Yaarel
🇮🇱He-Mage
My impression is, you only like low level settings. That is a matter of taste.
For other players, high level settings are part of the D&D traditions.
The defacto tiers are four levels each, where the levels 9-12 feel − and have features that are − notably different from 5-8 and 13-16.
Each defacto tier also corresponds to the proficiency bonus, which improves every level. Each tier has feat as a capstone.
The four-level tier of levels 9-12 is important for flavor reasons, but also comes with meaningful mechanical differences from the other tiers. Significant class features can come online during this tier.
If players demand Fighter class options that are more competent at noncombat encounters, designers will make it happen.
For example, because most damage before getting Downed is nonphysical, a Fighter can easily "heal" or rather restore the nonphysical hit points, in the form of morale and first aid.
It is reasonable for a high-level Fighter to deal half damage on a miss. The Fighter technique is simply that effective.
Most spells can have some kind of mundane equivalent.
Teleportation Circle takes a minute to cast and requires planning long before ever casting it.
A "mundane" class might also have an effect like True Sight − to better sense invisible opponents or perceive fraudulent illusions.
As for resource management. Counting arrows, calculating encumbrance, and tracking light sources are examples of unfun resource management. Not everything is fun for everyone.
That said, it is the combat that spellcasting needs to streamline. The noncombat challenges can still have a complex "junkyard" approach.
Yes. That the point.
Also, I do want spellcasters including Wizard to specialize more thematically. I want this for flavor reasons, but it also reduces access to every spell.
Dont make low level challenges for high level characters.
When characters Fly, dont waste time designing pits.
For other players, high level settings are part of the D&D traditions.
As far as I know, only one page in Players Handbook mentions the tiers that way, and nothing else ever refers to it again.Okay, gotta ask. Where you getting those levels? Because 5e is broken into four tiers 1 through 4, 5 to 10, 11 to 16, and 17+. Breaking up the established tiers is odd. Especially for warlock players.
The defacto tiers are four levels each, where the levels 9-12 feel − and have features that are − notably different from 5-8 and 13-16.
Each defacto tier also corresponds to the proficiency bonus, which improves every level. Each tier has feat as a capstone.
The four-level tier of levels 9-12 is important for flavor reasons, but also comes with meaningful mechanical differences from the other tiers. Significant class features can come online during this tier.
I love high level characters. I like tiers 13-16 and 17-20, and want characters that advance thru these tiers. Also, I want 21-24 epic characters to be standard.Either way, still doesn't change that going to level 20 is very likely a sacred cow and not something a core book wants to abolish without very good reason. No matter if you consider it balanced or not, its something you need to consider in the game design. And if there will be more outrage over it or not.
Fighters getting complex noncombat abilities has everything to do with upper tiers, when their fellow partymembers who are spellcasters are gaining powerful noncombat spells, and lots of low-level slots to spend on noncombat.While there are solid arguments for and against Fighters getting stuff to do in exploration pillar, and how (feat monkey versus the rogue's skill monkey), that has little to do with extending into the higher tiers; its something that needs to be considered from level 1.
Where there is a will, there is a way.Ultimately, the fundamental problem is that Fighters and Rogues are limited by being non-magical classes and there is a more than subtle bias that says that purely physical classes should be limited by purely mundane ability.
If players demand Fighter class options that are more competent at noncombat encounters, designers will make it happen.
For example, because most damage before getting Downed is nonphysical, a Fighter can easily "heal" or rather restore the nonphysical hit points, in the form of morale and first aid.
It is reasonable for a high-level Fighter to deal half damage on a miss. The Fighter technique is simply that effective.
Most spells can have some kind of mundane equivalent.
A Wizard doesnt "just" Teleport. The spell is dangerous if traveling to a less familiar location. Unless someone plans to start fight in their own house or favorite pub, the Teleport spell is useless in combat except to avoid a TPK at the last second.Whereas magic classes lack that caveat. A level 16 fighter needs to walk to get around. A level 16 wizard just teleports. A level 16 artificer builds a flying mount. These are not equal by nature of their very classes.
Teleportation Circle takes a minute to cast and requires planning long before ever casting it.
Combat includes Stealth/Detection and Mobility/Barrier, thus spells like True Sight are combat spells.Likewise, not using spell slots is terrible balancing for spellcasters. A huge chunk of being a wizard is spell management. Knowing when to use that sole level 6 slot on True Sight or save it for Disintegrate or Mass Suggestion. Turning everything utility into a ritual means True Sight is always on AND you still have a pocket Disintegrate. This is just going to ensure caster dominance at higher levels and make martial characters feel even more useless.
A "mundane" class might also have an effect like True Sight − to better sense invisible opponents or perceive fraudulent illusions.
The fact that 95% of players dont bother with tiers 13-16 and 17-20, suggests there are many issues that discourage players.Complexity of spellcasters has never been the issue here. Or, rather, this kind of complexity has never been an issue.
As for resource management. Counting arrows, calculating encumbrance, and tracking light sources are examples of unfun resource management. Not everything is fun for everyone.
That said, it is the combat that spellcasting needs to streamline. The noncombat challenges can still have a complex "junkyard" approach.
WAIT. You just said. COMPLEXITY is a problem at high levels.The fundamental problem with high level casters is the breadth of possible abilities makes it difficult to plan a game around.
Yes. That the point.
Also, I do want spellcasters including Wizard to specialize more thematically. I want this for flavor reasons, but it also reduces access to every spell.
I like high-level settings with high level challenges.Let me give an example. I remember that an adventurer writer for D&D made a level 12 adventure about a temple full of fiends. The party's job was to clear the place out. If the group had a cleric? Forbiddence. Level 6 spell. Could cover the entire building, prevent teleports, and rather quickly killed all fiends in it. Quest over.
Dont make low level challenges for high level characters.
When characters Fly, dont waste time designing pits.