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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

This is my 5e compatible way of minionisation that still satisfies my simulationist needs:

Use only on monsters that have no more than roughly twice the HP characters do on average with their basic attacks (i.e. one cantrip or weapon strike. This is most of the basic foes you would use as a horde.) When they're hit first time, roll damage as normal, if they lose all their HP, they obviously die as normal. If they do not suffer enough damage to die outright, they become wounded. Wounded foes die when they sustain any additional damage (no need to actually roll the damage.)

It's kind of midpoint between full 5e monster rules and 4e minions and it doesn't involve having separate profile for the minion version.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

They have that. Now I want an interesting one to play instead.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Now I want an interesting one to play instead.

That's battlemaster. It would of course be improved, but I feel it is pretty solid starting point.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's battlemaster. It would of course be improved, but I feel it is pretty solid starting point.

The dumb limit on the number of maneuvers just makes you the new version of the old school caster who gets to have fun for two rounds, then suck the rest of the time. This subclass was basically created to mock people who liked Other Good Martial Class, the Warlord.

 

[Undrave]

Why do you even need to 'balance' being good at combat with sucking at everything else so badly? 90% combat 10% other is a terrible idea if you ask me. All it does is make warrior players tune out the moment the talky bits happen until they can swing their weapon, which they are always way too happy to provoke into happening.

And let's not forget the old classic nugget of 'give the new player a Fighter, it's simple to use' how are they supposed to learn anything if all they do is attack for damage and not engage into anything but battle? "Just role-play"? Yeah that's all well and good until your DM say need to roll for something and you keep failing and doing nothing, or, worse, making things more difficult. Great way to keep a new player engaged.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the game should just flat out say that high level characters (so tenish and beyond) are mythic heroes and not normal humans and write the rules accordingly. People who want to play more mundane characters just need to limit their games below that level (as most campaigns in practice already do.)

Or add in optional rules to increase the power of characters above level 10 for those that want them to be mythic. That way we can have our cake and you can eat it, too.

 

[Mind of tempest]

The dumb limit on the number of maneuvers just makes you the new version of the old school caster who gets to have fun for two rounds, then suck the rest of the time. This subclass was basically created to mock people who liked Other Good Martial Class, the Warlord.

fighters and monks both have that problem and it drives me nuts.

Why do you even need to 'balance' being good at combat with sucking at everything else so badly? 90% combat 10% other is a terrible idea if you ask me. All it does is make warrior players tune out the moment the talky bits happen until they can swing their weapon, which they are always way too happy to provoke into happening.

And let's not forget the old classic nugget of 'give the new player a Fighter, it's simple to use' how are they supposed to learn anything if all they do is attack for damage and not engage into anything but battle? "Just role-play"? Yeah that's all well and good until your DM say need to roll for something and you keep failing and doing nothing, or, worse, making things more difficult. Great way to keep a new player engaged.

hard to gain enjoyment from non-combat if you always suck at it.
would also have like rp guides when I started out, still would honestly

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The dumb limit on the number of maneuvers just makes you the new version of the old school caster who gets to have fun for two rounds, then suck the rest of the time. This subclass was basically created to mock people who liked Other Good Martial Class, the Warlord.

They're fighter, they don't suck if they have to just attack on some rounds. Even casters tend to use their cantrips on many rounds, at least if the GM tries to at least somewhat pay attention to keeping the encounter/rest ratio sensible.

And yah, battlemaster is no warlord, but I could see somewhat similarly built subclass being a decent warlord. It would require having an option of 'sharing' some of the fighter's extra attacks, action surges and maybe even the second wind with the allies. And then have manoeuvres that focus on support and boosting allies. But then again, I didn't like 4e warlord, and I played a long time in a party with one. I certainly wouldn't try to directly emulate 4e warlord, and full 'lazy warlord' is not something I want to ever see in D&D again.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

That's why during 3e I changed Paladins from the base LG only goody two-shoes class to holy warrior of the faith. If you wanted to be a Paladin of Mystra, I'd work with you to come up with their abilities and spells. For example, instead of Detect Evil they'd have Detect Magic. Instead of Lay on Hands, maybe they'd have a "spellfire" type attack that could do damage split up to equal what would normally be healed. And so on.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why do you even need to 'balance' being good at combat with sucking at everything else so badly? 90% combat 10% other is a terrible idea if you ask me. All it does is make warrior players tune out the moment the talky bits happen until they can swing their weapon, which they are always way too happy to provoke into happening.

My character having no social skills certainly has never stopped me from pitching in! It's even more fun that way, you get to say darnest things whilst staying completely in character!

But yeah, I feel all characters should have at least some things they're good at outside of combat. One a big issue I feel is how the game is so stingy with ability points, and strongly encourages you to put them to things that are 'essential' to your character's core combat competence. I changed the ability generation and advancement for my game to encourage characters having 'hobby abilities' and it seemed to have worked decently. We have a warlock with super int that they just use for their knowledge skills, a rogue with great charisma and social skills and a bard whose best score is strength (granted, they're valour.)