Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8305350" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>That balance concept was <em>already</em> upended though. "Spotlight balance" sounds nice--everyone takes turns, everyone gets a slice of the pie. But it has two big holes:</p><p>1. The feeling of "doing nothing" when it isn't "your turn." There's a reason we make jokes about early-edition low-level Wizards throwing darts. It sucks to have to wait around to get some spotlight time.</p><p>2. The way D&D does magic, it's inherently opposed to <em>letting</em> the spotlight rotate from one person to another. Because it's the (literally) magic "I win" button, which will <em>always</em> steal the spotlight.</p><p></p><p>Spotlight balance works best in a game where the spotlight actually gets shared equally (contra 2), and where it gets shared <em>quickly</em>, so you're never "waiting" for your turn. D&D hasn't been that game in a long, long time--if it ever <em>was</em> that game. There's a reason high-level Fighters became landed nobility in ye olden dayse.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So, a Cleric should be someone who primarily copies manuscripts? (There's a reason we call "written typos" <em>clerical errors</em>.) And a Ranger should range? And, of course, suddenly <em>everyone</em> is a Barbarian, because none of us speak Greek. And Bards should be historians.</p><p></p><p>The word is a title. Letting it <em>limit</em> your design is asking for trouble. It should, instead, <em>inspire</em> your design, provide a starting point rather than an inviolable boundary.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Right. You've seen how D&D magic--and this is something that goes all the way back, this isn't new--becomes the end-all, be-all because it's literally the "do anything" mechanic. There is nothing that magic cannot achieve, at least conceivably. Hell, magic is the only character option that literally allows you to <em>invent your own new mechanics</em>. Fighters never had that option.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Taking a moment to get the snark off my chest: <em>Congratulations, you have discovered the caster/martial disparity, and the fact that, while it's better than it was in other editions, it's still alive and well! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite13" alt=":cautious:" title="Cautious :cautious:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":cautious:" /></em></p><p></p><p>Okay. Snark over. More seriously: Yes. This is an extremely serious and thorny design problem. D&D fans, or at least a very significant population thereof, have come to expect a certain minimum amount of power, versatility, and comprehensiveness from the mechanical space called "magic." Put too many limits on that space, and people get EXTREMELY upset. Worse, there's <em>at least</em> an extremely vocal, strident minority that get almost as upset if you give Fighters (and other "non-caster" classes) nice things. 4e tried to solve these problems, and got actively smear-campaigned as a result (often on completely false grounds, like "Fighters shoot lightning bolts out of their arses" or "there's no difference between a Fighter and a Wizard now.") 5e took the safe option of, more or less, rebuilding 3e with a few more power limiters (Concentration, fewer spells) and the most egregious offenders nerfed.</p><p></p><p>But it's still, as you've noted, an unsolved problem.</p><p></p><p>Important note, though: don't interpret it as "I must be the bestest EVAR!!" That's usually not what's going through people's minds. Usually, the problem is either:</p><p>A) Believing that magic simply IS better than not-magic, and thus magic-using classes SHOULD be better than non-magic using classes (uncommon in its explicit form, but often the <em>result</em> of what many fans expect magic to be capable of)</p><p>B) Not really grokking how <em>limited</em> they're forcing non-magic-using classes by restricting what "mundane" characters can do (most people don't realize just how <em>capable</em> an actual Olympic-level athlete or highly-trained archer truly is, and fantasy characters are supposed to go <em>beyond</em> those limits, at least a little)</p><p>C) Having dealt with the boredom of spotlight balance when you have few resources, and thus wanting to be sure they always have a meaningful contribution they can make, no matter what the party happens to be doing right now.</p><p></p><p>This, incidentally, is why I was so <em>upset</em> during the playtest when they said something to the effect of, "If Fighter is 100% combat, Rogue is 80% combat and 60% utility, and Wizard is 50% combat 50% utility." The problem with this design concept is that, in practice, EVERYONE needs to be able to branch out and embrace EVERY pillar of play, otherwise you're going to end up with one-trick-ponies who can (potentially) even get shown up at their one and only trick.