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

[Vaalingrade]

Many hated being outright told what a class I'd designed to do. However the character itself often has a goal and set of priorities it places on itself. Rogues, thieves, and assassins are purposely trying to stay out the fray. It isnt an arbitrary role painted on them.

'I don't want to be a Holy Defender! My Paladin is a Leader!'

'You can't still be party leader if the other members are cool with it. Leader just means 'support''

'Um... well I want to do a ton of damage as a Paladin, not be a dumb defender.'

'Then play an Avenger?'

'It's not called Paladin!'

'Just call yourself a Paladin then.'

'That would be breaking the rules. And that means the rules are terrible'.

An actual argument I had once.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

I think that's more a presentation problem though.

For example, you could just play a spellcaster that has 1 spell a level, and all you do is cast that spell. Presentation wise I give you a few "standard" spells, you choose a couple, and never look back. Just because you can choose 10 different spells doesn't mean you have to.

Likewise with fighter maneuvers, you can put at the top a few stock standard ones, pick 1 or 2, and just spam them forever.


the trick is, its far easier to take a complex classes and simple it down to a few options, than the reverse.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

'I don't want to be a Holy Defender! My Paladin is a Leader!'

'You can't still be party leader if the other members are cool with it. Leader just means 'support''

'Um... well I want to do a ton of damage as a Paladin, not be a dumb defender.'

'Then play an Avenger?'

'It's not called Paladin!'

'Just call yourself a Paladin then.'

'That would be breaking the rules. And that means the rules are terrible'.

An actual argument I had once.

A perfect example of an issue caused by writing the classes rules first instead of themes first. Paladin is holy warrior, that's the theme. Mechanical role is secondary, and mechanics should be flexible enough that you can build characters to fulfil different roles within that theme, or indeed one that is a hybrid. Thematically 'avenger' is a paladin, and in themes first design such a build would be part of the paladin class.

 

[Minigiant]

'I don't want to be a Holy Defender! My Paladin is a Leader!'

'You can't still be party leader if the other members are cool with it. Leader just means 'support''

'Um... well I want to do a ton of damage as a Paladin, not be a dumb defender.'

'Then play an Avenger?'

'It's not called Paladin!'

'Just call yourself a Paladin then.'

'That would be breaking the rules. And that means the rules are terrible'.

An actual argument I had once.

One of mine was convincing a player that their agile duelist is a rogue in this game.

Or the time that I told the wizard player their CE destructive wizard could just "take all the damage" spells. "But I want my bonus damage" "Then be a warlock or sorcerer, take high Intelligence, and pretend to be a wizard, Kyle"

Kyle, man. Just Kyle. UGH!

 

[Undrave]

No one actually cares that a character can deadlift 600 or 1000 pounds. Even if they did make that 1000 it wouldnt fix a single issue anyone has ever had. All this is just a distraction from the real issues.

It is quantifiable proof that the issues exist however, which is the context in which it is being used.

Its pretty rare that an issue can only be solved by being able to lift 600lbs by mundane means, particularly since there are several spells that will enable that.
It is however proof that the system does not allow heroes expected to hold their own alongside casters of level 9 spells to even be capable of physical feats performed be real-life people.

Yup, it's a symptom, and example of the kind of 'irrealistic-realism' used to hamper mundane characters, even at levels where they deal with gods and other powerful beings! The game doesn't allow its mundane characters to reach the records high of real life people and still people complain when you try to give Fighters nice things. Heck, sometimes you try to give nice things to Fighter and they argue that EVERYBODY should be allowed to do it, like the 'Fighter' is some kind of base class upon which all other are improvements and not its own specialization! It's why a bunch of Fighter class features were turned into feats to be pilfered by everybody.

I was basing my "I suppose..." of that. And it's implied but I just took a quick look at the "using ability scores" section of the PHB (on D&D Beyond) and if it's explicitly in there, it's NOT obvious!

The ability score section is terrible at emphasizing this kind of interaction.

A perfect example of an issue caused by writing the classes rules first instead of themes first. Paladin is holy warrior, that's the theme. Mechanical role is secondary, and mechanics should be flexible enough that you can build characters to fulfil different roles within that theme, or indeed one that is a hybrid. Thematically 'avenger' is a paladin, and in themes first design such a build would be part of the paladin class.

Hybridizing role and emphasizing different aspect of a character could easily be made using subclasses and other class choices. Like how a Cavalier is more Defendery and a Champion is more Strikery. If you know what the base is built for, you know what option to offer to go off-type and what elements to emphasize.

Honestly, most 5e Class are basically basic Strikers with some off-role things thrown in. Every other roles is only realized through class feature, the almighty spell list or subclass pick...

 

[Undrave]

One of mine was convincing a player that their agile duelist is a rogue in this game.

Or the time that I told the wizard player their CE destructive wizard could just "take all the damage" spells. "But I want my bonus damage" "Then be a warlock or sorcerer, take high Intelligence, and pretend to be a wizard, Kyle"

Kyle, man. Just Kyle. UGH!

Or the Archer Fighter who didn't want to be a Ranger?

 

[loverdrive]

That should stop at around level 10. I remember a message board in the 4e era with a guy insisting that horseback archery shouldn't be possible...

laughs in Central Asian

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't think I could care less about poundage limits for stats, at least in terms of adjudication for individual actions. What a waste of my mental energy. Sorry, I have to stop and try to figure out exactly how heavy scenery piece X is? Hard pass. I like using descriptors like, heavy, really heavy, and then add 'reallys' until it works. Mostly its pretty obvious or at least intuitive if PC X should be able to pick up item Y. Unless I have a brain fart its pretty simple to keep things even from example to example in a given game.

 

[Gadget]

I think the OP is a little too hopeful in thinking that classes should be balanced around other tiers of play, when it seems that the combat tear is by far the most used one (though individual campaigns and tables may vary). Isn't one of the complaints about the Ranger that it trivializes much of the Exploration pillar? While it should certainly be possible for classes to specialize in one pillar of play more than others, the combat pillar tends to get the lion's of the attention and table time.

I'm not saying that spell casters need to be the best at everything, but there are reasons the game moved away from the "I'll plunk away pointlessly with my darts/dagger while hoping the house cat doesn't get too close to my fragile character until I can use my once a day nuke of sleep" style of game play that are glossed over in the OP 1e to 5e synopsis. 4e had relatively balanced play among the various classes, but had other issues. I agree that the martials could use a boost, particularly in other, non-combat, pillars.

 

[Vaalingrade]

A perfect example of an issue caused by writing the classes rules first instead of themes first. Paladin is holy warrior, that's the theme. Mechanical role is secondary, and mechanics should be flexible enough that you can build characters to fulfil different roles within that theme, or indeed one that is a hybrid. Thematically 'avenger' is a paladin, and in themes first design such a build would be part of the paladin class.

They're still a warrior, just not a DPS warrior. Paladins, strangely enough, protect people. Like they're good guys or something instead of Frank Castle in plate.

Fighters? Also Defenders. Rogues are the strikers who deal a bunch of damage.