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

[pming]

Hiya!

The Oberoni fallacy is a commonly-used (informal) fallacious argument, wherein a person asserts that, because the issue can be patched around with house-rules or other forms of DM intervention, there is no issue with the rule in question.

You haven't quite committed it, as you admitted there IS an issue and you'd like to see it addressed. But you're getting very, very close to doing so, in that you'ree basically saying, "everyone who runs 5e should be willing to adjust any of the rules at any time, so this shouldn't actually be an issue in practice."

Ahhh... I actually got that inkling, but wasn't sure it was a logical/debate term. Thanks for clearing it up!

Even adjustments as small as this have gotten pushback when I've requested them.

I'd think this is less an issue of "we don't want the rules changed", and more of a "we don't trust you or each other".

I mean, I once was allowed to play my 20th level (1e) Magic-User...in a group where everyone else was 2nd or 3rd level. It was in "In Search of the Unknown" (B1). It was fun for that session...I don't think I played him the full session...probably only a few hours. But the point was that the DM and the other Players trusted me to not "spoil their fun".

Whether it is weird or not, it's a demonstrable thing I've experienced while looking around for 5e games. I don't know anyone I can game with IRL, and I'm more comfortable gaming online, so I have to apply to offered games. I've found that online gaming for 5e isn't meaningfully different from what it was like back in the days of 3e, nor from what Pathfinder games are like today. Most DMs want to run the rules purely as-written, or exclusively with their personal set of modifications and nothing else, not changing these things over the course of a campaign. Players that request third-party or self-made content are almost always denied, even if the DM in question has no actual problem with the design of the content in question.

Ahhh...so not a "normal, in-person, long standing gaming group" is your base. That also helps explain your experience. I can totally understand that; people who don't know each other's playing style or preference want to know where they stand. They want to have solid footing, so to say, before they start to feel comfortable opening up and saying "I really like..." or "I don't like..." and then asking/initiating rule changes that might step on the toes of others in the group.

With "real life" groups of people who become friends and long-term players over months, years and decades...this "RAW mentality" is, in my experience, quite rare. I can't actually think of a single group of people I've met over the last 40 years of gaming that have had the "RAW mentality".

Oh, if this is the case then there's no point discussing the aforementioned Wizard vs Fighter. If you don't believe the 5MWD is even potentially an issue, we literally cannot discuss the balance question in the first place. I appreciate you being forward with this, it saves me rather a lot of time and proverbial ink, as it were. I promise I'm not being flippant when I say that. If we disagree on such fundamental things, trying to play around with far more extended elements is just going to frustrate both of us, and I'd rather not waste your time and mine with pointless frustration.

Seems a reasonable stance. For the 5 minute work day thing... I'd say that yes, it is potentially an issue. But I'd say that the issue isn't so much the way the rules are written as how those rules are used in game. In my group, for example, there is no "5mwd" issues...because our style is more "What would our characters do" and not so much "What should we do".

The distinction being that my players (and me, for NPC's) make decisions based on the current situation/narrative going on in the game (for the most part). If the PC's are chasing a bad guy who has absconded with a dragon egg, and one or more PC's get seriously injured, or have no spells left, or have no more "uses" of their key special ability...my players would opt to continue the chase, despite the OBVIOUS in-game consequences. Why? Because it makes "narrative sense". Even if it wasn't time sensitive; just being in a dungeon for an hour, getting into a big fight and using a lot of 'daily' type resources, they'd opt to continue on for a while...because, to their characters minds, "it's only been an hour or so". They still have the ability to fight, cast a handful of spells, use a minor ability or two...but if they get into a BIG fight/danger? Then they figure out a way to survive...or run! The idea of the 5mwd is NOT an "issue" for them as Players.

