Ranger with silence spell cat on the tip of an arrow. One shot will stop the casting. Also a Gloom Stalker, fighter can stop a caster via supperior innititive and enought arrows to drop them round one.
It's only a tax if you can't play a caster without taking those feats, but you clearly can;
Under the current rules yes, but this thread is about adding a ton more way that martials could block a caster by forcing them to make a concentration saves even more than now - e.g. to cast a spell while grappled, via AoO when casting a spell while an enemy can reach you with a melee attack.
My argument is that if these types of mechanics were added to the game then Worcester & Resilient:Con would absolutely become a feat tax for casters.
Sure, if you're playing a lot of PvP and/or your party isn't willing to lift a finger to help you; the point of casters having more counters is that it's something extra for the group to either use against enemy casters, or to consider in protecting their own.
That means trying to not have your party's Wizard swarmed by zombies, helping them if they do etc. If your party is particularly bad at that, or the Wizard is particularly good at getting into trouble, then by all means pick feats to counter that.
The aim is to make it so that your average caster is in trouble if they get cornered alone without backup, rather than just being able to just cast one spell and guarantee being absolutely fine. If a Wizard ends up picking feats so they can be as reckless as they like, then it's a recklessness tax.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Sure, if you're playing a lot of PvP and/or your party isn't willing to lift a finger to help you;
I strongly disagree here, the majority of PvE combats in D&D have many more melee martial creatures on the enemy's side than on the party's side [anything the players can do, the enemies can also do]. Most D&D parties will have only 1 STR-focused character which means a maximum of 2 creatures grappled at any one point in time, while enemies will normally have 3-4 STR-based creatures ready to run up and cripple the party's casters, and it doesn't require a swarm, it only takes 1 enemy to grapple a caster and to effectively stop them casting spells (unless they pay the feat tax and get Worcester & Resilient:Con). It's just not possible for the martials in the party to prevent that. An honestly, I don't think the people who play martial characters want to spend their turns running back to the casters to grapple and pull them free from some enemy creature. I mean there's a reason 5e is designed so the party doesn't need a dedicated healer, most players want to go do awesome things to kill the bad guys, they don't want to have to babysit the squishy caster. Thinking about it more, I actually think this would have the reverse effect than what you want: martials would be reduced to baby-sitting duty to ensure the casters can pull off their big spells to kill the bad guys.
is it really a feat tax? or is it more of a combat optimization feat tax?
and anyway, considering that a feat "embodies training" and training as a downtime activity "might allow additional training options" (beyond language or tool proficiency), why not just ask to have all the party casters put through boot camp to waive the feat tax? this is time (and gold) spent that they could have used on crafting scrolls and magic items so it balances out. plus, then they can use those now-empty feat slots to explore interesting character-arc feats like actor, fighting initiate, skill expert, musician, chef, etc.
All of these arguments apply to GWM, PAM, and XbowXpert equally. Either all of these are feat:taxes or none of them are. I've had only 1 DM let me get a feat using downtime in 1 instance and it was a HB feat they designed for that purpose not a feat of my choice. So pretty safe to say that a vast majority of games are not going to allow you to pick up any feat and as many feats as you want using downtime.
i wouldn't think much about it to allow someone to pick up actor, chef, dungeon delver, etc if it was explained sufficiently (and especially if i, as the dm, was the one offering the training). but that doesn't make it a throw-away weekend class. a feat is talent plus training. what's so different between that and picking up PAM or Warcaster? not the time involvement and dedication. no, the difference is in how efficiently some of the feats benefit combat. if they've become more than a perk, more than a customization or badge, then maybe they shouldn't be offered as feats. there are other ways to earn power like supernatural gifts, magical weapon effect, or patrons (what, warlocks are the only ones who can shake hands with hags and vampires and unicorns and cults?)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
the majority of PvE combats in D&D have many more melee martial creatures on the enemy's side than on the party's side [anything the players can do, the enemies can also do].
I feel like you're making two pretty big assumptions here that a) that a DM is going to use any option on every creature under their control 100% of the time, or that b) it will be impossible to overcome without feat investment, both pretty big ifs.
What has been proposed are things like having being grappled make it harder to cast spells (e.g- require a concentration check), but that still requires grappling which only some monsters can do on top of attacking (so others have to trade damage like anyone else, which may also mean trading Multiattack). Also they have to succeed in grappling you before you suffer any of the effects, which means either failing the initial saving throw (regular grapple), being hit (for auto-grapple) or both (grapple on hit).
A zombie horde should absolutely seek to drag down anything it can get its clammy undead hands on, but if that's your Wizard then something's gone seriously wrong somewhere. The point is that the Wizard shouldn't feel okay about getting into that kind of situation just because they've got misty step so grappling them is literally impossible now, and concentration to cast in such a situation doesn't mean "can't cast" – if it's grapple escape DC based then the easier hordes are less likely to prevent the casting compared to a more elite enemy that should be able to. The point is that it shouldn't be a sure thing because someone or something is actually trying to stop you.
I know you're opposed to the very concept of the notion of the idea, but at least try to consider it from how it might be implemented, rather than assuming that people are proposing that grappled = antimagic field. 😝
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
the majority of PvE combats in D&D have many more melee martial creatures on the enemy's side than on the party's side [anything the players can do, the enemies can also do].
I feel like you're making two pretty big assumptions here that a) that a DM is going to use any option on every creature under their control 100% of the time, or that b) it will be impossible to overcome without feat investment, both pretty big ifs.
What has been proposed are things like having being grappled make it harder to cast spells (e.g- require a concentration check), but that still requires grappling which only some monsters can do on top of attacking (so others have to trade damage like anyone else, which may also mean trading Multiattack). Also they have to succeed in grappling you before you suffer any of the effects, which means either failing the initial saving throw (regular grapple), being hit (for auto-grapple) or both (grapple on hit).
A zombie horde should absolutely seek to drag down anything it can get its clammy undead hands on, but if that's your Wizard then something's gone seriously wrong somewhere. The point is that the Wizard shouldn't feel okay about getting into that kind of situation just because they've got misty step so grappling them is literally impossible now, and concentration to cast in such a situation doesn't mean "can't cast" – if it's grapple escape DC based then the easier hordes are less likely to prevent the casting compared to a more elite enemy that should be able to. The point is that it shouldn't be a sure thing because someone or something is actually trying to stop you.
