WoW/D&D Crossover Possibly Going to be Announced?

 According to this post on EN World, there was an accidental leak of an announcement for what appears to be a World of Warcraft sourcebook for D&D. Naturally, I'd be curious about that given that these two games are (I'd assume) the two that I have posted about the most on this blog (I do still play WoW, but I've felt like I have less to say about it in recent times).

Having played WoW for nearly 20 years (about twice the time I've been playing D&D,) I've often thought about how it would make a fantastic D&D setting. Notably, I'm not the first to think that, as there were official WoW products that came out in I believe the 3.5e era, and possible 4e.

Obviously, WoW is built on a similar structure to D&D, where players create characters who are members of certain races and classes and go on adventures, quests, and delve into dungeons. Warcraft's world is a deep and rich one, with lore that has really grown out from its very simple "orcs versus humans" origins.

While Warcraft began as an RTS series, its third entry added some RPG-like elements, paving the way for the MMO that, for the last 22 years, has been dominant or at least profoundly prominent within the medium (I think FFXIV did overtake it as the biggest subscription-based MMORPG, and of course there are tons of Free-to-Play MMOs that have more players. Not actually sure if FFXIV is still ahead of it or not). It's been in those 22 years of WoW that the story and lore of Warcraft has expanded profoundly, and you'd have far, far more than enough material to get you through a 20-level D&D campaign just by taking some of the stories of its now 11 expansions, before you even consider just coming up with your own original stories.

There's no way that a single sourcebook will be able to cover the entire game as it exists now, with its thirteen classes and 26 playable races.

My best friend and I are both D&D obsessives and longtime WoW players (both of us technically started during vanilla, though I only at the tail end of it and he stopped playing for a bit, picking it up again shortly before Wrath came out) and we've often talked about how to handle various things, re-skinning elements of the game.

Naturally, for classes, there are a lot of clear equivalents. Paladins, Rogues, Druids, Monks, and Warlocks are all in both games. Likewise, Priests are basically Clerics, Mages are basically Wizards, Hunters are basically Rangers, and Warriors are basically Fighters (though you could argue that one of their three specs/subclasses is really more Barbarians). However, it's less obvious how to handle things like Shamans, Death Knights, Demon Hunters, and Evokers (maybe the last one is Draconic Sorcerers?)

I'm not going to hold my breath for a sourcebook like this to add a new class.

However, for species/races, there are a fair number of options. From the get-go, Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes, Goblins, and Orcs are there. Night Elves are basically Wood Elves, Blood Elves are basically High Elves. Then, you can get to re-skinning a bit. I think that the Draenei could use the statistics of the Aasimar without too much trouble (oddly, they sometimes look more like Tieflings - I honestly think Jester from Critical Role's 2nd campaign really looks a lot like a Draenei, and even sounds like one with her vaguely-Greek-ish accent). Reborn can stand in pretty easily for the Undead, and Tauren are really just Warcraft's Minotaurs (if Minotaurs were really chill and nice). The new Lupin from Ravenloft basically gives us the Worgen (which are more specifically just Warcraft's version of werewolves). I think the Duergar could give us our Dark Iron Dwarves. Among the original 8 vanilla races, the only one I might struggle with is the Troll, which doesn't have a very obvious D&D equivalent.

In the Battle For Azeroth expansion (from 2018,) WoW added a huge number of "Allied Races" (including the aforementioned Dark Iron Dwarf) that are mechanically their own thing, but clearly meant as a "variant" on existing options. Some have pretty convenient options existing already in 5E (I think you could do Shadar-Kai as the Void Elves). But I doubt that they're going to work all of these in.

More core, though, are the handful of neutral races - Pandaren were the first (neutral meaning that they can belong to either faction,) and have no clear D&D equivalent. Dracthyr were introduced in 2022's Dragonflight expansion, and are clearly the equivalent of the Dragonborn (though less bulky, and with permanent wings).

One thing the book would maybe need to address is factions: In WoW, each character belongs to one of the two big factions, the Alliance and the Horde. Storywise, the two sides were at war with one another (the Alliance was actually formed to counter the Horde,) but there were ebbs and flows of conflict, often pushing the two to set aside their difference to face a greater threat. In recent years, that conflict has mostly died down, to the point that the current expansion, Midnight, has both factions operating out of one of the Horde's main cities (Silvermoon, home of the Blood Elves).

The restrictions have even lifted to the point where you can actually run dungeons and other content in parties that are mixed between members of the different factions (though "outdoor" content doesn't allow cooperation).

Thus, while I think that the Alliance/Horde division is very important to the lore of the world, I don't think there needs to be any built-in restriction in the rules to prevent you from having parties with, say, Goblins and Dwarves fighting alongside one another.

I'll be curious to see, though, if we get some cool legendary stat blocks for big Warcraft villains. While he's been deader-than-dead for a long time now (with a storyline that really emphasized they would never bring him back,) Arthas Menethil is probably the franchise's most iconic villain, a prince and paladin who allowed his obsession with vengeance to transform him into a death knight and ultimately saw him becoming the Lich King overseeing the undead Scourge that he once fought.

Getting stats for Faceless Ones (n'raqi) and C'thraxxi, the aberrant servants of the evil Old Gods, as well as some of the cool high-tech space demons of the Burning Legion would be really fun.

But I also think it'd be fun to just run lower-level adventures in places like Duskwood or Thousand Needles at the slower, more deliberate pace of D&D.

Anyway, we'll see if and when this book is actually announced.

Cyberpunk 2077

 Yeah, I'm late to the party.

But I guess my algorithm started showing me videos of Mike Pondsmith talking about the process of turning his TTRPG into a video game.

I've always felt a strange kind of disconnect from Cyberpunk as a genre. I've never read Neuromancer or Snow Crash, and I think the aesthetics of the genre aren't really my go-to vision of the future, even a dystopian one.

Futuristic sci-fi does, of course, often comment on the present, and the fact that Cyberpunk as a genre came out in an era in which American leadership grinningly dismantled the New Deal welfare state to empower massive corporations is not, you know, coincidental. Technology was also on a stratospheric rise, and people didn't really know where things would go.

It's a strange thing, because I feel like Cyberpunk got some things really spot-on (the growing power of corporations, the unsustainable privatization and commercialization of everything leading to profound wealth inequality and unaffordability) and some things quite off (Japan entrenching itself as the dominant global cultural force, everyone and their mother getting cybernetic implants).

