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

[pemerton]

The Fighter (in the game world) does have a meaningful chance to do just that.

To the players at the table it might take a few attack rolls. To the observers in the game world, it was just the single thrust to the heart that did it and it was over in a few seconds.

Fighters primary class feature is HP and HD. You're depriving them of the narrative power of those class features arbitarily.

It's not arbitrary. Each attack roll at the table corresponds to a meaningful attempt by the character in the fiction to defeat the ogre. This is spelled out in the Basic PDF (pp 69, 71-72):

On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. . . .

The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.

With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. . . .

Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.​

The point becomes even more evident if we imagine the fighter attempting to kill an ogre with an arrow rather than a sword.

 

[pemerton]

I have no problem with the idea that if we are playing a game running under action movie physics the fighter can't take down the target in a single attempt. But by the same token the fighter should be able to perform stunts like Arnie or Tom Cruise in their films. Because they are damn action movie stars. I wouldn't expect Errol Flynn's character to kill Basil Rathbone's character in a single blow or Arnie to one-shot the Predator.

My preferred approach to this is to treat "minionisation" as the outcome of a skill check or skill challenge whereby the PC gets the drop on the NPC/creature.

Failing to "minionise" the enemy means they get to enjoy their luck and "plot armour" as significant plot elements!

Because of its rules for encounter building together with its rules for minions, I think 4e can handle this pretty straightforwardly.

 

[Manbearcat]

It's not arbitrary. Each attack roll at the table corresponds to a meaningful attempt by the character in the fiction to defeat the ogre. This is spelled out in the Basic PDF (pp 69, 71-72):

On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. . . .​

​

The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.​

​

With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. . . .​

​

Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.​

The point becomes even more evident if we imagine the fighter attempting to kill an ogre with an arrow rather than a sword.

Exactly right.

Another way to look at it is:

* Is it possible to fell this opponent in a singular instance of action resolution?

Yet another way:

* Is it possible to reliably fell this opponent in a singular instance of action resolution?

Yet another way:

* Can I assert (via marshalling resources or spending currency) that this opponent is felled in a singular instance of action resolution?

Or...finally:

* How many expressions of my action economy must I devote to the defeat of this opponent?

---

If you have the ability to cause enough damage or impose a Save or Die effect upon said foe, the player will inhabit one particular cognitive workspace.

If you have the ability to reliably (say 2 in 3 instantiations of the same event) cause enough damage or impose a "likely to fail" Save or Die effect upon said foe, the player will inhabit yet another, different, cognitive workspace.

If you have the ability to assert that this foe is dead right now (via marshalling resources or spending currency to increase the possibility to 100 %), the player will inhabit yet another, different, cognitive workspace.

If the player has to spend multiple expressions of their action economy, marshal limited use resources, and still not have an assured chance of felling said foe, the player will inhabit yet another, different, cognitive workspace.



This cognitive workspace is meaningful if its supposed to (a) be somewhere in the viscinity of the cognitive workspace of the PC they are trying to inhabit (a corresponding OODA Loop for both parties) and (b) it will also say something about their relative effectiveness when compared to the obstacles they are attempting to overcome and their allies capacity to overcome the same obstacles.

 

[Aldarc]

This is the same point as the one I made upthread: that the "sameyness" is not a property of the fiction that is created, but of the mechanical procedures of playing the game.

As I posted upthread, I think 4e is clearly designed not for RPGers for whom the mechanical experience comes first, but for RPGers for whom the fiction comes first. Because it's in the shared fiction that we see the distinctiveness and the vibrancy of 4e characters.

For example, there's not really much mechanical heft to the power sources (from what I recall), but they do flavor and inform the fiction of the character classes and their mechanics. If I play any class with the Primal power source, then I understand that my various powers involve the spirits and the primal power of nature.

 

[Mort]

As it is the fighter gets the short end of the stick both ways.

Well yes:

Boiled down the argument comes down to: So can the fighter have nice things or not?

But the problem is even if the answer is yes (and too often the answer is no) people can't seem to agree on what exactly that means.

Even more importantly, they can't agree on how to do it - while keeping their idea of what they want the fighter to actually be intact.

