D&D 5E A simple houserule for martial/caster balance.

[James Gasik]

In D&D all that would be magic. Maybe not spellcasting, but certainly supernatural/magical. People that want to play martials, at least many of them, specifically don't want they kind of fluff tied to their character.

I understand that's a popular opinion, but it does leave us with the problem of classes like the Fighter being judged by a different metric than the majority of classes in the game. You can cut down on the spells that casters have, but the magic classes are also allowed to have special features that are simply better than what a Fighter can have*, because they can be handwaved away with "magic".

*Barring, of course, those Fighter subclasses which are allowed to have magical abilities, such as the Eldritch Knight, or the Rune Knight.

So your choices are to either heavily modify the majority of classes or ban them outright, completely altering the game's balance, create your own game (or find one that more accurately depicts men-at-arms and wand wigglers to your liking), or adjust your paradigm for what a non-caster can be.

It's no easy task, and you'll find noticeable resistance because many D&D players and DM's like magic and magical characters. They feel such things are an integral part of D&D...but as long as some characters are held to this different standard, there will be imbalance because your two design metrics are "anything goes fantasy" and "guy at the gym".

I sincerely hope you find the balance you are looking for, but "6th level casters" might not be it, because the game is written to assume higher level spellcasters exist and that you will have people playing them.

Can the "all-martial" campaign exist? I'm told it can, and I have no reason to not believe it, but I feel you have to make adjustments on the back end when writing adventures and using monsters to make it work. Use magical enemies rarely, and avoid status effects and challenges that are easily solved by the magic the players possess.

If you're having to make all these changes to get the game you want, I think you've gone beyond something a simple houserule can patch.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

Y’all, I’m seeing an increasing amount of incivility and I’m not liking it. People need to dial it back a notch, or there will be threadyeetings.

 

[James Gasik]

In D&D all that would be magic. Maybe not spellcasting, but certainly supernatural/magical. People that want to play martials, at least many of them, specifically don't want they kind of fluff tied to their character.

The following explanations can provide mere mortals with superhuman abilities: being born on a special day, being the seventh son of a seventh son, being two thirds God and one third man, training from hell, being the chosen ones of prophecy, divine intervention or patronage, being the child of a mighty hero, being exposed to strange energies from another plane of existence, being transported to the D&D world from Earth, being the reincarnation of a legendary figure, drawing a sword from a tree or stone, having harnessed the latent powers of the mind and body, higher point buy, and because the DM says so.

This list is not complete nor exhaustive.

High point buy is magic?

 

[Gammadoodler]

The following explanations can provide mere mortals with superhuman abilities: being born on a special day, being the seventh son of a seventh son, being two thirds God and one third man, training from hell, being the chosen ones of prophecy, divine intervention or patronage, being the child of a mighty hero, being exposed to strange energies from another plane of existence, being transported to the D&D world from Earth, being the reincarnation of a legendary figure, drawing a sword from a tree or stone, having harnessed the latent powers of the mind and body, higher point buy, and because the DM says so.

This list is not complete nor exhaustive.

So, to start with, I don't have a particular problem with any of these items serving as the explanation for "supernatural powers". However, there is not a reason to presume that you need these.

People come into these conversations with a mental model of the physical capabilities and limitations of the "mere mortals" we're talking about. This model is based on earth-standard humans living on earth. It's an understandable thing to do, working with what you know, but it is an application of mental handcuffs based on conditions that are not present in the game setting. Settings are almost never earth, even less earth-standard, many characters are not human, and those that are human, are of a brand specific to the setting. We don't actually know anything about what these "mere mortals" can actually do.

Yes, we can point to some font of magic as a source of power, but there's also usually a whole bunch of "naturally occurring" fantasy stuff happening in-setting all the time. Physical constants don't have to map the same way as they do on our world. People aren't necessarily eating the same food, breathing the same air, etc. None of this is any more or less exotic than magic.

In the same way that you say "in this world people can do magic" and that's all you really need to explain, you can also say "people can learn to do things that are physically impossible on earth..and they just do them"

Complaining about the realism of this stuff represents kind of a misunderstanding of how fantasy works.


(Note, I'm not intending this to address you personally in any way, just how I see these discussions go.)

 

[James Gasik]

So, to start with, I don't have a particular problem with any of these items serving as the explanation for "supernatural powers". However, there is not a reason to presume that you need these.

