Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Balance of Power Problems in 5e: Self created?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7034582" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>First, of course, 5e doesn't use formal role, and doesn't seem to depend on niche protection, per se (that is, there's very little in the way of vital functional contributions that can be made by only one class). </p><p></p><p>Where the problem comes in is matching broad concept to contribution. If you want to play 'an arcane caster' (not much detail, but hey, it's just an example), you can certainly wiggle that basic concept/preference around to contributing DPR (a Warlock or EK), contributing support (Bard for healing, any of the others for buffing), contributing lockdown control (Bard or Wizard), contributing crowd control (Wizard/Sorcerer), contributing out of combat (Wizard, Bard), checks (bard), etc, etc. No problem. If you want to play a character who doesn't cast spells in combat you could still choose a Monk, a Barbarian or a Paladin (just use your slots to smite, lay on hands isn't technically a spell) in addition to a non-AT/EK Rogue/Fighter - and that can cover DPR lavishly (all those classes can do some good DPR), and support, modestly (Paladin), and checks (Rogue), and I'm sure Monks are good for something, too. But your range of contributions has lost some depth. Say you don't want any sort of magic at all in your concept. You're down to Berserker, Champion, BM, Thief & Assassin. Possibly contributions are DPR (all) and checks (Thief & Assassin).</p><p></p><p>So as long as at least some of you want to play casters, you can probably negotiate needed contributions and cover all your bases. But the all-'martial' party is off the table. </p><p></p><p> There are solutions, and there are work-arounds. 'Play a class you don't want to,' is not a solution to the problem of a party lacking a vital contribution like healing. A wider range of more appealing concepts able to provide the vital contribution is a solution. You can see that happening as the game evolved with the Cleric, specifically. Healing went from Cleric-exclusive in 0e, the Cleric clearly best (and only viable option at first level in 1e) with the Paladin & Druid also-rans, to a variety of Priests & the Druid all able the heal well enough, and the Bard & Paladin getting to do a little in 2e, to the Cleric, Druid, Favored Soul, Bard, and Paladin - and anyone able to use a WoCLW, being able to step up in 3e, to the Cleric, Warlord, Bard, Artificer, Shaman, and Ardent all fully contributing leaders in 4e, with the Paladin & others secondary, to Essentials adding a Druid sub-class to that list. </p><p></p><p>5e, while eschewing role, offers fewer traditional-Cleric alternatives than the game had just before it was introduced. The Cleric, Bard & Druid were retained and quite adequate at the role, the Paladin, likewise, stayed a strong secondary, and the Ranger distant one. The Warlord, Shaman, Artificer, and Ardent were all dropped from the PH. The UA Artificer doesn't seem too strongly tending that way, and I don't think we've seen anything quite like an Ardent sub-class for the Mystic. So 5e has a ways to go, to get caught up. And that's just in the one most notorious case.</p><p></p><p>Really, the only contributions where there's no such issues are DPR and basic (easy-moderate 'warm body') checks. </p><p></p><p> The same way it flies in an all-caster party. </p><p>Well, not quite the same - the hang-glider will probably have a lower maneuverability class than the Fly spell. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p>'No' and 'no more so than the casters already are (so kinda, yeah),' respectively.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7034582, member: 996"] First, of course, 5e doesn't use formal role, and doesn't seem to depend on niche protection, per se (that is, there's very little in the way of vital functional contributions that can be made by only one class). Where the problem comes in is matching broad concept to contribution. If you want to play 'an arcane caster' (not much detail, but hey, it's just an example), you can certainly wiggle that basic concept/preference around to contributing DPR (a Warlock or EK), contributing support (Bard for healing, any of the others for buffing), contributing lockdown control (Bard or Wizard), contributing crowd control (Wizard/Sorcerer), contributing out of combat (Wizard, Bard), checks (bard), etc, etc. No problem. If you want to play a character who doesn't cast spells in combat you could still choose a Monk, a Barbarian or a Paladin (just use your slots to smite, lay on hands isn't technically a spell) in addition to a non-AT/EK Rogue/Fighter - and that can cover DPR lavishly (all those classes can do some good DPR), and support, modestly (Paladin), and checks (Rogue), and I'm sure Monks are good for something, too. But your range of contributions has lost some depth. Say you don't want any sort of magic at all in your concept. You're down to Berserker, Champion, BM, Thief & Assassin. Possibly contributions are DPR (all) and checks (Thief & Assassin). So as long as at least some of you want to play casters, you can probably negotiate needed contributions and cover all your bases. But the all-'martial' party is off the table. There are solutions, and there are work-arounds. 'Play a class you don't want to,' is not a solution to the problem of a party lacking a vital contribution like healing. A wider range of more appealing concepts able to provide the vital contribution is a solution. You can see that happening as the game evolved with the Cleric, specifically. Healing went from Cleric-exclusive in 0e, the Cleric clearly best (and only viable option at first level in 1e) with the Paladin & Druid also-rans, to a variety of Priests & the Druid all able the heal well enough, and the Bard & Paladin getting to do a little in 2e, to the Cleric, Druid, Favored Soul, Bard, and Paladin - and anyone able to use a WoCLW, being able to step up in 3e, to the Cleric, Warlord, Bard, Artificer, Shaman, and Ardent all fully contributing leaders in 4e, with the Paladin & others secondary, to Essentials adding a Druid sub-class to that list. 5e, while eschewing role, offers fewer traditional-Cleric alternatives than the game had just before it was introduced. The Cleric, Bard & Druid were retained and quite adequate at the role, the Paladin, likewise, stayed a strong secondary, and the Ranger distant one. The Warlord, Shaman, Artificer, and Ardent were all dropped from the PH. The UA Artificer doesn't seem too strongly tending that way, and I don't think we've seen anything quite like an Ardent sub-class for the Mystic. So 5e has a ways to go, to get caught up. And that's just in the one most notorious case. Really, the only contributions where there's no such issues are DPR and basic (easy-moderate 'warm body') checks. The same way it flies in an all-caster party. Well, not quite the same - the hang-glider will probably have a lower maneuverability class than the Fly spell. ;) 'No' and 'no more so than the casters already are (so kinda, yeah),' respectively. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Balance of Power Problems in 5e: Self created?
Top