D&D 5E Mission Impossible?!

[Krachek]

Patience.
Whit enough time technology will evolve in their setting,
And one day mundane cheap item will allow teleportation, cloning, invisibility, resurrection, and other fantastic things.

 

[Blue]

How can you make a melee character, like a Barbarian or a Fighter, become as useful as Wizard or a Bard, in and out of combat? Solving situations both RPing and cracking skulls...
They dont have as many tools as Casters, but how can they improve and have the same value to the party on all 3 pillars (combat, social and exploration)?
Or the secret is just accept that they wont be as useful and just play with what you got?

I think you've got a bad assumption in there.

Casters have a limited resource, that they can use for utility in some other pillars, or in combat. Using it in other pillars has the opportunity cost of not using it in combat. So what we have is that either casters are the equivalent in combat and equivalent in non-combat, or are worse in combat and better in non-combat.

(Or you have a DM who runs less encounters per day with throws off the balance between the at-will and long rest recovery model. In that case casters having slots for both is just a symptom of a different problem and the root cuase should be addressed.)

So trying to give martial characters as good as a caster spending slots out of combat while still leaving them as good as cassters who reserve their slots for combat would make them stronger then casters.

Now, casters have flexibility - use slots one way or the other - that martials don't always have. So the question is how to give that flexibility to martials - how for them to give up some of their combat potential in order to be better out-of-combat. Same as casters.

 

[cmad1977]

This isn’t a thing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Casters have a limited resource, that they can use for utility in some other pillars, or in combat. Using it in other pillars has the opportunity cost of not using it in combat.

That hasn't been so much the case since 3e. Cheap low-level utility scrolls could be used for out-of-combat, for that matter, lower level slots became less useful for combat. In 4e, rituals could be used out of combat without expending combat resources - other than wealth. In 5e ritual use of spells out of combat requires no slots, and no cost unless the spells material component normally carries one.

Now, casters have flexibility - use slots one way or the other - that martials don't

The upshot of which is they choose when to put in their best performance, so will tend - the better they're played (and, since all 5e casting is spontaneous, that's easier than ever) - to do so when it really matters.
That is, their players' decisions matter.

 

[Blue]

That hasn't been so much the case since 3e. Cheap low-level utility scrolls could be used for out-of-combat, for that matter,

If you have a magic item economy, which the base game doesn't. And if scrolls to add out-of-combat boost is a thing, so are potions.

In 5e ritual use of spells out of combat requires no slots, and no cost unless the spells material component normally carries one.

Yes and no. A ritual spell cuts down the caster's flexibility because they need to give up some other spell known or prepared (except wizards). There's no rituals to help with a social encounter, and many cases 10 minutes to cast a ritual is an impediment. And many utility spells simply don't have a ritual version. Knock, for example, comes tih built in disadvantage (can not do sneakily) and has no ritual form.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think you've got a bad assumption in there.

Casters have a limited resource, that they can use for utility in some other pillars, or in combat. Using it in other pillars has the opportunity cost of not using it in combat. So what we have is that either casters are the equivalent in combat and equivalent in non-combat, or are worse in combat and better in non-combat.

(Or you have a DM who runs less encounters per day with throws off the balance between the at-will and long rest recovery model. In that case casters having slots for both is just a symptom of a different problem and the root cuase should be addressed.)

So trying to give martial characters as good as a caster spending slots out of combat while still leaving them as good as cassters who reserve their slots for combat would make them stronger then casters.

Now, casters have flexibility - use slots one way or the other - that martials don't always have. So the question is how to give that flexibility to martials - how for them to give up some of their combat potential in order to be better out-of-combat. Same as casters.

Of potential note is that most adventures don't feature the recommended number of encounters. So holding that up as the ideal standard seems a bit odd to me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes and no. A ritual spell cuts down the caster's flexibility because they need to give up some other spell known or prepared (except wizards)

Nod, but it's not like that reduced flexibility could be less than a non-casters.

There's no rituals to help with a social encounter

Divinations could be helpful in prepping for one, comprehend languages could prevent secret communication among others in a language you don't know, telepathic bond could enable secret communication among the party... I'm sure you could get creative with a few others, including offering a ritual as favor or payment.
And, there's certainly exploration rituals.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Of potential note is that most adventures don't feature the recommended number of encounters. So holding that up as the ideal standard seems a bit odd to me.

So one potential answer to the OP is "press on" - advocate to get more done between long rests.

 

[Krachek]

Pillar combat. Fighter are enough effective. Checked.
Social pillar. Even without any skill any character can interact, play its personality, flaw, ideal. Checked.
Exploration pillar. They have skills, Superior hit points, proficient in con save. That is enough to participate actively in exploration. Checked.

 

[Blue]

Of potential note is that most adventures don't feature the recommended number of encounters. So holding that up as the ideal standard seems a bit odd to me.

It's of utmost importance, because that changes the root cause.

If casters regularly have more slots available because DMs aren't doing enough encounters per long-rest to balance them with the at-will classes, then casters are going to be more powerful. In combat, out of combat, both. Because the design balance point doesn't change regardless if many DMs ignore it.

So if that's the case, fix the root cause. Unfortunately that will likely take a fairly comprehensive change of the numbers.

I've said several times the biggest gripe I have with a game I love is the expectations around the rest mechanics. I'm much happier with the more gamist-type solution that 13th Age uses where a full heal-up (equivilent of a long rest) is divorced from the narrative of a sleep and instead occurs after X encounters. (Four for 13th Age.) Takes care of all of that. But sleep = regaining spells is a sacred cow of D&D.