I think that's one of the big issues. Most people agree on what D&D magic is (even if they don't necessarily like it). They understand how to it fits within the framework of D&D.

But many people DO NOT agree on what the fighter is - especially at higher levels. And thus, the massive disconnects on fighter implementation - especially at higher levels.

 

[Undrave]

Are you not kind of ignoring Feats there? They're a core class feature of Fighters, and they get more of them.

Even just assuming the 2 bonus feats they get over everyone else barring Rogues, and blow them on Skilled and Skill Expert, you wind up with a Human Fighter with 11 skills (1 with expertise).

Let's not forget that Feats are (supposedly) an optional rule? Meaning that a major class feature of the Fighter is OPTIONAL?! What other class gets their class features shunted to the OPTIONAL bin exactly?!

It wasn't reprinted. Banneret was the name a sidebar gave it for use outside of Forgotten Realms. And again, it's not disliked because it doesn't do MOAR DPS but because it is bad at adding support elements to the fighter, which is it's goal. The only ability worth it is the granting of reaction attacks when you action surge.

That said, I wish all Fighter subclasses did something with Action Surge and Second Wind. Maybe the Champion would be the first ones to get more and end up with the most, just to keep it simple? But it shouldn't be the only thing the subclass does.

That's on your DM. If mine had stuck to only one foe in most combats in 4e I wouldn't have been impressed either.

Seriously, using 1 enemy in 4e is garbage and boring, what the heck?!. Even the best 'solo' should be surrounded by some minions!

Right. You've seen how D&D magic--and this is something that goes all the way back, this isn't new--becomes the end-all, be-all because it's literally the "do anything" mechanic. There is nothing that magic cannot achieve, at least conceivably. Hell, magic is the only character option that literally allows you to invent your own new mechanics. Fighters never had that option.

D&D magic is badly defined and way too broad. What even IS 'arcane magic' in D&D? It has no definition, no limits, and people expect it to do everything all the time.

You also see an example of #4 in early-edition D&D, where Fighters transcended their individual limits by becoming lords and ladies, holding land, having retainers, collecting taxes, etc.: the Fighter "growing beyond" mere mundane fighting.

That's an interesting take... essentially, the Fighter grew in power by becoming more people, not like a literal multiplying super power, but by essentially imposing their will on the world at multiple points through the action of their agents. While the Wizard player gets more power, the Fighter PC gets more characters to control...

I don't need to feel like I am "winning" the who can be the biggest bada## race in combat that seems to have become a very real phenomenon these days.

These days?!? Pretty sure it's been like that for ages.

Except Fighters and Barbarians also had area of effect attacks. And since an enemy target's saving throws were static, everyone rolled what was essentially an attack roll whether they targeted AC or Saves because they were all "Defenses". Very samey.

I'm sorry, but I just never grokked the concept of "sometimes the attacker rolls and sometimes the targets rolls". It makes WAY more sense for the person who WANTS an effect to happen to be the one to roll. Why is it that when I shoot an arrow at someone, I'm the one who has a chance to miss, but somehow, if I'm shooting a blast of energy at the same target, they get a chance to dodge?! Shouldn't it always be one or the other?? Ultimately it does the same thing: stop the bad guys from trying to make you dead. Wether you make them dead or you knock them out. Why would it use multiple resolution mechanic?!

When you wanna force a door open using an Ability Check the Wizard and the Barbarian both have the same chance to do it because Strength and Intelligence are interchangeable for the task.

When the heck was that?! That's not a basic rule of 4e?! If anything, it's a rule of 5e. What are you on about on that?!

It is worth noting here that there's an important rationale behind specifically making all offensive actions attack rolls: it makes playing a support character much easier. Instead of having to balance both an accuracy buff AND an ally-save-DC-buff, you only have to balance one thing, attack roll bonuses. This means (for example) the 4e Warlord doesn't have to have long-winded features or multiple distinct mechanics in order to play nicely with both a Ranger and a Sorcerer, despite the former having (mostly) non-magical attack powers and the latter having very explicitly magical attack powers.