It's not an issue for them because of play style and expectations. IMNSHO, the 5mwd is a problem when a player gets upset because they feel they are now "useless" and "can't do anything", which equates in their mind to "...so why am I even trying to play?". That said, the 5e Rules DO tend to cause this mindset in far too many people...which is probably an indicator that the rules might need to be re-jiggered or otherwise futzed with. My fix if I was designer of 6e, would be to go backwards. Start removing "powers and abilities" that have a 1-use (or very limited use) mechanic, consolidate them into broader categories, and leave the nuances up to the DM and Players to decide. There would be more "always on" things for classes, but those would be weaker in power and/or require various rolls, checks etc. (ex: A barbarians Rage might just be a simple DC ## Con check to enter, but only last a number of rounds equal to XYZ; then another Rage Check is rolled....that sort of thing).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[ECMO3]

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.

And the battlemaster has alchemists tools he can use all day long. Also other than minor illusion the school of illusion subclass gives you only one other thing you can use by itself in combat, and that can only be used once per short rest and only on a reaction.

So if your school of illusion wizard wants to "be an illusionist" all day long in every combat, he is going to have to cast minor illusion for every single action in every single fight. If he taps into his spells he is a being a wizard not an illusionist ... and as illustrated earlier, he will run out of spells before the battlemaster runs out of maneuvers.

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 is easier to get minor illusion than alchemists tools because it is available from several races, I think 6 of them if you include the two you can get it through a feat with. It is also available to almost every class. The only classes that can't get minor illusion as a cantrip are Ranger, Paladin and Druid.

To get alchemists tools proficiency I think you have to be a battle master, Monk or artificer or take guild artisan or clan crafter background. There may be other ways, but I can't think of any.

You can obviously get both with a feat too.

You can use downtime to get alchemists tools or to learn a new cantrip (a cantrip would use the researching a spell rules). I don't think many people are going to do that though unless they want to step away from a campaign. RAW there are only about 60 adventuring days from level 1 to level 20, meaning you are going to be way, way behind yourr party if you use 30 of them to do this. I think most people are going to get it with a feat if they want it.

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.

Healing, acid, oil and antitoxin all have non-combat related uses. Further, there are other things with non-combat uses which can be made as well including perfume and soap. There may be more I am not remembering.

As far as the DM goes, if the DM is following the rules the tools can be used to make all of the things listed above because it says it can be used for that in XGE. The DM has to break the break/homebrew the rules to take those away. The DMG page 129 is where it becomes dependant on the DM. That exerpt says "a character might need alchemists tools to brew a specific potion". This means the DM could let you make other potions beyond the things listed above. This could make the tools a lot more powerful than what is described above, but he can not make them worse RAW.

Further the tools also give you a bonus to identifying potions you find and advantages on investagtion checks involving chemicals. Again these are called out in the rules specifically.

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?

Yes, many things. I could be forggetting some things, but I believe only fighters can get the following things, all of which have out of combat uses:

1. The following can not be done by a non-fighter without using a feat: Commanding presence

2. The following can't be done by a non-fighter although there are similar abilities that can be obtained through spells or feats: telekenetic movement, fire rune, cloud rune, frost rune, stone rune, storm rune, giant might, elegant courtier, know your enemy.

3. The following can't be done by a non-fighter, can't be obtained through a feat and are not identical to something available with a spell or feature of another class or race.: Remarkable Athlete, Indomitable, born to the saddle, great stature

 

[Gammadoodler]

That largely depends on how you narrate it though doesn't it?

And when it comes to 'killing in a single blow with strike through the heart or eye', at literally 3rd level on a greatsword crit we're talking about 4d6+2d8 (rr 1,s and 2s) plus 13 for around 40 points of damage on average.

Thats enough to kill a Grizzly or a Tiger with one strike. How is that not impressive?

40 damage at 3rd level is pretty hard to beat by any class, and the only resource usage is 1 superiority dice (that comes back on a short rest).

I haven't suggested that fighter damage in unimpressive. I don't think anyone in this thread has either.

