the current 5e model, where the martials just run up and then there's a sort of big pack of melee types standing still and swinging away with their weapons.
This has not been my experience, and I've played in two 5e campaigns using the flanking variant rule (as well as two without it, to be clear).
My average size group is 8 people (7 to 9) so I have to build big encounters with lots of moving parts, and the last time anyone "lined up" it was because it was in a 9 foot wide castle hallway.
if the terrain allows it, my folks use it. They have a rule about 10' of space per person they use (party established).
That said, if I were to play with a new group, they likely would bunch up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
the current 5e model, where the martials just run up and then there's a sort of big pack of melee types standing still and swinging away with their weapons.
This has not been my experience, and I've played in two 5e campaigns using the flanking variant rule (as well as two without it, to be clear).
That’s interesting. We don’t use flanking, and our melee types usually run up, slug it out until the enemy drops or they do, then on to the next. Other characters are moving about, trying to stay out of melee. But the fighters engage and pretty much stay there.
People love extrapolating from particular 5e rules. For example, my groups have all reached the conclusion that you can't cover up the visible and audible components of a spell, because the Subtle Spell metamagic does just that. Using this model, we can "add" things to Fighters that are really just taking things away from everyone else. Here's some ideas.
Determination: You can remain standing (not prone) after taking (PB x 10) or more damage in a single turn.
Battlefield Analyst: You can track the positions of creatures who leave your sight as long as they haven't successfully Hidden from you. You still lose track of a creature when it moves at least 500 feet away from you.
Self-Assured: NPCs will believe that you CAN handle a problem, if you say you will.
Trusted Tactician: In combat, you can direct friendly NPCs who can see or hear you to take any action of which they're capable. (Ex: Cast Magic Missile at 2nd level on that guy!) You can also direct them to move to spaces they can reach. They will follow your directions on their turns if they can.
Weapon Expert: If there are weapon dealers, armor dealers, or blacksmiths in a settlement you're in, you can find them. You know about werewolves and silvered weapons, and you know about resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from non-magical weapons, though you might not know which monsters have it. You even know that one weird rule that Rakshasas have, about piercing damage from a lawful creature or whatever. If you see a lycanthrope and it's not in its human form, you know what it is. If you see a rakshasa and it's in its true form, you know what it is.
Always Ready: You can don or doff a shield as a reaction when you roll initiative, as long as you make a big deal about forgetting whether you had it equipped or not.
Practiced Battlefield Communication: Friendly creatures always know exactly how many hit points you have, unless you choose to hide it.
Personally, I don't really like restricting classes and like to extend as much flexibility as possible for minor details like this to all types of builds. To go with the old and famous saying "Buff Martials. Don't nerf casters!"
Also, no offense but these are all minor tweaks. I'm not sure how much they do to address the full disparity at play here.
the current 5e model, where the martials just run up and then there's a sort of big pack of melee types standing still and swinging away with their weapons.
This has not been my experience, and I've played in two 5e campaigns using the flanking variant rule (as well as two without it, to be clear).
It's been mine. And I've also played with and without flanking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
if your Casters burn down a target and you don't do as much damage is not a bad thing guess what else you are not wasting. you are not wasting a short rest to spend hit dice. you are not prematurely wasting an action surge. you also do not have to watch spell slots or spell points the way casters do nor do fighters have to worry about a monster saving versus their melee attack.
remember this is supposed to be a cooperative venture not a competitive contest
the current 5e model, where the martials just run up and then there's a sort of big pack of melee types standing still and swinging away with their weapons.
This has not been my experience, and I've played in two 5e campaigns using the flanking variant rule (as well as two without it, to be clear).
That’s interesting. We don’t use flanking, and our melee types usually run up, slug it out until the enemy drops or they do, then on to the next. Other characters are moving about, trying to stay out of melee. But the fighters engage and pretty much stay there.
I use the facing optional rule where you get advantage for attacking people in the back. That means PC's and Monsters will try to go for that back attack while they also try to hold the line and don't let the opponents get to the squishy casters, at least without getting in an attack of opportunity.
The issues with the Fighter are quite involved and complex, but oddly enough have actually very little to do with the class (or other classes).
In a nutshell, there are 3 core problems.
1. Encounter design and the CR system 2. The general strength of the pillars of the mechanic (Ability Scores, Hit Points and Alpha Strike issue) 3. Generous DM's
First, the core premise here is that martial's are weak but really the fundamental cause of that is comparison to other classes, not the class itself. Classes that are more powerful than Fighters have limited resources and the comparison is always done assuming full resources. Meaning, a Wizard for example has powerful spells, which they can execute, but it is a spent resource. Fighters have no such problem, they are effectively an unlimited resource. Consider comparing a Fighter to a Wizard with no spells, who is stronger and by how much. I bet a 5th level fighter could kill with relative ease a 20th-level Wizard with no spells.
The second thing to consider is the CR system. The CR system is based on the assumption that the characters should feel powerful, hence when you use CR math to figure out encounters, they are going to be pretty low challenge even if you go hard or even deadly (at higher levels). This is not a bug but a feature of the CR system because part of that design is that you are supposed to have 6 to 8 fights per day. If you have that many fights, the Fighter will be up to the challenge, never running out of resources, the other classes are going to tap out pretty quickly.
Finally, the third thing is generous DM's. I know very little about anyone's games and I bet I could make predictions most of which would be accurate for most games about some of the ways the DM's are being very generous. Re-rolling hit points at level-up, using very generous systems for creating ability scores, when monsters attack they don't go for squishy targets (aka no one screams "Kill the Mage 1st") even though every fight the adventuring party will always focus down powerful casters, enemies never focus fire to take out members of the group even though players always do this.
Stuff like that adds to the growing number of things that offset the CR system and the general power levels of characters.
In short, you don't need to fix the fighter, you just need to understand how CR math works and make some adjustments so that its math produces good challenging fights without having to alter the game or alter the way you run adventures/campaigns.
Three simple things will make Fighters an important and balanced class in the game. Do the following when making characters.
1. Roll 3d6 for ability scores. 2. Roll for Hit Points at 1st level and never allow re-rolls for hit points on level up (force the statistical average). 3. Use Gritty Realism rules so that a short rest takes 1 day and a long rest takes 7 days. This will allow you to have 6-8 fights as the CR system intends except 1 adventuring day is actually 7 adventure days so you can logically do this in the course of the adventure without trying to force wierd scenarios where the characters spend the whole day getting into fights. 6-8 fights spread over 7 in game days is actually quite reasonable, most adventures would work out that way anyway.