THIS! This is what made support characters much better in 4e than in 5e. It's way easier to synergies with the party when you don't have to contort yourself to a bunch of different mechanics for what amounts to the same damn thing. It also allowed Martial types to sometimes get to target the NADs instead of AC. Sometimes you could trade your damage to target a lower defence (i.e. more accuracy) and that was really interesting against certain foes.

There aren't 10 templates of powers. Powers run the gamut of all sorts of things: they include keywords (which, officially, only the DM is allowed to alter--but they did support DMs doing so to help make a player's character more thematic, just as 5e does), but you could have Effects (stuff that Just Happens when you use the power) or not, could cause secondary or even tertiary attacks/effects, and could (often did) have riders that hook into other class features. Just as, in 5e, every spell has a specific format--level, school, casting time, range, components etc.--even if it doesn't necessarily need all of those parts, exactly the same thing applies to 4e powers, there's a format and you use whatever parts of it are needed to achieve the power's effect. Like, if your standard is that there's only a few templates that then get tweaked, 5e is worse, because spells have ONE template! It is literally almost never the case that two powers for the same class in 4e work perfectly identically; you do sometimes get two powers that work identically across two different classes, but that's not particularly common due to rider effects.

Martial Power 1 & 2 added the interesting wrinkle of keywords that trigger effects if you have certain skill proficiencies and that was great. If you were trained in Endurance and use a power with 'Invigorating' you would gain temp HP, and if you were trained in Intimidate and used a 'Rattling' power, you would impose a penalty to the target's next attack. Those were pretty interesting and I wish that concept had been developed more for Martials, making some of your skills matter more.

 

[Aldarc]

THIS! This is what made support characters much better in 4e than in 5e. It's way easier to synergies with the party when you don't have to contort yourself to a bunch of different mechanics for what amounts to the same damn thing. It also allowed Martial types to sometimes get to target the NADs instead of AC. Sometimes you could trade your damage to target a lower defence (i.e. more accuracy) and that was really interesting against certain foes.

I miss Defenses. It resolved things much quicker and consistently than Saving Throws.

 

[pemerton]

For example, there's not really much mechanical heft to the power sources (from what I recall), but they do flavor and inform the fiction of the character classes and their mechanics. If I play any class with the Primal power source, then I understand that my various powers involve the spirits and the primal power of nature.

And this will feed through into the fiction. (At least I think it should.)

Imagine a conflict with a hag who has taken over a part of a forest: a worshipper of Erathis is going to have different things at stake in this conflict, compared to a shaman or druid.

 

[Aldarc]

You're not wrong!

d20 roll high is pretty samey! Especially since it means all functions tied to a d20 roll have explicitly 5% increments of happening or not happening.

Maybe the real, underlying complaint isn't that 4e made everyone a wizard, it's that it made everyone a fighter. Roll to attack.

I do think that the designers of 4e would have handled powers differently if they had additional time to playtest and design, but, as it was, it was a rushed project.

I'd much rather have a system where different dice are used in different situations, or different potential outcomes with increasing granularity occur. Like having attack rolls vary in dice use based on class, level, and proficiency. But that ship sailed when 3e came out.

Shadow of the Demon Lord by Rob Schwalb (a co-developer of 5e) uses banes and boons, which are essentially 1d6s that are either added or subtracted from the roll based on conditions, support bonuses, and such. Banes and boons cancel each other out, so you are never really dealing with a massive die pool situation. You just take the highest (boons) or lowest (banes) from the dice and subtract that from your d20 roll. It works pretty darn well, and it's more granular IMHO than Advantage/Disadvantage.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think @Neonchameleon is perfectly familiar with what hp represent. (Subject to some borderline cases which put pressure on the conceit, like damage from missile fire and the fact that in AD&D poison generally doesn't do hp damage.)

I think his point is that a fighter should have a meaningful chance to take down an ogre in a single attempt - ie the ogre shouldn't be automatically lucky enough not to be killed. And that in 5e D&D this is not the case.

an ogre has 59 hp.

Spoiler: fighters get this

Spoiler: not this

If you want a character who "has a meaningful chance to [do 59hp of damage] in a single attempt" you need to play a rogue who has one high damage attack rather than a fighter who has multiple smaller ones.