I know you're opposed to the very concept of the notion of the idea, but at least try to consider it from how it might be implemented, rather than assuming that people are proposing that grappled = antimagic field. 😝
People have said how they want it to be implemented: if a caster casts a spell then anyone in melee gets an AoO and if they hit they can disrupt the casting of the spell, if a caster is grappled they must make a Con save to cast a spell. I think you mean how it will actually play in combat, so let's take a classic fight as an example:
A party of 4 - a Fighter, a Rogue, a Wizard, a Cleric - are fighting a pair of Trolls guarding a bridge. Initiative: Rogue Troll 1 Cleric Fighter Troll 2 Wizard
Version 1
The Rogue wins initiative and runs up to try and block the path of the Trolls to the casters, they attack without sneak attack as they need to use their positioning to protect the casters.
Troll 1 acts and moves up and gives the beat down on the Rogue hitting twice for 17 damage using up the Rogue's reaction on Uncanny Dodge.
Then the Cleric acts and casts Bless on the others and runs away 30 ft and ends up off the edge of the map.
The Fighter acts and move up to completely block the bridge, and hits the troll.
Troll 2 moves up and beats down on the Rogue, knocking the rogue unconscious.
The wizard fires off some scorching rays then runs away.
Rogue moves to the side getting cover so they can BA Hide and then attack with Sneak Attack.
Troll 1 moves forward into melee with the wizard and beats down on them for 14 damage (AC 20 with Mage Armour + Shield).
Cleric uses Thunderwave to try to push away the troll but it makes the save with a 24, the cleric then runs away.
The Fighter moves up to the troll and tries to shove the troll out of the way (DC=8+4+3 = 15), the troll resists with a 19, then fails on the second attempt with a 9. Then moves to the other side of the troll to try to block the bridge.
Troll 2 moves up to the fighter and hits them for 25 damage with a Crit! and a normal hit.
Wizard realizes they need fire damage to stop the trolls regenerating so moves away and throws some scorching rays at the Troll 1.
Rogue Hides & makes a Sneak Attack
Troll 1 attacks the fighter getting very unlucky and misses all its attacks, it then moves towards the fleeing casters, taking an AoO which misses.
Cleric uses Spiritual weapon to attack Troll 1.
Fighter has a choice: chase Troll 1, leaving Troll 2 free to attack the Cleric, or grapple Troll 2 and leave Troll 1 chasing the Wizard. They decide to chase Troll 1, taking an AoO for another 10 damage. But manage to attack Troll 1 and making it Bloody.
Troll 2 Dashes into melee with the Cleric
Wizard continues running away and fire more scorching rays at Troll 1.
Rogue Dashes after Troll 2 and tries to grapple it to pull it away from Cleric but the Troll saves with an 18
Troll 1 attacks the Fighter knocking Fighter unconscious and running after Wizard.
Cleric tries to Healing Word the Fighter, provoking an AoO which is a critical hit for 20 damage, but gets a 15 con save and the healing word goes through, they can't risk moving away so they Dodge.
Fighter stands up and has to Dash to reach Troll 1.
the rogue is never great in the guard the bridge with your body scenario.
what level is this? assuming 2 trolls, at level 5, this would be rated as a deadly fight, basically, some one might die, is the definition of deadly. if its not a deadly fight, they are level 6, and have level 6 features, subclasses, HP, etc. the fight is considerably less deadly.
no subs, probably for simplicity, but this is very significant across 4 players
no feats either, fairly significant, being two feats per character.
No one scouted or saw this bridge being guarded?
your troll isnt being played properly, trolls are very dumb, barely above animals, there is no reason they would single out the wizard before anything has happened. its really a 1/4 probability, but even assuming smart troll, its ok.
All that said;
0. after initiative, does any one have alert? this allows them to go first (rogue fighter switch or rogue caster switch)
1. how far are npcs? Rogue can light crossbow slow one + trip or poison cunning strike, putting it out of range if the distance is more than 20 feet, they can ready this attack for the first one who moves, taking advantage of hide and advantage. If they chose vex/nick its all on trip/poison.
2. troll starts to move, probably gets hit with sneak attack, is poisoned or tripped. and slowed (or not if they didnt pick this) it can only move 10-20 feet depending on trip or poison choice.
2.1 troll may have no viable target, or disadvantage to attacks, depending on what strike was chosen if within reach, and poisoned. (BTW average dmg of troll versus 20AC is 11, not 14) 7 with disadvantage. So 0-7 damage depending on choices.
3. cleric could have any number of possibilities here. Hard to call it, they could buff AC/Attack create a spirit guardian, possibly have faerie fire from intitiate, If they have ac/tank they could guard part of the bridge. Lets assume, guard bridge by unmoving and spirit guardian, tanky cleric, so they picked warcaster,
4. fighter, runs up uses push weapon, has 2-3 attacks depending on twf, dueling or gwf, uses action surge, will essentially push the troll back into place where fighter+cleric are guarding it, and into spirit guardians, if it wasn't already. Might have sentinel, gwm, pam who knows, but it will be useful no matter which. it has at 1-2 swaps depending on action surge, so if push gets to the bridge easily, they can topple, or cleave, or vex or whatever they want.
5. 2 troll goes, cant move forward, takes spirit guardians dmg again. probably recovers most hp lost, -10-14 health. Who will it attack? its not smart, but If it goes for the cleric, 3 attempts made on cleric, they got armor+shield, 20 ac, and shield spell from initiate. If any hit, they cast shield, its 40% before shield, 15% after, likely they won't take a hit, if they do, they probably make the save. avg dmg is like 3.75 a round on cleric, if they go for the fighter, they probably do more dmg, but fighter has a lot of hp, second wind, might have a shield, 29 is the avg multi if everything hits so 11-16 dmg depending on armor/shield. second wind is 10.5 a round. Cleric got heals if needed.
6. wizard goes, uses some type of flame magic, fireball, flame sphere, whatever, lets just say flame sphere because every round it'll do fire damage.
fight is basically in hand, the trolls are unlikely to get past, or kill the fighter/cleric. they are taking fire dmg every round, save or not.