There's a sequence in Cyberpunk 2077 that gives us a glimpse of 2023, but it's an alternate history version of it (to be fair, the game came out in 2022, so it was technically the "near future" at the time) that conforms to the established lore of the TTRPG - back in the 80s, 2023 seemed like a really long time off. This game, as the name implies, takes place 54 years later. Now, if I play my cards right and manage my health well, I could pretty plausibly live to see 2077. I doubt it'll look like this game does, but then, it's staying true to the genre more than trying to accurately depict the future.

I've just made it to "Act Two" of the game's main story, with Act One's conclusion leading to a real series of twists and turns. The game is an open-world, but the main story still impacts pretty hard. What I don't know is if I've failed to explore some of the game systems, or if they've been holding out on really pushing me toward them until we get a bit of that story underway.

Going pretty hard into Intelligence as a stat, my most powerful weapon is hacking, which I've been using to overheat foes I'm fighting. My stealth abilities aren't amazing, and I'm not sure if that's a skill issue or a matter of stats and character builds. But combat, at least so far (I'm on the normal/standard difficulty) is forgiving enough that I haven't had too many problems (I struggled a bit with a Cyberpsycho, who I kind of wound up cheesing, but I think those are supposed to be the optional, super-difficulty foes).

I'm curious to see to what extent different backgrounds make for different experiences. I've gone Street Rat, as that seems the most classic protagonist archetype for the genre.

I appreciate the ways in which the game doesn't seem to need you to micromanage things. You have a healing item that recharges over time, and your health regenerates out of combat. This isn't a game about carefully managing long-term damage, letting you be a bit more reckless in combat.

Anyway, I finally have enough money (Eddies, or "Eurodollars," the imagined merged currency) to buy some new gear, but I don't yet really know what I should get. I think probably I'll want to invest in cybernetics (and whatever gear governs my hacking abilities). But so far, I haven't really gotten any tutorials on crafting, so I think I wasted some resources making a gun that I thought I'd be able to deconstruct to get said resources.

As a note, I've also been checking out The Ghost in the Shell, a new anime adaptation of, you know, Ghost in the Shell. When I was in college, I watched Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (probably first seeing it on Adult Swim.) This show, and the 1995 movie, were very serious in tone, but evidently the new show is more in keeping with the manga it's based on, with moments of real cartoony silliness, a staple of anime/manga that was always kind of startling to me when watching such things (like Trigun, which can be deadly serious and then have Vash the Stampede have a cat face when he's acting cute).

Like Cyberpunk, I'm not really an "anime guy," but I do enjoy the occasional work of the medium. I liked how deeply philosophical Ghost in the Shell got, and I think that's there in the new show, but with a lot of that weird silliness in there as well.

Reimagining the Rogue

 I love Rogues on a conceptual level, and in other RPGs, I've often gravitated toward them as a kind of secondary archetype (or tertiary - I tend to like heavily armored melee/magic hybirds first and then some kind of spellcaster, often with a "dark" vibe second). In WoW, for example, my Undead Subtlety Rogue was the first I ever got to the then-level cap of 70 in Burning Crusade (19 years ago!) In D&D, at least in 5E, Rogues play a sort of weird role in a group. They're designed primarily as a utility class, but without the magical spells that a Wizard or Artificer brings to the table (though Arcane Tricksters, of course, lean back this way). Thanks to having more skill proficiencies, expertise, and eventually (and coming online earlier now than it did in 5.0) Reliable Talent, they're the "good at skills" class.

Personally, I don't think this really does the premise of the class justice. While it's certainly a cool thing to have, I A: don't think that this is necessarily the first thing you think of when you think of the Rogue as a fantasy archetype and B: seems to justify disempowering them in combat.

To be clear, the math on Rogue damage isn't all that straightforward. For one thing, Sneak Attack damage goes up every two levels, so there's less of a clear "breakpoint" in their damage output. This damage isn't necessarily consistent either: certain combat scenarios will take Sneak Attack off the table, such as if there's any source of disadvantage. Because it's such a giant chunk of a Rogue's damage, though, it also means that if we can find ways to make multiple attacks, this can boost our overall damage output significantly because as long as we hit with one of them, most of our damage is going through (I say most, but this doesn't really become the case until we get to around level 10 or 12).

I think that if we want to make the Rogue work in combat, we've got to make big changes to Sneak Attack - honestly, tearing the whole thing apart and building something with the same name might be the best option.

But, let's not get ahead of ourselves:

One thing I do think is worth preserving is that Rogues should be using lower-damage-die weapons. The classic archetype is a character who wields daggers and shortswords, and the Shortbow is a better fit for a sneaky Rogue (while Longbows are Heavy and thus can benefit from Great Weapon Master, I'm inclined to believe that without that, the fact that Shortbows have Vex make them usually the better weapon in 5.5).

Frankly, the lack of proficiency in higher-damage weapons is the only "price" I think Rogues should pay for getting some kind of source of additional damage. (Rapiers are actually toward the higher damage numbers, though I think probably most Rogues who are going for melee at all are probably dual-wielding a Shortsword and Scimitar).

Part of me wants to create an incentive to wield a dagger at least in the off-hand, but I think we'll just let the Thrown property do that for us (and maybe the Piercer feat).

Crucially, though, this means that the thing we're no longer taking away from the Rogue is that massive boost that all other martial characters (even some subclasses of not-typically-martial classes): Extra Attack.

Honestly, I think this will go a long way toward helping Rogues catch up. It's not enough to fully replace Sneak Attack, obviously, but it's a big start.

But what beyond that?

Well, now we need to address Sneak Attack.

In a vacuum, Sneak Attack adds 3.5 to 35 damage per turn over the course of your leveling journey. The actual number is a little more complicated because of the chance to hit and the chance to miss, as well as the chance that you're not actually going to get it. Actually calculating the chance you get Sneak Attack is kind of impossible, as all manner of scenarios might present themselves.

So, let's consider our first change:

You just get to choose to get Sneak Attack. No requirements to have advantage or an ally nearby, and you don't lose it if you had a source of disadvantage on the attack (as I interpret it, even if you cancel out disadvantage, if there's any source of disadvantage, you're SOL).