The contention is that there appears to be dissonance between the expected at-will lethality of an expert weapon wielder (compared with such experts "in real life"), and at-will lethality "in-play." In your fairly stacked deck damage example, the fighter can slay a CR1 beast in one blow at level 3 with a crit. Beyond that it's the song and dance. And realistically, I think these early levels are probably the best level ranges for at-will fighter lethality, as enemy hp seem to scale rather faster than fighters' ability to inflict damage (could be wrong about this, but it's certainly been my experience in play)

All this doesn't really bother me very much personally, but it also has very little to do with "meat hp" vs. "luck hp. " Under either paradigm, the effect of a non-lethal strike is a narrative justification for why the fighter's successful roll did not result in a dead creature.

 

[Undrave]

And the battlemaster has alchemists tools he can use all day long.

Alchemist Tools are not a Batlemaster feature, they're a random tool anybody else can get and be just as good as the Battlemaster. If I use my Alchemist Tools, I'm not being a Battlemaster, I'm just a guy who is proficient in Alchemist Tools.

So if your school of illusion wizard wants to "be an illusionist" all day long in every combat, he is going to have to cast minor illusion for every single action in every single fight. If he taps into his spells he is a being a wizard not an illusionist ... and as illustrated earlier, he will run out of spells before the battlemaster runs out of maneuvers.

It's not optimal at all, but the Illusionist COULD spend all their action doing illusions if they wanted. They CAN, not necessarily that they WILL.

The Battlemaster doesn't not have that option, even if they have plenty of other things they would want to do that aren't linked to their subclass, they wouldn't be able to do it anyway.

The fact is that there's a point in the day where the Battlemaster is no longer a Battlemaster while the guy who likes to do illusion magic never reaches that point. Even if his cantrip are no match for his levelled spell, a clever player can still leverage Minor Illusion to feel like a master of illusions.

1. The following can not be done by a non-fighter without using a feat: Commanding presence

2. The following can't be done by a non-fighter although there are similar abilities that can be obtained through spells or feats: telekenetic movement, fire rune, cloud rune, frost rune, stone rune, storm rune, giant might, elegant courtier, know your enemy.

3. The following can't be done by a non-fighter, can't be obtained through a feat and are not identical to something available with a spell or feature of another class or race.: Remarkable Athlete, Indomitable, born to the saddle, great stature

Commanding Presence is a decent one, but it took how many YEARS for that to come out? 5? And it's not part of the Fighter's base class feature.

Remarkable Athlete is not remarkable at all and you're better off arguing for your Athletics Proficiency when you need to do a STR check. I'll concede that it exists but it's hardly a defining feature of the Fighter class, it's a forgettable ribbon of one subclass. I completely forgot it even existed.

Indomitable, Born to the Saddle and Great Stature are all mostly combat oriented features. Know your enemy only tells you stuff related to combat so it might as well count, even if you use it outside of combat ormally. Elegant Courtier is just the name of a feature that just gives out plain old proficiencies anybody else can get. It's a nice ribbon to have but it's hardly a signature ability and it's name means nothing.

 

[pemerton]

To me this screams simulationism - where every conceivable concept must be implemented mechanically differently.

To be fair - sorcerer that casts without study is an entirely different concept than the d&d wizard. No spell book is a pretty big difference IMO.

To me this seems like thre are two different FrogReavers!

 

[pemerton]

How is the GM in charge of when the campaign ends?

DM stops, campaign ends.

Player stops, no big deal. You need all or most of them to, and to be unable to find a replacement.

This is a very specific conception of how RPGing works at the social level. It's not accurate even for all club play.

 

[pemerton]

The funny thing is.

No one would be even asking for a Warlord if either:
1) The Fighter had martial psychology, combat Awareness, and military tactics written in it's class features.

Or.

2) A majority of DMs actually let fighter players roleplay of the above have mechanical effect.

Hell. Fear, focus, and encouragement aren't even part of the base combat rules anymore.

A related funny thing:

In 1977 Classic Traveller had the Leader skill, which - in the rules as published at that time - could be picked up (on the right roll) by educated soldiers (Army and Marines).

The main effects of Leader skill are (i) to improve the prospects of recruiting NPCs and retaining command over them, (ii) to assist in avoiding surprise, and (iii) to assist in avoiding loss of morale. In Classic Traveller PCs are subject to morale checks, and so (iii) is significant even if no NPCs are hanging out with the PCs.