And I'll point out rogue is pretty subpar here. maybe if I had a sub in mind, but almost any other class would have been better in this situation. That said, you ignored the rogues ability to sneak around and scout. Setting up a precast ambush situation may have made them worthwhile, especially if they will still have surprise rounds. In that case, I think the fight would have went even more smoothly. I guess if rogue has sharpshooter, they can infinitely snipe+debuff. without worrying about Accuracy loss.
Now personally, I wouldn't go for AoO on casting because I think melee mages should exist, but its not really unplayable, or even super difficult for mages to either avoid melee, or build for it not to be a huge deal. Casters aren't weak if they don't choose to be, and they have many options.
why was fighter using shove when push weapon is 100% chance no save, in your scenario? And yeah, its a deadly encounter you created, do chance of fatality. Bad dice rolls can lose this encounter, but thats what deadly means, as well as a higher tactical/strategic requirement
You can center the spell on a point in an area not on an object that can be moved. But any scenario where you would fire an arrow at a Wizard would have to involve you catching him unprepared. That's never going to be the case unless he has high Intelligence and low Wisdom. A 20th level Wizard is prepared anything from a pickpocket to something teleporting out of nowhere to chop his head off from behind. A success still wouldn't guarantee that was the original Wizard!
there is no way to defeat a wizard if he's ready for you. So I don't know why so many pcs run through liches.🤔
because bad guys have a nasty tendency to fight to the 'death' rather than retreat. happens all too often.
Not my bad guys. Not the intelligent ones anyway. NPC Wizards and Liches have survived for eons and have fortified their sanctuaries with multitudes of traps and tricks and even if they somehow managed to confront and kill the spell caster there's no guarantee that was the original. The PC's would likely need a Wish spell or two defeat a 20th level caster who is prepared for them. And they are always prepared.
The first question that comes to mind for me is: if martials are given a way to interrupt casting- in whatever way- would casters then have a way to interrupt a martial's attack sequence?
To be fair, casters can kind of inturrupt a melee's attack sequence with things such as shield and silvery barbs. You can make an argument for bane, as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
The first question that comes to mind for me is: if martials are given a way to interrupt casting- in whatever way- would casters then have a way to interrupt a martial's attack sequence?
To be fair, casters can kind of inturrupt a melee's attack sequence with things such as shield and silvery barbs. You can make an argument for bane, as well.
And literally every control spell like hold person etc., which martials are typically weak against as they don't tend to have high mental saving throws. Casters have dozens of anti-martial options at most spell levels, not to mention lots of saving-throw based damage that still deals half on success, which means they can effectively bypass armour.
Casters are in absolutely no need for more anti-martial options.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
And yeah, its a deadly encounter you created, do chance of fatality. Bad dice rolls can lose this encounter, but thats what deadly means, as well as a higher tactical/strategic requirement
Sorry but I'm confused by your post, you argue this is a deadly encounter but also that if the trolls are played to be completely stupid - not going after the person throwing fire at them which even the dumbest of creatures would realize: "that thing that I'm most weak to, I should stop that happening to me ASAP." or "kill easy to eat thing first, then deal with thing covered in metal" and the players are smart then the encounter is trivially easy.
Two trolls vs a 4-player 5th level party is not "Deadly" it is barely hard even in current 5e - which is what I was using b/c the UA is not finalized yet and there are MANY op abilities which I expect/hope to see nerfed.
No I did not make optimal characters for this particular encounter because that isn't realistic for typical play. In typical play in a campaign 90% of the time, you don't know ahead of time what you are going to be fighting so you will not have the optimal spells, feats, or whatever prepared. No I didn't write a 50 page backstory for a basic example. I'm not at all interested in arguing what the most optimized characters with 100% foreknowledge of an encounter can do in any given situation. I'm interested in what average players with pretty standard characters hanging out drinking beers on a Sunday afternoon would play like, and how the game mechanics would work (or not work) for them. As I previously stated all over this thread, it is trivially easy to build around these proposed mechanics and as such implementing them would make those options suddenly become "must-takes" to avoid the inefficiency displayed in my above examples.
But I'm glad that after all that "what if"-ing the actual point of my argument is something you agree with, so I'm not sure why you spent so much time trying to refute me when you actually agree with me.
An army. JK. Surprise, psionics, magic resistances & bonuses on saving throws. Off the top of my head , these could come from racial traits, magical items (eg, mantle of spell resistance), feats like mage slayer, or protection spells cast on you by fellow casters that provide immunities (eg antimagic shell) or bonuses on saving throws. Also, ranged weapons that can break a caster’s concentration.
The first question that comes to mind for me is: if martials are given a way to interrupt casting- in whatever way- would casters then have a way to interrupt a martial's attack sequence?
To be fair, casters can kind of inturrupt a melee's attack sequence with things such as shield and silvery barbs. You can make an argument for bane, as well.
And literally every control spell like hold person etc., which martials are typically weak against as they don't tend to have high mental saving throws. Casters have dozens of anti-martial options at most spell levels, not to mention lots of saving-throw based damage that still deals half on success, which means they can effectively bypass armour.
Casters are in absolutely no need for more anti-martial options.
quoting for truth. Martials need love. Casters don't need anything other than perhaps being smacked around with the nerf bat in general.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
And yeah, its a deadly encounter you created, do chance of fatality. Bad dice rolls can lose this encounter, but thats what deadly means, as well as a higher tactical/strategic requirement
Sorry but I'm confused by your post, you argue this is a deadly encounter but also that if the trolls are played to be completely stupid - not going after the person throwing fire at them which even the dumbest of creatures would realize: "that thing that I'm most weak to, I should stop that happening to me ASAP." or "kill easy to eat thing first, then deal with thing covered in metal" and the players are smart then the encounter is trivially easy.
Two trolls vs a 4-player 5th level party is not "Deadly" it is barely hard even in current 5e - which is what I was using b/c the UA is not finalized yet and there are MANY op abilities which I expect/hope to see nerfed.
No I did not make optimal characters for this particular encounter because that isn't realistic for typical play. In typical play in a campaign 90% of the time, you don't know ahead of time what you are going to be fighting so you will not have the optimal spells, feats, or whatever prepared. No I didn't write a 50 page backstory for a basic example. I'm not at all interested in arguing what the most optimized characters with 100% foreknowledge of an encounter can do in any given situation. I'm interested in what average players with pretty standard characters hanging out drinking beers on a Sunday afternoon would play like, and how the game mechanics would work (or not work) for them. As I previously stated all over this thread, it is trivially easy to build around these proposed mechanics and as such implementing them would make those options suddenly become "must-takes" to avoid the inefficiency displayed in my above examples.
