D&D 5E (2024) A critical analysis of 2024's revised classes

[Charlaquin]

The full caster players also end up doing more work for the game. I spend way too much time trying to balance out my available spells for the party. A caster has limited slots. It's not as if they always have these utility spells handy and they have to balance them with the need for combat spells.

A fighter almost always have their abilities all the time.

That doesn’t change the fact that casters have access to the ability to simply make things happen and martials don't. Again, conversation really isn’t about “balance” in a quantifiable sense. It’s about one type of character having the quality of being able to enter “director’s stance” (though let it be known that I detest the term), and the other type is forever locked to “actor’s stance.”

That said, I would not mind seeing the fighter gain natural resistances or an AC bonus at higher levels. I think that getting a +2 or +4 bonus to AC because they have grown in sheer prowess would be awesome.

Sure? This wouldn’t move the needle on the caster supremacy debate though, because it’s still just the same stuff but with higher numbers. The numbers aren’t really what people care about here, they care about having the ability to declare they are enacting an effect upon the world and have the world respond to that declaration accordingly, as spells allow a player to do, rather than being strictly limited to utilizing the core resolution mechanic of describing an action and having the DM decide if it succeeds, fails, or requires a roll.

 

[TwoSix]

It's only still a debate because non-spell features is 75% not defined by the rules and adjudicated by the whims of individual DMs. And the other 25% are often just tweaks of the base rules.

The debate ends once other features are given rules or even real bounds.

That would be a big help, yes. One the core reasons for the caster/noncaster discrepancy is that D&D spells have always been written as explicit permission to assert a change into the narrative without asking the GM permission (other than corner case adjudication); other methods of resolution are heavily dependent on GM adjudication.

 

[Charlaquin]

Traditionally, a high-level fighter impacts the world through ruling kingdoms and commanding armies and raising castles. But, this kind of world impact doesn't work for some games (it's useless, for instance, in a monster-slaying game where DPR matters more than the number of commoners you can get in your army).

5e at the moment has decided that balance in a combat encounter is sufficient (a fighter and a wizard are fairly balanced when it comes to slaying monsters), but 5e also leans fairly strongly in a "D&D is a monster fighting game" direction out of the box. Teleports and wishes and resurrections and such don't strongly feature into that kind of design. Teleporting doesn't clearly make you any better at slaying a monster.

This conversation goes very differently if the level cap is 10 or if level 6 spells take a month to cast or something.

Granted, but even in a campaign where this sort of domain management game is relevant, it’s still functionally resolved through negotiation with the DM, whereas the casters’ high level narrative power interfaces directly with the rules. They get little packages of effects that they can say they invoke, and those effects take place as described. Sometimes a die roll is required, but it’s always hard-coded. Select spell A, get effect B, reliably and as described in the text of the spell. Martials just don’t really get anything like that outside of combat.

 

[Charlaquin]

I do think, though, that one way to solve the divide would be to make martials not just provably better at combat but obviously better at combat. Put "control over narrative" and "control over combat" as two opposed poles that class archetypes would have to pick between.

Maybe. It’s certainly a design approach one could take. But, I do think having such strict role enforcement - casters are always bad in combat, martials are always bad out of it - would have narrower appeal than both being able to contribute in both contexts.

 

[Minigiant]

That would be a big help, yes. One the core reasons for the caster/noncaster discrepancy is that D&D spells have always been written as explicit permission to assert a change into the narrative without asking the GM permission (other than corner case adjudication); other methods of resolution are heavily dependent on GM adjudication.

It's more that spells actually explicit permission in the character creation stage or in the treasure stage. DMs can ban unwanted spells before the game starts, before the character picks them, or by not offering them as treasure

Where is nonspells actions, due to not being given rules, are requesting permission at time of attempt.

 

[Belen]

Thar doesn’t change the fact that casters have access to the ability to simply make things happen and martials don't. Again, conversation really isn’t about “balance” in a quantifiable sense. It’s about one type of character having the quality of being able to enter “director’s stance” (though let it be known that I detest the term), and the other type is forever locked to “actor’s stance.”

Sure? This wouldn’t move the needle on the caster supremacy debate though, because it’s still just the same stuff but with higher numbers. The numbers aren’t really what people care about here, they care about having the ability to declare they are enacting an effect upon the world and have the world respond to that declaration accordingly, as spells allow a player to do, rather than being strictly limited to utilizing the core resolution mechanic of describing an action and having the DM decide if it succeeds, fails, or requires a roll.

There is a very easy way to solve such problems such as access to material components or controlling which spells a player can learn. I, often, have players quest for rare spells or components.

