D&D (2024) Martial vs Caster: Removing the "Magical Dependencies" of high level.

[AnotherGuy]

Nerfing casters in any significant way is not going to come from WotC; they've proven that through the playtest. Doing it through 3pp and homebrew is the only way, and the bigger the change you want to make to the magic system, the more likely you need to change the architecture, resulting in a compatible but different 5e, like Level Up or Tales of the Valiant.

Totally agree, which is why I have begun creating my own version of 5e.

How you nerf magic is also very important. A lot of people are satisfied with what casters are capable of, or it would have been changed a while ago (just not a lot of people here). When 4e leveled the playing field for everyone, for example, it quickly showed those who liked the general shape of what we had before and those who didn't. This may not be a large concern for this discussion, since I've perceived a strong overlap between those who want a mythic martial and those who preferred 4e to other forms of D&D, but you never know.

With regards to looking at changes in magic...I think one needs to begin small
As in how does the spellcasting of magic work for the various casters and their categories of magic?
What may be used as an Arcane Focus or a Divine Symbol? Are there limitations?
Who can use an Arcane Focus? And why?
How is an Arcane Focus handled?
What are the benefits or drawbacks of using material components?
How many hands free are needed to do S and handle M or an Arcane Focus? And work through examples, particularly during combat to determine action economy.
Can a spellcaster be disarmed from material components or a spell focus?
Can a spell focus be sundered and what is needed?
How does one limit a spellcaster from casting without the use of magic-dampening cuffs?
Casting with shackles, can one make a Sleight of Hand skill check?
Metal gauntlets, how does that restrict, if at all, S components?
Spellbooks, scrolls...etc

These are the questions I tackled first as I needed to initially understand how magic is harnessed and how spellcasting works in the world I had imagined (forget WotC's rubbished rules) before I would look at larger things within the game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

We haven't had 40 years of tank combat. We had 4-5ish and then 9 years of half-tank, half little old ladies, half manbear.

So you've never heard of CODzilla? It was a term from 3rd edition about how Clerics and Druids were monstrously powerful classes that put fighters to shame. And even then wizards were right up there with them.

4th edition was incredibly high level magic, and is often accused of making everyone wizards, so it had it.

That's the last twenty years or so.

What about 2nd edition? Well, that was the edition that had BECMI or Basic-Expert-Companion-Master-Immortal. Where the end goal was to become a god and rule your own universe. I've read the immortal rules.

Heck, we can go to the man himself
"A 20th-level Fighter is Achilles, but a 20th-level Magic-User is Zeus."— Gary Gygax


So, at what point was the goal for high level play to emulate Sword and Sorcery? Was it back in 1983 when we had rules for ruling your own universe? 40 years ago? Or was it after that when we had CODzilla and the God Wizard?

All caster parties aren't the norm. Ive never been in one, and the few times Ive DM'd for them took a great deal of strain well beyond what a more typical party distribution requires.

I don't call caster utility "turn off these mechanics" buttons just to be funny, but they also weren't excessively prevalent in 95% of games Ive ever run or played in.

So, the difference between martials and casters isn't that great, but the rare all caster party is too powerful and places a great deal of strain on the DM because they can turn off mechanics and martials can't.... but that creates no disparity between the classes?

 

[Minigiant]

What difference are you trying to express here? What is the difference between being balanced and being designed?

A big difference.

The game has flying demons.

1. Your DM never running flying demons and never giving your party winged boots for your warriors.
2. Your DM running flying demons and giving your party winged boots for your warriors.
3. Your DM running flying demons, never giving your part winged boots for your warriors, but giving your party a scroll of fly so your party mages will have it to cast on your warriors
4. Your DM never running flying demons and allowing a warblade and swordsage who can jump 30 extra feet and add their STR to Intimidation checks

Are different experiences.

EDIT:

5e is designed around flying warriors PCS fighting flying enemies.
None of the warrior classes get flight
5e assumes that the DM will either give the party a flight/jump/teleport magic item or will not use flying enemies after a certain level.
It's an unspoken assumption til this day that is never said out loud.

