D&D General Compelling and Differentiated Gameplay For Spellcasters and Martial Classes

[Krachek]

In this initial post I am going to try to stay away from targeted criticism of specific versions of Dungeons and Dragons. Instead I will lay out a problem I see across most versions of the game so we can discuss it and possible solutions.

Much has been made about balance between spell casters and martial classes in the various versions of Dungeons and Dragons, but by making it about only about efficacy I think we all largely miss the point. Besides the most egregious cases I think most complaints about spell caster and martial class balance are more about a desire for more compelling game play for martial characters, both inside and outside of combat.

Playing a spell caster is fun because the decisions you make shape and alter the outcomes of events in a way that is usually not true for players of martial characters. A well timed and well chosen spell can completely turn the tide of an encounter or problem that the players are dealing with. Generally speaking the decisions martial characters make do not have much impact on how things go. Their prowess definitely does, but there is little in the way of being able to distinguish yourself. It is difficult to play a martial character skillfully in the same way you can play a spell caster skillfully.

Some versions of the game have tried to address this gap in compelling game play by using a similar structure for martial classes and spell casters. While it does work I find it not artful because it removes the game play distinction between classes. I think we need more distinct play experiences, not less. Just like the play experience between a fighter and a wizard should be distinct so should difference between either a fighter and barbarian or wizard and sorcerer. We need more compelling and distinct game play.

So how do we create an environment for skilled play where distinctions that reflect how it should feel to be a fighter or a monk or a sorcerer or a cleric are felt in play?

I have some opinions here including some targeted criticisms, but I am curious what everyone else thinks.

Is role playing its character considered a skilled play?
Every class lets player equal opportunity to enter in its character skin.
Personality, motivation, bond, flaw, there is place for infinite improvement.

 

[Campbell]

But what about the players? What I see is that when you give players a set of tools they can use, they tend to use those tools and nothing else. I ran into this issue some with my 4e group that was new to RPGs.

So it is not about just about telling the DM they can adjudicate or providing Dm with methods to do creative and off-script things, you need to help the players too. In fact, they are a bigger issue than the DM IMO.

I think you are right in that players have a tendency to always look to the options on their character sheet or in the rules first before going off script. I think there are two tendencies that really exasperate this. First there is a design level tendency to make character options, particularly spells, but also martial abilities too reliable. Second is the tendency by GMs to make off script actions less reliable and having their repercussions be unknown until after the action is attempted. This is why when it comes time to solve problems almost everyone looks to the wizard first.

The design issue is fairly easy to solve I think. You build in a meaningful level of risk and uncertainty to player character abilities, spells, and skills. This way when the risks associated with those mechanics are not something a player wants to deal with it can be compelling to look to other options. I see this all the time in Powered By The Apocalypse games. Often the defined moves in those games can lead to outcomes the player does not necessarily want so they choose to engage with the fiction in other ways.

The tendency for too conservative rulings can be resolved by providing GMs with better tools for how to improvise and making a more resilient game that is less prone to breaking at the seams. You can also help players go off script by instructing GM to be more transparent in their rulings. If a player knows how going off script will be resolved before fully committing to an action they are far less likely to only stick to what is defined.

I also think there is a tendency to view not using existing tools as more creative when there can be a fair bit of creativity involved in using existing tools in creative ways, particularly when we build in things like fictional positioning requirements and trade offs between different tools. Also if the same activities in the fiction are defined in one game but not in another is it really more creative to do it?

 

[dave2008]

The design issue is fairly easy to solve I think. You build in a meaningful level of risk and uncertainty to player character abilities, spells, and skills. This way when the risks associated with those mechanics are not something a player wants to deal with it can be compelling to look to other options. I see this all the time in Powered By The Apocalypse games. Often the defined moves in those games can lead to outcomes the player does not necessarily want so they choose to engage with the fiction in other ways.

I disagree that it is easy solve. It is primarily a psychological issue, and not something easily designed away. That being said, the improve guidelines in 4e and 5e help quite a bit (I just wish they were all in one place in 5e).

The tendency for too conservative rulings can be resolved by providing GMs with better tools for how to improvise and making a more resilient game that is less prone to breaking at the seams. You can also help players go off script by instructing GM to be more transparent in their rulings. If a player knows how going off script will be resolved before fully committing to an action they are far less likely to only stick to what is defined.

That is were the improve rules in 4e & 5e are helpful, but you still have introduce them to the players and they have to trust that you will follow them.

I also think there is a tendency to view not using existing tools as more creative when there can be a fair bit of creativity involved in using existing tools in creative ways, ...

I agree with that, but it seems a bit off topic.

 

[Campbell]

@Manbearcat is right. I am speaking from the perspective of mostly challenge oriented play. However what I call character exploration is extremely important to me in roleplaying games. Character exploration in the sense of feeling what my character is feeling, making the decisions they would make, facing challenges that make me question who my character is, and having mechanics that reflect their struggles so I do not have to play against the game is vital. Game play that fits the fantasy of my character and making choices that impact the fiction based only on the fiction and mechanics of the game is very important to me.

