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

[Maxperson]

Yea, I can see there being some limit though. Game could feel boring or boring in scope just playing through 1 day over months of sessions.

We used to laugh when we figured out the time line and our 17 year old level 1 heroes made it to level 20 in under a year. World changing kids for the win!!

I think the other way might be more interesting. Each session entails the most dramatic events over years of game time. You have that session to complete your goals. Start of next session the dm narrates the conclusion along with player input and fast forwards years into the future to the start of the next high stakes dramatic event. Players can describe what they did in that time and how they all ended up together again.

I really need to try this. I've been meaning to for a long time.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think the other way might be more interesting. Each session entails the most dramatic events over years of game time. You have that session to complete your goals. Start of next session the dm narrates the conclusion along with player input and fast forwards years into the future to the start of the next high stakes dramatic event. Players can describe what they did in that time and how they all ended up together again.

Yeah, that's cool game structure. I did that in my Exalted Dragon-Blooded game ages ago. They were all long-lived magical demigod nobles so it suited it really well. It started with them together as teenagers in an elite boarding school and I think in the end they were middle-aged movers and shakers.

And I feel this would work super well with zero-to-hero D&D; it would feel far less absurd if the humble low-level adventurers become mythic heroes over the span of decades instead of mere months. Hell, the long lifespan of some races would for once actually be apparent; the humans would be grizzled and grey veterans whilst the elves would still look young.

 

[FrogReaver]

We used to laugh when we figured out the time line and our 17 year old level 1 heroes made it to level 20 in under a year. World changing kids for the win!!

lol yea. That tends to be the pace of most adventures. It also is pretty jarring when you think about it. I also think this ties back into the discussion about martial power levels. It’s much easier to justify significant increases in magical power than martial prowess in such time frames.

I really need to try this. I've been meaning to for a long time.

Yea. I just thought of it and I love the idea.

 

[Undrave]

So you actually have this backwards - until high level the wizard will use his spells BEFORE the battlemaster runs out of maneuvers and the wizard will have less abilities to bring to the fight after he runs out meaning he is a wizard for a smaller portion of the day.

Noncombat the wizard is bringing rituals and the battlemaster is bringing his Alchemist tools and making poitions of healing, oil, alchemists fire, antitoxin and acid. The wizard might have a slight edge here but not an overwhelming one and not one to overcome the difference in combat. If you are choose something else as your artisan's tool, well that is on you.

This would be a great point for you if you used the Arcane Archer instead of the battlemaster, but the numbers do not support this hypothesis with the battlemaster.

The Illusionist has the Minor Illusion cantrip. They can do it all day long and whenever they want and they'll feel like an illusionist. The Battlemaster has no equivalent options. That's it, that's all I need to say to prove than an Illusionist can be an Illusionist all the time while a Battlemaster is that only part time.

His tools proficiency could have been gotten from anywhere so it's not something unique or linked to the reality of being a Battlermaster, it's just a random perks they get that anybody could get with a little investment. Heck, you can learn tool proficiency with sufficient downtime according to Xanathar, right? So that 'feature' of the battle master is just worth like a month or training or however long it takes to get that. It's cheap as hell is what I'm saying.

Making stuff with Alchemist tools is very dependant on your DM and available ressources and... SURPRISE! Most of the stuff you make is combat related. It has very little use as out of combat problem solving unless you want to burn something down.

Barbarians, on the other hand, are proficient fighters but less flexible. They are, however, much more useful outside of combat. If your DM rules iron doors are broken at DC 20, the barbarian stops needing to roll, period, at level 18 and automatically gets to DC24 by default, no rolling at level 20. Berserkers can force frightened on characters with relatively low wisdom at-will. They can intimidate a king with their presence and make negotiations easier. Totem Warrior has a sleuth of useful OoC uses like Spirit Seeker, Aspect of the Beast, and Spirit Walker.

They can't do all of the above because the above is unique to barbarians. There's nothing a fighter can do to imitate a barbarian's Indomitable Might, nor can they imitate Primal Champion.

They can't enforce frightened without an attack roll and they can't cast Commune with Nature.

They can acquire feats, but none of them let them do what barbarians can do. And that's okay, because they work on different fictions.

Now there's an interesting question: is there ANYTHING a Fighter does outside of combat that can't be replicated by another class? Is there a single out of combat thing that you can look at and say "Oh yeah, that's a Fighter feature."? Or is it all just skill and tool proficiency any random Rogue can get and be better at?

Use optional healing rules... Yes, there is an issue with the base assumtion of 6 to 8 combats a day outside dungeons. Take the slow healing option and it all goes away... and it is not even a house rule, because it is explicitely mentioned in the DMG.
I think those optional rules should be more prominently featured and discussed in the PHB.
And maybe a different default rule should be in place.

I'd be worried optional healing would just make magical healing even more powerful and important.

