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

[Dausuul]

(Just a little note: Wanting a simple-to-run class (or anything else) does not make a player "lazy." Kthxbai!)

True dat. I have a friend who is a professor of data science at a top-flight university, runs a business on the side, and is raising 5 kids. He is about the most un-lazy person I can imagine.

On the rare game night that he is able to attend, he plays the simplest "I hit it with my axe" characters imaginable. It's the one place in his life that he can power down his brain and solve problems by whacking them till they go away.

 

[ECMO3]

Because there's not even close to being a feat that rivals Reliable Talent - and the fighter starts off two skills and a tool proficiency plus two Expertises behind the fighter. And they gain two more Expertises at sixth level. That's basically two entire feats. The fighter doesn't get many extra feats over the rogue - from the PHB they could close the number of skills with Skilled but get no Expertise or from Tasha's they could get Skill Expert twice for an effective one feat cost and still be behind the first level rogue in skills known, and have only as many expertises as the rogue does at first level. And the

The Rogue is not a caster, the premise of this thread is that we are comparing the Fighter to casters.

That said your right, the Rogue, which is the defined skill class has better skills than a class designed to be good at combat. You can make the Rogue more combat oriented through feat and race selection and you can make the fighter more skill focused through the same, but niether of these will be as good as a character optimized for the other.

As an example, a half elf Arcane Archer will have more skills than a base Rogue at level 3 (unless the Rogue gets one from a feat, race or subclass). A V human can have the same number of skills along with the thieves tool proficiency and an expertise at level 3.

Now a Rogue could take feats, races or subclasses to maintain or even expand his lead, but the point here is you can build a fighter to be a high-skill character by sacrificing some martial prowess.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But I rolled 15INT.

I want stab the dragon with my +2 brainpower!

That sounds roughly as sensible than 4e's int making you better at dodging blows. So that's no from me. You however can get knowledge skills, and combine that with your int, so you can know even more about your foes.

The truth is the concept you want is perfectly doable, and probably will play just fine. You're just fixated one specific (rather gamey) execution that lets you be better in combat the most boring way possible, i.e. having bigger damage numbers.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is just such pointless complaint. If you don't agree with the GM about what the game should be like, you're not gonna have fun no matter what. The books can't force that. Find a GM that has similar(ish) preferences than you.

Remember the original argument though: you were saying you could use feats while MG was pointing out that you can't count on having access to feats and your argument was--somehow--that you can't count on access to literally anything.

Therefore there's no guarantee marital characters are playable.

Therefore this thread is moot.

 

[Maxperson]

Nothing stops a roleplayer from roleplay.

The issue is D&D is a game. So the roleplay can easily not match the game.

Currently a fighter cannot leverage his or her smarts in combat without magic. But any real world fighter or even fan of fantasy books, comics, action movies, or anime know an intelligent fighter can outsmart a stupider fighter to make themselves deadlier.

This isn't true in a rulings over rules game like 4e. Try bluffing the stupid fighter and tricking him. Your DM may shut that down, but that's a DM issue.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Remember the original argument though: you were saying you could use feats while MG was pointing out that you can't count on having access to feats and your argument was--somehow--that you can't count on access to literally anything.

Therefore there's no guarantee marital characters are playable.

Therefore this thread is moot.

Okay mate.

I don't know what to say to you. Most groups use feats; find a group that uses feats. Problem solved.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think that is true. In fact I think a lot of casters are less complex than champion. For exmample:

Champion features: Improved Critical, Remarkable Athlete, Additional Fighting Style, Superior critical, survival

School of Illusion features: Illusion Savant, improved minor illusion, malleable illusions, illusury self, illusury reality

Fey warlock features: Fey Presence, Misty escape, beguiling defenses, dark delerium

Knowlege Cleric features: Blessings of knowlege, knowlege of the ages, read thoughts, portent spellcasting, visions of the past

I would challange the idea that the Champion features mentioned above are appreciably less complicated than most of those full caster subclass features mentioned above. Further of the 20 or so features from 4 classes above the additional fighting style has the most variablility and choices. Things like superior technique, protection, interception and unarmed fighting are quite complex to employ compared to these other things.

​

No Wizard or Cleric is going to be less complex than the Champion. None. The existence of spells and spell slots automatically makes them more complex. The Warlock is the magic equivalent. It's pew pew and a few spells. It's more complex than the Champion, but not by a lot and it's the least complex caster.

 

[ECMO3]

You miss the core class features. Which are however many spells you know (lots for divine classes, two spells per level for most casters). And I would absolutely call most spells as complex as any of those champion features.

The fighter gets a 17 core class features plus 7 feats/ASIs, in terms of number that is more than most if not all casters:
Fighter:
fighting style, second wind, action surge (1), ASI, martial versatility, extra attack(1), ASI, martial versatility, indomitable (1), ASI, martial versatility, extra attack 2, ASI, martial versatility, indomitable (2), ASI, martial versatility, ASI, Martial Versatility, action surge(2), indomitable (3), ASI, martial versatility, extra attack (3).

A Wizard gets 5 core class features and 5 ASIs:
Spell casting, arcane recovery, cantrip formulas, ASI, ASI, ASI, ASI, spell mastery, ASI, signature spells.

Now of those, spell casting is the most complicated and a lot of the fighter abilities are improvements/repeats of earlier abilities but a fighter has a lot going on especially if you use feats to expand the beyond the class and subclass boundaries.

 

[Minigiant]

That sounds roughly as sensible than 4e's int making you better at dodging blows. So that's no from me. You however can get knowledge skills, and combine that with your int, so you can know even more about your foes.

Yes, my fighter knows the hobgoblin uses Northern Sword techniques. So my fighter can counter with Eastern style and have resistence to the hobgoblins' sword attacks.

The truth is the concept you want is perfectly doable, and probably will play just fine. You're just fixated one specific (rather gamey) execution that lets you be better in combat the most boring way possible, i.e. having bigger damage numbers.

Actually I want lower numbers.

Historically warriors in D&D used Int for defensive purposes and sudden strikes.

 

[pemerton]

Too many people thing a 1st level Fighter is 'farm boy who picked up a sword after his village was burned down by ogres'

The PHB specifically calls out that not every guard or warrior is a Fighter. We just don't have a good name for it, but a Fighter is something special and unusual, he's not a run the mill warrior (or guy with a sword). A town guard is to a Fighter what a hedge wizard is to a Wizard ya know? Now, the CAPTAIN of the Guard? That guy's probably a proper Fighter, but the guy at the city gate? No way! That guy's just out of basic and you're already better than him.

Luke Skywalker is a farm boy who picks up an X-Wing and becomes one of the best pilots in the rebellion.

Are the stats of a fighter meant to be modelling training, or representing/producing a character with a certain sort of capability?