Implement that and 3 things will happen.
1. Characters will become far more reliant on the martial class's ability to contribute a steady stream of attacks & damage, saving "power moves" like spells for when they are needed as you will have to conserve your resources. This solves as a whole in one fell swoop the Alpha Strike Problem and CR math problem.
2. Characters will be overall much squishier, making classes like Wizards and Sorcerers soft glass cannons that rely on Fighters to protect and save their butts. Classes like Clerics and Druids will need to make sure they have heals ready, so they won't be able to drop "damage bombs" as often... In general the entire party is going to have to be far more coordinated and dedicated to their roles.
3. The drama, anxiety and fear in the game will increase 10 fold with the wonderful side effect of making published adventures actually challenging (they become quite hard) and having a CR system that works perfectly and being able to be far more generous with treasure-like magic items as they will now play a much bigger role in the game.
The issues with the Fighter are quite involved and complex, but oddly enough have actually very little to do with the class (or other classes).
In a nutshell, there are 3 core problems.
1. Encounter design and the CR system 2. The general strength of the pillars of the mechanic (Ability Scores, Hit Points and Alpha Strike issue) 3. Generous DM's
First, the core premise here is that martial's are weak but really the fundamental cause of that is comparison to other classes, not the class itself. Classes that are more powerful than Fighters have limited resources and the comparison is always done assuming full resources. Meaning, a Wizard for example has powerful spells, which they can execute, but it is a spent resource. Fighters have no such problem, they are effectively an unlimited resource. Consider comparing a Fighter to a Wizard with no spells, who is stronger and by how much. I bet a 5th level fighter could kill with relative ease a 20th-level Wizard with no spells.
The second thing to consider is the CR system. The CR system is based on the assumption that the characters should feel powerful, hence when you use CR math to figure out encounters, they are going to be pretty low challenge even if you go hard or even deadly (at higher levels). This is not a bug but a feature of the CR system because part of that design is that you are supposed to have 6 to 8 fights per day. If you have that many fights, the Fighter will be up to the challenge, never running out of resources, the other classes are going to tap out pretty quickly.
Finally, the third thing is generous DM's. I know very little about anyone's games and I bet I could make predictions most of which would be accurate for most games about some of the ways the DM's are being very generous. Re-rolling hit points at level-up, using very generous systems for creating ability scores, when monsters attack they don't go for squishy targets (aka no one screams "Kill the Mage 1st") even though every fight the adventuring party will always focus down powerful casters, enemies never focus fire to take out members of the group even though players always do this.
Stuff like that adds to the growing number of things that offset the CR system and the general power levels of characters.
In short, you don't need to fix the fighter, you just need to understand how CR math works and make some adjustments so that its math produces good challenging fights without having to alter the game or alter the way you run adventures/campaigns.
Three simple things will make Fighters an important and balanced class in the game. Do the following when making characters.
1. Roll 3d6 for ability scores. 2. Roll for Hit Points at 1st level and never allow re-rolls for hit points on level up (force the statistical average). 3. Use Gritty Realism rules so that a short rest takes 1 day and a long rest takes 7 days. This will allow you to have 6-8 fights as the CR system intends except 1 adventuring day is actually 7 adventure days so you can logically do this in the course of the adventure without trying to force wierd scenarios where the characters spend the whole day getting into fights. 6-8 fights spread over 7 in game days is actually quite reasonable, most adventures would work out that way anyway.
Implement that and 3 things will happen.
1. Characters will become far more reliant on the martial class's ability to contribute a steady stream of attacks & damage, saving "power moves" like spells for when they are needed as you will have to conserve your resources. This solves as a whole in one fell swoop the Alpha Strike Problem and CR math problem.
2. Characters will be overall much squishier, making classes like Wizards and Sorcerers soft glass cannons that rely on Fighters to protect and save their butts. Classes like Clerics and Druids will need to make sure they have heals ready, so they won't be able to drop "damage bombs" as often... In general the entire party is going to have to be far more coordinated and dedicated to their roles.
3. The drama, anxiety and fear in the game will increase 10 fold with the wonderful side effect of making published adventures actually challenging (they become quite hard) and having a CR system that works perfectly and being able to be far more generous with treasure-like magic items as they will now play a much bigger role in the game.
Do be sure to get your players to agree to all of this, and ideally enthusiastically, of course.
It isn’t just an “implement this” scenario — it is a “everyone has to agree to this”.
The example you give with a 5th level fighter and a mage out of spell slots is weaksauce for 5e. Because Mages have special abilities, and Clerics (the specific issue here) have the ability to look up to the heavens or down to the hells and say “yo, need a hand here” — even when they don’t have spell slots.
Really light, but also, Clerics have.a good chunk of hit points, right between fighter and mage in 5e.
Now, you could argue that “it should be” such that the fighter is supposed to eat them without spell slots, but as you did here, it is more about the internal construction of the game rather than helping the OP to solve their problem, which it turns out was more about feeling like they were able to contribute and compete with other characters.
We agree that the comparative is poor — don’t compare martials to casters, and don’t compare either of them to half caster/half martial, and don’t do it at max resources — do it at the baseline, which is no resources. WHich also means no weapons or armor for a fighter if it means no spells for the mage.
(The fighter will win unless bad rolls get in the way, because they usually have strength to add to those fists and still get in more attacks).
Your solution however, guts the fantasy part that is a huge part of what the OP was looking for. That *fantasy* part, for the OP, is about being able to stand against a horde and surviving the huge battles.
What you offered is a more “realistic” (within the confines of the game) solution — and that is pretty much the opposite of what the OP was seeking, so your suggested outcomes are entirely against the goals and objectives of the idea of “fix martials” — because you probably looked at it as a UA type of question “how do we change the game to enable martials”.
Oddly enough, the OP does note that they *personally* don’t mind the more gritty, lower magic stuff, but the rest of their play group doesn’t like that style. You would have been better off saying “find a new group”.
The “gritty realism” rules only work for a small subset of players of D&D, overall.
Now, in terms of changing the game, your approach is fine, but like I said, it sacrifices the fantasy part for a lot of folks. There is another option one could try instead though. It isn’t a nerf, but it does create much of the same kinds of results, and creates a more strategic game on the part of the mages: casting times.
Set casting time to match the spell level, and make it part of the action economy — this spell takes this many actions, that spell takes that many actions. Cantrips and 1st level spells might take one actions, 2nd and 3rd level spells might take 2 actions, and so on. Allow them to use a move action as a sacrifice — they can cast a 2 action spell now, but they are stuck in one place while they do it. Higher level spells take longer than a single turn to cast, even if you do sacrifice your movement action.