Character efficacy is not overly important to me. Having tools to impact the fiction where the ways I utilize those tools determines how well I do is something I look for in any game I play. Some of my favorite games to play including Exalted, Legend of the Five Rings, Apocalypse World, Monsterhearts, and Dungeon World are not balanced games in terms of character efficacy. In Dungeon World the Paladin is straight up better than The Fighter, but they both have different and compelling game play challenges. I often choose archetypes like the Savvy Head in Apocalypse World or Mortal in Monsterhearts that are weaker, but have more compelling game play. In the last game of Exalted Second Edition we played I went with a Resistance and Martial Arts oriented build in order to challenge myself to see if I could make it work when the meta of the game is built around The Invincible Sword Princess, a dodging and parrying build that is built around never being touched.

Generally speaking I do not appreciate spotlight balancing from either side of the screen. As a player I want to exercise my skill at playing to the fiction, mechanics of my character, and group communication/coordination to achieve the ends of our characters. Once a scenario/scene has been framed I want the GM to play the opposition honestly and act as a referee. As a GM I view it as my duty to frame conflicts that challenge the players and their characters. It's up to them to decide how to overcome those challenges. During play I as the GM am an honest advocate for the fiction and their adversaries. No one gets to decide how things go.

As a player thematically I am mostly drawn to the fantasy of playing warriors, men and women of courage and resolve that take up arms to achieve their goals. I want to play Conan or Achilles. However in modern Dungeons and Dragons I have usually found the game play lacking. I want to make decisions that impact how successful I am. I want my effectiveness to improve as I become better at playing a Barbarian, Fighter, or Paladin. On the other hand I have always found the game play of playing a spell caster more compelling. As I learn the game, get a better handle of spells, understand where they useful, what monsters are weak to each save I get a rush from being more effective over time.

What I want is that same rush while getting to live out the fantasy of playing a warrior. I want it for my players when I GM as well. As many of you know for a long time I was a real big Fourth Edition fan because it delivered on this out of the box when during Third Edition I had to resort to playing Psychic Warriors and Clerics to get that same rush even though it was not the fantasy I wanted. However over time I get disenchanted with Fourth Edition largely because the choices I was making were not the choices my character should be making and mechanics that were overly focused on team play. I largely want mechanics that map to the fantasy of playing a fighter or Barbarian yet are still compelling in that they require skill to play well. They should not resort to things that have no direct correspondence with the fiction.

Speaking as a real life martial artist this should not be too hard. There is far more involved in a contest of martial skill than deciding who to attack with what weapon. It may not be something that mainline Dungeons and Dragons will ever do because it should be more focused on being accessible and simple fighters are traditional. It is a solved problem in some games. The Fifth Edition of Legend of the Five Rings provides a pretty compelling game play experience for bushi characters who interface with the combat system in ways that other archetypes just do not. Pathfinder Second Edition makes an attempt. I have only played at low levels so I am not sure how it will work out yet.

However I am interested in exploring ways to make this work in other games as well including Fifth Edition because there is a lot to love in Fifth Edition. Also because I have one group of friends that I will continue to play it with even as I branch out to other play groups.

 

[Eubani]

Am I the only one who gets sick of hearing "just role play better" or use your skills as an excuse to do nothing about the gulf between casters and martial characters? This totally ignores that the casters can roleplay and use skills alongside their mechanics to get through situations be they exploratory or social. Meanwhile martial characters are constantly been beaten with the realism stick and told that they have everything they need so there is no need for them to get extra mechanics. An utterly hypocritical argument.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Does anyone else see value in classes actually being not quite exactly as powerful as each other? Personally i think the ideal game is one of near balance. Not balance. With some classes a bit more powerful than others just not as broken as stuff like chosen of mystra. I know myself and several of my friends ENJOY playing a harder to progress class at times. That said psionics are the devil and tier 1 psion is basically equivalent to tier 0 caster if there was one. Id say complaining about psionics would make much more sense because with them it goes beyond just a power scaling issue or slight unbalancing. With them it absolutely goes to that broken place within ravenloft of broken gaming called cheesistan where pun pun is dark lord. Big difference between unbalancing and breaking. Psionics are the champs at breaking. And unlike slight unbalancing, breaking the game leaves everyone feeling ACTUALLY useless.

 

[Oofta]

Am I the only one who gets sick of hearing "just role play better" or use your skills as an excuse to do nothing about the gulf between casters and martial characters? This totally ignores that the casters can roleplay and use skills alongside their mechanics to get through situations be they exploratory or social. Meanwhile martial characters are constantly been beaten with the realism stick and told that they have everything they need so there is no need for them to get extra mechanics. An utterly hypocritical argument.

Or just a preference. I don't want my fighter to be supernatural. If I want to play a supernatural character I can. If I want more skills I'll play a rogue.

I get it. But not every game can be for everyone, I'd be surprised if there weren't plenty of options in the dmsguild that has more options.

Just don't expect anything official, what we have works for most people.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Fighter's Ring of Improv

Your Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution receive a bonus equal to your level in the Fighter class when doing improvised actions.

Would this help?

 

[Eubani]

I think the main argument is about agency not power or the ever nebulous balance.

 

[Eubani]

Fighter's Ring of Improv

Your Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution receive a bonus equal to your level in the Fighter class when doing improvised actions.

Would this help?

No it would not for 2 reasons. 1. Everybody can improvise, casters also come to the table with mechanics that back up the improvisation. 2. Now a player in this scenario is dependant upon the DM allowing and giving a homebrew item, which introduces the idea the item makes you great not your ability.