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

[Undrave]

Yet another thing 4e got right - mooks. I realize some people hated them - but they could really add dimension to combats.

I've used them for 5e and they work well in it too.

Sorry, I get that's not what your post is addressing but that's where my mind went reading it.

One cool thing about the monster design is that you could start with say an Ogre and have him be a solo for low level players, then a few level later they show up as a pair and they're just Elite Brutes now, the na few level are they're regular Brutes under a powerful leader and then later you can mow them down in the Epic level as minions.

And despite the fact you can knock them down, they can STILL threaten to take HP away from you and box you in with their number.

It means that the same creature is available at different levels of play and you can feel your character get better at facing the same dangerous critter. It also gives you perspective on the people ordering those guys around. "Man, this guy got OGRES as underling?! Remember how hard we fought the first time we met one of these guys? He's probably not to be underestimated."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

One cool thing about the monster design is that you could start with say an Ogre and have him be a solo for low level players, then a few level later they show up as a pair and they're just Elite Brutes now, the na few level are they're regular Brutes under a powerful leader and then later you can mow them down in the Epic level as minions.

And despite the fact you can knock them down, they can STILL threaten to take HP away from you and box you in with their number.

It means that the same creature is available at different levels of play and you can feel your character get better at facing the same dangerous critter. It also gives you perspective on the people ordering those guys around. "Man, this guy got OGRES as underling?! Remember how hard we fought the first time we met one of these guys? He's probably not to be underestimated."

But it doesn't feel like that, at least not to me. I am really not fighting the same monster, I am fighting some nerfed carboard facsimile. 'We know you couldn't kill a real ogre, so here's this ogre shaped balloon you can kill and pretend to be a big damn hero.' I feel it is failure of the system if it requires such a kludge instead of things scaling so that the characters can actually easily kill the same creature super easy at higher levels. Furthermore, whilst I don't expect particularly high level simulationism from D&D, the same creature having different rules depending on who it fights is a bridge too far for me. Imagine if that same ogre would face a combined group of high and low level characters; what rules it would have then?

I definitely prefer 5e's bounded accuracy resulting low level monsters being usable even at high levels without such awkward kludges.

 

[Asisreo]

Do you mean that having defenses that you hit with attack rolls is less powerful than saving throws? In general I agree (5e has been light on ways to boost your saving throw DCs, but has begun to include some...), if that's what you meant.

Essentially. Anything that uses attack rolls are inherently weaker because quite a few creatures have higher ST bonuses, Legendary Resistances, and disadvantage on certain effects than creatures that just have high AC to match.

So, anything that uses attack rolls to inflict their effect (usually damage) is more consistent. Of course, something like plane shift is the worst of both worlds by having it be both an attack roll and a magical saving throw, but it makes sense because the effect is massively powerful (instant win). Same is true for stunning strike on monk.

But these situations are why I'm skeptical of "The caster gets insta-win buttons!" Arguments because they have to have a good bit of luck and mastery to get everything aligned that way.

Martials are for far more consistent on the field, even if they don't exactly automatically "win" in most circumstances (but don't be fooled, a martial can instant win certain fights even at high levels without magic items). Its just a different playstyle approach.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I just noticed this and thought it was really odd.

The 4e MM has lots of suggested encounter groups. The 4e DMG has five suggested encounter templates, and only one is of a creature on its own ("Dragon's Den"), though one suggested variant of this encounter is a solo together with an elite.

There's no particular tradition in D&D (that I'm aware of, at least) of having most encounters be with a single NPC/monster.

Hence why this struck me as surprising.

Yes, it was certainly largely a DM issue. It was very story driven campaign, there were few fights, so disproportionate number of them ended up being 'boss battles,' one dragon, one beholder etc. Now they sometimes had some henchmen, but those were quickly dealt with. I switched to slayer who was boring, but whose powers were always useful. And I definitely think that how encounter powers were handled in 4e was not ideal. Them all being separate one use powers instead of using some shared pool of uses like spells and battlemaster manoeuvres in 5e encouraged picking only powers that were usable in any situation, instead of picking perhaps some cooler, but more situational powers.

 

[Minigiant]

Here's the core rub.

Fighters are designed to be 90% Combat Pillar and only allowed to get a minor bonus to a Tertiary Ability Score Checks.

In order to kept fighters useful, no other classes are allowed to reach the fighter's level of combat ability without sacrificing out of combat prowess (barbarians).

Because of this, all of the remaining classes but one are better at noncombat then fighters but weaker than fighters at combat.

The Conflict:
Some fighter and barbarian fans want more out of combat power.

The other fans of other classes want more combat power.

MINIGIANT'S SOLUTION:

Make a new warrior class that has more out of combat power than fighters but is weaker at combat than fighters.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I definitely prefer 5e's bounded accuracy resulting low level monsters being usable even at high levels without such awkward kludges.