DOign that also allows you to get rid of concentration as a limiting factor (if you want to), or shift it where it should go to spells that really need it for reasons other than combat balance.
Suddenly the big spells might be coming in a single turn but you have super great targets that can’t take a dodge action. Flip it around to the ouster side, and you have a build up structure in place where the minions are defending before the BBEG launches a big spell *which everyone knows is coming*, creating drama and suspense and a sense of time pressure.
huh. Look at that — it even fits the traditional representation of magic in books and films.
and gives even more weight to, um, gritty realism.
No need to take away the fantasy of amazing scores. No need to make characters squishier. No need to gut the most popular premise. And you still keep all the 5e stuff while suddenly the martials end up taking on a huge chunk and the value of half-caster utility is raised in the short term increments, the buffs are more important because the martials have to survive the minions, and healing becomes a more important resource while also still having a need for those bigger spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
We agree that the comparative is poor — don’t compare martials to casters, and don’t compare either of them to half caster/half martial, and don’t do it at max resources — do it at the baseline, which is no resources. WHich also means no weapons or armor for a fighter if it means no spells for the mage.
Well, the comparison of a fully equipped fighter to a mage with no spells is a real scenario that can and will happen if you only get your spells back every 7 days and are having 6-8 fights in between barring cantrips of course.
Set casting time to match the spell level, and make it part of the action economy — this spell takes this many actions, that spell takes that many actions. Cantrips and 1st level spells might take one actions, 2nd and 3rd level spells might take 2 actions, and so on. Allow them to use a move action as a sacrifice — they can cast a 2 action spell now, but they are stuck in one place while they do it. Higher level spells take longer than a single turn to cast, even if you do sacrifice your movement action.
The thing that I always try to do when adjusting a games balance is not change any rules that apply to the game or use optional rules that have been tested. In this case the only difference are character creation rules which only apply during character creation (fire and forget) and the use of an option rule that is actually an official option rule.
The application as such is virtually no rules change for maximum impact. Not that your idea is bad or anything, but I want the players handbook to be a valid rulebook for the players as written. Its sort of my own personal pre-requisite for changes to a game.
Also to be clear, these ARE the rules I play 5e with when I have in the past played it and it had the exact effect as described. So its not exactly untested, but I agree, suggestions are just that, an option to consider. I have no intent to "insist" on anyone using this approach, but it does work.
As for the fantasy of power, you still get that, just, later. 5e characters still very much become more powerful as you level, you do get stat bumps as you go and eventually, you are going to be bad ass but as you go the CR toolkit will work as designed. Which begs the question, if that is in fact the case, than perhaps this method is closer to the intention of the game than the one that was released. I mean, when you think about it, its a pretty straightforward fix, yet the impact is that the game just becomes infinitely more balanced and the architecture of the CR system, monster design.. all of it, suddenly become applicable as written without adjustment.
Think about how often DM's complain and note how difficult it is to challenge players and how often they struggle to increase the difficulty of the game. You don't have to look very far to see this pattern of complaints and requests about the games lack of challenge on this forum.
Oddly enough, my use of that actions system arose out of the use of an official option, lol.
And that’s a fair basis for changes. You are making the game your own.
“Get it later”, though, in that system assumes your character survives that long. And they are still dealing with a game until then that is the opposite of those power fantasies as described by the OP.
Who wants it now. Not later.
Who wants it at 1st level and 3rd level and 5th level and 7th level and 9th level — the levels that two thirds of the games are played at.
breaks the fantasy unless that’s the play style you want — and while the OP is fine with it, the rest of the table isn’t, so in this case the goal is to meet the rest of the table’s desires while meeting the OP’s.
(that’s why I asked all those questions and helped them narrow it down to what they did want.)
It isn’t that your suggestion is bad. I have played lots of games like that. It is that it doesn’t solve the OP’s problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Three simple things will make Fighters an important and balanced class in the game. Do the following when making characters.
1. Roll 3d6 for ability scores. 2. Roll for Hit Points at 1st level and never allow re-rolls for hit points on level up (force the statistical average). 3. Use Gritty Realism rules so that a short rest takes 1 day and a long rest takes 7 days. This will allow you to have 6-8 fights as the CR system intends except 1 adventuring day is actually 7 adventure days so you can logically do this in the course of the adventure without trying to force wierd scenarios where the characters spend the whole day getting into fights. 6-8 fights spread over 7 in game days is actually quite reasonable, most adventures would work out that way anyway.
The idea that this helps fighters is nonsensical. It just hurts everyone. I'm unclear on if you are doing it in order, or letting people arrange them how they want. But even if you let them arrange, the gal who wants to play a fighter rolled a high score to put in str, but didn't get anything else above a 12, so they have a low-to-mediocre con, and then they rolled a 1 for hit points. Now your fighter has 1-2 hp, and really, a fighter with 2 hp (or even 5hp) is in a way riskier position than a wizard with 1 hp.
Don't get me wrong, I've been playing for 40 years, and I have fond memories of rolling for stats, and it's still my preferred method for character generation. But 3d6, you end you with a half dozen sets of rolls before you actually get a viable character. And that's if you're lucky. Going back to a punishingly difficult method doesn't make the game any more balanced, and it certainly doesn't make it more fun. It just screws everyone. One good stat, and you can actually still be a decent wizard. But fighters need str or dex and con. A wizard without con can just run away from everyone, which is what they were going to do anyway. A fighter with a bad con is a dead fighter.
Rolling for hp on level up doesn't force the statistical average. You are rolling, at max, 20 times for hp. That is not near enough rolls to reach a statistical average.
Screwing everyone equally isn't the same as helping people.
The idea that this helps fighters is nonsensical. It just hurts everyone. I'm unclear on if you are doing it in order, or letting people arrange them how they want. But even if you let them arrange, the gal who wants to play a fighter rolled a high score to put in str, but didn't get anything else above a 12, so they have a low-to-mediocre con, and then they rolled a 1 for hit points. Now your fighter has 1-2 hp, and really, a fighter with 2 hp (or even 5hp) is in a way riskier position than a wizard with 1 hp.
Don't get me wrong, I've been playing for 40 years, and I have fond memories of rolling for stats, and it's still my preferred method for character generation. But 3d6, you end you with a half dozen sets of rolls before you actually get a viable character. And that's if you're lucky. Going back to a punishingly difficult method doesn't make the game any more balanced, and it certainly doesn't make it more fun. It just screws everyone. One good stat, and you can actually still be a decent wizard. But fighters need str or dex and con. A wizard without con can just run away from everyone, which is what they were going to do anyway. A fighter with a bad con is a dead fighter.
