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

[Minigiant]

Yes, completely agreed. One concrete example is that battlemaster should get new, more powerful manoeuvres at higher levels. That they just choose from the same pool at all levels is silly. It's like if casters just got more level one spells at higher levels.

"But if the battlemaster did more damage, then it would make the simple subclass, the champion, look useless."
"What if the higher level maneuvers did moe than deal more damage?"
"But if the battlemaster did more of anything but damage, then it would make the simple subclass, the champion, look useless."
"Then the champion and battlemaster shouldn't be the same class so they wouldn't share the same base and be in competition with each other. This wuld lower the arms race and allow martials and casters to growat the same rate."

 

[ECMO3]

Part of the spellcaster and martial balance issues is that D&D tries to put a dozen warrior concepts into one class and can only round the square pegs with MOAR DAMaGE and MOAR HP. So then the fighter becomes narrowly focused on damage and HP when spellcasters aren't. Thuse there are only 2 levels to judge combat effetiveness one since a major archetype only has access to one angle of it.

To start with that is the idea of a true martial, someone focused on more damage and more hps. If they have powers or abilities, or god forbid spells then they are not really martials any more are they?

Further the premise is untrue, many fighter subclasses are not focused on damage and hps. Samaurai and most of all Bannerets are not focused on damage with their subclass abilities. Further although the Rune Knight has some damage focused runes, many of the runes are not damage focused, you can build a rune knight without any extra damage abilities over the main class. Ironically I think these are some of the most hated and least played fighters. EKs are also not focused on damage and hps, and Arcane Archer abilities are pretty muted in terms of extra damage, being largely more control, skill and cantrip focused.

Now the fighters main fighter class abilities are focused on combat, but martial combat is what defines the class so that makes sense.

 

[Vaalingrade]

God I hate the very existence of the Champion...

How can it be so awful when it's named after the best complex RPG ever?

 

[ECMO3]

Yes, completely agreed. One concrete example is that battlemaster should get new, more powerful manoeuvres at higher levels. That they just choose from the same pool at all levels is silly. It's like if casters just got more level one spells at higher levels.

The battlemaster maneuvers already get more powerful at 10th and 18th levels and aside from more powerful maneuvers he also gets student of war, know your enemy and relentless at 3rd, 7th and 15th levels respectfully.

 

[pemerton]

I think the following design specifications sit in tension with one another:

* Any player of this game should be able to have big effects on how the game unfolds;

* This game should be fun for players who enjoy intricate, technical manipulation of game rules that are spread over multiple interacting game elements;

* This game should be playable, in the full sense of that word in the context of this game, by players who don't care for complex rules and rules interactions and just want to play a warrior who is strong and hits things.

 

[Flamestrike]

The main point is, one big solution to martial/caster balance

There is no imbalance between the two, other than the one the DM permits via his managing (or lack thereof) of the Adventuring day.

DMs that allow the 5MWD and only average a handful of encounters per long rest are creating the class imbalance.

I've now run a mock game at 7th and 13th level on these forums, with parties with ALL options allowed (including all of Tashas AND magic items) and there was no imbalance because I doom clocked the adventures to conform to the DMG's 6(ish) encounters with 2(ish) short rests, using the 'XP per adventuring day' charts as my guide.

I'm happy to do so again at 15th level if anyone is interested, and I guarantee there will be no imbalance.

 

[ECMO3]

You could have a defensive knight class that could encompass Hoplites, Legionaires,, Jaguars, Axemen, and Swordsman as they focus on nobleweapons.

You can do all these things with the current fighters and fighting styles and subclass choices and TCE even details how for most of them.

Hoplite: TCE tells you explicitly how to build a Hoplite on page 47.

Jaguar: An Aztec Jaguar motif could also be pulled from TCE under the Gladiator or Skirmisher.

Legionaire: A Roman Legionaire would go by what type you wanted. If you wanted an early foot soldier as in the Phalanx you would use the hoplite template, you would also use that for a later Heavy Infantry Legionaire and for light infantry you would use the skirmisher template. For cavalry would either use the outrider template or go with the cavalier subclass.

Swordsman: Swordsman would use the duelist template.

Axeman: Axeman you would use the shock troop template.

That is before even considering other non-caster classes that could be used (Rogue for swordsman, Barbarian for axeman)

And for the warrior who just slays big game, they just use big weapons and big damage.

I think this would use Arcane Archer, although you could build it thematically with a Champion or Battlemaster too.

Well you don't want to fix the problem.
We already have thematic dilution because every warrior is forced in the same class without the same variety that spells allow to distinguish them.

Every warrior is not forced into the same class. We have fighters and barbarian classes which are both warriors. You could also do several different warrior builds with Rogues. I would say that offers a lot of class variety without even considering the martial half casters.

 

[Minigiant]

To start with that is the idea of a true martial, someone focused on more damage and more hps. If they have powers or abilities, or god forbid spells then they are not really martials any more are they?

Further the premise is untrue, many warrior subclasses are not focused on damage and hps. Samaurai and most of all Bannerets are not focused on damage with their subclass abilities. Further although the Rune Knight has some damage focused runes, many of the runes are not damage focused, you can build a rune knight without any extra damage abilities over the main class. Ironically I think these are some of the most hated and least played fighters. EKs are also not focused on damage and hps, and Arcane Archer abilities are pretty muted in terms of extra damage, being largely more power, skill and cantrip focused.

Now the fighters main fighter class abilities are focused on combat, but martial combat is what defines the class so that makes sense.

Yeah but the Purple Dragon Knight is the least liked fighter subclass for a reason.

The point is if the Fighter is 95% Combat and 5% other then and one of the pushed Subclasses is the ultrasimplistic Champion then:

1. There is little space for fighters to grow. They can only take features that are either:
   1. Outdated by the time the fighter gets it COUGH 3rd Casters COUGH Psi Knight flies for 1 turn at level 7 COUGH
   2. Hard to fully utilize because of how fighters work. High Intelligence on a Fighter?
   3. Are not easy to leverage in the Game. Artisan's tools aren't easy to bring up in a campaign.
2. This narrowness means casters much be held back in an aspect of combat to make the extremely focused Fighter relevant.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There is no imbalance between the two, other than the one the DM permits via his managing (or lack thereof) of the Adventuring day.

Gonna be honest here: the adventuring day is another piece of design that needs to go away for good.

I have never seen a 'full' adventuring day that wasn't full of trash fights just to fill time and get the party's XP up to the right level. With the widespread acceptance of milestone leveling, it's pretty much just there to waste valuable gaming time that could be spent on social or exploration stuff.

 

[Minigiant]

You can do all these things with the current fighters and fighting styles and subclass choices and TCE even details how for most of them.

Hoplite: TCE tells you explicitly how to build a Hoplite on page 47..

Jaguar: An Aztec Jaguar motif could also be pulled from TCE under the Gladiator or Skirmisher.

Legionaire: A Roman Legionaire would go by what type you wanted. If you wanted an early foot soldier as in the Phalanx you would use the hoplite template, you would also use that for a later Heavy Infantry Legionaire and for light infantry you would use the skirmisher template. For cavalry would either use the outrider template or go with the cavalier subclass.

Swordsman: Swordsman would use the duelist template.

Axeman: Axeman you would use the shock troop template.

That is before even considering other non-caster classes that could be used (Rogue for swordsman, Barbarian for axeman)

The point is that the battlmaster only gets 4-5 sup dice during most campaigns.This limits them to using their flavorful theme 4-5times between rests. This in turn reverts them into constant use on the basic attack action. This means Every Single Fighter is reduced to a damage tank and this caps every other class by comparison.