Given the short adventure days most people use now, I think you could reduce the number of slots on the full caster table by 1 for every spell level at level 17 and below (minimum 1 slot, but some spell levels would come online 1 level later) and still be just fine. That would help shift the balance outside of combats without needing to rewrite everything else.
Welp... One D&D is boosting Wizard versatility even more...
I didn't have time to really read it but my quick scan was not promising on either the martial front or spell caster front. Really do not like where they went with Warlocks.
Have been thinking about this recently and thought it would be cool if pure martials always did full damage on a hit, I don't know quite how balanced this would be, but even then it feels like it's not outrageously more than casters can do considering big AOE things. Not to mention how martials currently have very little utility outside of combat because almost all of that is packaged up in spells and / or INT/WIS/CHA.
Without resource expenditure then magic needs to be nerfed hard to be no better than a skill check.
You can do resource expenditure that isn't hard on the DM -- it just needs to be designed in a way where the players aren't incentivized to game the system. In general recovery should either be "between encounters" or "between adventures", daily recovery is an awkward middle ground.
If you want a game where all classes get powers they can use X time per day then play 4e! The whole design of 5e is that martials get unlimited use / fast recharge abilities that each use of them is less powerful, while casters get limited resources that are more powerful. We can argue about whether casters' resources are sufficiently limited (IMO they are not, casters get way too many spellslots - and DMs are far too kind in the number of LRs parties get) but that's the fundamental design of 5e, to change that is to go back to 4e.
No one is asking for 4e style game with everyone having the same resource uses and powers. What is being said is that since everyone doesn’t have resources to expend you can’t claim that resource use is a fair excuse for spellcasters to be more versatile/ powerful. The games balance is way off because design exceptions were not met. The adventuring day is much shorter giving spellcasters a lot more magic to use. Also some classes were poorly designed for contributing to some pillars of play. There are spells that handle or help with every pillar of play.
1) It's the DM's job to make resource expenditure matter, not WotC's. Your DM controls the encounters you face and the frequency with which you can recover your resources.
The point of rules is to make life easier for the DM. Resource expenditure systems like D&D make life more difficult for the DM (one of the virtues of the Gritty Realism variant in the DMG is that it basically eliminates long rests during adventures).
Without resource expenditure then magic needs to be nerfed hard to be no better than a skill check. I mean getting rid of spell slots entirely and only giving casters cantrips and ritual spells is one solution. I guess, we can all hope that the explosion of new RPG systems by different creators will lead to two distinct game systems: Anime Martial + High Magic (doesn't mutants & masterminds already do something like this?), and Realistic Martial + Weak Magic. So the two factions can both be happy playing different games.
That’s a pipe dream. Mainly because you need people to run those games. If all of us who liked different styles of games left to find one that suited us each game would have a much smaller player base making it harder to find someone to run the games and players to fill the seats.
Actually, just heavy limitations on long rests would solve a lot of problems -- a lot of the flexibility issues are byproducts of spell preparation, which occurs on long rests, so making it really hard to take a long rest would reduce them by a lot.
Actually, just heavy limitations on long rests would solve a lot of problems -- a lot of the flexibility issues are byproducts of spell preparation, which occurs on long rests, so making it really hard to take a long rest would reduce them by a lot.
That would impact people trying to heal quite a bit which would suck for fighters and others who maybe try to take the damage for their party.
Edit to add, if you look at early 5e play tests numbers of spells cast were far more restricted you got multiple level 1 and 2 spells to cast but just 1 3rd and beyond until the highest levels. I think that would solve a lot as well.
Actually, just heavy limitations on long rests would solve a lot of problems -- a lot of the flexibility issues are byproducts of spell preparation, which occurs on long rests, so making it really hard to take a long rest would reduce them by a lot.
Actually, Sorcerer and Warlock preparation occurs on level up now, not long rests. So you're locked into the spells you pick on those classes a lot longer, functionally reverting them to spells known classes.
For Sorcerer, they've gone from having 15 spells known to 22 (24 if you count the two freebies, more if you count racials) which will alleviate the pressure of making mistakes or avoiding utility spells considerably.
Actually, Sorcerer and Warlock preparation occurs on level up now, not long rests.
In 5e, neither of those classes is a serious source of problems -- the big problems are bard, cleric, druid, and wizard, and of those only bard is a known spells caster (it has a great spell list and a quite strong list of non-spellcasting abilities). I would expect sorcerer to be a somewhat larger problem in One D&D because its spell list got improved and spells known got boosted (warlock is...odd).
Finding traps has been moved to the Study action. Yes it use to be spot check back in the day and thus in 5e was a perception check, but many players have argued for investigation rolls, so I guess WotC accepted and as of this playtest are using that rule.