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, there are really four options:</p><p>1. Nerf spellcasters until they're on the level of martials. This would piss off a lot of people and is thus not tenable.</p><p>2. <em>Actually</em> make everyone spellcasters, so no one is left out. This would generate a <em>worse</em> backlash than 4e got, and is thus not tenable.</p><p>3. Try (again) to nerf magic, the "I can violate the laws of reality" mechanic, while keeping martials bound by those rules. This has, demonstrably, not worked despite repeated efforts, and is thus not particularly tenable.</p><p>4. <em>Give martials something else</em>. Something that isn't magic--something that magic <em>can't do</em>--but that doesn't <em>nerf</em> magic in the process.</p><p></p><p>You see examples of #4 in both 4e (where Martial characters got their own Powers, different from caster classes), and in the Pathfinder "Spheres of Might" alternate rules. SoM is a pretty much straight buff to martial characters, with all sorts of potent and unique talents mostly available only to non-casters; it also came after the Spheres of Power alternate rules, which HEAVILY nerf the versatility of casters while actually <em>increasing</em> their baseline potency. (All Vancian spells are gone; spellcasters get a fixed, limited number of magic talents, which can each do one specific thing; talents are organized by the thematic/mechanical "sphere" they fit into, and require spell points to activate; spell points are overall MUCH more precious than spell slots are even in 5e.) You also see an example of #4 in early-edition D&D, where Fighters transcended their individual limits by becoming <em>lords and ladies</em>, holding land, having retainers, collecting taxes, etc.: the Fighter "growing beyond" mere mundane fighting.</p><p></p><p>More or less, we can't go back to spotlight balance the way things are now. We either have to fundamentally change what "magic" means in D&D, and risk stoking caster fans' ire; or power up martials one way or another, with exactly the same risk; or accept that martials will never <em>quite</em> keep up with casters, but we can put some bandaids on it and otherwise stem the bleeding so that, with enough DM elbow grease, we can hope nobody will notice. (Open secret: <em>people still notice. A lot. Hence this thread.</em>)</p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope. It's because combat is a "pillar" of the game, and people get bored when forced to endure stuff they don't contribute meaningfully to. But if you open that door even a smidgen, magic blows it wide open, because <em>that's literally how it's designed to behave: it breaks rules by making up its own new rules whenever it feels like.</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8305350, member: 6790260"] That balance concept was [I]already[/I] upended though. "Spotlight balance" sounds nice--everyone takes turns, everyone gets a slice of the pie. But it has two big holes: 1. The feeling of "doing nothing" when it isn't "your turn." There's a reason we make jokes about early-edition low-level Wizards throwing darts. It sucks to have to wait around to get some spotlight time. 2. The way D&D does magic, it's inherently opposed to [I]letting[/I] the spotlight rotate from one person to another. Because it's the (literally) magic "I win" button, which will [I]always[/I] steal the spotlight. Spotlight balance works best in a game where the spotlight actually gets shared equally (contra 2), and where it gets shared [I]quickly[/I], so you're never "waiting" for your turn. D&D hasn't been that game in a long, long time--if it ever [I]was[/I] that game. There's a reason high-level Fighters became landed nobility in ye olden dayse. So, a Cleric should be someone who primarily copies manuscripts? (There's a reason we call "written typos" [I]clerical errors[/I].) And a Ranger should range? And, of course, suddenly [I]everyone[/I] is a Barbarian, because none of us speak Greek. And Bards should be historians. The word is a title. Letting it [I]limit[/I] your design is asking for trouble. It should, instead, [I]inspire[/I] your design, provide a starting point rather than an inviolable boundary. Right. You've seen how D&D magic--and this is something that goes all the way back, this isn't new--becomes the end-all, be-all because it's literally the "do anything" mechanic. There is nothing that magic cannot achieve, at least conceivably. Hell, magic is the only character option that literally allows you to [I]invent your own new mechanics[/I]. Fighters never had that option. Taking a moment to get the snark off my chest: [I]Congratulations, you have discovered the caster/martial disparity, and the fact that, while it's better than it was in other editions, it's still alive and well! :cautious:[/I] Okay. Snark over. More seriously: Yes. This is an extremely serious and thorny design problem. D&D fans, or at least a very significant population thereof, have come to expect a certain minimum amount of power, versatility, and comprehensiveness from the mechanical space called "magic." Put too many limits on that space, and people get EXTREMELY upset. Worse, there's [I]at least[/I] an extremely vocal, strident minority that get almost as upset if you give Fighters (and other "non-caster" classes) nice things. 