Rolling for hp on level up doesn't force the statistical average. You are rolling, at max, 20 times for hp. That is not near enough rolls to reach a statistical average.
Screwing everyone equally isn't the same as helping people.
Do you know that weird phenomenon, I don't know what it is called, but when you have been driving on the freeway doing 90 for 3 hours and then suddenly you get off the freeway onto regular roads and suddenly everything feels like it's in slow motion even though you're actually doing 60 still and the speed limit is 50.
What you kind of describing is that phenomenon in game terms.
For example, the term viable character suggests a comparison to something. Your average roll is going to be a 10, you might roll a 4 on one thing and a 15 on another but you are going to have a viable character within the context of the new power level. You would have to get pretty unlucky to have a completely ****** character, especially with the background ability score improvements. I'm not suggesting that if someone does in fact roll a complete botch job you force them to deal with it and play it but in all the years playing I've never had anyone accept a free re-do and some of the best characters ever penned in my gameworld came from traggically bad characters that players insisted on playing.
Don't get me wrong, I've been playing for 40 years, and I have fond memories of rolling for stats, and it's still my preferred method for character generation. But 3d6, you end you with a half dozen sets of rolls before you actually get a viable character. And that's if you're lucky. Going back to a punishingly difficult method doesn't make the game any more balanced, and it certainly doesn't make it more fun. It just screws everyone. One good stat, and you can actually still be a decent wizard. But fighters need str or dex and con. A wizard without con can just run away from everyone, which is what they were going to do anyway. A fighter with a bad con is a dead fighter.
This really isn't about nostalgia or memories, for me this is present-day and modern mechanics. It is of course preference to a degree, but it's definitely about balance, though not in the sense of even, but balance in the sense of the CR system as written. It is definitely balanced for that. It is really not that punishing, what you end up with is a character that is an intricate member of a team, that is for sure, there are not going to be any real standouts. You are definitely giving up some control as a player, but if the result is a challenging and engaging game where you have to actually think about your build, your tactics, your equipment, the dangers you're facing, about the cohesion of the group. All those and so much more gain serious value as a result of this lower-power mode. I don't think that is screwing anyone, I think it shows the players a great deal of respect and assumes they are intelligent and clever enough to figure out how to succeed despite a respectful challenge.
I will grant you that rolling hit points at level 1 is quite harsh and even I would probably only do it with a group of hardened veterans or ones that asked for it. However every time I ran 5e for my campaign world which included the last group I ran for, a group of newbies, they insisted on it when they learned that past groups used the structure. I think it's an inherent thing in players to be challenged, they want to see if they can succeed especially in a game world like mine that has something of a reputation in my gaming circles. There is a certain pride of pulling it off and a bit of healthy competition among the players and yeah, you are not wrong, plenty of characters have perished trying to reach the Isle of Dread or taking on the Lord of Shadows. I don't recall anyone ever complaining that they were killed by bad luck or that they felt "screwed" though.
Of the 5e games I ran for my game world, the most popular classes were Barbarian, Fighter and Sorcerer. Wizards were considered amazing but difficult to play and I believe most agreed that a Cleric or Druid was an absolute must in every group.
I'll agree that some variant of the gritty realism resting rule addresses a lot of problems. But, as AEDorsay so adroitly put it,
"Do be sure to get your players to agree to all of this, and ideally enthusiastically, of course."
Because what you're doing here IS nerfing casters. That the casters need a nerf is neither here nor there. Here's what you have to understand about casters in this game: players like them better broken. Players want them to be broken. Players don't want to play them if they're not broken.
the current 5e model, where the martials just run up and then there's a sort of big pack of melee types standing still and swinging away with their weapons.
This has not been my experience, and I've played in two 5e campaigns using the flanking variant rule (as well as two without it, to be clear).
That’s interesting. We don’t use flanking, and our melee types usually run up, slug it out until the enemy drops or they do, then on to the next. Other characters are moving about, trying to stay out of melee. But the fighters engage and pretty much stay there.
Oh, I'm not arguing that people with melee weapons don't use them at melee range. What I'm getting at is that it's fairly rare for an enemy to withstand more than a round of melee punishment. Let's say half of them can. And with those, you can still pivot around them without provoking, which is good for acquiring half cover against ranged attacks, if nothing else.
Here's a free tip to any DMs in the audience. Provoke opportunity attacks. Honestly, just pretend like they don't exist. Why? 1. If you only attack the melee characters, the fact that they have more HP on average isn't really doing them any good. In practical terms they are LESS durable than their ranged partners -- they can withstand fewer battles in a row. Also, the casters will never have a reason to take short rests if they're not getting hurt. 2. If players are never tempted to use their reactions aggressively, they'll become casters to get Shield and Absorb Elements. 3. One monster getting the opportunity attack opens the door for all the other monsters to slip by unharmed. 4. Players enjoy taking opportunity attacks. 5. It ends fights more quickly.
I'll agree that some variant of the gritty realism resting rule addresses a lot of problems. But, as AEDorsay so adroitly put it,
"Do be sure to get your players to agree to all of this, and ideally enthusiastically, of course."
Because what you're doing here IS nerfing casters. That the casters need a nerf is neither here nor there. Here's what you have to understand about casters in this game: players like them better broken. Players want them to be broken. Players don't want to play them if they're not broken.
Do you know what the difference between liked DM's and good DM's is?
Liked DM's give the players what they want because they think that it makes a game good, good DM's give players what they need because they know what makes a good game.
I'll agree that some variant of the gritty realism resting rule addresses a lot of problems. But, as AEDorsay so adroitly put it,
"Do be sure to get your players to agree to all of this, and ideally enthusiastically, of course."
Because what you're doing here IS nerfing casters. That the casters need a nerf is neither here nor there. Here's what you have to understand about casters in this game: players like them better broken. Players want them to be broken. Players don't want to play them if they're not broken.
Do you know what the difference between liked DM's and good DM's is?
Liked DM's give the players what they want because they think that it makes a game good, good DM's give players what they need because they know what makes a good game.
A liked DM and a good DM are not mutually exclusive.
I'll agree that some variant of the gritty realism resting rule addresses a lot of problems. But, as AEDorsay so adroitly put it,
"Do be sure to get your players to agree to all of this, and ideally enthusiastically, of course."