Finding traps has been moved to the Study action. Yes it use to be spot check back in the day and thus in 5e was a perception check, but many players have argued for investigation rolls, so I guess WotC accepted and as of this playtest are using that rule.
I mean, setting aside the fact that almost no one is actually going to stop using Perception to spot traps, the wording on Perception for Search is to detect "concealed objects or creatures", so there's still a decent case to be made for it under the new system.
Finding traps has been moved to the Study action. Yes it use to be spot check back in the day and thus in 5e was a perception check, but many players have argued for investigation rolls, so I guess WotC accepted and as of this playtest are using that rule.
I mean, setting aside the fact that almost no one is actually going to stop using Perception to spot traps, the wording on Perception for Search is to detect "concealed objects or creatures", so there's still a decent case to be made for it under the new system.
But Because of academic a wizard would have advantage on that investigation roll, and more likely to succeed than a rogue. Honestly this debate is pointless since the argument is that a Druid or Cleric with a perception check is better, and thus still a spellcaster better than the rogue at a skill check. This only continues to paint the pictures that spellcasters might be too strong in comparison and other classes need buffs to catch.
Finding traps has been moved to the Study action. Yes it use to be spot check back in the day and thus in 5e was a perception check, but many players have argued for investigation rolls, so I guess WotC accepted and as of this playtest are using that rule.
I mean, setting aside the fact that almost no one is actually going to stop using Perception to spot traps, the wording on Perception for Search is to detect "concealed objects or creatures", so there's still a decent case to be made for it under the new system.
But Because of academic a wizard would have advantage on that investigation roll, and more likely to succeed than a rogue. Honestly this debate is pointless since the argument is that a Druid or Cleric with a perception check is better, and thus still a spellcaster better than the rogue at a skill check. This only continues to paint the pictures that spellcasters might be too strong in comparison and other classes need buffs to catch.
Expertise is about equivalent to Advantage and more consistent, so you're looking at a margin of maybe 2-4 points effective difference on the mod, and with a stronger swing factor. Plus Rogues are very SAD, so it's easy for a player who wants to lean into their mental skills to get a +3 or +4 Ability Score mod in their chosen stat. And Wizards have fewer skill profs, so they could just as easily pass on Investigation if the party already has a Rogue or Ranger with a high Perception mod.
Finding traps has been moved to the Study action. Yes it use to be spot check back in the day and thus in 5e was a perception check, but many players have argued for investigation rolls, so I guess WotC accepted and as of this playtest are using that rule.
I mean, setting aside the fact that almost no one is actually going to stop using Perception to spot traps, the wording on Perception for Search is to detect "concealed objects or creatures", so there's still a decent case to be made for it under the new system.
But Because of academic a wizard would have advantage on that investigation roll, and more likely to succeed than a rogue. Honestly this debate is pointless since the argument is that a Druid or Cleric with a perception check is better, and thus still a spellcaster better than the rogue at a skill check. This only continues to paint the pictures that spellcasters might be too strong in comparison and other classes need buffs to catch.
Expertise is about equivalent to Advantage and more consistent, so you're looking at a margin of maybe 2-4 points effective difference on the mod, and with a stronger swing factor. Plus Rogues are very SAD, so it's easy for a player who wants to lean into their mental skills to get a +3 or +4 Ability Score mod in their chosen stat. And Wizards have fewer skill profs, so they could just as easily pass on Investigation if the party already has a Rogue or Ranger with a high Perception mod.
That’s not a strong argument since Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are SAD. Clerics and Druids will almost always take perception, and every Wizard I’ve played with had investigation, but that’s not a fair scale. Let’s say 50% take investigation. Are we assuming all Rogues take expertise investigation with there first level? At second level all wizards get advantage with all the intelligence skills. So for any rogue that doesn’t take expertise investigation at levels 2 until they take it any wizard is the superior investigator. Even if they take it and have lower Int score than their Wizard it’s a 50% chance (assuming 50% of wizards take investigation) their wizard is the better investigator. The rogue is suppose to be the guy who says I handle skills the best. And that’s true at 11th level, but before that the spell casters are simply better, and they have spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Given the short adventure days most people use now, I think you could reduce the number of slots on the full caster table by 1 for every spell level at level 17 and below (minimum 1 slot, but some spell levels would come online 1 level later) and still be just fine. That would help shift the balance outside of combats without needing to rewrite everything else.
Welp... One D&D is boosting Wizard versatility even more...
I didn't have time to really read it but my quick scan was not promising on either the martial front or spell caster front. Really do not like where they went with Warlocks.