What impact would this have, then? I'm going to do a very quick-and-dirty version of my "vs Wyvern" calculations here: if we had a +9 to hit (not unreasonable for a level 10 Rogue) and were making two Shortbow attacks (we're ignoring Vex for brevity's sake) we'd be hitting on 5s or higher, getting an 80% chance to hit. Two attacks would mean 1d6+5, or 8.5, twice, which gives us 17 80% of the time and a crit bonus of 7 5% of the time (usually I do the attacks separately, but it's just a factor of two either way) so that's 13.6+.35, or 13.95. Then, our Sneak Attack at this level is 5d6, or 17.5 average. The chance we get it at all is 96% (the chance not to would mean the 20% miss chance happening twice) so that's 16.8, and then the chance we get a crit with it is 5% (chance on the first attack) or 5%x20% (chance we crit on the second attack after missing on the first) which is conveniently a 1% chance, so that's a total of 6%x17.5, or 1.05. Add it up and Sneak Attack is giving us 17.85, so when added to our normal damage, that's 31.8.

That's actually pretty decent damage, and it's even lowballing it because of the effect that Vex will have on it.

    So, if that satisfies you, we can just kind of stop here: just say you can do Sneak Attack once per turn when you hit with an attack. And, of course, give Rogues Extra Attack.

But I actually think this could be something of an overcorrection.

One of the issues we run into, I think, is that Great Weapon Master casts such a long shadow over martial damage. I'd be inclined to think that this might, for example, leave a class like the Barbarian in the dust (though unlike Rogues, Barbarians often get additional sources of damage from their subclasses). If we were looking at only a vanilla Barbarian who just relies on their Rage bonus, Sneak Attack very clearly outpaces it.

Part of what I think balances out the several d6s of damage Rogues get with a Sneak Attack is the fact that they only get one attack (unless they're dual-wielding). But I also think this element of design has really held Rogues back - there's a certain "feel bad" element to the class even if the numbers did line up because of what I talked about in this post. In short, that more attacks "smooths out" your damage output by effectively creating a larger sample size.

My initial inclination was simply to lower the amount of damage a given Sneak Attack does, but then slap it on every attack. If we were adding, say, our PB (or the equivalent scaling with Rogue levels) number of d6s to each attack, this would ultimately wind up giving us slightly more damage by tier 4, but it would work a bit more like Rage damage, Radiant Strikes, or even Hex/Hunter's Mark.

If that were too much damage, though, I thought about making it a limited resource. Perhaps it's actually just as much damage, but the Rogue can only do it a certain number of times per Short Rest (feels right that it'd be a Short Rest resource, like a Monk's Focus Points).

But thinking about this in thematic terms, I actually think limiting Sneak Attack to once per turn feels right. Mechanically, this could represent a careful and patient sniper lining up a kill shot or a scrappy street-brawler feinting and ducking under their foe's arm while bringing the blade up into their ribs.

Now, making it a limited resource I do think actually kind of works on theme, but this also might be an unnecessary nerf to a class that already kind of struggles to keep up.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to the simpler solution. One real advantage here is that it also disrupts as little as possible. Cunning Strikes would still work just fine.

Let's take a step back, though:

Ultimately, what this proposal would do is primarily just add a second attack. Sneak Attack is not guaranteed, but I think for the most part, in most combats, you'll have some means to get it (most often just by having a friend near the target, though the Vex mastery might really change this. I just haven't played with a Rogue since 5.5 came out, except my own in a campaign where we weren't allowed to upgrade). This just simplifies things, and I actually think helps the Rogue with brief solo fights, which the class feels kind of inclined toward.

I think we'd need to consider some other breakpoints, though. Given that I haven't been doing a whole bunch of "reasonable fights at level 5" calculations, I don't know how useful it would be to actually do that for this version of the Rogue.

But my main inclination is that by giving them Extra Attack, you'd put Rogues on the same basic chassis as all the other martial classes, and then you could get a broad sense of whether Sneak Attack measures up to the effects of Rangers' and Paladins' spellcasting, Barbarians' Rage and subclass damage bonuses, and such, and as long as those seemed to be in the same ballpark, you'd probably be good.

Ranged Battlemaster vs. Wyvern

 I like the flavor of Matt Mercer's Gunslinger subclass, which was famously used by Taliesin Jaffe in Critical Role's first campaign. But the downsides, mainly the chance at Misfire on your attacks, is a kind of class design that doesn't really fit with other 5E class and subclasses, with nearly all features being pure positives. It may have been a holdover from Pathfinder or 3.5, but it always bugged me that a non-Gunslinger in 5E could fire guns without worrying about their breaking while a Gunslinger did have that concern.

So, I have long thought that if I wanted to create a similar kind of character, I'd go Battlemaster. Indeed, the Battlemaster and Arcane Archer already have similar ideas to a Gunslinger, with a limited ability to alter shots, but I think the Battlemaster is the most versatile.

Now, ranged characters are a little nerfed in 5.5, thanks to the change to Sharpshooter. But I don't know that it's that terribly bad, especially when we consider a couple workarounds.

I see two primary paths here for damage, built around two specific feats: Crossbow Expert and Great Weapon Master.

Now, just to address the issue: this build probably won't work all that great with guns. The two firearms available in the PHB (formerly the "Renaissance era" firearms) hit hard, which is nice, but they have some major downsides. One is range - the Pistol only has a short range of 30 feet, and the Musket only 40. But the bigger one is that there's no feat in 5.5 that allows you to ignore their Loading property. While you could very easily just take the Gunner feat from Tasha's, if you're allowed to grab 5.0 material (which I generally assume,) this feat mostly just lets those weapons work rather than actually boosting their damage. Downgrading to a d8 from a d10 is not an enormous damage loss, and you get a lot in return.

Let's talk about what Crossbow Expert does for you: this is a feat that might play into the build in both of its iterations. The most crucial thing it does is let you ignore the Loading property, which would normally prevent the weapon from really being used with a class that uses Extra Attack. It also allows you to attack in melee without disadvantage if you're shooting a Crossbow, which is certainly nice. The last bit, and the one that may or may not actually be useful here, is that you can add your ability modifier to the bonus attack you get with the Light Property as long as the attack is made with a Hand Crossbow and you aren't already adding it (such as from the Two Weapon Fighting Style feat).

The latter piece basically enables you to dual-wield Hand Crossbows (like a Diablo III Demon Hunter) and even more or less gets you the Two Weapon Fighting Style as part of it to allow you to grab just Archery.

Now, even if we want to use a Heavy Crossbow, we'll want this feat anyway, so you could take it at level 4 and be a little freed up in terms of which option you want to use.