Of course, the designer's never should have removed the controls for spells that used to be a part of the early game. You want to resurrect someone, then be prepared to spend a week on your back.

It used to be that the entire party participated in the high level spell casting to some degree. They had to help gather materials or agree that the downsides were worth it.

I'd fully agree if WOTC created a restricted list of spells like Wish or Simulacrum that required something special to use or that required the help of other party members or even added downsides etc.

In any event, player's get to choose what they play. If someone chooses a fighter, it is usually because they want a simpler play experience and they often do not want to deal with the work required of being a caster. It always feels that those who make these arguments about the fighter are folks who are upset that they lack complexity. I think that is a feature. A fighter is a great entry level class.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's more that spells actually explicit permission in the character creation stage or in the treasure stage. DMs can ban unwanted spells before the game starts, before the character picks them, or by not offering them as treasure

Where is nonspells actions, due to not being given rules, are requesting permission at time of attempt.

I really think both casters and non casters should be able to interface with the rules in both ways. Have access to a menu of hard-coded effects they can choose from “push-button” style like spells, and also have the ability to attempt something beyond the scope of these hard-coded options that the DM uses their human brain to adjudicate. Currently, only casters can really do both, and their magic is always resolved by the former method, never the latter. Likewise, with some specific exceptions limited to the combat minigame, non-magical actions are always resolved by the latter method, never the former. I think it would be best if we could break down that wall; allow magic users to improvise magical effects not covered by their spells, and give martials out-of-combat maneuvers that have predictable, hard-coded effects. Let everyone play in both styles if they like.

 

[Charlaquin]

There is a very easy way to solve such problems such as access to material components or controlling which spells a player can learn. I, often, have players quest for rare spells or components.

Of course, the designer's never should have removed the controls for spells that used to be a part of the early game. You want to resurrect someone, then be prepared to spend a week on your back.

It used to be that the entire party participated in the high level spell casting to some degree. They had to help gather materials or agree that the downsides were worth it.

I'd fully agree if WOTC created a restricted list of spells like Wish or Simulacrum that required something special to use or that required the help of other party members or even added downsides etc.

In any event, player's get to choose what they play. If someone chooses a fighter, it is usually because they want a simpler play experience and they often do not want to deal with the work required of being a caster. It always feels that those who make these arguments about the fighter are folks who are upset that they lack complexity. I think that is a feature. A fighter is a great entry level class.

It seems like you’re still missing the point I’m trying to make. It’s not about what specific effects casters can use. It’s about the ability to engage with the game through a menu of pre-defined and specific “select X effect, get Y result” options. Some martial characters can do a little bit of that in the specific context of combat - see the Battlemaster Fighter’s Maneuvers, for example. But outside of combat, spells are really the only things that work that way.

 

[Belen]

It's more that spells actually explicit permission in the character creation stage or in the treasure stage. DMs can ban unwanted spells before the game starts, before the character picks them, or by not offering them as treasure

Where is nonspells actions, due to not being given rules, are requesting permission at time of attempt.

I see where you're going on this one but a martial rarely ever has to ask permission for their abilities. Sure, if they decide that they want to do a maneuver not explicitly covered, then that can be an issue although this can always be covered by skill checks etc.

3.5 tried the rules for everything approach and it led to massive burnout for me. It was too much to track how everything worked all the time. I could not go back to such a system and be a DM.

I have also found that most players never bother to be prepared and know the rules themselves such as all the combat maneuvers in 3.5. PF1e did a bit better job but it also burned me out.

The fact is that you cannot define everything in game although it may be simple to just express a pass/fail approach to out of the box items as a simple ability check + prof bonus.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And that essentially is the source of "wizard supremacy".

Like most supremacy, it's about keeping a group down more that pushing a group up.

From my history in gaming, the loudest crying is when the limited gains options.

Yeah, but that's not the "Wizard fans" who are doing this... it's the two sides of Fighter fans arguing amongst themselves.

"Wizard fans" are just using what the game has always given out. Which, granted, is a lot-- the original AD&D gave Wizards the 'Wish' spell for crying out loud. But I don't hear any of them complaining when other casters get really powerful abilities, nor when there's the suggestion that Martial characters should be exceedingly powerful too. That's the "Mundane Fighter" fans who want the high-level Fighter to be equally as powerful as the Wizard without getting any magical abilities and remaining mundane... while all the other Fighter fans of "verisimilitude" telling them that makes zero sense and that a Fighter equally as powerful as a Wizard needs to be magically boosted. Otherwise it's just dumb.

But from what I've seen... the "Wizard fans" couldn't care less about any part of that argument because it doesn't involve them nor the Wizard class itself.