People come into these conversations with a mental model of the physical capabilities and limitations of the "mere mortals" we're talking about. This model is based on earth-standard humans living on earth. It's an understandable thing to do, working with what you know, but it is an application of mental handcuffs based on conditions that are not present in the game setting. Settings are almost never earth, even less earth-standard, many characters are not human, and those that are human, are of a brand specific to the setting. We don't actually know anything about what these "mere mortals" can actually do.

Yes, we can point to some font of magic as a source of power, but there's also usually a whole bunch of "naturally occurring" fantasy stuff happening in-setting all the time. Physical constants don't have to map the same way as they do on our world. People aren't necessarily eating the same food, breathing the same air, etc. None of this is any more or less exotic than magic.

In the same way that you say "in this world people can do magic" and that's all you really need to explain, you can also say "people can learn to do things that are physically impossible on earth..and they just do them"

Complaining about the realism of this stuff represents kind of a misunderstanding of how fantasy works.


(Note, I'm not intending this to address you personally in any way, just how I see these discussions go.)

No it's perfectly fine, I was just pointing out that if you require an explanation other than "you are a protagonist", there's some taken from various sources. It's always interesting to me when a work of fiction allows us to believe in a protagonist being exceptionally skilled without bothering to explain until later- when John Wick opens, he's just a man dealing with grief.

Then we see he has great driving skills.

He gets taken out by an ambush rather easily as well.

But then, he turns into an uber killing machine, and while we see some people hold him in high regard, his legend isn't explained until later. And all we, as an audience have, are two things guiding us:

We are used to our action heroes being able to bleed out by the gallon and keep on going.

We probably saw the trailer and knew what kind of movie we're going to get.

But in D&D, and I just want to point this out, the "movie poster", the very front cover of the PHB shows a spellcaster and a warrior facing off against a giant, a creature many times their size, and wielding a sword as big as the heroes are- and we can't just instantly buy into the idea that the player characters are beyond mortal limits?

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

Simply cap spells known to 4th level or less (maybe 5th level or less). Casters can keep the slots.

Thoughts?

If you're wanting to run a game in a low magic world setting, then that sounds like a great way to do it. And if your players are on board too, then have at it. Sounds like great stories & awesome fun in the making !

But if you and your players are wanting to run a high magic "swords & sorcery" style fantasy game (which by default is what classic D&D is all about and what a lot of people want to play) then ..... no, just no.

So, start here. What power level of game setting are you looking for. Low, Medium or High is good enough to start with.

If Low, your houserule sounds great, use milestone levelling and keep that slow, strongly limit magic item availability, martials will be fine
If High, be liberal with levels & magic items, let casters get everything the books say they get, you might need to give some martials some extra love*
If Medium, somewhere in between, a light touch of either of the above might be required on a case-by-case basis, be discerning

* this really seems like the crux point of this whole concern and issue, so let's clearly define the problem space:

1) In a Low Magic game world setting, casters & magic items need to be toned down. If everyone buys into these changes in order to tell these stories, everyone is happy, no problem. There is nothing wrong with this. No changes need to be made to martials in this case. This is the perfect use case for your homebrew rule and it should work well here.

2) In a High Magic game world setting, some players want to play reality-warping spellslingers. These players don't want their characters to be gimped to avoid showing up other characters, they want everyone else to be awesome with them. There is nothing wrong with this. No changes need to be made to casters in this case.

3) In a High Magic game world setting, some players want to play legendary but non-superhuman non-magical martials. This is important. These players don't want their characters doing all sorts of wierd stuff, they want to be able to be awesome at what they do, eg being warriors. As long as nobody goes forcing their characters into supernatural shennanigans that they don't want, these players are fine, no problem. There is nothing wrong with this. No changes need to be made to the martial character classes & subclasses that these players choose (they don't choose things like EK or AT for example and are happy with that).

4) In a High Magic game world setting, some players want to play martials who are superhuman, supernatural & beyond. These players don't want their characters having to be pidgeon-holed into casting spells, they want them to be preternaturally powerful in other ways, but akin to the capabilities of spellcasters in terms of flexibility, able to contribute to the direction of the narrative both in and out of combat. There are many different archetypes of this, from the wuxia style ki warriors, to characters who stories are inextricably linked to their magic items, to children of gods & prophecies, etc These players feel that the existing classes/subclasses in 5e don't satisfactorily fulfil these char concepts, and that extra capabilities are needed beyond what is currently available in order to fully express and play those characters, and also to keep up with casters, esp in terms of narrative flexibility outside combat. There is nothing wrong with this. These players have a point.

Note that only the first of these 4 cases is the perfect use case for your homebrew rule and it should work well here. The other 3 cases require no changes to casters and applying this homebrew rule would be disastrous for game cohesion and player satisfaction.