But in this discussion people are demanding completely separate new classes. That is far more major rule change than just tweaking an existing class. I really find this bizarre, the same is happening in the witch thread. "The existing class doesn't do this one little thing I want; solution: write a complete new class." Like what? Why? Just fix the one bloody little thing that was an issue in the first place! And of course these don't need to be just houserules, WotC would update/errata/provide new options for existing classes far more easily than write all these countless new classes people keep demanding.

I think the argument is that they've crammed way too many concepts into the Fighter class. If the Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer and Warlock can all be separate class, there is no reason that every single 'guy with a sword' trope has to fit neatly into Fighter (or Fighter, Rogue and Barbarian). I've come up with 8 subclasses for my Warlord and I'm an amateur designer. Somehow the former trained soldier and the Chosen One who just picked up a sword are the same thing at level 1? Why should that be the case? I think the Fighter would benefit from being defined by its more formal training (compared to a wilder Barbarian and an underhanded Rogue) and another class could pick up the slack of the nobody.

has rendered the rest of the fight a fate accompli so their pals

That's 'fait accompli' btw

 

[Asisreo]

I think the other way might be more interesting. Each session entails the most dramatic events over years of game time. You have that session to complete your goals. Start of next session the dm narrates the conclusion along with player input and fast forwards years into the future to the start of the next high stakes dramatic event. Players can describe what they did in that time and how they all ended up together again.

I figured this was the default. The adventure is the ultra-interesting day of high-stakes where you'll be fighting more than a handful of creatures per day because that's what adventure entails.

Then, we have downtime which is much more gentle and spans months, years, decades, or even millenia so that the next "disaster" isn't just your "disaster of the week."

 

[Mort]

I think the other way might be more interesting. Each session entails the most dramatic events over years of game time. You have that session to complete your goals. Start of next session the dm narrates the conclusion along with player input and fast forwards years into the future to the start of the next high stakes dramatic event. Players can describe what they did in that time and how they all ended up together again.

My group is doing a version of this. They've been itching to do the adventures from the yawning portal, so I stole the concept from a poster here of doing it as a flashback.

The game started with a bunch of adventurers sitting at a table telling tales of old adventures - and we go right to them entering the Sunless citadel. They're just about 2 finish that up (should be a total of 2 sessions) and then I'll go right into the Forge of fury - with the events in the middle just taken care of by narration etc.

It's early on, but so far working quite well.

 

[Manbearcat]

That's 'fait accompli' btw

I sincerely appreciate the heads up but I'm aware! That had to have been an autocorrect by my stupid phone. I use that term routinely when I'm discussing this issue (you can find the normal usage if you search my prior posts...and I'm certain I've posted prior usages via phone...so that is an interesting thing). I guess my dumb phone figured it was going to get sassy (you'll see all sorts of deranged stuff like this when I post by phone...the IPhone autorcorrect functionality has 100 % not only gotten more dim in the last 3-4 years, its actively hostile to functional communication at this point!).

 

[Asisreo]

Now there's an interesting question: is there ANYTHING a Fighter does outside of combat that can't be replicated by another class? Is there a single out of combat thing that you can look at and say "Oh yeah, that's a Fighter feature."? Or is it all just skill and tool proficiency any random Rogue can get and be better at?

The one feature in the PHB that you could consider "fighter exclusive" for Out of Combat purposes is Know Your Enemy which gives uniquely metagame information.

Otherwise, a fighter is much like the team's bodyguard. They're there for the fight and not much else (though they're still able to help as any other character could).

 

[Undrave]

The one feature in the PHB that you could consider "fighter exclusive" for Out of Combat purposes is Know Your Enemy which gives uniquely metagame information.

Otherwise, a fighter is much like the team's bodyguard. They're there for the fight and not much else (though they're still able to help as any other character could).

Most of the info 'Know Your Enemy' gives out are useful knowledge for combat. It's something you do before combat but it doesn't really help you negotiate with them or anything. At best you can uncover who at court is a powerful warrior?

If you want a bodyguard, hire an NPC.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think the argument is that they've crammed way too many concepts into the Fighter class. If the Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer and Warlock can all be separate class, there is no reason that every single 'guy with a sword' trope has to fit neatly into Fighter (or Fighter, Rogue and Barbarian). I've come up with 8 subclasses for my Warlord and I'm an amateur designer. Somehow the former trained soldier and the Chosen One who just picked up a sword are the same thing at level 1? Why should that be the case? I think the Fighter would benefit from being defined by its more formal training (compared to a wilder Barbarian and an underhanded Rogue) and another class could pick up the slack of the nobody.

This doesn't convince me as I think there are already too many caster classes resulting them being thematically confused and strained. When you add an new class, it also limits what other classes can be. When barbarian added, then by definition fighter no longer could be that, when sorcerer was added then that narrowed the definition of wizard and when warlock added that narrowed the definition of the sorcerer. And if we define fighter to be a trained soldier, then warlord definitely should be a subclass of the fighter; they're a soldier with command training. A soldier should be able to rise through the ranks to become a general without having to switch classes.