The other feat, Great Weapon Master, is more specific, and a little kludgy. While GWM boosts solely Strength and its Hew property only works on melee weapons, the Heavy Weapon Mastery aspect of it actually applies to two specific ranged weapons: the Longbow and the Heavy Crossbow. (Bizarrely, the Automatic Rifle, Shotgun, and Musket don't count).

Now, if we're dual-wielding Hand Crossbows, this won't do anything for us. That might be nice, as we could focus on Dex-based feats, but I also suspect this will be a bigger boost to our damage.

Just to figure that out before we go into other choices, let's figure it out really quick:

Fighters don't need their bonus action every round unless they're dual-wielding, so the two hand crossbows should be pretty easy to use most turns. With three feats by level 10, we could get our Dex to 20 (though we might be behind if we go with GWM). At this level, we could shoot three Hand Crossbow attacks per turn, each of which is adding Dex, so if we figure that's like 1d6+5 three times, that's 8.5x3, or 25.5 damage. If we are shooting a Heavy Crossbow twice, but getting to add our proficiency bonus because of GWM, even if our Dex is only +4 at this level, that's 1d10+8 twice, or 13.5x2, which is 27. It will be slightly less because of the fact that our hit chance is a little lower.

That said, Hand Crossbows have Vex, which is a more direct boost to damage than Heavy Crossbows' Push. Indeed, because we have Tactical Mastery at this level, both the Heavy Crossbow's Push and Longbow's Slow masteries are essentially worthless to us, as we'd be able to do that with any weapon.

Still, given that the scaling would favor the Heavy Crossbow at higher levels as both PB and our number of regular attacks go up, I'm going to go that way.

So, with that in mind, here's how I'd go with feats:

At level 1, our Fighting Style feat is of course going to be Archery, a very solid one, giving us +2 to hit with ranged attacks.

At level 4, I think we pick up Crossbow Expert. For the next two levels, we can freely swap between going Heavy Crossbow or two Hand Crossbows.

At level 6, we grab Great Weapon Master. We will need to have at least a 13 in Strength to grab this, but given that we're pretty single-ability-score-dependent, I don't think that'd be too taxing on our build. The main downside is that we won't cap Dex at level 8 unless we take a full ASI.

But, at level 8, I think we have a couple compelling options: Piercer is actually a pretty obvious choice - all ranged weapons save "futuristic" ones do piercing damage, so this should apply to basically everything we do, and we can even grab a rapier if we want and still benefit (though thanks to Crossbow Expert, we might as well still shoot our Crossbow).

Mage Slayer, of course, is always a good option as well.

I actually think I'm going to go with Mage Slayer, not because it's necessarily the best choice here, but because I don't want to have to worry about the once-per-turn reroll of damage.

As a note, if we prefer the aesthetic (or the very long range) of Longbows, we could swap out Crossbow Expert for Sharpshooter. Our damage takes a slight dip, but we will also be able to ignore cover and be fully effective at 600 feet (imagine being able to nail a foe at a length of two football fields - not that your DM is likely to put you in situations where you can actually do that).

Ok, that's feats and equipment sorted. Our final bit of set-up is Maneuvers.

We'll know seven maneuvers by level 10, and we have five d10 superiority dice.

Goading Attack is very nice on a ranged attack, as it might simply impose full disadvantage on the attack (though we can kind of get this by swapping in the Sap property).

Menacing Attack, imposing frightened at range, can literally stop a target in their tracks.

Pushing Attack might seem redundant with the Push Mastery, but consider that you can add both, potentially pushing a target away up to 25 feet.

Maneuvering Attack can help you play a kind of overwatch role, helping allies get into position or away from danger.

Commander's Strike might not be quite as exciting given that we're going to be hitting quite hard on our own, but it can massively improve the damage of a Rogue by giving them potentially a second Sneak Attack per round.

Precision Attack is not quite as important with the new Sharpshooter, but it will help prevent misses. Given that we'll have a pretty high attack bonus, I doubt we'll be using this a ton, but it can keep our damage consistent.

Honestly, I think this is going to rely a lot on your party makeup. But the key is that we can probably afford to use a maneuver on most turns, though we'll burn through them pretty quickly if we try to use them on every attack.

Let's assume the following:

If we land a critical hit, we'll burn a Superiority Die to get some extra damage. For the sake of our damage calculations, we'll assume we're not burning maneuvers outside of that scenario. This will deflate our damage output a bit, but one of the things that's really appealing about the Battle Master is that they don't necessarily just have a pre-programmed "rotation," and can be very reactive to the situation on the battlefield.

So, each turn, we attack twice. We'll burn a maneuver on a crit, meaning we might do that twice in a turn where we get very lucky and crit twice. We can say, just for the sake of consistency, that it's a Menacing Attack, or a Pushing Attack if they're already frightened of us.

If we do miss, we'll burn a die to try to hit with a Precision Attack.

Let's math it out:

We have a +4 to Dexterity, so with the Archery Fighting Style, our attack bonus is +10. Thus, we hit on a roll of 4 or higher. And if we roll a 2 or 3 (nat 1 is still an auto-miss) we can do a Precision Attack (we don't miss out on the Menacing/Pushing damage because we're already not critting). If we had rolled a 3 on the die, this will always turn it into a hit. If we had a 2, it's a 9/10 chance that it also turns it into a hit, so basically, within that 10% of rolling a 2 or 3, 95% of the time, it's still hit. So, that's 85% plus 9.5%, meaning we effectively have a 94.5% chance to hit. Our crit chance is the same standard 5%.

Our hit damage is 1d10+8, or 13.5 on average (the extra 4 coming from Great Weapon Master). However, our crit damage bonus is effectively 3d10 if we're saving maneuvers for crits, so that's 16.5.

Thus, we're looking at 13.5x94.5% or approximately 12.76, plus 16.5x5%, or .825, giving us 13.585 damage per attack. This then doubles with our two attacks to 27.17.

That's actually pretty low compared with some of the other things we've been doing. But let's assess some other elements:

First off, we'll probably do a little more damage because we might not save all our superiority dice for near-misses and crits. Also, the utility of inflicting the frightened condition can be pretty huge (or DC would be 16, which is decent). Against flyers, Trip Attack can actually be really powerful if they don't have Hover.

Also, this damage goes up by a full 50% at the next level, where it starts to look a lot more respectable.

I think the takeaway here is that you shouldn't expect to be the real damage-dealing powerhouse of the party. Instead, you've got a ton of utility you can apply while still making a meaningful contribution to the party's damage.