But I'm glad that after all that "what if"-ing the actual point of my argument is something you agree with, so I'm not sure why you spent so much time trying to refute me when you actually agree with me.
I agree that casters shouldn't be heavily discouraged from melee because I find it limits builds/creativity not because its too hard and will force players to die when they shouldnt, which your example indicates.
So I disagree with the reasoning, That matters because if I agree that this concept makes the game too hard, I would have to apply that elsewhere. I don't just decide if I agree with a conclusion when evaluating the merits of the argument. IE, the purpose is not to win arguments or promote a certain end, its to understand/explore what/how to improve/s the game.
What challenge/difficulty encounters should be, that will vary from player to player. However, I will apply the advice and recommendations given about what to expect from certain fights, because those set what the intent is. Getting closer to that intent is not something that should be avoided.
by the encounter building recommendation, 2 trolls versus 4 players is between a 'hard' and 'deadly' encounter. Here is what players can expect according to reccmendation from each.
Hard. A hard encounter could go badly for the adventurers. Weaker characters might get taken out of the fight, and there’s a slim chance that one or more characters might die.
Deadly. A deadly encounter could be lethal for one or more player characters. Survival often requires good tactics and quick thinking, and the party risks defeat.
so the game is telling you this fight is somewhere between those two cases, the fact it can down or kill people is what its supposed to do. The fact that it requires good tactics, and might kill people playing poorly is whats supposed to happen. So taking a deadlyish fight, and being like, what if the players are missing 2 features, a subclass, play poorly, and the DM plays trolls like tacticians, is a weak argument. That group of players is supposed to have trouble with this fight by definition. I was pointing out it wasn't the fight mechanics that lead to the poor outcome in your example, but poor play (which is what deadly and hard encounters penalize)
note: in my example I didnt play the trolls stupid, I said it should be random/poot, but also that they can deal with it even if they are played smart.
And I didnt optimize the players, I committed/expected very little.
The wizard is assumed to have some type of fire spell, thats highly likely. (and wiz can change spells every day)
fighter had access to push, and is wearing armor. by now they have 4 masteries. and can change masteries each day. Push is one of the best situational non dps masteries (and there aren't a lot of dps masteries)
the rogue is assumed to have a light crossbow.
cleric has chosen the tank path. There are two directions to cleric, tank, or scholar. If you want to be a tank caster, you will take warcaster, thats true even now. You will get shield spell, thats true even now, and your wizard has it for that reason. its basically 50/50 whether cleric has this or not, fact I'd both scholars and heavies would probably have these abilities.
These are far from optimized. Even if the cleric isnt a tank, they will be ok, as long as they play well, it just would involve more things that weren't explicit in the example. A group that plays with only one frontliner likely has other solutions, because one frontliner usually can only delay/distract 1-2 enemies.
As far as why I spent time, its a discussion, you took the time to create 2 possible scenarios to make your point, I did 1 as a counter to the reasoning presented. It matters to me because I don't think deadly/hard fights coming closer to their description should be something we avoid when talking about how to improve the game.
The first question that comes to mind for me is: if martials are given a way to interrupt casting- in whatever way- would casters then have a way to interrupt a martial's attack sequence?
To be fair, casters can kind of inturrupt a melee's attack sequence with things such as shield and silvery barbs. You can make an argument for bane, as well.
And literally every control spell like hold person etc., which martials are typically weak against as they don't tend to have high mental saving throws. Casters have dozens of anti-martial options at most spell levels, not to mention lots of saving-throw based damage that still deals half on success, which means they can effectively bypass armour.
Casters are in absolutely no need for more anti-martial options.
quoting for truth. Martials need love. Casters don't need anything other than perhaps being smacked around with the nerf bat in general.
Quoting for extra truth. Magic user have ways to get everything, high dmg, high ac, battlefield controll and support. Only thing martials will always outshine is hp XD.
On a slightly unrelated note, this is why i get frustrated when people say getting a nat 1 on a spell saving throw should deal more damage. Like a reverse crit.
Also in response to the og thread, as a dm i would love a martial class or subclass in the line of templars from dragon age. That can deal more with magic stuff, not just spells but also magical effects from monsters.
Paralysis like teleportation should probably be shifted to higher levels, perhaps just eliminate Hold Person entirely as I do not understand why it is 2nd level, whereas Hold Monster is 5th! IME it is Hold Person that is the single greatest problem for martial characters, as not only do they lose turns they can be dead-dead before they get a second chance at the save.
Hold person is level 2 because Tradition, though it would still match its name if all it did was apply restrained.
Hold Person is perfectly fine for its level. It's a great teaching tool for a variety of concepts newer players need to learn about this game, such as:
Creature Types Matter in 5e: a big part of its power is offset by the humanoid-only targeting restriction. It also means Creature Types Matter for players too - the first time the player who picked a non-humanoid (e.g. Fey) gets to ignore this is going to feel awesome, like they had uncanny foresight.
Hard Counters Matter in 5e: At the same level Hold Person comes online, so does Lesser Restoration, which shuts it off automatically and which just about every "healer" gets. The first time a player turns off their 'tank's' paralysis, they are going to feel awesome, like a clever problem-solver.
Breaking Concentration Matters in 5e: When an enemy caster lands a HP on the party melee, that is a big signal for everyone else in the party to dogpile that caster and get it shut off so their friend can get back into the fray. The first time the remaining players tactically switch to the enemy caster and break their concentration, they're going to feel awesome, like a cohesive special forces unit.
5e is that type of game though. The game likes to have these rock paper scissors moments, and things that are sometimes really powerful in a specific situation. Like clerics in an undead campaign.
Also, at a baseline, PCs are not npcs, and are not designed to be. Its not a pvp designed game. Thats a totally different type of balancing. Games that are balanced that way, usually must be done that way at inception.
