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

[Crimson Longinus]

Physical vs Mental

Mental speed in D&D, especially 5e, is Intelligence.

The sort of speed that results you moving your body is part of dex. That you can count fast doesn't help you move your arse out of the way of an incoming sledgehammer.

In 3e and 4e you could use Int to boost your AC. 5e got rid of it for simplicity.

You could do that in 3e? I don't remember that... But indeed in 4e you could, and that was stupid and it is a good thing they got rid of it. In 4e you ultimately had feats that basically let you use any stat for attack too, so at that point, why even have separate stats if they all can do the same thing anyway?

 

[Manbearcat]

It's not absurd, because in D&D terms speed and accuracy in processing spatial relationships is part of dex, not int.

I'm not disputing this.

What I'm stipulating is that its gamey, nongranular nonsense (the kind of gamey, nongranular nonsense that you decry in other situations). And that your response to @Minigiant of "that sounds roughly as sensible than 4e's int making you better at dodging blows" is the exact same sort of nonsensical statement that would lead someone (you in this case) to compare Roger Penrose capability in physics and mathematics to Muhammed Ali's executive brain function where his prefrontal cortex regulates the dynamics of perception, orientation and computing of spatial relationships including relative velocities and angles of intercept, and ability to get the body to act in a ridiculously short interval (which is the biggest part of the equation of him being the (possibly) greatest boxer of all time).

Both Penrose and Ali's Int (in D&D parlance) are the overwhelming factors here.

The history of boxing is utterly littered with freakish athletes (omnidirectionally explosive and strong and with stupid punching leverage) who couldn't slip punches and counterpunch. Those guys are relegated to the dustbin of history...forgotten...because at that level of play, what separates the greatest fighters, basketball players, football players, (etc) isn't how physically explosive you are or how agile you are. Everyone is world class explosive and agile. What separates the greats from the JAGs is the speed and accuracy of their neurological loop.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not disputing this.

What I'm stipulating is that its gamey, nongranular nonsense (the kind of gamey, nongranular nonsense that you decry in other situations). And that your response to @Minigiant of "that sounds roughly as sensible than 4e's int making you better at dodging blows" is the exact same sort of nonsensical statement that would lead someone (you in this case) to compare Roger Penrose capability in physics and mathematics to Muhammed Ali's executive brain function where his prefrontal cortex regulates the dynamics of perception, orientation and computing of spatial relationships including relative velocities and angles of intercept, and action are the biggest part of the equation of him being the (possibly) greatest boxer of all time.

Both Penrose and Ali's Int (in D&D parlance) are the overwhelming factors here.

The history of boxing is utterly littered with freakish athletes (omnidirectionally explosive and strong and with stupid punching leverage) who couldn't slip punches and counterpunch. Those guys are relegated to the dustbin of history...forgotten...because at that level of play, what separates the greatest fighters, basketball players, football players, (etc) isn't how physically explosive you are or how agile you are. Everyone is world class explosive and agile. What separates the greats from the JAGs is the speed and accuracy of their neurological loop.

And that's still part of dex in D&D. So? Yes, you could subdivide every attribute further, but it makes imminently more sense to group things that make you move you body rapidly and accurate together, instead of grouping some of them with your ability to do maths.

 

[Manbearcat]

And that's still part of dex in D&D. So? Yes, you could subdivide every attribute further, but it makes imminently more sense to group things that make you move you body rapidly and accurate together, instead of grouping some of them with your ability to do maths.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with that.

What I'm disagreeing with is your aggressive assertion: "that sounds roughly as sensible than 4e's int making you better at dodging blows."

You were not making a claim about what is (dex governing this) or about subdividing every attribute further (presumably a claim about the unwieldiness of increased subdivisions of attributes).

You were making a claim about Int being not sensible in governing the ability to dodge blows.

This is fundamentally not correct. It is not only sensible it is how it works in reality.

So this (fundamentally incorrect) claim plus your claim of hating gamey, non-granular mechanics doesn't sit well together.

 

[Minigiant]

The sort of speed that results you moving your body is part of dex. That you can count fast doesn't help you move your arse out of the way of an incoming sledgehammer.

It's not counting. It's recognizing people's fighting styles. Recognizing combat patterns, inventing counters, and striking openings are key to fighting.

I'm playing hooky from MMA practice today.

Strength and speed are more multiplier when the difference are great. Since D&D PCs are more likely to punching up int their weight class (orcs, ogres, minotaurs, giants, dragons, etc), Intelligence should be way more important in D&D melee combat.

D&D 5e abstracts the heck out of Int to remove it in combat.

You could do that in 3e? I don't remember that... But indeed in 4e you could, and that was stupid and it is a good thing they got rid of it. In 4e you ultimately had feats that basically let you use any stat for attack too, so at that point, why even have separate stats if they all can do the same thing anyway?

