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

[dave2008]

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 issue is the desire some have to want to balance non magic classes with magic classes. The only way to do that is to nerf classes. If you raises the non-magic classes to the full extent of abilities available to magic classes, then they have become magical. There is no explanation for a fighter to rip a hole into another plan than magic.

So if the goal is the balance of capabilities (which is not my goal personally), then you have to nerf casters in some manner, as you suggested in the OP.

However, I have another option for you: restrict casting.

1. Go back to an old school rule that if you take damage in a round before you cast as spell, you can't cast a spell that round.
2. Increase casting time. If powerful and/or reality warping spells take a minute or even 2 rounds to cast, they become much more situational.

Either of these separately has a serious nerf factor to magic users without taking away their spells. Both together, really makes it more of a challenge

 

[Micah Sweet]

The issue is the desire some have to want to balance non magic classes with magic classes. The only way to do that is to nerf classes. If you raises the non-magic classes to the full extent of abilities available to magic classes, then they have become magical. There is no explanation for a fighter to rip a hole into another plan than magic.

So if the goal is the balance of capabilities (which is not my goal personally), then you have to nerf casters in some manner, as you suggested in the OP.

However, I have another option for you: restrict casting.

1. Go back to an old school rule that if you take damage in a round before you cast as spell, you can't cast a spell that round.
2. Increase casting time. If powerful and/or reality warping spells take a minute or even 2 rounds to cast, they become much more situational.

Either of these separately has a serious nerf factor to magic users without taking away their spells. Both together, really makes it more of a challenge

I really like this, as it add limits without removing capability. I expect it doesn't work that way in 5e because it essentially means that casters regularly have "dead rounds" in which they pretty much do nothing waiting for their spell to go off.

 

[dave2008]

I really like this, as it add limits without removing capability. I expect it doesn't work that way in 5e because it essentially means that casters regularly have "dead rounds" in which they pretty much do nothing waiting for their spell to go off.

There are ways to get around that too. But I need to run. I will speculate later!

 

[James Gasik]

I'd be ok with a rule like that if there was some way for non-casters to actually prevent an ally from taking damage. Fighters gonna be screaming for heals and not getting them because there's a guy bonking the Cleric on the head!

 

[Undrave]

However, I have another option for you: restrict casting.

1. Go back to an old school rule that if you take damage in a round before you cast as spell, you can't cast a spell that round.
2. Increase casting time. If powerful and/or reality warping spells take a minute or even 2 rounds to cast, they become much more situational.

I would roll it into concentration. Any spell that needs longer than a round would mean your caster is basically concentrating on that spell and if they lose concentration due to damage, then the spell fizzles out. But I wouldn't put it on every spell, especially not at lower level. Would help keep certain spells to non-combat situations become they become too risky to cast in combat.

I'd be ok with a rule like that if there was some way for non-casters to actually prevent an ally from taking damage. Fighters gonna be screaming for heals and not getting them because there's a guy bonking the Cleric on the head!

Well we HAD marking and the Defenders mechanics... but that was "too video gamey!" and fighters using "mind control!"

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well we HAD marking and the Defenders mechanics... but that was "too video gamey!" and fighters using "mind control!"

Such is the fate of any mechanic more complicated than 'I attack' that isn't explicitly magic.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

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.

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

That just makes the one PC caster even more the most specialest boy in the universe, and the world isnt set up to challenge them. Some people love being wand caddies, grogs, and second fiddles. I don't. It's OK for your fighter to be a chump. I don't want that for mine. We really need a mythic martial so the grognards can have their town guards +1. My experience says low magic D&D doesnt work. Because there IS no low magic D&D when one character is flinging risk free magic in every encounter.

You can play a game where one character is a great wyrm gold dragon and everyone else is a commoner with staight 6's for stats. You might have fun! But I wouldnt say it's appropriate for the game as a generalization.

 

[James Gasik]

That just makes the one PC caster even more the most specialest boy in the universe, and the world isnt set up to challenge them. Some people love being wand caddies, grogs, and second fiddles. I don't. It's OK for your fighter to be a chump. I don't want that for mine. We really need a mythic martial so the grognards can have their town guards +1. My experience says low magic D&D doesnt work. Because there IS no low magic D&D when one character is flinging risk free magic in every encounter.

You can play a game where one character is a great wyrm gold dragon and everyone else is a commoner with staight 6's for stats. You might have fun! But I wouldnt say it's appropriate for the game as a generalization.

Yeah but here's the problem with the mythic martial. They can't exist in the same game as the other subclasses. It's The Tome of Battle all over again- if you print a "Fighter replacement", no matter how balanced it is, it will irritate the people who like their martials the way they are, and you can guess which one will be more popular with players, since, by nature of having it's limiters taken off, this new martial class will simply be better than most of the current offerings.

And I highly doubt WotC is going to rock the boat like that again.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Yeah but here's the problem with the mythic martial. They can't exist in the same game as the other subclasses. It's The Tome of Battle all over again- if you print a "Fighter replacement", no matter how balanced it is, it will irritate the people who like their martials the way they are, and you can guess which one will be more popular with players, since, by nature of having it's limiters taken off, this new martial class will simply be better than most of the current offerings.

And I highly doubt WotC is going to rock the boat like that again.

Fighter is a joke compared to paladin or valor bard. It's a bad class that the ancient fighter fans insist on keeping crappy. The same people who claim to not care about balance, spotlight or agency shouldn't mind if yet one more class is ahead of them on the power curve.

Also, if it's more popular, that should be taken as a good thing to WOTC. Given the younger demographics D&D is skewing, maybe recognize that people want to play a character more in line with anime, supers, and heroic tales, as that is where their caster "peers" already are. The demo that wants to play a 15th level dirt farmer is aging and makes a smaller and smaller part of their audience than it did in 4E when the great grognard revolt took place for daring to give fighters nice things.

 

[Vaalingrade]

"We've heard your complaints loud and clear! Our Happy Child Apple Flavored Baby Food is once again filled with broken glass and we promise to never remove it again!"