Mystic Arts Monk vs. Wyvern

 So, this is going to be a little tricky because while the presumably final version of the subclass is locked, and the YouTube channel Insight Check has a break-down of it, I cannot seem to find a written version of the subclass. For readers, that won't be a big deal, but for me it will mean referring to the video that breaks it down.

Still, the playtest version in the UA seems to have largely come through unchanged, with the exception of the nonfunctional capstone, which was fixed to now replace attacks within a Flurry of Blows rather than the attack action. This does mean that it will cost a Focus Point to get that spell in, but I think it's probably worth it, as you'll likely be doing that every turn by that level anyway.

We also don't really need to worry about it too much, as we'll only really care about the 3rd and 6th level subclass features, which I believe are unchanged.

So: what are the relevant features?

Well, first off: spellcasting. At level 10, we'll have 1st and 2nd level spells, along with cantrips. Like Eldritch Knights, Enlarge/Reduce is probably going to be our best concentration spell to boost our damage, as we'll be adding 1d4 to each of our hits with the Enlarge effect active on us. It'll also potentially help us grapple, as we'll now be able to grapple Huge sized creatures. Arguably, we'll actually get a greater benefit from this spell than EKs do because we can do more attacks in a turn with the level 10 boost to Flurry of Blows.

The other relevant piece here will be that we can weave a cantrip into our extra attack feature. Many of the same cantrips are available to us. Blade Ward can, of course, be a nice defensive option, and one that is probably more "affordable" to us because any given attack on a Monk isn't that much damage. But as I'd suggest with Bladesingers, EKs, Valor Bards (though they won't be able to pick them up immediately) I'd really suggest getting the excellent Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade cantrips to let us do enhanced versions of attacks we'd want to make anyway. If you can't get these, True Strike is certainly an option, though note that this spell requires us to use our spellcasting ability, rather than merely allowing us to do so.

In terms of feats, I'd guess that Mystic Art Monks are probably going to want to lean a little further into Wisdom than some other Monks. You might choose to just go straight ASIs at each feat level to ensure you cap Dex, Wisdom, and get Con as high as you can. That said, I'm always down for taking Grappler on a 5.5 Monk. Weapon Master actually could be a decent choice if we want to dual-wield two light weapons - the damage dice for them will upgrade for us, so it's a nice little d8 boost of damage (at level 10).

Let's assume, though, that we're just getting raw stats with our feats, and we'll also be primarily using spells that are Wisdom-agnostic. We're going to assume, then, that by level 10, we've capped Dex so we can just focus our late-game feats on bumping Wisdom.

In order to use Booming Blade (our assumption for single-target situations, though GFB will always slot in for when there's cleave potential unless we're sure we can force them to move and get the punishment damage) we do need to be using a weapon that is worth at least 1sp. Luckily, Spears and Quarterstaffs both cost more than that. I'd guess that Spears are the better option (unless you're fighting skeletons) simply because of the option to throw them, though thanks to Martial Arts, we can really use any Simple melee weapon, or even martial melee weapons with the light property (which I think is just shortswords and scimitars?) They'll all be doing a d8 of damage, and the light property on weapons if we don't also somehow have Nick is kind of irrelevant in the face of our Martial Arts ability, so it's pretty arbitrary. (Actually, daggers can be great on a Monk because their damage will be just as good as anything else, and like spears, they can be thrown).

Now, a quick calculation: if we assume that the monster will move if we shove them away from us after hitting with Booming Blade, that'll add 2d8 damage. But if we just make another attack, we'll get 1d8+5, which is very slightly higher damage, so we're not going to pull those shenanigans unless we have a way to guarantee a knockback without sacrificing our damage.

So, the gameplan is this:

Turn one, we use our Action to cast Enlarge/Reduce on ourselves, growing to Large size and adding a d4 to each of our attacks. We then use Flurry of Blows to attack the target three times with unarmed strikes. On the first hit, we'll attempt a Stunning Strike. 

Turn two, we will use our (let's say) Quarterstaff to attack first with Booming Blade, and also attempt a Stunning Strike. Then, we make an additional attack (it doesn't matter if we make an unarmed strike or quarterstaff attack) and then again Flurry of Blows for three additional attack.

Let's figure out what kind of damage we're doing.

Actually, one last thing: let's assume we started with a 16 Wisdom and have not yet been able to raise that.

Ok:

Turn One:

Again, we Enlarge ourselves with our action. Then, it's three Flurry of Blows attack.

We have a +9 to hit, and so we hit the Wyvern's AC of 14 on a roll of 5 or higher, meaning an 80% hit chance. Each hit does 1d8+1d4+5 damage, or 12 average, with an additional 7 on a crit. So, 12x80% is 9.6 and 7x5% is .35, so we are doing 9.95 damage on that first attack.

Now, in the 80% chance that we hit on this attack, we will also try to Stunning Strike. Our DC will be 15. The Wyvern has a +3 to Con saves, so they fail on an 11 or lower, meaning a 55% chance to fail and 45% chance to succeed.

Here's where it gets a little messy: we get advantage on the next attack regardless, but we won't get it on the third attack unless they fail. But also, in the 20% chance that we miss, we won't have been able to use Stunning Strike. This isn't that hard to do for attack number 2, but it'll get more complicated the more attacks we get (turn two will be a lot crazier).

So, attack #2 is guaranteed to have advantage if we hit with the first attack. So, 20% of the time, it'll be the same average damage as the first attack, but 80% of the time, our hit chance grows to 96% and our crit chance to 9.75%. 12x96% is 11.52 and 7x9.75% is .6825, so with advantage our average damage is roughly 12.2. 12.2x80% is 9.76 and 9.95x20% is 1.99, so this attack will do 11.75 damage on average.

Now, attack 3 is where the headaches begin. We have advantage under the following circumstances: if the target failed the Con save versus Stunning Strike on attack 1, or if we hit the target on attack 2 after missing on attack 1.

So, the chance for that first scenario is 80%x55%, or 44% (the chance we hit on the first attack times the chance that the Wyvern failed). The chance for the second scenario is 80%x20%, or 16% (the chance we hit on the second attack without advantage times the chance we missed on the first attack). So, I believe this comes to a 60% chance that we get advantage on attack 3. Thus, we take the 11.75 average damage when we have advantage and multiply it by 60%, giving us 7.05 and then the 9.95 average damage when we don't have advantage and multiply it by the remaining 40%, giving us 3.98, for a total of 11.03.