The core Duelist PrC
And the Combat Expertise Feat required Int 13.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, I'm not disagreeing with that.

What I'm disagreeing with is your aggressive assertion: "that sounds roughly as sensible than 4e's int making you better at dodging blows."

You were not making a claim about what is (dex governing this) or about subdividing every attribute further (presumably a claim about the unwieldiness of increased subdivisions of attributes).

You were making a claim about Int being not sensible in governing the ability to dodge blows.

This is fundamentally not correct. It is not only sensible it is how it works in reality.

So this (fundamentally incorrect) claim plus your claim of hating gamey, non-granular mechanics doesn't sit well together.

It's not how it works in reality. You're merely trying to redefine what 'intelligence' means. Not in D&D and not as generally understood in common parlance does it include the sort of speed that results you moving your body fast in coordinated manner.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's not counting. It's recognizing people's fighting styles. Recognizing combat patterns, inventing counters, and striking openings are key to fighting.

Yes, those are things your learn. They're part of your proficiency bonus.

 

[Maxperson]

You could do that in 3e? I don't remember that... But indeed in 4e you could, and that was stupid and it is a good thing they got rid of it. In 4e you ultimately had feats that basically let you use any stat for attack too, so at that point, why even have separate stats if they all can do the same thing anyway?

You couldn't. At least not without some special ability that may or may not have existed. There was no basic Int boost to AC in 3e.

 

[Undrave]

In stead, look at it this way: "The Battlemaster is a TON of fun! The tactician, the military historian, the 'thinking mans soldier'. What's even better, is that for a few rounds every day, he can draw forth this knowledge, skill and training to pull off some AMAZING wins in battle! Only a Battlemaster has the ability to take a group of untrained peasants and lead them to victory against a rampaging ogre!"

Except I want to play a Battlemaster, not be a Battlemaster for 20 seconds a day! When a Battlemaster is out of superiority dice he basically has no subclass.

When a Warlord ran out of Encounter and Daily powers? they were STILL a Warlord because they had things they could do at-will that could still offer support!

I mean fighter get more feats than anyone. Why not use those to get skills and expertises to turn yourself into a skillmonkey rivalling the rogue? Or get inspiring leader or perhaps that new cooking feat? If an option exist to use some choice to make yourself better at combat, a certain large section of players will automatically use it for that... and then perhaps later complain that their character is useless outside of combat...

Inspiring Leader is a great one if you got the Charisma to spare. Charisma Battlemasters are fun. Anybody can pick it up (especially V-humans) though so it doesn't feel so much as something you can do because you're a Fighter, just something that doesn't impact you as badly. But you're never rivalling the Rogue as a skill monkey. The Rogue gets expertise for free, can still invest their extra feat in more, AND they get reliable talent. You can rival a Monk I guess.

This is complete bunk. You can take any core class in 5E and build any role for that character using race, subclass and feat options.

You can have a party with 4 fighters (or 4 of any single class) and still have all bases covered (healer, tank, striker, controller, utility, social) by level 4. Doing this is trivial.

The reason people can't find ways to synergize is they don't want to synergize with the party, they want to build a specific character that they want according to either their preferences or their stereotypes that they feel should not be broken .

That's not AT ALL what I meant. What I meant is that it's WAY easier to create features and ability that help ALL classes when all offensive actions are an attack roll. It's way easier to simply say "allies gain a +X to attack rolls against the target" than to go into detail of what happens when a spell gets involved. It's more straightforward to hand out bonuses.

And I call bunk on your 'build any role'. You can't be a Defender with something that doesn't have a d10 HD, it's suicide and inneficient.

And 5e barely has anything TO synergize. There's very few options aside from a handful of spells. It's a lot of selfish options.

Already exisits.

Eldritch knight gets to add intelligence to damage with Green Flame blade cantrip and can get expertise through either the prodigy or the skill expert feats.

If you don't want to play an EK any other fighter can do both of these things by level 4 with V. human or custom lineage.

Typical, only way you can think to expand a Martial is to staple Magic onto it. How does that not show a clear spellcaster bias in the design of the game?

 

[Minigiant]

Yes, those are things your learn. They're part of your proficiency bonus.

No, that's experience.
That's my point. 5e took out the defense of Int to make it easy for new players to learn. But it was a dumbing down Anyone who fights knows smartscan be very important in fighting.

That how Floyd Mayweather made all his money. "On my turn I fight defensively."
Somehow he has high Int, high Con, meh Str and zero skill profieciencies.

You needed to be smart to analyze foes in 3e and 4e.
5e gives it to everyone. Further simplifying the fighter and limiting the other classes' ability in combat.