I checked prefer arcane casters/worried about balance. But just because I like blaster mages and gishes and artificers (the most effective variation of the 3.x wizard, the control specialist with a lot of utility spells on scrolls, isn't something I like playing) doesn't mean I dislike warriors or sneaky guys or devotees of their faith or psionic types (the classes that are primal types in 4e, on the other hand... mostly don't play them); I've played my share of fighters, warlords, rogues, clerics, paladins, and psions, too. What don't like is playing an ineffective character... or playing a character so much more effective that than the rest of the party that the others are effectively just his bodyguards.
-
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!
Testing a theory
- Thread starter haakon1
- Start date
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
Well, while I basically always GM (checked "DM only" to represent that), when I do get to play, my favorite archetype is a martial-based one (Fighters, Paladins, etc, Barbarians, etc.), though I end up playing different types of characters (again, when I do get to play).
So, for my "player" side, I also checked "Prefer Fighter-types, worries about caster balance" because, when I was making my RPG, I worried a lot about caster balance. It took a long time -and a lot of playtesting- to get caster balance where I like it.
Caster balance was something I was very concerned with, and yes, Fighter-types are my preferred character (in fact, I just polled my players on our Facebook "Game" group, asking favorite archetypes, and listing mine as "skilled warrior" to kick off the discussion).
On a related note, I didn't see Fighter-types in my 3.5 game ever feel useless at what they did: fight. The Sorcerer and Cleric definitely had better "narrative control" powers, but when they wanted something dead, the plan was "use our magic to have Blake (the Fighter)* take it down" because of how potent he was. So, the player of Blake sometimes felt like "I wish I could teleport, too", sure, but the Sorcerer would say "I wish I could kill things like you do" and Blake's player would just smile.
*(I'm not going to get into a "here's how you break casters in 3.5" debate, but suffice it to say that much of it was cut off since it was a core/homebrew only campaign, so no DMM or the like; and yes, I know that the most powerful classes can mostly be found in the PHB, about wish loops, etc.)
So, there's my input. I was concerned about caster-fighter balance, and I prefer warriors; however, none of the fighter-types in my games have ever felt useless. So, take that mixed bag however you want to. As always, play what you like
Your call -- either answer for all the classes you like, or the DM only/no preference choice.
It's multiple choice.
Stormonu
Legend
I DM, and I always worry about something being "broken" - but not only for casters and not only for PCs. I don't like playing high-level games (usually past 9th level) because of the laundry list of abilities available to PCs - I just get to the point where I can't account for all the varied things they can do and it often starts devolving into who wins initiative in combats - for martials or casters.
When I have played as a player I tend to grab for fighter types, though I have played a wizard in two campaigns (of about five in my lifetime). I usually reach for a fighter type because I don't like worrying about running out of resources, such as spells. I like being able to rush in and give it everything I've got without holding back.
In the end, can't say 15 MWD has ever been a problem for me, the way I run games. As a player haven't ever gotten away with it, sometimes to my chagrin after casting my only spell as a low-level wizard.
When I have played as a player I tend to grab for fighter types, though I have played a wizard in two campaigns (of about five in my lifetime). I usually reach for a fighter type because I don't like worrying about running out of resources, such as spells. I like being able to rush in and give it everything I've got without holding back.
In the end, can't say 15 MWD has ever been a problem for me, the way I run games. As a player haven't ever gotten away with it, sometimes to my chagrin after casting my only spell as a low-level wizard.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Yes, I worry over balance.
I mostly play wizards, but I do play a mix of other. I would point out that it is possible to tweak a paladin or barbarian/cleric/X to function well in a 15-minute workday.
I mostly play wizards, but I do play a mix of other. I would point out that it is possible to tweak a paladin or barbarian/cleric/X to function well in a 15-minute workday.
RigaMortus2
First Post
I voted Fighter, Rogue, Other (mainly archer ranged types) and I DON'T worry about caster balance.
For me, it is all about resources. I hate running out of resources. Thats why I didn't choose Arcane or Cleric. A Fighter and Rogue can swing their weapons infinitely while a caster will run out of spells eventually.
The reason I don't mind casters being more powerful (as levels go on) is that there is usually 1 or 2 other players in the group that takes up the caster mantle. And they tend to be the ones that save the party in a pinch, or take out the BBEG at the last minute. And I am OK with that. Takes less pressure off me The casters have the versatility. A common question being "Don't you have some spell to counter that?" Where as I, a melee or ranged non-caster type, am limited. I swing a sword, no I can't dimension lock the teleporting drow assassin.
For me, it is all about resources. I hate running out of resources. Thats why I didn't choose Arcane or Cleric. A Fighter and Rogue can swing their weapons infinitely while a caster will run out of spells eventually.