Because what you're doing here IS nerfing casters. That the casters need a nerf is neither here nor there. Here's what you have to understand about casters in this game: players like them better broken. Players want them to be broken. Players don't want to play them if they're not broken.
Do you know what the difference between liked DM's and good DM's is?
Liked DM's give the players what they want because they think that it makes a game good, good DM's give players what they need because they know what makes a good game.
A liked DM and a good DM are not mutually exclusive.
True enough, but a good DM that initially creates a good platform for fair gameplay will keep a group together far easier than a DM that wants to be liked and gives the players everything they want. Will the DM that restricts classes lose any number of players? You bet. But in the long run, that DM's game will be better, and last.
Subjective. Several DM's who give players whatever they want have many long running games that continue to grow as fast as games that have a slightly different (ie "good") approach.
The catch in your basis is the presumption that "liked" is not equivalent or inclusive of "good" -- both are good, both are liked, and it is the liked and good that blows the subjective understanding out of the water.
You are placing a judgment on quality that has no foundation, using terms that have little to do with quality, and everything to do with preference and personality.
This is especially important when dealing with the measurable preference for "broken" casters (an assessment I might question) that exists in both "good" games and "liked" games -- it is player stuff that applies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I'll agree that some variant of the gritty realism resting rule addresses a lot of problems. But, as AEDorsay so adroitly put it,
"Do be sure to get your players to agree to all of this, and ideally enthusiastically, of course."
Because what you're doing here IS nerfing casters. That the casters need a nerf is neither here nor there. Here's what you have to understand about casters in this game: players like them better broken. Players want them to be broken. Players don't want to play them if they're not broken.
Do you know what the difference between liked DM's and good DM's is?
Liked DM's give the players what they want because they think that it makes a game good, good DM's give players what they need because they know what makes a good game.
A liked DM and a good DM are not mutually exclusive.
True enough, but a good DM that initially creates a good platform for fair gameplay will keep a group together far easier than a DM that wants to be liked and gives the players everything they want. Will the DM that restricts classes lose any number of players? You bet. But in the long run, that DM's game will be better, and last.
Subjective. Several DM's who give players whatever they want have many long running games that continue to grow as fast as games that have a slightly different (ie "good") approach.
The catch in your basis is the presumption that "liked" is not equivalent or inclusive of "good" -- both are good, both are liked, and it is the liked and good that blows the subjective understanding out of the water.
You are placing a judgment on quality that has no foundation, using terms that have little to do with quality, and everything to do with preference and personality.
This is especially important when dealing with the measurable preference for "broken" casters (an assessment I might question) that exists in both "good" games and "liked" games -- it is player stuff that applies.
Let me put it another way.
WOTC itself states that the average "campaign" lasts 6 sessions, before a table breaks up. Now, the reasons for such tables breaking up is myriad. Anyone around the hobby for any length of time has heard them all. And among them is "the game got boring", "char X was uber-powered compared to the rest", and of course "the DM got burned out". The existence of this thread is an example of one of those reasons.
Why do those things happen? Because the DM was unable to provide a challenging game, because some char builds DO break games. And how does a good DM handle that situation? That DM analyzes the situation, and in the majority of cases, bans or nerfs that char build. It is far far easier to nerf specific builds rather than buff everything else. A good DM may...no WILL, alienate some players, who spend all kinds of effort crafting the perfect char. Many of those players will leave, accusing the DM of being "adversarial, and a bad DM". Those that remain, and the replacements of those that leave, those players will enjoy a game that is more balanced, more fair, with a less stressed DM.
I had a look at my 1e AD&D PHB. On page 40 it describes that recovering a spell requires 15 min per spell level per spell slot. As I posted earlier, that geometrically nerfs caster. If the 5e PHB had that blurb in it 10 years ago, no one would say boo about it, and much of this martial/caster discussion would never have happened.
I have two games: a pbp that has been running over three years with daily activity and only a 2 month hiatus when one of my players needed to focus on their dissertation, and a live game that has been running for almost 2 years with weekly or bi-weekly sessions depending on the ever shifting nurse schedule. I allow every official publication for player options in both games, allow some homebrew, and ask for feedback from my players that I act on. Everyone seems to be having fun in both games, there are no complaints of the game being boring, that they feel others on the team are overpowered, and I do not feel burned out.
I have two games: a pbp that has been running over three years with daily activity and only a 2 month hiatus when one of my players needed to focus on their dissertation, and a live game that has been running for almost 2 years with weekly or bi-weekly sessions depending on the ever shifting nurse schedule. I allow every official publication for player options in both games, allow some homebrew, and ask for feedback from my players that I act on. Everyone seems to be having fun in both games, there are no complaints of the game being boring, that they feel others on the team are overpowered, and I do not feel burned out.
Am I a liked DM or a good DM in your estimation?
You have my vote for good DM. I say if you can run a 5e game for 2 years and everyone is happy, you must be doing a good job.
According to Wizards of the Coast you are the exception, not the rule. Last time I checked the stats where something like 90% of campaigns go unfinished and end inside of a year.
I'll agree that some variant of the gritty realism resting rule addresses a lot of problems. But, as AEDorsay so adroitly put it,
"Do be sure to get your players to agree to all of this, and ideally enthusiastically, of course."
Because what you're doing here IS nerfing casters. That the casters need a nerf is neither here nor there. Here's what you have to understand about casters in this game: players like them better broken. Players want them to be broken. Players don't want to play them if they're not broken.
Do you know what the difference between liked DM's and good DM's is?
Liked DM's give the players what they want because they think that it makes a game good, good DM's give players what they need because they know what makes a good game.
A liked DM and a good DM are not mutually exclusive.
True enough, but a good DM that initially creates a good platform for fair gameplay will keep a group together far easier than a DM that wants to be liked and gives the players everything they want. Will the DM that restricts classes lose any number of players? You bet. But in the long run, that DM's game will be better, and last.
Subjective. Several DM's who give players whatever they want have many long running games that continue to grow as fast as games that have a slightly different (ie "good") approach.
The catch in your basis is the presumption that "liked" is not equivalent or inclusive of "good" -- both are good, both are liked, and it is the liked and good that blows the subjective understanding out of the water.
You are placing a judgment on quality that has no foundation, using terms that have little to do with quality, and everything to do with preference and personality.
This is especially important when dealing with the measurable preference for "broken" casters (an assessment I might question) that exists in both "good" games and "liked" games -- it is player stuff that applies.
Let me put it another way.
