D&D (2024) Martial/Caster fix.

[Minigiant]

i wouldn't be entirely opposed to the concept of a generic basic adventurer class but i did think the earlier question was 'how would you make a simple caster'

in all honesty if we did have separate true 'simple classes' i think i'd try to rework the sidekick classes somehow for those ends.

Separating the Champion out into it's own class and creating a simple caster variant would be my preference as well. But that is a 6e thing.

 

[ECMO3]

I agree.

Tactical Mind is VERY powerful at low levels if you are rolling only a few ability checks per day.
Once you get to level 5, Expertise is close enough to be better without costing resources.

With two short rests at level 2-5 expertise is only better if you roll 11 or more checks in the skills you have expertise in. That is not a few, it is a lot.

That is not close at all as I don't remember a single session where we rolled 11 checks in 2 skills in a day.

But that's 1 Warrior out of the 3.

Right it is a Warrior that blows THE BEST expert out of the water for 20% of the game and is still better than them for another 20% of the game, and I think it stays better than one of the Experts (Ranger) all the way to 20th level.

Which is the point. Experts are better at being a party's skill monkey than a Fighter on the long run

In terms of class mechanics a Ranger is never a better skill Monkey than a fighter, a Rogue is better for slightly more than half the game if you play all 20 levels, but a Fighter is better at combat for all of the game.

Bard, like other casters, can select spells for the non-combat pillars and be comparable from about level 7 on, and better than a Rogue at high levels too while also being better at combat.

Experts are the best skill monkeys and should be.

Experts are not the best skill monkeys. A Warrior is at most of tier 1 and 2.

 

[nevin]

First off this is not the easiest way. By far the easiest way to close the gap at levels where casters are better is to leave the casters alone and just give the martials spells (or more spells) at certain levels.

Also, your table is off and does not actually fix the problem for two reasons.

First casters actually need more spells at some levels (because non-casters are actually better at some levels) and less spells at other levels. For example a 3rd level fighter is MUCH better overall than a 3rd level Wizard, substantially better in all 3 pillars of the game. To balance these classes at 3rd level you would need to give the Wizard more spells than the rules do.

Second not all casters are the same. You also have to vary it for each caster class independently. Both a 3rd level Wizard and a 3rd level Druid need extra spells to close the divide with Fighters, but a 3rd level Wizard needs more extra slots than a Druid does.

yep. merging all the spell lists because it was too hard to keep track of everything was the worst thing they ever did to casters.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

With two short rests at level 2-5 expertise is only better if you roll 11 or more checks in the skills you have expertise in. That is not a few, it is a lot.

That is not close at all as I don't remember a single session where we rolled 11 checks in 2 skills in a day.



Right it is a Warrior that blows THE BEST expert out of the water for 20% of the game and is still better than them for another 20% of the game, and I think it stays better than one of the Experts (Ranger) all the way to 20th level.



In terms of class mechanics a Ranger is never a better skill Monkey than a fighter, a Rogue is better for slightly more than half the game if you play all 20 levels, but a Fighter is better at combat for all of the game.

Bard, like other casters, can select spells for the non-combat pillars and be comparable from about level 7 on, and better than a Rogue at high levels too while also being better at combat.




Experts are not the best skill monkeys. A Warrior is at most of tier 1 and 2.

I do not think that Fighters beat out Bards, or many other spellcasters at Tier 2, or even earlier.
Bear in mind that 2 short rests might be what the game was allegedly calibrated around, but it is relatively unusual for 2 short rests to be the norm for a game, with 1 being closer to the average in most it appears.

The two factors you are not taking into into account I believe are:
1: Ability score distribution: Assuming that each character picks skills according to a reasonable understanding of their strengths, a Fighter will have Perception with a +0 ability bonus, Athletics with a +3 ability bonus, and two other skills with probably no, or a small bonus.
A spellcaster might have Perception at a +0 bonus, and three other skills at a +3 ability bonus.
Now, we all know that a fighter could invest on tertiary stats to increase their ability bonus to those, at the expense of combat effectiveness, but we're talking generalities here, and of course, the spellcaster can do the same.

2: Spells. The bonus granted by Tactical mind is quite similar numerically to that granted by Advantage. Even if the spellcaster does not have a spell that will resolve the situation without requiring ability checks, the Enhance Ability spell grants advantage to ability checks as a mere level 2 spell.
Sure the wizard or whatever is burning their combat resource for non-combat situations, but so is the Fighter if they are using Tactical Mind. (I'm not counting Guidance since we generally end up comparing fighter to wizard, but it is definitely a consideration if the spellcaster isn't a wizard.)
Past level 3, the chance that a spellcaster will have a spell that will just be able to resolve the situation increases, but the relative resource cost decreases for them, since they not only gain more level 2 slots, but also higher-level ones as well.

 

[Clint_L]

Experts are not the best skill monkeys. A Warrior is at most of tier 1 and 2.

If this thread was focused on just rogues and rangers I would have a much easier time getting on board with the premise. I think the "expert" classes were de facto nerfed by upgrades to other classes with the 2024 update.

Rogues used to be arguably the best skirmishers and skill monkeys for the first two tiers of the game...which according to WotC is around 97% of D&D. Now monks are unquestionably better skirmishers all the way to 20, fighters unquestionably better skill monkeys at those lower tiers, and other classes also got relevant upgrades - even barbarians.

Neither class got much of a combat boost. Rogues are still inexplicably left out of getting extra attack at level 5, and rangers remain a solid but uninspiring choice as a ranged attacker (though better than many realize as melee fighters, but that's not the archetype that a lot of folks are going for).

But, as usual, the focus is on fighters, who remain one of the stronger classes in the game.

 

[James Gasik]

I don't understand why giving Rogues Extra Attack is such a bad thing. You can give it to some Bards or even Wizards, but not Rogues?

 

[cbwjm]

I'd say rogues don't get extra attack because of how sneak attack scales, that's their damage ramp, not extra attack.

 

[James Gasik]

I'd say rogues don't get extra attack because of how sneak attack scales, that's their damage ramp, not extra attack.

I'm dubious that it would make a huge difference. But I suppose there's nothing to compare it to, since most every other class has to consume a resource to increase their damage- unless you count Clerics getting a bonus d8 damage at higher level- another class that seems denied Extra Attack on at least a subclass level for no real reason.

If you can give the ability to freaking WIZARDS, you can give it to anyone.

 

[Theory of Games]

An easy Wizard nerf:

• d4 HD
• No Cantrips
• No Arcane Tradition

 

[cbwjm]

I'm dubious that it would make a huge difference. But I suppose there's nothing to compare it to, since most every other class has to consume a resource to increase their damage- unless you count Clerics getting a bonus d8 damage at higher level- another class that seems denied Extra Attack on at least a subclass level for no real reason.

If you can give the ability to freaking WIZARDS, you can give it to anyone.

I'm not sure that it would make a great difference either, but I think when looking at the classes that sneak attack is taking up the damage budget on the rogue.