I hate balanced accuracy for the same reason. You never really feel like you're getting stronger. Things you should be punting into orbit for fun are still inexplicably legitimate threats instead of blood balloons before the tornado of murder shaped like a man that you've become.

 

[Minigiant]

Here's the core rub.

Fighters are designed to be 90% Combat Pillar and only allowed to get a minor bonus to a Tertiary Ability Score Checks.

In order to kept fighters useful, no other classes are allowed to reach the fighter's level of combat ability without sacrificing out of combat prowess (barbarians).

Because of this, all of the remaining classes but one are better at noncombat then fighters but weaker than fighters at combat.

The Conflict:
Some fighter and barbarian fans want more out of combat power.

The other fans of other classes want more combat power.

MINIGIANT'S SOLUTION:

Make a new warrior class that has more out of combat power than fighters but is weaker at combat than fighters.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Here's the core rub.

Fighters are designed to be 90% Combat Pillar and only allowed to get a minor bonus to a Tertiary Ability Score Checks.

In order to kept fighters useful, no other classes are allowed to reach the fighter's level of combat ability without sacrificing out of combat prowess (barbarians).

Because of this, all of the remaining classes but one are better at noncombat then fighters but weaker than fighters at combat.

The Conflict:
Some fighter and barbarian fans want more out of combat power.

The other fans of other classes want more combat power.

The Vaalingrade solution:

Scrap all the martials but the Rogue (who is a paragon of class design alongside the bard and I will hear nothing against them) and rebuild a new glorious martial class where the designers have a clear directive to make a class with subclasses both capable of legit combat versatility (any version that just has MOAR ATTACKS or crit fishing is ejected) and to ignore anyone who says a freaking word about what 'real world' warriors can do or verisimilitude after level 5. While we're at it, Nothing but At-will and per encounter abilities. Let the Adventuring Workday burn.

 

[Undrave]

But it doesn't feel like that, at least not to me. I am really not fighting the same monster, I am fighting some nerfed carboard facsimile. 'We know you couldn't kill a real ogre, so here's this ogre shaped balloon you can kill and pretend to be a big damn hero.' I feel it is failure of the system if it requires such a kludge instead of things scaling so that the characters can actually easily kill the same creature super easy at higher levels. Furthermore, whilst I don't expect particularly high level simulationism from D&D, the same creature having different rules depending on who it fights is a bridge too far for me. Imagine if that same ogre would face a combined group of high and low level characters; what rules it would have then?

I definitely prefer 5e's bounded accuracy resulting low level monsters being usable even at high levels without such awkward kludges.

The way I see it, if the monster doesn't have the same amount of narrative oomph, it doesn't need as many rules. A solo ogre gets some cool powers to make the fight memorable, but a Minion Ogre only needs a basic attack and some defences. You're not gonna be tracking HP so you don't need to track one use powers and stuff. At best they have 1 or 2 always on options and maybe a random ranged attack as a back up.

Admittedly the bounded accuracy method does the same sort of thing, but I don't think it streamlines the monsters the same way a minion version does, as you still need to ablate the HP and their attacks don't have scaled damage. I would certainly be tempted to house rule that monsters that are X amount of HD weaker than you get killed in one shot and you don't need to roll damage and wouldn't bother rolling for damage on their attacks.

Yes, it was certainly largely a DM issue. It was very story driven campaign, there were few fights, so disproportionate number of them ended up being 'boss battles,' one dragon, one beholder etc. Now they sometimes had some henchmen, but those were quickly dealt with. I switched to slayer who was boring, but whose powers were always useful. And I definitely think that how encounter powers were handled in 4e was not ideal. Them all being separate one use powers instead of using some shared pool of uses like spells and battlemaster manoeuvres in 5e encouraged picking only powers that were usable in any situation, instead of picking perhaps some cooler, but more situational powers.

That's not a bad idea.

 

[Minigiant]

The Vaalingrade solution:

Scrap all the martials but the Rogue (who is a paragon of class design alongside the bard and I will hear nothing against them) and rebuild a new glorious martial class where the designers have a clear directive to make a class with subclasses both capable of legit combat versatility (any version that just has MOAR ATTACKS or crit fishing is ejected) and to ignore anyone who says a freaking word about what 'real world' warriors can do or verisimilitude after level 5. While we're at it, Nothing but At-will and per encounter abilities. Let the Adventuring Workday burn.

5e kinda proves a simple "I attack" warrior is very useful.

My idea is to let them have it. Just remove the delusional that your all combat warrior is good at anything but fighting without major sacrifice or dumb luck.

Create a new warrior class with expertise in a skill and adds a secondary Ability Score to their attack or damage rolls.