Thus, on turn 1, totaling this, we can expect to deal an average of 32.73 damage. Frankly not too shabby for a set-up round.

    Now, onto turn two:

Here, that complexity is going to start going crazy as we have to figure it out over the course of 5 attacks.

Our first attack is now a Booming Blade attack, meaning it will hit for 2d8+1d4+5, so the damage and crit bonus goes up by 4.5, meaning average damage of 16.5 and crit bonus of 11.5.

Stunning Strike's effects, on a success or failure, end at the start our turn, so no worries about advantage on this first attack... which actually means we should probably save Booming Blade for our second attack.

If we then do so, we'll thus just do the familiar 9.95 average damage on this attack.

Booming Blade's advantage/disadvantage chances are the same as attack 2's on the first turn, so we're looking at an 80% hit and 5% crit chance 20% of the time and a 96%/9.75% 80% of the time. Without advantage, we're looking at 13.2 plus .575, for 13.775, and then with advantage, we're looking at 15.84 plus roughly 1.12, so 16.96. 13.775x20% is about 2.76, and 16.96x80% is about 13.57, so in total, this is doing 16.33 damage.

Now, our first Flurry of Blows attack should look identical to the first turn's attack 3, so we'll just use that value again, adding 11.03 damage.

Attack 4 on this turn is going to get really complicated: we get advantage if we hit on attack 1 and the Wyvern failed the save, if we missed on attack 1 and then hit on attack 2 and the wyvern failed, or if we missed on attacks 1 and 2 and then hit on attack 3. So, the first is the same familiar 80%x55%, or 44%. The second scenario is again 20%x that same 44%, or 8.8%. The third scenario is 80%x20%x20%, or 3.2%. So the chance we have advantage (if I've kept all these concept straight in my head) is 56%. So, we are looking at 11.75x56% and 9.95x44%, giving us 6.58+4.38(ish) for a total of 10.96.

Attack 5 (this is the last one, thank the gods) adds one more iteration onto this. Thus, we need to have missed with the first three attack and then hit with the fourth attack, or we need to have missed with attack 1 and hit with attack 2 and then the Wyvern must have failed their save, or missed with attacks 1 and 2 and hit with attack 3 and the Wyvern failed their save. Oh, or we need to have hit on the first attack and the wyvern failed their save, of course.

So, the first scenario is 20%x20%x20%x80%, or .64%. Scenario two is 20%x80%x55%, or 8.8%. Scenario three is 20%x20%x80%x55%, or 1.76%. Scenario four is that original 44%. Boy, I hope I didn't leave something out. Anyway, this gives us a 55.2% chance to have advantage. For sanity, I'm going to round that to 55%, and so we have 11.75x55%, or 6.46ish and 9.95x45%, or 4.48ish, giving this attack an average damage of 10.94, which you'll note is only .02 less than attack 4, meaning we might have been able to just approximate all of this.

Anyway, this means that by turn two, the average damage is 59.21, which is actually really freaking good.

This does require us to expend two FP each turn, but at level 10, that can be sustained for 5 turns. Concentration might not be the easiest thing to maintain here, given that we're probably going to be looking at a +3 bonus at most (and likely only a +2,) though Deflect Attacks can make Concentration saves a little easier.

We do have a set-up turn, but again, thanks to the fact that we're actually making more attacks with our bonus action than with our attack action, that doesn't punish us nearly as much as some other classes. Even if the combat only lasts two rounds, we average out to 45.97 damage, and that goes up if things get to round three.

This is beating a lot of my other builds. Indeed, if you didn't even use Stunning Strike and were making all attacks without advantage, you're still looking at 53.575 average damage on turn 2. It turns out that if you can add damage to every attack a Monk makes, they start really taking off, damage-wise.

And the nice thing is that this is relatively sustainable if you get some short rests in there. Assuming I have the numbers right, getting a 2nd level spell slot back can be done with 3 FP with a bonus action. While that'd be rough in combat, it's a great thing to do right before a short rest. At this level, you'll have 3 2nd level spell slots, so you might not even need to do that, but I think that's enough that you can probably afford to cast the spell every combat. Protecting concentration will be important, so you might consider delaying your Dex progression to take War Caster (which will feed into your Wisdom progression) but it's not the end of the world if you drop concentration, given how relatively easy it is to get those spell slots back.

The Warrior of Mystic Arts, Monks Joining the Third-Caster Club

 With Arcana Unleashed as the next official D&D release, I've been thinking a lot about how the books will affect 5.5. I am, as I have been in a lot of 5.5, been a little underwhelmed given how many options and spells are simply getting reprints, given that we don't really need a reprint of, say, Synaptic Static or Absorb Elements, given that, unless they're getting functional changes, they should already be available from Xanathar's Guide to Everything (I believe both were in that). The whole point of 5.5 was to be backwards compatible, and it is to a large extent. (You could give every Warlock subclass a blanket rule that they get their old "expanded spell list" as "patron spells" and kind of cover things that way.)

That said, the Warrior of Mystic Arts is simultaneously a new option as well as one that uses a tried-and-true formula. The Eldritch Knight Fighter and Arcane Trickster Rogue are among the most popular and powerful (the power likely a cause for the popularity, though not exclusively) subclasses for their respective classes. While a one-third caster for a Barbarian probably can't work without taking a wrench to the core Rage mechanic, the idea of a spellcasting Monk is not actually that crazy.

Indeed, in 2014, the Way of Four Elements actually replicated a lot of actual spells, but for some reason didn't work the same way, relying entirely on Ki Points (now Focus Points) for its spells and thus being extremely limited in its spellcasting capabilities. The revamped Warrior of Elements took the flavor of the Four Elements Monk but utterly reworked its mechanics, making it arguably the most powerful (or at least a respectable) subclass for Monks in the PHB (I think the argument for it as a powerful subclass is largely built on its capacity to be a grappler who holds foes far enough away that they can't fight back). But this did not take what I thought might have been the more obvious route and just made them a spellcaster (it might have been harder to enforce the specific relationship with elemental magic).

Here, though, we have a subclass that is built along the same way.

What's interesting, though, is where it differs from the Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight.

Both of those subclasses, which have been core to 5E since 2014, borrow the Wizard's spells, and the flavor of them is similar to the Wizard in the notion that these are magic spells that have been learned, and while you don't have a spellbook to endlessly collect spells, I've always felt the intended interpretation of the subclasses is that the knowledge of this magic is acquired in a similarly scholarly way, or at least via an intellectual understanding of the magical principles, the way that Wizards and Artificers cast their magic.