And making new monsters, as a DM is, and always will be a bit of an art, as with building your own campaigns. The DM may mess up when doing this. Also note, as a dm, you have the ability to counterpick/create npcs. You can create npcs that directly target your player's weaknesses. Thats a DM issue, not really a game design problem. Many spells can be OP given the right situation. High stealth/initiative, 4 guys with sleep. Will probably kill/incapacitate the whole party t1. DM needs to be aware of these powerful combos/situations and generally avoid them. (unless its appropriate to the table/story)
Some things are fine if it pops up once in awhile, but obnoxious if many of the enemies you meet have it. Its important for the DM to understand generally, the goal is not to beat the players. The goal is to create or guide a fun and interesting adventure. Luckily the DM can adjust on the fly, change stat blocks add npcs, or whatever they need if they mess up.
If a DM isn't ready to create new monsters/design campaigns, and adjust things live, thats fine, thats what the Monster manual and prebuilt modules are for.
5e is very specifically meant to have spells and abilities that stand out from others in specific situations, in response to the feeling that things were too uniform/overbalanced in 4e. This puts more burden on the DM, but it also creates highs and lows that people apparently felt was important for the game.
Sure it is not a PVP game so it is not balanced like that. The issue isn't about fighting another PC it is fighting NPCs and monsters and dealing with general encounters. Using the rock/paper/scissors analogy above martials are just rocks, casters are rock/paper/scissors and they can see what move the encounter is making in advance. In other words casters when they encounter a creature, a NPC, a environmental problem can have a solution to it the perfect counter to almost anything. They potentially might not as spell prep is a thing, but they can. There probably isn't a situation out there they do not have a solution for. Martials though have tons of situations they can bump into where they literally have nothing they can do about it. They just stand there and wait for the caster to solve the problem. Most of those situations are magical spells and effects. I am not sure why expanding martials capabilities so they can handle a wider range of challenges is such a bad thing to so many people.
Sure it is not a PVP game so it is not balanced like that. The issue isn't about fighting another PC it is fighting NPCs and monsters and dealing with general encounters. Using the rock/paper/scissors analogy above martials are just rocks, casters are rock/paper/scissors and they can see what move the encounter is making in advance. In other words casters when they encounter a creature, a NPC, a environmental problem can have a solution to it the perfect counter to almost anything. They potentially might not as spell prep is a thing, but they can. There probably isn't a situation out there they do not have a solution for. Martials though have tons of situations they can bump into where they literally have nothing they can do about it. They just stand there and wait for the caster to solve the problem. Most of those situations are magical spells and effects. I am not sure why expanding martials capabilities so they can handle a wider range of challenges is such a bad thing to so many people.
This means that casters need a massive nerf, not that martial need a huge boost. If a caster can do everything so there is no point to having martials, then the solution isn't to enable martials to also do everything so that there is no point to having casters because then there is no point in having a party at all. It's now a single-player game where your solo hero is able to tackle every and all challenge by themselves. We need to be more restrictive not less so, we need more nerfs not buffs. Casters should have things they are good at, and martials should have things they are good at, but nobody should be able to be good at everything. Because the party working together is what is fun, everyone bickering over which one of 5 different ways to solve a problem for 1 hour is not fun, and worst of all - casters telling martials not to do stuff while they spend 10 minutes checking if they have a spell that can do it. Geez the number of times while playing 5e, I've been the martial waiting 5+ minutes while the casters read their spell and just gone "I walk over and pick up the thing", is far far too many.
Honestly, utility magic in 5e needs to be nerfed into the ground:
Mage Hand - gone
Find Familiar - gone
Minor Illusion - gone
Disguise Self - 2nd level spell
Invisibility - 3rd level spell
Misty Step - 3rd level spell
Ritual spells - no more everything should cost a spell slot
Likewise the solution to : "X spell takes away my turn which isn't fun" isn't to give every creature a way to take away a player character's turn, it is to get rid of spell X. Combat is slow in 5e, anything that takes away a player's turn is extremely unfun because it means that player is sitting around for 10+ minutes with nothing at all to do. We should be getting rid of / nerfing things that take away a player's turn, not adding more of them.
Creature Types Matter in 5e: a big part of its power is offset by the humanoid-only targeting restriction. It also means Creature Types Matter for players too - the first time the player who picked a non-humanoid (e.g. Fey) gets to ignore this is going to feel awesome, like they had uncanny foresight.
Hard Counters Matter in 5e: At the same level Hold Person comes online, so does Lesser Restoration, which shuts it off automatically and which just about every "healer" gets. The first time a player turns off their 'tank's' paralysis, they are going to feel awesome, like a clever problem-solver.
Breaking Concentration Matters in 5e: When an enemy caster lands a HP on the party melee, that is a big signal for everyone else in the party to dogpile that caster and get it shut off so their friend can get back into the fray. The first time the remaining players tactically switch to the enemy caster and break their concentration, they're going to feel awesome, like a cohesive special forces unit.
1) That is a huge negative, it makes certain species far far far more powerful than others simply because they aren't humanoids. It leaves you with parties full of weird monster characters and no humans in a world dominated by humans. It's not uncanny foresight, it is reading guides on the internet to build an optimized character.
2) It absolutely does not shut if off automatically, Lesser Restoration is Touch, Hold Person has range, Lesser Restoration is one target, Hold Person can be up cast to target multiple creatures. Lesser Restoration wastes the "healers" whole turn just for the enemy caster to simply recast Hold Person again on the next round. This is why even though it's available to many classes almost nobody actually takes Lesser Restoration.
3) This is borderline metagaming, and is another huge benefit to ranged characters over melee.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ranger with silence spell cat on the tip of an arrow. One shot will stop the casting. Also a Gloom Stalker, fighter can stop a caster via supperior innititive and enought arrows to drop them round one.
Sure, if you're playing a lot of PvP and/or your party isn't willing to lift a finger to help you; the point of casters having more counters is that it's something extra for the group to either use against enemy casters, or to consider in protecting their own.
That means trying to not have your party's Wizard swarmed by zombies, helping them if they do etc. If your party is particularly bad at that, or the Wizard is particularly good at getting into trouble, then by all means pick feats to counter that.