Have been thinking about this recently and thought it would be cool if pure martials always did full damage on a hit, I don't know quite how balanced this would be, but even then it feels like it's not outrageously more than casters can do considering big AOE things. Not to mention how martials currently have very little utility outside of combat because almost all of that is packaged up in spells and / or INT/WIS/CHA.
You can do resource expenditure that isn't hard on the DM -- it just needs to be designed in a way where the players aren't incentivized to game the system. In general recovery should either be "between encounters" or "between adventures", daily recovery is an awkward middle ground.
No one is asking for 4e style game with everyone having the same resource uses and powers. What is being said is that since everyone doesn’t have resources to expend you can’t claim that resource use is a fair excuse for spellcasters to be more versatile/ powerful. The games balance is way off because design exceptions were not met. The adventuring day is much shorter giving spellcasters a lot more magic to use. Also some classes were poorly designed for contributing to some pillars of play. There are spells that handle or help with every pillar of play.
That’s a pipe dream. Mainly because you need people to run those games. If all of us who liked different styles of games left to find one that suited us each game would have a much smaller player base making it harder to find someone to run the games and players to fill the seats.
Actually, just heavy limitations on long rests would solve a lot of problems -- a lot of the flexibility issues are byproducts of spell preparation, which occurs on long rests, so making it really hard to take a long rest would reduce them by a lot.
That would impact people trying to heal quite a bit which would suck for fighters and others who maybe try to take the damage for their party.
Edit to add, if you look at early 5e play tests numbers of spells cast were far more restricted you got multiple level 1 and 2 spells to cast but just 1 3rd and beyond until the highest levels. I think that would solve a lot as well.
Actually, Sorcerer and Warlock preparation occurs on level up now, not long rests. So you're locked into the spells you pick on those classes a lot longer, functionally reverting them to spells known classes.
For Sorcerer, they've gone from having 15 spells known to 22 (24 if you count the two freebies, more if you count racials) which will alleviate the pressure of making mistakes or avoiding utility spells considerably.
In 5e, neither of those classes is a serious source of problems -- the big problems are bard, cleric, druid, and wizard, and of those only bard is a known spells caster (it has a great spell list and a quite strong list of non-spellcasting abilities). I would expect sorcerer to be a somewhat larger problem in One D&D because its spell list got improved and spells known got boosted (warlock is...odd).
Sorcerer getting its spells known buffed was solving a problem, not causing one. 15 spells known over 20 levels was too few.
The problem it was solving was "sorcerers suck compared to wizards". Whacking wizards with a nerf bat would also solve the problem.
Tell that to Sorcerers of the Coast 😛
Rogues shouldn’t look for traps until they get reliable talent in one dnd. That’s the wizard’s job. Lol
Nah, it's usually the cleric's job; just have passive perception that's at least 15 and 90% of traps in modules become nonfactors.
Finding traps has been moved to the Study action. Yes it use to be spot check back in the day and thus in 5e was a perception check, but many players have argued for investigation rolls, so I guess WotC accepted and as of this playtest are using that rule.
I mean, setting aside the fact that almost no one is actually going to stop using Perception to spot traps, the wording on Perception for Search is to detect "concealed objects or creatures", so there's still a decent case to be made for it under the new system.
But Because of academic a wizard would have advantage on that investigation roll, and more likely to succeed than a rogue. Honestly this debate is pointless since the argument is that a Druid or Cleric with a perception check is better, and thus still a spellcaster better than the rogue at a skill check. This only continues to paint the pictures that spellcasters might be too strong in comparison and other classes need buffs to catch.
Expertise is about equivalent to Advantage and more consistent, so you're looking at a margin of maybe 2-4 points effective difference on the mod, and with a stronger swing factor. Plus Rogues are very SAD, so it's easy for a player who wants to lean into their mental skills to get a +3 or +4 Ability Score mod in their chosen stat. And Wizards have fewer skill profs, so they could just as easily pass on Investigation if the party already has a Rogue or Ranger with a high Perception mod.
That’s not a strong argument since Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are SAD. Clerics and Druids will almost always take perception, and every Wizard I’ve played with had investigation, but that’s not a fair scale. Let’s say 50% take investigation. Are we assuming all Rogues take expertise investigation with there first level? At second level all wizards get advantage with all the intelligence skills. So for any rogue that doesn’t take expertise investigation at levels 2 until they take it any wizard is the superior investigator. Even if they take it and have lower Int score than their Wizard it’s a 50% chance (assuming 50% of wizards take investigation) their wizard is the better investigator. The rogue is suppose to be the guy who says I handle skills the best. And that’s true at 11th level, but before that the spell casters are simply better, and they have spells.