D&D 5E Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll

[Nefermandias]

Kinda, yeah. Cantrips that scale were a thing for 4e that got carried over to 5e, along with Rituals.

BUT: Not everything from 4e was terrible just because it was part of 4e.

I feel like jumping back toward 3e's casting full-force wasn't the best direction to go, is all. And would much rather be able to quantify spellcasting in combat and spellcasting out of combat as separate functions and resources that use different costs. Specifically slots for combat-casting and Time for the rest.

Yes, we are completely in agreement here. I just find it amusing how many of the "fixes" people come up for 5e problems are usually things that 4e had already fixed 13 years ago.

 

[Asisreo]

My post and his reiteration are talking more than that design-space (caster and cantrips).

The point being made is give all characters (martial and spellcaster) a suite of at-will attacks and/or utility that are both thematically and tactically robust/differentiating. This typically comports to some model of damage + rider effect (though it may be merely a powerful rider effect a la Leader Classes that force-multiple Team PC by giving up their own action economy for huge buffs to other teammates).

Very important to remember that not all players want to have suites of options all the time. I'm generally a "low-option" type of player because long lists of descriptions overwhelm and somewhat confuse me.

Waiting and watching constantly when Minor Illusion or Mage Hand or Invisibility is applicable detracts from the overall gameplay experience and I often feel decision paralysis when given too many options.

 

[Steampunkette]

Yes, we are completely in agreement here. I just find it amusing how many of the "fixes" people come up for 5e problems are usually things that 4e had already fixed 13 years ago.

I wouldn't go THAT FAR.

4e "Fixed" the problem I'm referencing by making it so everyone used the exact same sort of At will, Encounter, Daily, and Utility powers. It's the -blandest- and most samey method of fixing the problem there is.

Same with how 5e took the problem of describing different sources of power and made it all "The Weave" so everything you do that isn't swinging a sword is exactly the same magic.

It "Fixes" the problem by making everything as close to identical as possible. Not just in throughput but style. You lose a ton of granularity and texture when you look through the 4e books and see the exact same mechanics used for every class except for one class-defining function (Like Psions and their Power Points or Wizards changing their Spells out).

Instead, I'm suggesting giving everyone a similar baseline and then moving from there into the different mechanics that make them unique, and those unique mechanics being the MAJORITY of the class rather than just one or two details.

 

[Nefermandias]

I wouldn't go THAT FAR.

4e "Fixed" the problem I'm referencing by making it so everyone used the exact same sort of At will, Encounter, Daily, and Utility powers. It's the -blandest- and most samey method of fixing the problem there is.

Same with how 5e took the problem of describing different sources of power and made it all "The Weave" so everything you do that isn't swinging a sword is exactly the same magic.

It "Fixes" the problem by making everything as close to identical as possible. Not just in throughput but style. You lose a ton of granularity and texture when you look through the 4e books and see the exact same mechanics used for every class except for one class-defining function (Like Psions and their Power Points or Wizards changing their Spells out).

Instead, I'm suggesting giving everyone a similar baseline and then moving from there into the different mechanics that make them unique, and those unique mechanics being the MAJORITY of the class rather than just one or two details.

I have seen this argument being thrown a lot around the internet, but as someone who has experienced 4e from the playtest up to it's final days, I just cannot see this as true.

The "sameness" people keeping parroting about is just regarding the resource recharging system, and I don't see it as a bad thing. Now that every class recharge their abilities at a different rate, DMs complain that it's hard to balance an adventuring day without being forced to run eight combat encounters in a row.

 

[Asisreo]

I also want to say that caster/martial disparity occurs not from encounter number, or really encounter type, but from predictability of the adventure and the adventuring day.

If the wizard can easily predict how the monster/monsters will react based on their spells, they can easily counter them. But when a caster isn't given the ability to predict as accurately, you'll see they'll either have to double down on a gamble of their action or spell slot or find some way to buff their party without making an "encounter-ending" call.

When you foreshadow their abilities days in advanced, the wizard is able to more properly cater their spell list to a theoretical undead spellcaster rather than having to come up with something with the spells they happen to prepare.

 

[jgsugden]

It doesn't matter. Balance does not matter.

AD&D was incredibly fun. The rules were a mess, the characters were not balanced, and you pent far too much time hunting for rules. But we still had amazing fun.

Balance is much better in 5E. Any character can be meaningful at any level. And it is still just as much fun.

OK, so maybe it matters a little ... it improves the game a bit. However, it is not essential to having fun.

 

[Stormonu]

It's not completely moot though.

At 3rd level a rogue will have about a 65% chance to pick a standard lock (DC 15 and assuming 16 Dex and the rogue having expertise and thieves tools). A knock spell gives you a 100% chance. That's not insignificant when you REALLY need to get past a lock.

But that's also not the whole story. If the rogue doesn't have tools and has to improvise then he's picking the lock at disadvantage - that's only a 42% chance of success. The Wizard remains at 100% (without needing access to anything since knock is a V only spell).

If the rogue can't improvise tools (say he's locked in a dungeon cell and the DM is being overly strict) he can't pick the lock. The wizard - still at 100%.

Now how many wizard players memorize knock as their sole 2nd level spell? Not many, unless they know it will almost certainly come up - then yes they would - at a significant resource cost.

But allowing it as a ritual? That obliterates locks as an obstacle completely, which is a bit much - especially for 3rd level. I'm comfortable giving that to a rogue at 11th (reliable talent and a high skill check) they've more than earned it - but not to a wizard at 3rd.

(Late to the party, but...)

Hey, let's not forget that the fighter can cast knock at any time with his foot...or, if it's a dungeon cell, bend bars/lift gates if they're barrel-hinged

 

[Zaukrie]

Where is "I don't care about balance" as a choice? No one I've ever played with has ever brought up the topic, in over 40 years of playing.

 

[Mort]

(Late to the party, but...)

Hey, let's not forget that the fighter can cast knock at any time with his foot...or, if it's a dungeon cell, bend bars/lift gates if they're barrel-hinged

Sure, but:

It's not 100% - at absolute BEST the fighter will have roughly the same chance as the rogue (65%). Most DMs I've seen set door break DCs at 20 not 15 - and the fighter isn't going to have expertise at kicking it down. What's worse is many DMs (and too many published adventures frankly) are of the opinion that doors get tougher to break down as the party increases in level because the party is in a tougher situation (the treadmill effect) so the fighters chance to break the door down at best stays the same and more often actually gets worse at higher levels not better!

Hopefully, with enough time, any reasonable DM would eventually let the fighter succeed (a boot, sword or axe to the door should work eventually) but that's not quite what the issue is.

 

[tetrasodium]

I have seen this argument being thrown a lot around the internet, but as someone who has experienced 4e from the playtest up to it's final days, I just cannot see this as true.

The "sameness" people keeping parroting about is just regarding the resource recharging system, and I don't see it as a bad thing. Now that every class recharge their abilities at a different rate, DMs complain that it's hard to balance an adventuring day without being forced to run eight combat encounters in a row.

puffin forest has a pretty good video about 4e, the powers being copied so much comes up a couple times in the video and the link starts at one. He probably had to cut it for detailing specific powers or something but an older version of the video covered a bunch of them & mentioned how he just started searching for the effect to find the cloned powers in every class