The aim is to make it so that your average caster is in trouble if they get cornered alone without backup, rather than just being able to just cast one spell and guarantee being absolutely fine. If a Wizard ends up picking feats so they can be as reckless as they like, then it's a recklessness tax.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I strongly disagree here, the majority of PvE combats in D&D have many more melee martial creatures on the enemy's side than on the party's side [anything the players can do, the enemies can also do]. Most D&D parties will have only 1 STR-focused character which means a maximum of 2 creatures grappled at any one point in time, while enemies will normally have 3-4 STR-based creatures ready to run up and cripple the party's casters, and it doesn't require a swarm, it only takes 1 enemy to grapple a caster and to effectively stop them casting spells (unless they pay the feat tax and get Worcester & Resilient:Con). It's just not possible for the martials in the party to prevent that. An honestly, I don't think the people who play martial characters want to spend their turns running back to the casters to grapple and pull them free from some enemy creature. I mean there's a reason 5e is designed so the party doesn't need a dedicated healer, most players want to go do awesome things to kill the bad guys, they don't want to have to babysit the squishy caster. Thinking about it more, I actually think this would have the reverse effect than what you want: martials would be reduced to baby-sitting duty to ensure the casters can pull off their big spells to kill the bad guys.
i wouldn't think much about it to allow someone to pick up actor, chef, dungeon delver, etc if it was explained sufficiently (and especially if i, as the dm, was the one offering the training). but that doesn't make it a throw-away weekend class. a feat is talent plus training. what's so different between that and picking up PAM or Warcaster? not the time involvement and dedication. no, the difference is in how efficiently some of the feats benefit combat. if they've become more than a perk, more than a customization or badge, then maybe they shouldn't be offered as feats. there are other ways to earn power like supernatural gifts, magical weapon effect, or patrons (what, warlocks are the only ones who can shake hands with hags and vampires and unicorns and cults?)
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
I feel like you're making two pretty big assumptions here that a) that a DM is going to use any option on every creature under their control 100% of the time, or that b) it will be impossible to overcome without feat investment, both pretty big ifs.
What has been proposed are things like having being grappled make it harder to cast spells (e.g- require a concentration check), but that still requires grappling which only some monsters can do on top of attacking (so others have to trade damage like anyone else, which may also mean trading Multiattack). Also they have to succeed in grappling you before you suffer any of the effects, which means either failing the initial saving throw (regular grapple), being hit (for auto-grapple) or both (grapple on hit).
A zombie horde should absolutely seek to drag down anything it can get its clammy undead hands on, but if that's your Wizard then something's gone seriously wrong somewhere. The point is that the Wizard shouldn't feel okay about getting into that kind of situation just because they've got misty step so grappling them is literally impossible now, and concentration to cast in such a situation doesn't mean "can't cast" – if it's grapple escape DC based then the easier hordes are less likely to prevent the casting compared to a more elite enemy that should be able to. The point is that it shouldn't be a sure thing because someone or something is actually trying to stop you.
I know you're opposed to the very concept of the notion of the idea, but at least try to consider it from how it might be implemented, rather than assuming that people are proposing that grappled = antimagic field. 😝
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
People have said how they want it to be implemented: if a caster casts a spell then anyone in melee gets an AoO and if they hit they can disrupt the casting of the spell, if a caster is grappled they must make a Con save to cast a spell. I think you mean how it will actually play in combat, so let's take a classic fight as an example:
A party of 4 - a Fighter, a Rogue, a Wizard, a Cleric - are fighting a pair of Trolls guarding a bridge.
Initiative:
Rogue
Troll 1
Cleric
Fighter
Troll 2
Wizard
Version 1
The Rogue wins initiative and runs up to try and block the path of the Trolls to the casters, they attack without sneak attack as they need to use their positioning to protect the casters.
Troll 1 acts and moves up and gives the beat down on the Rogue hitting twice for 17 damage using up the Rogue's reaction on Uncanny Dodge.
Then the Cleric acts and casts Bless on the others and runs away 30 ft and ends up off the edge of the map.
The Fighter acts and move up to completely block the bridge, and hits the troll.
Troll 2 moves up and beats down on the Rogue, knocking the rogue unconscious.
The wizard fires off some scorching rays then runs away.
Rogue makes their death saving throw
Troll 1 acts & kills the Rogue...
-----------------------------------------------------
Version 2
Rogue moves to the side getting cover so they can BA Hide and then attack with Sneak Attack.
Troll 1 moves forward into melee with the wizard and beats down on them for 14 damage (AC 20 with Mage Armour + Shield).
Cleric uses Thunderwave to try to push away the troll but it makes the save with a 24, the cleric then runs away.
The Fighter moves up to the troll and tries to shove the troll out of the way (DC=8+4+3 = 15), the troll resists with a 19, then fails on the second attempt with a 9. Then moves to the other side of the troll to try to block the bridge.
Troll 2 moves up to the fighter and hits them for 25 damage with a Crit! and a normal hit.
Wizard realizes they need fire damage to stop the trolls regenerating so moves away and throws some scorching rays at the Troll 1.
Rogue Hides & makes a Sneak Attack
Troll 1 attacks the fighter getting very unlucky and misses all its attacks, it then moves towards the fleeing casters, taking an AoO which misses.
Cleric uses Spiritual weapon to attack Troll 1.
Fighter has a choice: chase Troll 1, leaving Troll 2 free to attack the Cleric, or grapple Troll 2 and leave Troll 1 chasing the Wizard. They decide to chase Troll 1, taking an AoO for another 10 damage. But manage to attack Troll 1 and making it Bloody.
Troll 2 Dashes into melee with the Cleric
Wizard continues running away and fire more scorching rays at Troll 1.
Rogue Dashes after Troll 2 and tries to grapple it to pull it away from Cleric but the Troll saves with an 18
Troll 1 attacks the Fighter knocking Fighter unconscious and running after Wizard.
Cleric tries to Healing Word the Fighter, provoking an AoO which is a critical hit for 20 damage, but gets a 15 con save and the healing word goes through, they can't risk moving away so they Dodge.
Fighter stands up and has to Dash to reach Troll 1.
Troll 2 attacks Rogue, hitting once for 7 damage
Wizard throws another Scorching Ray at Troll 1.
...
there is a lot missing in your analysis.
the rogue is never great in the guard the bridge with your body scenario.
what level is this? assuming 2 trolls, at level 5, this would be rated as a deadly fight, basically, some one might die, is the definition of deadly. if its not a deadly fight, they are level 6, and have level 6 features, subclasses, HP, etc. the fight is considerably less deadly.
no subs, probably for simplicity, but this is very significant across 4 players
no feats either, fairly significant, being two feats per character.