Also note that there are precisely zero cases where wholesale changes of martial classes to add supernatural capabilities to all base classes and subclasses is either appropriate or required, as this would directly and negatively impact case 3.

Instead, the entire remainder of the discussion should be to address case 4, and should not impact any of the other 3 cases.

This is the only approach that I would support as being broadly useful and applicable to the game and community at large.

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

<double post>

 

[dave2008]

I'm saying that real world capabilities shouldnt apply to only a minority of D&D classes. If real world limitations apply to fighters until 10, they should apply to "casters" for the same, who can get by on sleight of hand and flash powder. Fighters dont exist in the real world. Sure, real world Olympians can can jump a certain distance. However they aren't even 1st level fighters. They're folks 1st level fighters save. They don't exist in a word with magic, and don't incorporate magic adjacent techniques in their training as fighters rightly should be depicted as doing, given the high magic worlds they inhabit.

That is one way to play the game, but not the only way. People have different tastes and I like to accommodate them. Some people like a more GoT style. That is OK, great even. Fortunately, my suggestion supports both tastes, while yours does not.

I also disagree that if fighters can only do mundane things then everyone must be doing mundane things. To me, part of the thrill is that a highly trained mundane fighter can in fact do things that compete with magic.

Finally, I, and many others, don't want my character to start out as a superhero. I like to grow into that. That is what adventuring is for in the games we like to play. 5e supports this (though we start off at level 0, not level 1) and my theoretical game would too.

D&D casters aren't appropriate PC's for a world with little or no magic.

Two points here:

1. That is not necessarily true. We play in a low magic setting and allow PCs to be standard casters (we have a wizard in our group) and it works just fine, great really. The trick is that he is nearly unique in the world (in fact at 15th lvl he is the most powerful wizard in the world)
2. I have been talking about a theoretical game. In this game I would probably nerf the casters a bit. Off the top of me head the solution would be casting time. Until about 10th lvl or so, casters would need more than a turn to cast most spells.

The sidekick caster might be (and probably would fit well with the fighter, rogue, etc). By PC full casters in a low magic world is like wanting to run a low superpowers game and letting the available characters be beat cop, ER nurse, ambulance diver, and Doctor Strange. Their power is even more disruptive when the world isn't geared to challenge them. Imagine running a no magic modern game, and one PC is a 5th level wizard. Charm, Invisibility, illusion, detect thoughts, speak with dead, etc are all highly impactful. The spotlight disparity is particularly exacerbated when only one type of character gets an extra helping of special and gets to dictate terms to the world.

As I mentioned, it works great for us. We have been playing in a game with very low magic and one PC wizard (the rest are martial fighters or rogues) since the start of 5e and we have had some of our best times playing D&D since we started in the 80s. Perhaps you have never played in such a game to see that it works. Or perhaps you have other issues with your games, but your fears / concerns are not universally applicable. Try it, you might like it

 

[FrogReaver]

You did not show that an argument leads to absurd results, which was the point. You took the argument to an absurd length which misrepresents the argument by stretching it far beyond the actual context of the discussion, which is textbook reductio ad absurdum.

You are mistaken about what reductio ad absurdum means.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No it's perfectly fine, I was just pointing out that if you require an explanation other than "you are a protagonist", there's some taken from various sources. It's always interesting to me when a work of fiction allows us to believe in a protagonist being exceptionally skilled without bothering to explain until later- when John Wick opens, he's just a man dealing with grief.

Then we see he has great driving skills.

He gets taken out by an ambush rather easily as well.

But then, he turns into an uber killing machine, and while we see some people hold him in high regard, his legend isn't explained until later. And all we, as an audience have, are two things guiding us:

We are used to our action heroes being able to bleed out by the gallon and keep on going.

We probably saw the trailer and knew what kind of movie we're going to get.

But in D&D, and I just want to point this out, the "movie poster", the very front cover of the PHB shows a spellcaster and a warrior facing off against a giant, a creature many times their size, and wielding a sword as big as the heroes are- and we can't just instantly buy into the idea that the player characters are beyond mortal limits?

As has been said, many people want those physical limits to be there for martials. It makes the magic parts easier to swallow when the not obviously magic parts appear to conform to our reality, and allows for the "zero to hero" narrative. If you explicitly say that PCs are beyond mortal limits, it damages that narrative. After all, how can D&D be the big tent game for everyone that WotC so desperately wants it to be if they (shudder) actually take a side in one of the big questions?