 

[Emberashh]

So you've never heard of CODzilla? It was a term from 3rd edition about how Clerics and Druids were monstrously powerful classes that put fighters to shame. And even then wizards were right up there with them

You mean the design problem created precisely by chasing Clerics and other mages up the bad design tree?

but that creates no disparity between the classes?

Quote me saying this.

I will never understand why I in particular keep having words shoved in my mouth.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

4th edition was incredibly high level magic, and is often accused of making everyone wizards, so it had it.

I'd say 4e was it's own thing. It is high level magic but put that stuff into rituals as a party resource.

Fighters in 4e are surprisingly mundane (minus Paragon Path and Epic Destiny) with a few exceptions that aren't really that crazy. They mostly attack with weapons, mark, and inflict conditions.

The difference of course is that Wizards were nerfed. They no longer have in-encounter mechanic avoiders and have to play within the same system of HP attrition. They do have more permissions than the Fighter -- elemental damage, summons, walls, teleport, etc. But the gap is narrowed in effect so it doesn't feel so bad.

 

[TheSword]

So you've never heard of CODzilla? It was a term from 3rd edition about how Clerics and Druids were monstrously powerful classes that put fighters to shame. And even then wizards were right up there with them.

4th edition was incredibly high level magic, and is often accused of making everyone wizards, so it had it.

That's the last twenty years or so.

What about 2nd edition? Well, that was the edition that had BECMI or Basic-Expert-Companion-Master-Immortal. Where the end goal was to become a god and rule your own universe. I've read the immortal rules.

Heck, we can go to the man himself
"A 20th-level Fighter is Achilles, but a 20th-level Magic-User is Zeus."— Gary Gygax


So, at what point was the goal for high level play to emulate Sword and Sorcery? Was it back in 1983 when we had rules for ruling your own universe? 40 years ago? Or was it after that when we had CODzilla and the God Wizard?



So, the difference between martials and casters isn't that great, but the rare all caster party is too powerful and places a great deal of strain on the DM because they can turn off mechanics and martials can't.... but that creates no disparity between the classes?

How can an all caster party be too powerful? Surely it’s all relative? Provided characters aren’t being sidelined then I don’t see why an all caster party can’t be handled the same as any powerful group. Increase the difficulty.

 

[Emberashh]

How can an all caster party be too powerful? Surely it’s all relative? Provided characters aren’t being sidelined then I don’t see why an all caster party can’t be handled the same as any powerful group. Increase the difficulty.

After a point, increasing difficulty just means turning off the toys.

Im sure someone will quip "well just get creative", but creativity doesn't get you around a bunch of spammed i-win buttons. The game fundamentally can't support it as is; adding more isn't going to suddenly make everything click.

 

[Micah Sweet]

okay yes, people can be creative with the fighter if they want, but in my opinion picking the fighter to be creative isn't too unlike not buying groceries so you can be creative with what scraps you find in your cupboards, but if i see someone picking fighter i assume they're doing it to be competent in melee combat aka because they're intending on getting take-out food, rather than seeing what they can do with half an onion, a bag of walnuts and powdered cheese sauce.

To be fair, I wouldn't assume melee combat. Plenty of ranged fighters out there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd say 4e was it's own thing. It is high level magic but put that stuff into rituals as a party resource.

Fighters in 4e are surprisingly mundane (minus Paragon Path and Epic Destiny) with a few exceptions that aren't really that crazy. They mostly attack with weapons, mark, and inflict conditions.

The difference of course is that Wizards were nerfed. They no longer have in-encounter mechanic avoiders and have to play within the same system of HP attrition. They do have more permissions than the Fighter -- elemental damage, summons, walls, teleport, etc. But the gap is narrowed in effect so it doesn't feel so bad.

Unless you were playing a wizard. Then it felt bad, at least to me.

 

[Minigiant]

To be fair, I wouldn't assume melee combat. Plenty of ranged fighters out there.

To be fair, the 5e designers didn't design and still don't design warriors to deal high damage in melee and ranged (without spells).