D&D 5E 5th Edition -- Caster Rule, Martials Drool?

[TheGorramBatman]

I will second this; they could have severely powered up the warlord-esque build and been fine. Mind you, in a larger group 6+, they are gorram terrifying. I really liked the fighter expertise dice concept from earlier in the playtest; where all fighters got them.

Fighter feels like an awkward split. Champions getting all the crit increases and Battlemasters getting all of the expertise dice feels disappointing on both ends. I find myself wanting to multiclass Champion 3/Battlemaster X, which even if it was possible would be retarded.

I'd love to see some sort of Warlord and I've been going crazy trying to multiclass something that satisfies me, but the Battlemaster having most of the goodies seems counter productive. Why the hell would I give up my awesome Fighter attack so someone less awesome than me could take a swing? The only good uses seem to be Paladins and maybe the Rogue if they missed their Sneak Attack opportunity.

 

[KarinsDad]

Nod. The game /depends/ on the 6-8 encounter model...

...

Clearly, that's the point of the model. If casters' slots kept up with rounds/day, the 'daily' limitation would be meaningless.

Based on what you were responding to (moderately tougher challenges lower the 6-8 model quickly), your second statement here seems to be saying that the 6-8 model only works for fairly weak challenges (which is what I am saying, 6-8 encounters a day = fighting minions and tough minions).

Please correct me if I am misinterpreting you.

 

[KarinsDad]

It seems to me that, if assymetric resources are to be balanced, it has to be "feast or famine" for casters. So this sounds OK. To the extent that it is boring for players of casters, that's a flaw of the overall design model of assymetry. You can't have a game in which some players get to spike and dominate, and are always having as much interesting to do as the non-spiking players.

Agreed. It just feels a bit wonky when compared to the number of spells per day in 3E, or the 2 to 3 encounter powers per day of 4E.

Many, many, many rounds of "I did a third to half of the damage of the fighter. Woo hoo." mixed in with "I did twice the damage of the fighter" (buring hands being an example).

On the adventuring day, once the party is facing as many foes as they have, don't the mutipiers kick in? So the encounter will either have lower-level enemies or count as a higher-difficulty encounter.

Sure, but in order to get in 6-8 encounters per day (i.e. a relatively small dungeon), doesn't it sound boring if most or all of them are minions or tough minions, one or two shot foes?

It sounds like it will bore the heck out of me and I will be pushing my DM for more healing resources as a result.

Ping, ping, ping, ping, boom, ping, boom, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, boom. zzzzzzzzzzz

It's not that I need to be booming all of the time, but 5E replaced the 3E mid to high level number of spells with a few repetitive pinging spells that scale a bit.

Just from this conversation today, I suddenly realized that the Cleric's mace is fairly weak compared to Sacred Flame starting at level 5 and it just gets worse at levels 11 and 17.

 

[Remathilis]

Just from this conversation today, I suddenly realized that the Cleric's mace is fairly weak compared to Sacred Flame starting at level 5 and it just gets worse at levels 11 and 17.

Divine Strike (Its a domain feature for the Life, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, and War). +1d8 at 8th, +2d8 at 14th.

Knowledge and Light don't have it, but they both get Potent Spellcasting (add Wis to cantrip damage). I'd wager Death gets divine strike as well.

Seriously, flip through the PHB a bit; a lot of these problems are answered.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's a damn shame that it's apparently designed around more like (non-trivial) 2-3 encounters.

This.

This is what I see as well.

As a player, I will quickly get bored with a bunch of minion encounters (just to get the encounters per day up to 6-8). Instead, I want 5 or 6 moderately difficult encounters with monsters that have cool abililties that I can be challenged with and I can determine which spells I should cast or not cast based on the challenge. They do not have to be real tough fights, it just has to be fights were at least some of the foes take 3 or 4 hits to take out, not 1 or 2.

Not a bunch of minion fights where once in a blue moon, I pull out Burning Hands, just in order to cast a real spell today.


Granted, I've only played the game a little, but if 6-8 (non-trivial) challenges is the goal, I'm not seeing where the resources come from until maybe 13th level or so.

 

[pemerton]

in order to get in 6-8 encounters per day (i.e. a relatively small dungeon), doesn't it sound boring if most or all of them are minions or tough minions, one or two shot foes?