Indeed, these subclasses actually gave the only other options that mechanically encouraged high intelligence beside the Wizard in the 2014 PHB. Later, we'd get the Artificer, but this is part of the reason why 5.0 really produced a lot of himbo characters with low intelligence (while Dexterity and Charisma were quite common). I think those pressures are still there (between Bards, Warlocks, Sorcerers, and Paladins, Charisma's still a very important stat for a lot of people) but we're perhaps seeing a little broader of a spread now.

But while Mystic Arts Monks are third-casters, they're the only ones who A: don't use Intelligence and B: don't use the Wizard spell list.

The former is certainly wise: Monks already rely on Wisdom as their second-most-important stat (though Con is also pretty important). It's also already the source of their saving throw DCs for their Focus-Point-consuming abilities (one confusing thing for grappler monks is that they have two DCs to track, as the Grapple/Shove DC is based on Dexterity) so forcing them to invest in Intelligence as well would kind of hamstring the subclass (though I will say that you can build a very good Eldritch Knight who basically never worries about how high their Intelligence is - using cantrips like Booming Blade and spells like Shield, Misty Step, or Enlarge/Reduce, the latter to cast on yourself as a buff, means you could be dumb as a brick and do just fine).

The latter is kind of curious, though. Naturally, Arcana Unleashed is all about arcane magic, which doesn't have a mechanical definition (though it nearly did). But instead of Wizard spells, Mystic Arts Monks get Sorcerer spells. Now, I think there's arguments to be made over whether Sorcerers or Wizards are more powerful (I'd generally lean the latter just because they have such unparalleled utility, but probably in combat specifically, the Sorcerers might have the edge - though they lack some of the insane power-spells, primarily Conjure Minor Elementals).

I actually think that Monks getting into Wizard magic would make a ton of sense, as both are classes that have an association with cloistered practice and study. I mean, real monks (I think both in the East and West) are often very scholarly, with acts of intellectual study incorporated into their spiritual practice. In fact, I think that it would make a lot of sense to give them the Cleric spell list as an alternative (I like the idea of a Cleric who is a mystic that is very into esoterica).

But I imagine one of the reasons they chose Sorcerer is more mechanical than flavorful: Monks and Sorcerers both have a point-based resource equal to your level in that class. The parallels between Sorcery Points and Focus Points are pretty clear, and this subclass effectively allows you to use the latter as the former.

I think the most potentially exploitable/optimizable element here will be the fact that Focus Points come back on a short rest, and because they can be converted into spell slots, a Monk who gets to take multiple short rests in a day can potentially have significantly more spellcasting opportunities than their Rogue and Fighter brethren.

Simply adding spellcasting to just about any class makes it more powerful because of the breadth of options - indeed, while many bemoan the Ranger's design flaws (guilty as charged,) its half-caster nature often puts it ahead of non-caster classes in a lot of optimizers' tier rankings (a format of criticism that I know is very flawed by nonetheless I feel compelled by).

At the same time, as I've talked about in my critique of the subclass when it was first previewed, there are some things that Monks can do that already kind of get some of what you want out of spells already. Shield is an amazing spell for Eldritch Knights (because they can stack it on top of heavy armor - it's already amazing for anyone who can get it) but given the power of Deflect Attacks, it's not... bad to have, but it's also partially redundant, as Monks can often fully negate the damage of an attack as one of their core class features. Similarly, Misty Step, as spell that I think I'll take on just about any character who can get it (though I'll concede I don't think I've cast it on my Wizard in a while) is somewhat less appealing when playing a character who can already disengage or dash, or both, as a bonus action.

My suspicion is that the Mystic Arts Monk might suffer a bit from taking the Sorcerer spell list - the power of the Sorcerer is largely that it takes a lot of Wizard spells and tosses metamagic and Innate Sorcery on top of them, neither of which the Mystic Arts Monk has, so it'd probably be better off if it got the Wizard list just to broaden the options (there are some spells Sorcerers get that Wizards don't, but the opposite is a much larger category). But compared to other Monks? I think it's likely to be a real powerhouse.

Martials, Casters, and Balance

 If you play D&D casually, you probably aren't terribly invested in which classes or subclasses are the most powerful. You can have a great time playing any class, or even any (well, many) multiclass abominations.

But if you are cursed like me with the philosophical inclination to be all about story and thematic resonance but with a sick little addiction to making number go big, (or if you're just an unapologetic min-maxxer) you're probably aware that the general consensus is that spellcasters in D&D are more powerful than martial characters.

I think this is a problem for the following reason:

The point of balance in a game like this is, in my opinion, there to make your story-and-thematic choices for your character's build ones that feel like they're rewarding you instead of punishing you. The point of D&D should be for you to make a character that fulfills the story you've imagined in your head. Essentially, balance is the rules getting out of the way of the story.

Now, playing a spellcaster in D&D naturally comes with a power fantasy - you want to have supernatural capabilities that no human being has ever had in the real world (or outside of extraordinary and unverified tales if that's your belief system). But there is a fantasy as well in being the powerful martial character: you want to be the kind of person who can keep pace with such magical people with nothing but your wits, skills, and strength.

Ok, but what causes this imbalance?

On its surface, you could conclude that a spellcaster is not going to deal as much damage turn-to-turn because a cantrip doesn't scale as well as extra attack: consider Fire Bolt, among the highest-damage-potential cantrips in the game. At tier 1, it's doing 1d10 fire damage, which is 5.5. A character wielding a d8 weapon, though, will do 1d8+3, probably, at tier 1, meaning that they'd be doing 7.5 damage on a hit. While most classes don't get much beyond that extra attack boost at level 5, while a cantrip scales up at each tier of play, two attacks for 1d8+5 would be 9.5 each and thus 19 total, which does, yes, fall behind a tier 4 Fire Bolt (which does 4d10 and thus an average of 22) but many martial classes will have ways to get around that - Fighters getting more attacks, Barbarians adding larger rage bonuses, Paladins getting an extra d8 of damage, and Monks getting a higher damage die.

But while playing a pure caster in tier 1 is an exercise in spell slot conservation, pretty quickly, they can be more liberal with their spell slots, even if the higher-level ones are still somewhat precious. And while cantrips might not do a ton of damage, a Fireball that hits three or more targets is going to do more damage (generally) than a martial character would do in several turns. And even against a single target, a 5th level Wizard casting Fireball will do 28 damage on average (or 14 on a successful save - if we imagine a 50% success chance, it's an average of 21 damage overall).