WOTC itself states that the average "campaign" lasts 6 sessions, before a table breaks up. Now, the reasons for such tables breaking up is myriad. Anyone around the hobby for any length of time has heard them all. And among them is "the game got boring", "char X was uber-powered compared to the rest", and of course "the DM got burned out". The existence of this thread is an example of one of those reasons.
Why do those things happen? Because the DM was unable to provide a challenging game, because some char builds DO break games. And how does a good DM handle that situation? That DM analyzes the situation, and in the majority of cases, bans or nerfs that char build. It is far far easier to nerf specific builds rather than buff everything else. A good DM may...no WILL, alienate some players, who spend all kinds of effort crafting the perfect char. Many of those players will leave, accusing the DM of being "adversarial, and a bad DM". Those that remain, and the replacements of those that leave, those players will enjoy a game that is more balanced, more fair, with a less stressed DM.
I had a look at my 1e AD&D PHB. On page 40 it describes that recovering a spell requires 15 min per spell level per spell slot. As I posted earlier, that geometrically nerfs caster. If the 5e PHB had that blurb in it 10 years ago, no one would say boo about it, and much of this martial/caster discussion would never have happened.
Vastly improved, if coming at it from a different direction.
Good seems to equate to experienced, in this case; as a point of reference, it might be a more useful word than the deeply subjective "good".
Not challenging, but I would like a citation for the 6 session bit. historically, research on gamers sets it at around 9 to 12 (which places my entire last 40 years as a massive outlier that skews the mean), so if WotC has different data, I am curious to see it. Totally understand if you don't recall or have it handy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Vastly improved, if coming at it from a different direction.
Good seems to equate to experienced, in this case; as a point of reference, it might be a more useful word than the deeply subjective "good".
Not challenging, but I would like a citation for the 6 session bit. historically, research on gamers sets it at around 9 to 12 (which places my entire last 40 years as a massive outlier that skews the mean), so if WotC has different data, I am curious to see it. Totally understand if you don't recall or have it handy.
We hear these statements all the time and while I don't want to cast doubt as this information must come from somewhere, which is claimed to include directly from Wizards of the Coasts in interviews, to the best of my knowledge the actual results of the Player Activity surveys are and never have been published.
This has not been my experience, and I've played in two 5e campaigns using the flanking variant rule (as well as two without it, to be clear).
Nor mine.
My average size group is 8 people (7 to 9) so I have to build big encounters with lots of moving parts, and the last time anyone "lined up" it was because it was in a 9 foot wide castle hallway.
if the terrain allows it, my folks use it. They have a rule about 10' of space per person they use (party established).
That said, if I were to play with a new group, they likely would bunch up.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
That’s interesting. We don’t use flanking, and our melee types usually run up, slug it out until the enemy drops or they do, then on to the next. Other characters are moving about, trying to stay out of melee. But the fighters engage and pretty much stay there.
Personally, I don't really like restricting classes and like to extend as much flexibility as possible for minor details like this to all types of builds. To go with the old and famous saying "Buff Martials. Don't nerf casters!"
Also, no offense but these are all minor tweaks. I'm not sure how much they do to address the full disparity at play here.
It's been mine. And I've also played with and without flanking.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.if your Casters burn down a target and you don't do as much damage is not a bad thing guess what else you are not wasting. you are not wasting a short rest to spend hit dice. you are not prematurely wasting an action surge. you also do not have to watch spell slots or spell points the way casters do nor do fighters have to worry about a monster saving versus their melee attack.
remember this is supposed to be a cooperative venture not a competitive contest
I use the facing optional rule where you get advantage for attacking people in the back. That means PC's and Monsters will try to go for that back attack while they also try to hold the line and don't let the opponents get to the squishy casters, at least without getting in an attack of opportunity.
The issues with the Fighter are quite involved and complex, but oddly enough have actually very little to do with the class (or other classes).
In a nutshell, there are 3 core problems.
1. Encounter design and the CR system
2. The general strength of the pillars of the mechanic (Ability Scores, Hit Points and Alpha Strike issue)
3. Generous DM's
First, the core premise here is that martial's are weak but really the fundamental cause of that is comparison to other classes, not the class itself. Classes that are more powerful than Fighters have limited resources and the comparison is always done assuming full resources. Meaning, a Wizard for example has powerful spells, which they can execute, but it is a spent resource. Fighters have no such problem, they are effectively an unlimited resource. Consider comparing a Fighter to a Wizard with no spells, who is stronger and by how much. I bet a 5th level fighter could kill with relative ease a 20th-level Wizard with no spells.
The second thing to consider is the CR system. The CR system is based on the assumption that the characters should feel powerful, hence when you use CR math to figure out encounters, they are going to be pretty low challenge even if you go hard or even deadly (at higher levels). This is not a bug but a feature of the CR system because part of that design is that you are supposed to have 6 to 8 fights per day. If you have that many fights, the Fighter will be up to the challenge, never running out of resources, the other classes are going to tap out pretty quickly.
Finally, the third thing is generous DM's. I know very little about anyone's games and I bet I could make predictions most of which would be accurate for most games about some of the ways the DM's are being very generous. Re-rolling hit points at level-up, using very generous systems for creating ability scores, when monsters attack they don't go for squishy targets (aka no one screams "Kill the Mage 1st") even though every fight the adventuring party will always focus down powerful casters, enemies never focus fire to take out members of the group even though players always do this.
Stuff like that adds to the growing number of things that offset the CR system and the general power levels of characters.
In short, you don't need to fix the fighter, you just need to understand how CR math works and make some adjustments so that its math produces good challenging fights without having to alter the game or alter the way you run adventures/campaigns.
Three simple things will make Fighters an important and balanced class in the game. Do the following when making characters.
1. Roll 3d6 for ability scores.
2. Roll for Hit Points at 1st level and never allow re-rolls for hit points on level up (force the statistical average).
3. Use Gritty Realism rules so that a short rest takes 1 day and a long rest takes 7 days. This will allow you to have 6-8 fights as the CR system intends except 1 adventuring day is actually 7 adventure days so you can logically do this in the course of the adventure without trying to force wierd scenarios where the characters spend the whole day getting into fights. 6-8 fights spread over 7 in game days is actually quite reasonable, most adventures would work out that way anyway.
Implement that and 3 things will happen.
1. Characters will become far more reliant on the martial class's ability to contribute a steady stream of attacks & damage, saving "power moves" like spells for when they are needed as you will have to conserve your resources. This solves as a whole in one fell swoop the Alpha Strike Problem and CR math problem.
