D&D (2024) Martial/Caster fix.

[Micah Sweet]

But an extremely valuable quality when you need to use it. Just like novaing is extremely useful when you need that. IME the issue is more too many players nova when it really isn't necessary. There is nothing worse IME for a caster player than to "run out of gas".

5E is designed around attrition. If the DM doesn't use that model (at least sometimes) that isn't the fault of the game design. It is like playing chess with different rules and complaining the game doesn't play like you expect.

Casters run out of spell slots often enough in my own games, for example. My DMPC is a healer, and in our session last week I was tapped out after two combats (actually, he died in the second combat which was beyond Deadly). As DM, I can tell you the "three" enemy casters (a hag coven) was practically tapped out (one 1st and one 2nd slot remaining... that's it) and we had to stop before the encounter was technically over. The PCs are fleeing and the hags are trying to stop them. I'm sure they will use their last remaining spell slots soon enough.

If a DM feels casters are too "free" with their spell slots since spells tend to have more "power" or impact on encounters compared to martial features, the options presented in this thread can fix that easily enough IME. For example, I HATE the warlock class (as both player and DM) because of the two spell slot limit per rest. Having just two spells, even at maximum spell level, feels like it hamstrings casters way too much. I've never had a warlock at higher levels, so I don't know how much the extra 3rd slot would help.


And how do you purpose to do that?

Here's a question: does either version of WotC 5e actually say anywhere in the books that the game is designed around attrition, and that ignoring this is working against that design? It that made clear in the text? I think it's possible a lot of folks just see "heroic fantasy adventure" and stop there, with little attention paid to, "manage your resources or the math stops working properly".

 

[Guest 7037866]

Here's a question: does either version of WotC 5e actually say anywhere in the books that the game is designed around attrition, and that ignoring this is working against that design? It that made clear in the text? I think it's possible a lot of folks just see "heroic fantasy adventure" and stop there, with little attention paid to, "manage your resources or the math stops working properly".

As you well know the text (2014) recommands 6-8 moderate to hard encounters for an "adventuring day", i.e. between long rests, with two suggested short rests. The use of limited features is balanced around this idea.

With many features short or long rest, as opposed to at-will, this leads to the players having to judge when it is best to utilize a limited feature. Going nova all the time and during the first encounters then naturally leads to a dought at the end of the day--times when you might wish you had the "extra fuel in the tank", on occasion.

It isn't an issue of managing your resources so the maths works, it is a real-world game issue of wasting resources needlessly or thoughlessly.

Consider Action Surge. With 7 encounters between long rests and two short rests, a fighter is balanced around the idea of using action surge roughly every other encounter.

Compared to Rage. With 2 and later more, it starts out rage is limited to about 1 in 3 encounters, and near the end you can expect to use it almost with every encounter.

What about Smites. You begin with (at most) 2, if you don't cast any spells. Like rage, about 1 in 3. However, by the end you will probably have 10-15 depend on spellcasting, so you can count on probably 1 or maybe 2 per encounter.

The relative strength of features is balanced around their understand of their use and how often they should be able to employ them before a long rest. When you ignore that, and allow more fequent rests, the classes which require those rests (and tend to have more powerful features because, in theory, they should be limited) feel more powerful because those features aren't limited now.

I mean, come on, you know all this. Why bother asking?

 

[Voadam]

Isn’t the 14 DMG saying that you can expect a party to be able to handle 6-8 encounters in a day, not that you should always aim for that per day?

 

[Micah Sweet]

As you well know the text (2014) recommands 6-8 moderate to hard encounters for an "adventuring day", i.e. between long rests, with two suggested short rests. The use of limited features is balanced around this idea.

With many features short or long rest, as opposed to at-will, this leads to the players having to judge when it is best to utilize a limited feature. Going nova all the time and during the first encounters then naturally leads to a dought at the end of the day--times when you might wish you had the "extra fuel in the tank", on occasion.

It isn't an issue of managing your resources so the maths works, it is a real-world game issue of wasting resources needlessly or thoughlessly.

Consider Action Surge. With 7 encounters between long rests and two short rests, a fighter is balanced around the idea of using action surge roughly every other encounter.

Compared to Rage. With 2 and later more, it starts out rage is limited to about 1 in 3 encounters, and near the end you can expect to use it almost with every encounter.

What about Smites. You begin with (at most) 2, if you don't cast any spells. Like rage, about 1 in 3. However, by the end you will probably have 10-15 depend on spellcasting, so you can count on probably 1 or maybe 2 per encounter.

The relative strength of features is balanced around their understand of their use and how often they should be able to employ them before a long rest. When you ignore that, and allow more fequent rests, the classes which require those rests (and tend to have more powerful features because, in theory, they should be limited) feel more powerful because those features aren't limited now.

I mean, come on, you know all this. Why bother asking?

I don't think you're wrong about the mechanics, rather I'm asking a larger question. Is the design keystone of attrition stated front and center enough for most players and DMs to assimilate it into their actual play at the table? I suspect the answer to that is "probably not". Many players may very well be ignoring these concerns and focusing their attention on showing off their cool powers in cool ways whenever they feel like, attrition be darned. If that's the case, folks who PCs are by nature of their class more steady and less flashy are, by their definition, having less fun. I was never a fan of 4e (though I gave it a legitimate chance), but it made the changes it did for a reason. And so too has 5.5.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Isn’t the 14 DMG saying that you can expect a party to be able to handle 6-8 encounters in a day, not that you should always aim for that per day?

I believe you are right. There is no insinuation IMO that this density of combat is what you should be doing, just that it's about as much as a "typical" party can handle.

 

[Distracted DM]

I think we just have different definitions of what "naturally" means more than disagreement.

For me "naturally" is what the game-world dictates is likely to be there. Different regions will have different encounters with different probabilities of encounters happening.


This really isn't what I was talking about... but ok. Or you adjust the difficulties for the fights if you want to follow the attrition model.


Good, it isn't what I meant either.


What ask? I don't even know which "ask" you are referring to?

Apologies for the misunderstanding, it was late and I think I was addressing points made by the person you were replying to, but you weren't really refuting their points in the way I thought you were.

 

[Guest 7037866]

I suspect the answer to that is "probably not".

I agree.

If that's the case, folks who PCs are by nature of their class more steady and less flashy are, by their definition, having less fun.

If their focus is to be in the spotlight (at least on occasion) in such groups, then they probably aren't having the fun they feel they should be.

But that isn't the direct fault of the way the game was designed, but how it is played. Although I see your point.

And so too has 5.5.

But those changes haven't "solved the problem" which people feel exist about it... so what good are they?

Apologies for the misunderstanding, it was late and I think I was addressing points made by the person you were replying to, but you weren't really refuting their points in the way I thought you were.

No worries.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree.


If their focus is to be in the spotlight (at least on occasion) in such groups, then they probably aren't having the fun they feel they should be.

But that isn't the direct fault of the way the game was designed, but how it is played. Although I see your point.


But those changes haven't "solved the problem" which people feel exist about it... so what good are they?


No worries.

I am very much not the person to describe 5.5's merits, but I do know a good number of folks think it's an improvement over WotC's previous 5e offering.

 

[Guest 7037866]

I am very much not the person to describe 5.5's merits, but I do know a good number of folks think it's an improvement over WotC's previous 5e offering.

Sure, but I am talking about this issue, in particular.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but I am talking about this issue, in particular.

Not much good to me, is all I can say.