Even in single target situations, casters can often outpace martial characters: I've written a lot about the Conjure Minor Elementals/Scorching Ray interaction, which does truly insane damage numbers. And that's before we even get into the harder-to-quantify utility of having spells that can teleport, crowd-control, or otherwise reshape the battlefield, as well as crucially important non-combat spells that can aid with traversal, finding objectives, and just generally helping the party.

The balance, then, I believe, is that martial characters are supposed to be more sustainable. Spell slots are a limited resource, and most classes don't get them back except on a long rest. Meanwhile, a Fighter's "swing sword" ability (aka, The Attack Action) never runs out. It's a cantrip, essentially, but other enhancements can also be bolted onto it. Weapon Masteries can add additional effects to your attacks, and also never run out. Feats like Great Weapon Master will also enhance those attacks, and never run out.

This is all well and good, but I think there are two issues as to why I don't think that's what we actually see:

First off, as many have pointed out, the way we play D&D in the 5E era, adventures tend to be more plot-oriented. The days of long, slow dungeon crawls are mostly in the past, such that other game systems have even been designed to try to recreate that old-school feel. In an edition shaped to a large extent by actual play shows like Critical Role, the idea of a lengthy day with as many as ten combat encounters between long rests is pretty alien. Instead, it's more likely that an adventuring day has one, two, or maybe three encounters if it's a really lengthy day. To make up for this, the encounters tend to be more challenging, with more and/or deadlier monsters. The 2024 DMG updating its encounter-building math to make fights significantly harder, giving a much larger XP budget than we had in 2014, and generally giving tougher encounters than the guidance in Xanathar's.

But what I think is often overlooked is the other issue: PC HP.

At a certain point, it's just not feasible for players to continue adventuring. If people are sitting at bloodied after using up all their hit dice on a short rest, they're simply not going to push on, and will instead do whatever they can to find an opportunity for a long rest. And not only do narratives often allow for this (in a dungeon crawl, it's usually not that hard to just retrace your steps back to the entrance and camp outside) but there are also lots of mechanics that really protect the ability to take a long rest at will - spells like Leomund's Tiny Hut or Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion in particular are the spells that will just pretty much say "no, I get to take a long rest and you (the DM) cannot prevent me from doing so."

If you imagine you've got a group of adventurers at, say, level 4, going through some dungeon, we can imagine that a Fighter might have, say, 40 HP. Even if they're fighting really low-level monsters, like Skeletons, each hit is going to be taking about 6.5 off of that total. If we figure a Skeleton had a 50% chance of hitting them (a +5 attack bonus against someone in chain mail with a 16 AC) then it would take roughly 12 attacks to take the Fighter down. That might seem like a lot, but if they're level 4, and fighting such low-CR monsters, that might only be two rounds of attacks against them, because they'll be fighting so many.

In a game where you have 6 fights over the course of a day, a Wizard is going to have to pick and choose which of those fights gets to see one of their, in this case, 2nd level spells. But after three of them, there's a good chance that the Fighter is so beaten up that they can't really carry on.

So, how would I solve this?

Well, naturally this is something that would need ample playtesting, but my general instinct is to boost PCs HP, and particularly Martial classes.

As it stands, a Monk doesn't inherently have any more HP than a Druid. Monks are, of course, a weird exception - frankly, I think that they missed an opportunity to make their hit die a d10 or even a d12 in 5.5 (what does a hit die represent, exactly? Surely if it's general hardiness, a Monk who has relentlessly trained their body would be more resilient than some Warlock begging magic from their patron?) But even if we look at Paladins and Fighters, a d10 hit die only means, on average, one more HP per level (well, two more at level 1) than a d8. My Wizard will be getting a +4 to Con when he hits level 12, meaning that at that level, he'll have 98 HP. A Paladin in that party with a +2 to Con will have 100. Between my Coat of the Crest (a magic item out of Tal'dorei Campaign Setting Reborn that, among other things, adds +1 to your AC), Mage Armor, and the Shield spell, you could argue that my Wizard is actually a more resilient front-line fighter than the tanky paladin with a shield and plate armor.

That doesn't seem right.

I don't know if just changing hit dice would be enough. What I'd be tempted to do is instead give martial characters way more HP. If we were starting with just hit dice, we could say that rather than rolling your die or taking the average (rounded up) each level, you'd just get the maximum. This would expand the gap between martials and casters - if that were the case, my Wizard at level 12 would have 120 HP and the Paladin would have 144. If I hadn't rolled such high stats, and only had a +2 to Con, instead I'd have 96.

What this would mean, then, is that the martials could keep on fighting longer, weathering more encounters.

But while this would solve the latter problem, I think we'd be left with the more broadly recognized issue, which is just that we don't do long, grueling days with lots of combat encounters.

One solution is to just give martial characters more diverse capabilities. I see this in a game like Draw Steel, where there's far less of a divide between spellcasters and martial characters because every class fundamentally works on the same principles and resource system (even if the resources themselves are a bit different).

But if we don't actually want to mess with the game's mechanics themselves, and approach this simply as a Dungeon Master, what might our approach be?

First off, I think we can recognize that a single adventuring day need not take place in a single session. I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a really action-packed day. As DM, you have some dials you can turn to prevent a party from getting a long rest. The simplest, easiest one is the clock.

Characters cannot benefit from a Long Rest more than twice in a 24-hour period. Thus, if your party gets through one easy or moderate combat encounter and seeks to rest after it, you can simply say that it's still morning. The rest won't come.

The next is to simply keep the pressure on them. If players prefer more cinematic storytelling with action set-pieces, have monsters hound them. The old "you cannot rest here, enemies are nearby" technique.

But, of course, these will punish martials pretty much as much as casters given the gradual (or not so gradual if the fights are big) reduction in HP. And that's why you'd want to combine this with... copious amounts of healing items. Give out healing potions with reckless abandon. Because a healing potion will, you know, heal a character, but it doesn't give them any other resources. Thus, a Rogue or Monk who can "do this all day" when it comes to their character abilities (Monks do have to ration their Focus Points, but they've made it easier to get those back, and still get to make three attacks per turn for free every turn) will actually be able to do this all day if they're getting frequent healing. Thus, the party will actually start to feel like it's good that they aren't all-in on full spellcasters.