The reason I don't mind casters being more powerful (as levels go on) is that there is usually 1 or 2 other players in the group that takes up the caster mantle. And they tend to be the ones that save the party in a pinch, or take out the BBEG at the last minute. And I am OK with that. Takes less pressure off me
The casters have the versatility. A common question being "Don't you have some spell to counter that?" Where as I, a melee or ranged non-caster type, am limited. I swing a sword, no I can't dimension lock the teleporting drow assassin. 
Someone
Adventurer
It's not just about balance. About the 15 minute game day, first I’ve never had or for that matter heard about a player who specifically though along that line – blow all his spells in the first couple encounters, then retreat, but I had that specific headache as a DM since I rarely design or play pure dungeon crawls and prefer adventures with more plot. This often leads to fewer combats per day as those kinds of adventures often demand fewer but more meaningful combats and have less places for orc and pie encounters. That’s why I find facepalm-worthy 5e’s assumption of a certain number of combats / combat rounds per day. My adventures don’t work like that unless I plan to do a dungeon crawl Caves of Chaos style. D&D may be ultimately best at the game of the murderhobo gang of looters, but it’s not the exclusive way people play it.
This leads to combats where spellcasters had a lot of power unless I go out of my way to drain their spells, make the enemies more resistant against magic, or just give the non casters much more power through magic items or whatnot.
Second, the amount and power of utility spells in past editions were astounding and made running an adventure a game of spells. This doesn’t come just from game experience – I’m a frequent Story hour reader, and I’ve not found a high level campaign which doesn’t play like this. First, the investigation starts with some spells, then they try to locate the bad guy whose identity they just divined with more spells, but find out he’s protected from their spells with more spells. (This means the party either has at least a mage and a cleric, or it’s going nowhere, and the bad guys either have a mage or they’re toast in the first 5 minutes of the game) They cleverly go around those with ingenious use of spells, like scrying an associate instead of the BBEG. They travel there using more spells, beat the traps with spells and confront the bad guy, at which point the fighter types use their one and only trick they’ve built their entire concept around and do their leaping charge or whatever, dealing a ton of damage.
Which leads to the third point. Fighter types have always been ultimately boring unless the only thing you care is about tons of damage, which they were capable to do no doubt, but paled in comparison to the number of fun tricks the spellcasters were able to do. I like the concept of playing a fighter, but I also like having mechanical options for many reasons – that’s why I enjoyed the psychic warrior in 3.5 and the love the 4e fighter.
This leads to combats where spellcasters had a lot of power unless I go out of my way to drain their spells, make the enemies more resistant against magic, or just give the non casters much more power through magic items or whatnot.
Second, the amount and power of utility spells in past editions were astounding and made running an adventure a game of spells. This doesn’t come just from game experience – I’m a frequent Story hour reader, and I’ve not found a high level campaign which doesn’t play like this. First, the investigation starts with some spells, then they try to locate the bad guy whose identity they just divined with more spells, but find out he’s protected from their spells with more spells. (This means the party either has at least a mage and a cleric, or it’s going nowhere, and the bad guys either have a mage or they’re toast in the first 5 minutes of the game) They cleverly go around those with ingenious use of spells, like scrying an associate instead of the BBEG. They travel there using more spells, beat the traps with spells and confront the bad guy, at which point the fighter types use their one and only trick they’ve built their entire concept around and do their leaping charge or whatever, dealing a ton of damage.
Which leads to the third point. Fighter types have always been ultimately boring unless the only thing you care is about tons of damage, which they were capable to do no doubt, but paled in comparison to the number of fun tricks the spellcasters were able to do. I like the concept of playing a fighter, but I also like having mechanical options for many reasons – that’s why I enjoyed the psychic warrior in 3.5 and the love the 4e fighter.
I'm a 4e player, and I'm not sure if this poll applies to me or not. I play anything and everything in 4e. I also run plenty of 4e. I don't worry about "caster" balance.
In 5e, this stuff about fighter being stronger if you play lots of encounters, wizard being stronger if you play few encounters, and preference of play style affecting game balance is just bull feces. They need to make a better plan for resource management of various classes.
In 5e, this stuff about fighter being stronger if you play lots of encounters, wizard being stronger if you play few encounters, and preference of play style affecting game balance is just bull feces. They need to make a better plan for resource management of various classes.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
I love playing Fighter types. I played a lot of Fighters in 3E, and in 4E, my favorite classes are probably Fighter and Warlord.
I worry a lot about balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters.
That said, I also love spellcasters. But if I have to make a choice, I'd probably play something like Fighter or Warlord.
I worry a lot about balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters.
That said, I also love spellcasters. But if I have to make a choice, I'd probably play something like Fighter or Warlord.
Similar Threads
- Poll