No one scouted or saw this bridge being guarded?
your troll isnt being played properly, trolls are very dumb, barely above animals, there is no reason they would single out the wizard before anything has happened. its really a 1/4 probability, but even assuming smart troll, its ok.
All that said;
0. after initiative, does any one have alert? this allows them to go first (rogue fighter switch or rogue caster switch)
1. how far are npcs? Rogue can light crossbow slow one + trip or poison cunning strike, putting it out of range if the distance is more than 20 feet, they can ready this attack for the first one who moves, taking advantage of hide and advantage. If they chose vex/nick its all on trip/poison.
2. troll starts to move, probably gets hit with sneak attack, is poisoned or tripped. and slowed (or not if they didnt pick this) it can only move 10-20 feet depending on trip or poison choice.
2.1 troll may have no viable target, or disadvantage to attacks, depending on what strike was chosen if within reach, and poisoned. (BTW average dmg of troll versus 20AC is 11, not 14) 7 with disadvantage. So 0-7 damage depending on choices.
3. cleric could have any number of possibilities here. Hard to call it, they could buff AC/Attack create a spirit guardian, possibly have faerie fire from intitiate, If they have ac/tank they could guard part of the bridge. Lets assume, guard bridge by unmoving and spirit guardian, tanky cleric, so they picked warcaster,
4. fighter, runs up uses push weapon, has 2-3 attacks depending on twf, dueling or gwf, uses action surge, will essentially push the troll back into place where fighter+cleric are guarding it, and into spirit guardians, if it wasn't already. Might have sentinel, gwm, pam who knows, but it will be useful no matter which. it has at 1-2 swaps depending on action surge, so if push gets to the bridge easily, they can topple, or cleave, or vex or whatever they want.
5. 2 troll goes, cant move forward, takes spirit guardians dmg again. probably recovers most hp lost, -10-14 health. Who will it attack? its not smart, but If it goes for the cleric, 3 attempts made on cleric, they got armor+shield, 20 ac, and shield spell from initiate. If any hit, they cast shield, its 40% before shield, 15% after, likely they won't take a hit, if they do, they probably make the save. avg dmg is like 3.75 a round on cleric, if they go for the fighter, they probably do more dmg, but fighter has a lot of hp, second wind, might have a shield, 29 is the avg multi if everything hits so 11-16 dmg depending on armor/shield. second wind is 10.5 a round. Cleric got heals if needed.
6. wizard goes, uses some type of flame magic, fireball, flame sphere, whatever, lets just say flame sphere because every round it'll do fire damage.
fight is basically in hand, the trolls are unlikely to get past, or kill the fighter/cleric. they are taking fire dmg every round, save or not.
And I'll point out rogue is pretty subpar here. maybe if I had a sub in mind, but almost any other class would have been better in this situation. That said, you ignored the rogues ability to sneak around and scout. Setting up a precast ambush situation may have made them worthwhile, especially if they will still have surprise rounds. In that case, I think the fight would have went even more smoothly. I guess if rogue has sharpshooter, they can infinitely snipe+debuff. without worrying about Accuracy loss.
Now personally, I wouldn't go for AoO on casting because I think melee mages should exist, but its not really unplayable, or even super difficult for mages to either avoid melee, or build for it not to be a huge deal. Casters aren't weak if they don't choose to be, and they have many options.
why was fighter using shove when push weapon is 100% chance no save, in your scenario? And yeah, its a deadly encounter you created, do chance of fatality. Bad dice rolls can lose this encounter, but thats what deadly means, as well as a higher tactical/strategic requirement
You can center the spell on a point in an area not on an object that can be moved. But any scenario where you would fire an arrow at a Wizard would have to involve you catching him unprepared. That's never going to be the case unless he has high Intelligence and low Wisdom. A 20th level Wizard is prepared anything from a pickpocket to something teleporting out of nowhere to chop his head off from behind. A success still wouldn't guarantee that was the original Wizard!
Not my bad guys. Not the intelligent ones anyway. NPC Wizards and Liches have survived for eons and have fortified their sanctuaries with multitudes of traps and tricks and even if they somehow managed to confront and kill the spell caster there's no guarantee that was the original. The PC's would likely need a Wish spell or two defeat a 20th level caster who is prepared for them. And they are always prepared.
To be fair, casters can kind of inturrupt a melee's attack sequence with things such as shield and silvery barbs. You can make an argument for bane, as well.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
And literally every control spell like hold person etc., which martials are typically weak against as they don't tend to have high mental saving throws. Casters have dozens of anti-martial options at most spell levels, not to mention lots of saving-throw based damage that still deals half on success, which means they can effectively bypass armour.
Casters are in absolutely no need for more anti-martial options.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Sorry but I'm confused by your post, you argue this is a deadly encounter but also that if the trolls are played to be completely stupid - not going after the person throwing fire at them which even the dumbest of creatures would realize: "that thing that I'm most weak to, I should stop that happening to me ASAP." or "kill easy to eat thing first, then deal with thing covered in metal" and the players are smart then the encounter is trivially easy.
Two trolls vs a 4-player 5th level party is not "Deadly" it is barely hard even in current 5e - which is what I was using b/c the UA is not finalized yet and there are MANY op abilities which I expect/hope to see nerfed.
No I did not make optimal characters for this particular encounter because that isn't realistic for typical play. In typical play in a campaign 90% of the time, you don't know ahead of time what you are going to be fighting so you will not have the optimal spells, feats, or whatever prepared. No I didn't write a 50 page backstory for a basic example. I'm not at all interested in arguing what the most optimized characters with 100% foreknowledge of an encounter can do in any given situation. I'm interested in what average players with pretty standard characters hanging out drinking beers on a Sunday afternoon would play like, and how the game mechanics would work (or not work) for them. As I previously stated all over this thread, it is trivially easy to build around these proposed mechanics and as such implementing them would make those options suddenly become "must-takes" to avoid the inefficiency displayed in my above examples.
But I'm glad that after all that "what if"-ing the actual point of my argument is something you agree with, so I'm not sure why you spent so much time trying to refute me when you actually agree with me.