4e tried to solve these problems, and got actively smear-campaigned as a result (often on completely false grounds, like "Fighters shoot lightning bolts out of their arses" or "there's no difference between a Fighter and a Wizard now.") 5e took the safe option of, more or less, rebuilding 3e with a few more power limiters (Concentration, fewer spells) and the most egregious offenders nerfed. But it's still, as you've noted, an unsolved problem. Important note, though: don't interpret it as "I must be the bestest EVAR!!" That's usually not what's going through people's minds. Usually, the problem is either: A) Believing that magic simply IS better than not-magic, and thus magic-using classes SHOULD be better than non-magic using classes (uncommon in its explicit form, but often the [I]result[/I] of what many fans expect magic to be capable of) B) Not really grokking how [I]limited[/I] they're forcing non-magic-using classes by restricting what "mundane" characters can do (most people don't realize just how [I]capable[/I] an actual Olympic-level athlete or highly-trained archer truly is, and fantasy characters are supposed to go [I]beyond[/I] those limits, at least a little) C) Having dealt with the boredom of spotlight balance when you have few resources, and thus wanting to be sure they always have a meaningful contribution they can make, no matter what the party happens to be doing right now. This, incidentally, is why I was so [I]upset[/I] during the playtest when they said something to the effect of, "If Fighter is 100% combat, Rogue is 80% combat and 60% utility, and Wizard is 50% combat 50% utility." The problem with this design concept is that, in practice, EVERYONE needs to be able to branch out and embrace EVERY pillar of play, otherwise you're going to end up with one-trick-ponies who can (potentially) even get shown up at their one and only trick. Well, there are really four options: 1. Nerf spellcasters until they're on the level of martials. This would piss off a lot of people and is thus not tenable. 2. [I]Actually[/I] make everyone spellcasters, so no one is left out. This would generate a [I]worse[/I] backlash than 4e got, and is thus not tenable. 3. Try (again) to nerf magic, the "I can violate the laws of reality" mechanic, while keeping martials bound by those rules. This has, demonstrably, not worked despite repeated efforts, and is thus not particularly tenable. 4. [I]Give martials something else[/I]. Something that isn't magic--something that magic [I]can't do[/I]--but that doesn't [I]nerf[/I] magic in the process. You see examples of #4 in both 4e (where Martial characters got their own Powers, different from caster classes), and in the Pathfinder "Spheres of Might" alternate rules. SoM is a pretty much straight buff to martial characters, with all sorts of potent and unique talents mostly available only to non-casters; it also came after the Spheres of Power alternate rules, which HEAVILY nerf the versatility of casters while actually [I]increasing[/I] their baseline potency. (All Vancian spells are gone; spellcasters get a fixed, limited number of magic talents, which can each do one specific thing; talents are organized by the thematic/mechanical "sphere" they fit into, and require spell points to activate; spell points are overall MUCH more precious than spell slots are even in 5e.) You also see an example of #4 in early-edition D&D, where Fighters transcended their individual limits by becoming [I]lords and ladies[/I], holding land, having retainers, collecting taxes, etc.: the Fighter "growing beyond" mere mundane fighting. More or less, we can't go back to spotlight balance the way things are now. We either have to fundamentally change what "magic" means in D&D, and risk stoking caster fans' ire; or power up martials one way or another, with exactly the same risk; or accept that martials will never [I]quite[/I] keep up with casters, but we can put some bandaids on it and otherwise stem the bleeding so that, with enough DM elbow grease, we can hope nobody will notice. (Open secret: [I]people still notice. A lot. Hence this thread.[/I]) Nope. It's because combat is a "pillar" of the game, and people get bored when forced to endure stuff they don't contribute meaningfully to. But if you open that door even a smidgen, magic blows it wide open, because [I]that's literally how it's designed to behave: it breaks rules by making up its own new rules whenever it feels like.[/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll
Top