2. Characters will be overall much squishier, making classes like Wizards and Sorcerers soft glass cannons that rely on Fighters to protect and save their butts. Classes like Clerics and Druids will need to make sure they have heals ready, so they won't be able to drop "damage bombs" as often... In general the entire party is going to have to be far more coordinated and dedicated to their roles.
3. The drama, anxiety and fear in the game will increase 10 fold with the wonderful side effect of making published adventures actually challenging (they become quite hard) and having a CR system that works perfectly and being able to be far more generous with treasure-like magic items as they will now play a much bigger role in the game.
Do be sure to get your players to agree to all of this, and ideally enthusiastically, of course.
It isn’t just an “implement this” scenario — it is a “everyone has to agree to this”.
The example you give with a 5th level fighter and a mage out of spell slots is weaksauce for 5e. Because Mages have special abilities, and Clerics (the specific issue here) have the ability to look up to the heavens or down to the hells and say “yo, need a hand here” — even when they don’t have spell slots.
Really light, but also, Clerics have.a good chunk of hit points, right between fighter and mage in 5e.
Now, you could argue that “it should be” such that the fighter is supposed to eat them without spell slots, but as you did here, it is more about the internal construction of the game rather than helping the OP to solve their problem, which it turns out was more about feeling like they were able to contribute and compete with other characters.
We agree that the comparative is poor — don’t compare martials to casters, and don’t compare either of them to half caster/half martial, and don’t do it at max resources — do it at the baseline, which is no resources. WHich also means no weapons or armor for a fighter if it means no spells for the mage.
(The fighter will win unless bad rolls get in the way, because they usually have strength to add to those fists and still get in more attacks).
Your solution however, guts the fantasy part that is a huge part of what the OP was looking for. That *fantasy* part, for the OP, is about being able to stand against a horde and surviving the huge battles.
What you offered is a more “realistic” (within the confines of the game) solution — and that is pretty much the opposite of what the OP was seeking, so your suggested outcomes are entirely against the goals and objectives of the idea of “fix martials” — because you probably looked at it as a UA type of question “how do we change the game to enable martials”.
Oddly enough, the OP does note that they *personally* don’t mind the more gritty, lower magic stuff, but the rest of their play group doesn’t like that style. You would have been better off saying “find a new group”.
The “gritty realism” rules only work for a small subset of players of D&D, overall.
Now, in terms of changing the game, your approach is fine, but like I said, it sacrifices the fantasy part for a lot of folks. There is another option one could try instead though. It isn’t a nerf, but it does create much of the same kinds of results, and creates a more strategic game on the part of the mages: casting times.
Set casting time to match the spell level, and make it part of the action economy — this spell takes this many actions, that spell takes that many actions. Cantrips and 1st level spells might take one actions, 2nd and 3rd level spells might take 2 actions, and so on. Allow them to use a move action as a sacrifice — they can cast a 2 action spell now, but they are stuck in one place while they do it. Higher level spells take longer than a single turn to cast, even if you do sacrifice your movement action.
DOign that also allows you to get rid of concentration as a limiting factor (if you want to), or shift it where it should go to spells that really need it for reasons other than combat balance.
Suddenly the big spells might be coming in a single turn but you have super great targets that can’t take a dodge action. Flip it around to the ouster side, and you have a build up structure in place where the minions are defending before the BBEG launches a big spell *which everyone knows is coming*, creating drama and suspense and a sense of time pressure.
huh. Look at that — it even fits the traditional representation of magic in books and films.
and gives even more weight to, um, gritty realism.
No need to take away the fantasy of amazing scores. No need to make characters squishier. No need to gut the most popular premise. And you still keep all the 5e stuff while suddenly the martials end up taking on a huge chunk and the value of half-caster utility is raised in the short term increments, the buffs are more important because the martials have to survive the minions, and healing becomes a more important resource while also still having a need for those bigger spells.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Well, the comparison of a fully equipped fighter to a mage with no spells is a real scenario that can and will happen if you only get your spells back every 7 days and are having 6-8 fights in between barring cantrips of course.
The thing that I always try to do when adjusting a games balance is not change any rules that apply to the game or use optional rules that have been tested. In this case the only difference are character creation rules which only apply during character creation (fire and forget) and the use of an option rule that is actually an official option rule.
The application as such is virtually no rules change for maximum impact. Not that your idea is bad or anything, but I want the players handbook to be a valid rulebook for the players as written. Its sort of my own personal pre-requisite for changes to a game.
Also to be clear, these ARE the rules I play 5e with when I have in the past played it and it had the exact effect as described. So its not exactly untested, but I agree, suggestions are just that, an option to consider. I have no intent to "insist" on anyone using this approach, but it does work.
As for the fantasy of power, you still get that, just, later. 5e characters still very much become more powerful as you level, you do get stat bumps as you go and eventually, you are going to be bad ass but as you go the CR toolkit will work as designed. Which begs the question, if that is in fact the case, than perhaps this method is closer to the intention of the game than the one that was released. I mean, when you think about it, its a pretty straightforward fix, yet the impact is that the game just becomes infinitely more balanced and the architecture of the CR system, monster design.. all of it, suddenly become applicable as written without adjustment.
Think about how often DM's complain and note how difficult it is to challenge players and how often they struggle to increase the difficulty of the game. You don't have to look very far to see this pattern of complaints and requests about the games lack of challenge on this forum.
Oddly enough, my use of that actions system arose out of the use of an official option, lol.
And that’s a fair basis for changes. You are making the game your own.
“Get it later”, though, in that system assumes your character survives that long. And they are still dealing with a game until then that is the opposite of those power fantasies as described by the OP.
Who wants it now. Not later.
Who wants it at 1st level and 3rd level and 5th level and 7th level and 9th level — the levels that two thirds of the games are played at.
breaks the fantasy unless that’s the play style you want — and while the OP is fine with it, the rest of the table isn’t, so in this case the goal is to meet the rest of the table’s desires while meeting the OP’s.
(that’s why I asked all those questions and helped them narrow it down to what they did want.)
It isn’t that your suggestion is bad. I have played lots of games like that. It is that it doesn’t solve the OP’s problem.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The idea that this helps fighters is nonsensical. It just hurts everyone. I'm unclear on if you are doing it in order, or letting people arrange them how they want. But even if you let them arrange, the gal who wants to play a fighter rolled a high score to put in str, but didn't get anything else above a 12, so they have a low-to-mediocre con, and then they rolled a 1 for hit points. Now your fighter has 1-2 hp, and really, a fighter with 2 hp (or even 5hp) is in a way riskier position than a wizard with 1 hp.