An army. JK. Surprise, psionics, magic resistances & bonuses on saving throws. Off the top of my head , these could come from racial traits, magical items (eg, mantle of spell resistance), feats like mage slayer, or protection spells cast on you by fellow casters that provide immunities (eg antimagic shell) or bonuses on saving throws. Also, ranged weapons that can break a caster’s concentration.
Started playing AD&D in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in 2023
quoting for truth. Martials need love. Casters don't need anything other than perhaps being smacked around with the nerf bat in general.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I agree that casters shouldn't be heavily discouraged from melee because I find it limits builds/creativity not because its too hard and will force players to die when they shouldnt, which your example indicates.
So I disagree with the reasoning, That matters because if I agree that this concept makes the game too hard, I would have to apply that elsewhere. I don't just decide if I agree with a conclusion when evaluating the merits of the argument. IE, the purpose is not to win arguments or promote a certain end, its to understand/explore what/how to improve/s the game.
What challenge/difficulty encounters should be, that will vary from player to player. However, I will apply the advice and recommendations given about what to expect from certain fights, because those set what the intent is. Getting closer to that intent is not something that should be avoided.
by the encounter building recommendation, 2 trolls versus 4 players is between a 'hard' and 'deadly' encounter. Here is what players can expect according to reccmendation from each.
so the game is telling you this fight is somewhere between those two cases, the fact it can down or kill people is what its supposed to do. The fact that it requires good tactics, and might kill people playing poorly is whats supposed to happen. So taking a deadlyish fight, and being like, what if the players are missing 2 features, a subclass, play poorly, and the DM plays trolls like tacticians, is a weak argument. That group of players is supposed to have trouble with this fight by definition. I was pointing out it wasn't the fight mechanics that lead to the poor outcome in your example, but poor play (which is what deadly and hard encounters penalize)
note: in my example I didnt play the trolls stupid, I said it should be random/poot, but also that they can deal with it even if they are played smart.
And I didnt optimize the players, I committed/expected very little.
The wizard is assumed to have some type of fire spell, thats highly likely. (and wiz can change spells every day)
fighter had access to push, and is wearing armor. by now they have 4 masteries. and can change masteries each day. Push is one of the best situational non dps masteries (and there aren't a lot of dps masteries)
the rogue is assumed to have a light crossbow.
cleric has chosen the tank path. There are two directions to cleric, tank, or scholar. If you want to be a tank caster, you will take warcaster, thats true even now. You will get shield spell, thats true even now, and your wizard has it for that reason. its basically 50/50 whether cleric has this or not, fact I'd both scholars and heavies would probably have these abilities.
These are far from optimized. Even if the cleric isnt a tank, they will be ok, as long as they play well, it just would involve more things that weren't explicit in the example. A group that plays with only one frontliner likely has other solutions, because one frontliner usually can only delay/distract 1-2 enemies.
As far as why I spent time, its a discussion, you took the time to create 2 possible scenarios to make your point, I did 1 as a counter to the reasoning presented. It matters to me because I don't think deadly/hard fights coming closer to their description should be something we avoid when talking about how to improve the game.
Quoting for extra truth. Magic user have ways to get everything, high dmg, high ac, battlefield controll and support. Only thing martials will always outshine is hp XD.
On a slightly unrelated note, this is why i get frustrated when people say getting a nat 1 on a spell saving throw should deal more damage. Like a reverse crit.
Also in response to the og thread, as a dm i would love a martial class or subclass in the line of templars from dragon age. That can deal more with magic stuff, not just spells but also magical effects from monsters.
Hold Person is perfectly fine for its level. It's a great teaching tool for a variety of concepts newer players need to learn about this game, such as:
All of this.
Sure it is not a PVP game so it is not balanced like that. The issue isn't about fighting another PC it is fighting NPCs and monsters and dealing with general encounters. Using the rock/paper/scissors analogy above martials are just rocks, casters are rock/paper/scissors and they can see what move the encounter is making in advance. In other words casters when they encounter a creature, a NPC, a environmental problem can have a solution to it the perfect counter to almost anything. They potentially might not as spell prep is a thing, but they can. There probably isn't a situation out there they do not have a solution for. Martials though have tons of situations they can bump into where they literally have nothing they can do about it. They just stand there and wait for the caster to solve the problem. Most of those situations are magical spells and effects. I am not sure why expanding martials capabilities so they can handle a wider range of challenges is such a bad thing to so many people.
This means that casters need a massive nerf, not that martial need a huge boost. If a caster can do everything so there is no point to having martials, then the solution isn't to enable martials to also do everything so that there is no point to having casters because then there is no point in having a party at all. It's now a single-player game where your solo hero is able to tackle every and all challenge by themselves. We need to be more restrictive not less so, we need more nerfs not buffs. Casters should have things they are good at, and martials should have things they are good at, but nobody should be able to be good at everything. Because the party working together is what is fun, everyone bickering over which one of 5 different ways to solve a problem for 1 hour is not fun, and worst of all - casters telling martials not to do stuff while they spend 10 minutes checking if they have a spell that can do it. Geez the number of times while playing 5e, I've been the martial waiting 5+ minutes while the casters read their spell and just gone "I walk over and pick up the thing", is far far too many.
Honestly, utility magic in 5e needs to be nerfed into the ground:
Likewise the solution to : "X spell takes away my turn which isn't fun" isn't to give every creature a way to take away a player character's turn, it is to get rid of spell X. Combat is slow in 5e, anything that takes away a player's turn is extremely unfun because it means that player is sitting around for 10+ minutes with nothing at all to do. We should be getting rid of / nerfing things that take away a player's turn, not adding more of them.
1) That is a huge negative, it makes certain species far far far more powerful than others simply because they aren't humanoids. It leaves you with parties full of weird monster characters and no humans in a world dominated by humans. It's not uncanny foresight, it is reading guides on the internet to build an optimized character.
2) It absolutely does not shut if off automatically, Lesser Restoration is Touch, Hold Person has range, Lesser Restoration is one target, Hold Person can be up cast to target multiple creatures. Lesser Restoration wastes the "healers" whole turn just for the enemy caster to simply recast Hold Person again on the next round. This is why even though it's available to many classes almost nobody actually takes Lesser Restoration.
3) This is borderline metagaming, and is another huge benefit to ranged characters over melee.