It's a damn shame that it's apparently designed around more like (non-trivial) 2-3 encounters. At least, according to http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/building-adventures

This.

This is what I see as well.

As a player, I will quickly get bored with a bunch of minion encounters

The DM's supplement for Basic says 6 to 8 medium or hard encounters per day. L&L says 2 to 3hard encounters pdr day. That's a big difference. Does anyone know which is correct?

On the boringness - I tend to agree, but then that's why I prefer the more symmetric resource suites of 4e. Most of the encounters in my 4e game are level +3, level +4, level +5 - but because both martial and caster PCs can spike, these encounters don't cause an imbalance.

In a game based around asymmetric builds, to balance fewer encounters I think requires designing the casters such that, on a nova, they match the martial PCs in combat. (And they have their utility on the side to make up the rest of their contribution.) It sounds like 5e doesn't fit this description, but perhaps does suit 6 or so encounter per day, at the cost of moderate boredom for the caster players in their "off" rounds/encounters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Based on what you were responding to (moderately tougher challenges lower the 6-8 model quickly), your second statement here seems to be saying that the 6-8 model only works for fairly weak challenges (which is what I am saying, 6-8 encounters a day = fighting minions and tough minions).

Please correct me if I am misinterpreting you.

The guidelines call out 6-8 moderate-hard encounters, and I think that's what they mean. I'm not sure the difficutly label is correct, because, if you're outnumbered by whimpy monsters the equivalent difficulty gets boosted a lot, even though a well-placed AE can own the encounter.

Also, we don't have any clear ideas on the number of rounds an encounter will last. From the playtest, I'd guess around 3 unless dice go dramatically cold on both sides.

Agreed. It just feels a bit wonky when compared to the number of spells per day in 3E, or the 2 to 3 encounter powers per day of 4E.

That's clearly intentional. In 4e, there was no need to balance classes by dictating the 'length of the day,' so it was a non-issue - and encounters tended to go 5 or more rounds. In 3e, tier 1 classes were clearly overpowered.

5e had to rein in spells/day to even come close to balancing casters, but couldn't do so to the level needed to maintain balance (not without provoking the cries of 'not D&D,' anyway). So it had to /also/ ratchet up to 6-8 moderate-tough encounters per day.

Many, many, many rounds of "I did a third to half of the damage of the fighter. Woo hoo." mixed in with "I did twice the damage of the fighter" (buring hands being an example).

I think you exaggerate. If you cast a spell effectively in the first round of the combat, you've probably shortened the combat. It's unlikely you'll be plinking for more than a couple rounds after that unless it's a /really/ tough combat, then you'll cast another spell to help save the day.

Sure, but in order to get in 6-8 encounters per day (i.e. a relatively small dungeon), doesn't it sound boring if most or all of them are minions or tough minions, one or two shot foes?

5e emphasizes fast combat, so they'll only be boring in the sense of repetitive and/or anti-climactic.

 

[Quickleaf]

I tossed together a non-combat utility module for fighters over here, for those interested:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...r-Fighters-Rules-Module&p=6364001#post6364001

 

[Morty]

The Battlemaster is so egregiously nerfed for something that's supposed to be standing in for the 4e fighter, and the 3e fighter's tactical builds, and the Warlord that it's really not a fit topic of conversation outside the 'rage-quit rants' thread.

The sub-class honestly feels like a joke, especially with the way it's bandied about as the 'complex' and 'customizable' option.

I will second this; they could have severely powered up the warlord-esque build and been fine. Mind you, in a larger group 6+, they are gorram terrifying. I really liked the fighter expertise dice concept from earlier in the playtest; where all fighters got them.

The expertise dice were one of the best ideas in the playtest, until they decided they're too hard and too complicated and swept them under the rug. I could imagine them as a universal resource mechanic for all martial classes, honestly.

 

[Minigiant]

The BM document suggest 6-8 medium encounters.

But look at a medium encounter. If a caster blows their highest slot in a good way, most medium encounters become easy.

So each caster who burns half their high slots well and half of them on utility or inefficiently on damage/control, each caster downgrades 2 fights a day.

If a caster burns all their good slots in combat well, a caster downgrades 4 fights. That's half your adventuring day.