point where your utility starts to suffer.

I just saying that making enemies dead and sneeaking pass foes is best handled by noncasters.

You'd rely on the fighter/paladin/barbarian/ranger attacking the wereworf twice with his 1d8+6 longsword or 2d6+4 greatsword twice, the monk attacking with his 1d6+5 fists 2-3 times, or the rogue attacking with his 1d6+4 weapons twice with a 3d6 sneak attack before a caster's 2d8 cantrip. And using one of the casters only two 3rd level spells to deal 8d6 damage is a tough one unless you hit more than 3 people with it.

 

[jasin]

Actually, it is still really simple. Talk to the group about it. If a DM is not going to listen to the concerns of one of his players then he isn't worth your time as a DM.

I don't think it's fair to hold DMs to a higher standards than the designers, considering the designers are professionals paid for their work.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

Leomund's Tiny Hut. I'm guessing also Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion. And Teleport.

Teleporting to a permanent circle, or using a focus object, has no chance of failure.

<snip>

In this case, the fighter needs a "ride his/her steed tirelessly across the continent" ability.

The problem in D&D (outside of 4e skill challenges) is a tendency to focus on relatively low-level, temporally and spatially granular, action resolution. And while a single teleport spell fits into that fraemwork, there is a tendency to want to resolve the fighter's riding of the steed tirelessly across the continent through multiple skill checks, encounter checks, chances of failure etc.

Bolded and underlined the most relevant bit. My invocation of conflict resolution mechanics comes with the implication of a "transition lens" whereby the system's expectations (and player and GM buy-in accordingly) is for the temporal and spatial components of play to be more malleable. Of course the problem is two-fold here:

1) Table genesis and evolution under the premise of gameplay fidelity to serial accounting of time and space.

2) Various edition's own embedded concerns for at least some manner of fidelity to time and space (eg vancian casting and the spellcaster's workday, hex exploration).

Make more malleable the temporal and spatial bindings, unify resource schemes/action resolution to some degree and place them in closed conflict resolution system, and you're fine. With that issue solved, is there any reason that Lemond's Tiny Hut (the ability to grant an extended/short rest) can't be mapped to "Fighter's Ever-Watchful Eye"? The ability of a Fighter to eschew the needs of a rest sparingly for the sake of the team, never miss a sign of danger and assert his imposing presence against anyone who would disturb his allies seems to be "within shtick." "Ranger's Safe Haven" or "Rogue's Out of a Jam" (I'll let the reader figure those out) would suffice to do the same.

Allowing spellcasters the trump card ability to outright subordinate conflict resolution and outright transition scenes merely by pressing the ever-reliable "cast a spell" button (while non-spellcasters prospects for success lies in interfacing with one or more mechanics, GM-armchair forensic knowledge-base, and tight fidelity to temporal and spatial constraints due to serial exploration play) will always, always, always, always, always, always (did I mention always?) make mockery of any notion of balance in the utility/noncombat department. Give others that same fiat/trump card capability (even if on a lesser schedule than a Vancian caster) or unify the schemes, place them in a conflict resolution system, and loosen temporal and spatial bindings and you're good.

---

As an aside, if Fighters have fortresses and Rogue's have guilds (per a prospective DM module), they will hopefully be provided with thematic, logistical trump card abilities (My Legions Know No Bounds or Heavy Artillery or I Know a Guy Who Knows a Guy or Call in a Favor) to that help the situation. If Wizards then have towers and Clerics have temples that do the same?...then we've gained nothing with respect to balancing utility and noncombat fiat ability.

Regardless of the lack of gain for non-spellcasters, this is one of the reasons why Background Traits had me initially intrigued by 5e's potential, final iteration. They provide some manner of mundane, thematic trump card/fiat ability to all characters, not just spellcasters. No one seemed to get their panties in too much of a twist over them. I wonder then why sprinkling such abilities throughout the mundane classes would (inevitably) make people lose their minds.

 

[pemerton]

Hiya.

Quick note on the Teleport thing. I believe "Associated Object" description basically means "significant object from".

<snip>

You always see movies, pictures and read books where the wizards "lab" is cluttered with a thousand knick-knacks? Weird things, like strange skulls, odd animal hides, miniature trees in glass bottles, etc.? I think that's what they are going for

I'm just going on the wording of the spell (Basic p 103):

an object taken from the desired destination within the last six months, such as a book from a wizard’s library, bed linen from a royal suite, or a chunk of marble from a lich’s secret tomb​

I guess bed linen may or may not be significant, depending on how the royalty spends their time!

I think "significant object" without the time limit would actually be more interesting - a coin stolen from the dragon/s hoard, for instance, passes from hand to hand until finally a wizard decides to use it to teleport into the dragon's lair.

this is one of the reasons why Background Traits had me initially intrigued by 5e's potential, final iteration. They provide some manner of mundane, thematic trump card/fiat ability to all characters, not just spellcasters. No one seemed to get their panties in too much of a twist over them. I wonder then why sprinkling such abilities throughout the mundane classes would (inevitably) make people lose their minds.

I share your puzzlement.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think "significant object" without the time limit would actually be more interesting - a coin stolen from the dragon/s hoard, for instance, passes from hand to hand until finally a wizard decides to use it to teleport into the dragon's lair.

Peasant Rail Gun a miles-long line of "courier" peasants to the dragon horde who would then accelerate the coin back to the Wizard in his tower who could then...

Well I guess you really wouldn't even need teleport at that rate. The Wizard could just hand the courier Peasant Rail Gun several Coldified Delayed Blast Fireball grenades from the comfort of his tower's den while sipping brandy, packing pipeweed, and looking dapper in his favorite smoking jacket!