*********************************
Part of the challenge for introducing a warlord into D&D is that it tends to eschew the psychological/emotional aspects of combat that you mention - fear, focus, encouragement.

I don't think it's a surprise that the version of the game that did the most to introduce these as elements of play - 4e - is the version that had a warlord. The natural home of the warlord is a context in which:

* being set back in combat is understood not just as, or even primarily, being wounded, but includes loss of resolve and the will to fight (ie non-meat hp, which are core to 4e);

* it's taken for granted that combatants, including PC combatants, will be subject to internal as well as external constraints that they can't just ignore or set aside at will (ie the tremendous range of effects - forced movement, conditions, etc - that are part of 4e combat resolution, and which in the fiction may be external, like being pushed down and winded, or internal, like recoiling in horror from a living corpse);

* the action and resource economy is not understood to be purely meta, but neither is understood to be a sort of "natural law" of the universe's metronome, but rather is seen as the mechanical expression of how hard the protagonists are pushing themselves (ie everything from action points, to choosing what sort of power to use, to using immediate and opportunity actions to capture - in mechanical terms - the back-and-forth of combat).

So even though 4e didn't have player-side morale rules like Traveller and some other RPGs have, it did a lot to make those psychological and emotional aspects of combat part of the game; and hence did a lot to create conceptual space for a warlord.

To the extent that 5e downplays these things, it becomes harder, I think, to fit a warlord into the game.

 

[Minigiant]

One thing that skew the balance of D&D martial vs caster divide is that D&D kinda sees the fighter as a dumb soldier of an advanced military organization.

Look at the class skills: Acrobatics, Animal Handling, Athletics, History, Insight, Intimidation, Perception, and Survival.

Embedded are not the skills of a commander: Persuasion and Deception.
The fighter even lacks the Stealth of skirmishers and hidden ambushers.
The fighter's lack of Investigation makes it hard to thing detective was part of the class's portfolio.
The fighter even needs resources outside the class to get Performance in order to swirl his sword and dance like a nimble duelist.

So the game though the core of the fighter just beats stuff with her weapon in Combat, jump and flip during Exploration, and threaten people with her 12 Charisma in Social situations.

The Quick Build even suggests Soldier.
The barbarian is suggested to get Outlander so they get a bonus language.

 

[Neonchameleon]

IMO the lazylord was a mechanical construct that existed solely because of 4e mechanics. There was no character or theme it was evoking.

I’m with you that the concept and theme of a warlord is a warrior that leads other warriors. A lazylord just doesn’t fit that bill.

I'm going to disagree hard here and say the lazylord filled a common niche in fantasy fiction be far better than anything else I've seen in D&D. Like it or not (and I sympathise with not) escort missions are a Thing. Having the Lazylord meant that you could have a thematically useless character being escorted and played by a player who wouldn't feel left out or with nothing at all to do in combat in a best case scenario. Does this deserve a class on its own? Hell no. Is it a useful emergent option? Yes.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm going to disagree hard here and say the lazylord filled a common niche in fantasy fiction be far better than anything else I've seen in D&D. Like it or not (and I sympathise with not) escort missions are a Thing. Having the Lazylord meant that you could have a thematically useless character being escorted and played by a player who wouldn't feel left out or with nothing at all to do in combat in a best case scenario. Does this deserve a class on its own? Hell no. Is it a useful emergent option? Yes.

IMO the lazylord was a mechanical construct that existed solely because of 4e mechanics. There was no character or theme it was evoking.

I’m with you that the concept and theme of a warlord is a warrior that leads other warriors. A lazylord just doesn’t fit that bill.

I gotta disagree with both of ya.

The lazylord invoked the expert class. The skilled character whose main skill isn't magic, religion, or crime and takes up a bit of comat training to not be the helpless escort. The Prince(ss). The Archivist. The Commander. The Researcher. The Noble. The Smith. The Merchant. The Diplomat.

The issue with D&D is it is very combat focused so only the Rogue and Warlord ever made the cut. Then the Warlord was still cut.