Don't get me wrong, I've been playing for 40 years, and I have fond memories of rolling for stats, and it's still my preferred method for character generation. But 3d6, you end you with a half dozen sets of rolls before you actually get a viable character. And that's if you're lucky. Going back to a punishingly difficult method doesn't make the game any more balanced, and it certainly doesn't make it more fun. It just screws everyone. One good stat, and you can actually still be a decent wizard. But fighters need str or dex and con. A wizard without con can just run away from everyone, which is what they were going to do anyway. A fighter with a bad con is a dead fighter.
Rolling for hp on level up doesn't force the statistical average. You are rolling, at max, 20 times for hp. That is not near enough rolls to reach a statistical average.
Screwing everyone equally isn't the same as helping people.
Do you know that weird phenomenon, I don't know what it is called, but when you have been driving on the freeway doing 90 for 3 hours and then suddenly you get off the freeway onto regular roads and suddenly everything feels like it's in slow motion even though you're actually doing 60 still and the speed limit is 50.
What you kind of describing is that phenomenon in game terms.
For example, the term viable character suggests a comparison to something. Your average roll is going to be a 10, you might roll a 4 on one thing and a 15 on another but you are going to have a viable character within the context of the new power level. You would have to get pretty unlucky to have a completely ****** character, especially with the background ability score improvements. I'm not suggesting that if someone does in fact roll a complete botch job you force them to deal with it and play it but in all the years playing I've never had anyone accept a free re-do and some of the best characters ever penned in my gameworld came from traggically bad characters that players insisted on playing.
This really isn't about nostalgia or memories, for me this is present-day and modern mechanics. It is of course preference to a degree, but it's definitely about balance, though not in the sense of even, but balance in the sense of the CR system as written. It is definitely balanced for that. It is really not that punishing, what you end up with is a character that is an intricate member of a team, that is for sure, there are not going to be any real standouts. You are definitely giving up some control as a player, but if the result is a challenging and engaging game where you have to actually think about your build, your tactics, your equipment, the dangers you're facing, about the cohesion of the group. All those and so much more gain serious value as a result of this lower-power mode. I don't think that is screwing anyone, I think it shows the players a great deal of respect and assumes they are intelligent and clever enough to figure out how to succeed despite a respectful challenge.
I will grant you that rolling hit points at level 1 is quite harsh and even I would probably only do it with a group of hardened veterans or ones that asked for it. However every time I ran 5e for my campaign world which included the last group I ran for, a group of newbies, they insisted on it when they learned that past groups used the structure. I think it's an inherent thing in players to be challenged, they want to see if they can succeed especially in a game world like mine that has something of a reputation in my gaming circles. There is a certain pride of pulling it off and a bit of healthy competition among the players and yeah, you are not wrong, plenty of characters have perished trying to reach the Isle of Dread or taking on the Lord of Shadows. I don't recall anyone ever complaining that they were killed by bad luck or that they felt "screwed" though.
Of the 5e games I ran for my game world, the most popular classes were Barbarian, Fighter and Sorcerer. Wizards were considered amazing but difficult to play and I believe most agreed that a Cleric or Druid was an absolute must in every group.
I'll agree that some variant of the gritty realism resting rule addresses a lot of problems. But, as AEDorsay so adroitly put it,
"Do be sure to get your players to agree to all of this, and ideally enthusiastically, of course."
Because what you're doing here IS nerfing casters. That the casters need a nerf is neither here nor there. Here's what you have to understand about casters in this game: players like them better broken. Players want them to be broken. Players don't want to play them if they're not broken.
Oh, I'm not arguing that people with melee weapons don't use them at melee range. What I'm getting at is that it's fairly rare for an enemy to withstand more than a round of melee punishment. Let's say half of them can. And with those, you can still pivot around them without provoking, which is good for acquiring half cover against ranged attacks, if nothing else.
Here's a free tip to any DMs in the audience. Provoke opportunity attacks. Honestly, just pretend like they don't exist. Why? 1. If you only attack the melee characters, the fact that they have more HP on average isn't really doing them any good. In practical terms they are LESS durable than their ranged partners -- they can withstand fewer battles in a row. Also, the casters will never have a reason to take short rests if they're not getting hurt. 2. If players are never tempted to use their reactions aggressively, they'll become casters to get Shield and Absorb Elements. 3. One monster getting the opportunity attack opens the door for all the other monsters to slip by unharmed. 4. Players enjoy taking opportunity attacks. 5. It ends fights more quickly.
Do you know what the difference between liked DM's and good DM's is?
Liked DM's give the players what they want because they think that it makes a game good, good DM's give players what they need because they know what makes a good game.
A liked DM and a good DM are not mutually exclusive.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Subjective. Several DM's who give players whatever they want have many long running games that continue to grow as fast as games that have a slightly different (ie "good") approach.
The catch in your basis is the presumption that "liked" is not equivalent or inclusive of "good" -- both are good, both are liked, and it is the liked and good that blows the subjective understanding out of the water.
You are placing a judgment on quality that has no foundation, using terms that have little to do with quality, and everything to do with preference and personality.
This is especially important when dealing with the measurable preference for "broken" casters (an assessment I might question) that exists in both "good" games and "liked" games -- it is player stuff that applies.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I have two games: a pbp that has been running over three years with daily activity and only a 2 month hiatus when one of my players needed to focus on their dissertation, and a live game that has been running for almost 2 years with weekly or bi-weekly sessions depending on the ever shifting nurse schedule. I allow every official publication for player options in both games, allow some homebrew, and ask for feedback from my players that I act on. Everyone seems to be having fun in both games, there are no complaints of the game being boring, that they feel others on the team are overpowered, and I do not feel burned out.
Am I a liked DM or a good DM in your estimation?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
You have my vote for good DM. I say if you can run a 5e game for 2 years and everyone is happy, you must be doing a good job.
According to Wizards of the Coast you are the exception, not the rule. Last time I checked the stats where something like 90% of campaigns go unfinished and end inside of a year.
Vastly improved, if coming at it from a different direction.
Good seems to equate to experienced, in this case; as a point of reference, it might be a more useful word than the deeply subjective "good".
Not challenging, but I would like a citation for the 6 session bit. historically, research on gamers sets it at around 9 to 12 (which places my entire last 40 years as a massive outlier that skews the mean), so if WotC has different data, I am curious to see it. Totally understand if you don't recall or have it handy.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
We hear these statements all the time and while I don't want to cast doubt as this information must come from somewhere, which is claimed to include directly from Wizards of the Coasts in interviews, to the best of my knowledge the actual results of the Player Activity surveys are and never have been published.