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

[FrogReaver]

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.

In a game of adventuring there's not space for non-adventuring archetypes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In a game of adventuring there's not space for non-adventuring archetypes.

There's space for whatever works. If the warlord worked (and it did) then to say there's no space for it is pretty much counter-factual.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And it's not like this idea only came into vogue after 4e published the Warlord. There have been LOTS of threads about people wanting to make "craven" characters or "intentionally bad at combat" characters. The Lazylord concept--which 4e never officially supported, unlike what most people think, it just happened to be an emergent possibility as the edition evolved--enables players to do that. Not only does it do so, but (at least in theory) it allows a character with any chosen mental stat to function as a thematically-useless but mechanically-useful character. You can have the aged gentleman-squire who's too old to fight but is really good at outwitting opponents and improving his allies' efforts, the canny street urchin who's too young to be a real fighter but is resourceful and incredibly observant, and the Disney Princess who inspires others to action through her winsome ways but would never hurt a fly.

This is the sort of character I don't want to exist in D&D. I am too much an simulationist for this to work for me and I want mechanics to be more directly tied to what's going on the world. Thematically useless but mechanically useful is an unacceptable disconnect to me; I you're thematically useless it means that you're also mechanically useless, because the rules exist to mechanically represent the themes. I played a long time in a group with a warlord (albeit no purely lazy one, they rarely managed to actually hit anyone) and it was a constant source of low-level ludonarrative dissonance. I get that it works for some people, (and I don't care to argue why, it goes nowhere) but those are the same small group (too small for WotC) who love 4e in general.

One thing I notice on certain RPG forums, that there is a very dedicated group of people who are hardcore 4e fans and seem to think that was the best thing ever. And good for them! But that game design philosophy obviously didn't work for many people. So my question is, if you love 4e, why not just play it then? Like sure, if you're like me who liked some small parts of it but still feel that overall 5e is a massive improvement that wouldn't make sense, but it seems that certain people feel that 5e was just a step backwards and 4e was simply better. So play 4e! People play Basic and AD&D still too.

 

[Asisreo]

Until an actual popularity contest is referenced, I don't know whether any of this warlord talk is going to go anywhere even in the next edition, if we're being realistic.

It should be clear that the Warlord has absolutely no design space mechanically. Spellcasting is just a feature that makes it easier to add complexity by letting a class access the already myriad 500+ features in an list. Mechanically, the difference between a spell and a nonmagical feature is basically bunk.

There's already 3 commander classes in the game: The Bard, the Paladin, and the Sorcerer. Each are naturally charismatic, have features to bolster other characters on the battlefield, can heal, can control the overarching battlefield, and are more resilient than most other spellcasters.

It seems that its merely the concept of nonmagical spellcaster that holds this conversation back even though, from the outside looking in, it seems quite unnecessary to have this one class which only ever begs WoTC to fulfill the mechanical design of classes that already exist.

I'm not saying you absolutely can't have this class. I'm not a gatekeeper and you really don't have to try to convince me. But if you want your Warlord, it will be in direct competition with one of the 3 aforementioned classes in mechanical design and you'd have to either change the already existing class to fit the Warlord or change your concept of Warlord altogether.

 

[Aldarc]

One thing I notice on certain RPG forums, that there is a very dedicated group of people who are hardcore 4e fans and seem to think that was the best thing ever. And good for them! But that game design philosophy obviously didn't work for many people. So my question is, if you love 4e, why not just play it then? Like sure, if you're like me who liked some small parts of it but still feel that overall 5e is a massive improvement that wouldn't make sense, but it seems that certain people feel that 5e was just a step backwards and 4e was simply better. So play 4e! People play Basic and AD&D still too.

I'm certainly not opposed to playing 4e as is, but I also think it needs a minor overhaul. Not a complete one, but a tune-up and polish that cleans it up a bit. Kind of like how 3e received a tune-up, polish, and a fresh paint job through Pathfinder, I think that 4e could use a similar treatment. Nothing drastic. However, the lack of an OGL prevents retroclones or the ability of enthusiast publishers/designers/fans to pick up 4e's torch like Pathfinder did for 3e or OSR was able to do with B/X and AD&D. It would be nice, for example, to see a "New School Essentials" that did for 4e what Old School Essentials did for B/X.

 

[Minigiant]

In a game of adventuring there's not space for non-adventuring archetypes.

They aren't nonadventurer archetypes.
These are non-magical non-fighter archetypes.

Not every nonwizard non-fighter is a super sneak criminal rogue.

Fantasy is full of nobles who had a fencing or archery coach, simple thuggish brutes, and assorted scholarly gadget heroes. And that's before creation of new ones like the fire resistant, hammer welding blacksmith or scalpel swinging barber-surgeon.

 

[Neonchameleon]

One thing I notice on certain RPG forums, that there is a very dedicated group of people who are hardcore 4e fans and seem to think that was the best thing ever. And good for them! But that game design philosophy obviously didn't work for many people. So my question is, if you love 4e, why not just play it then?

Some of us do.

Some of us also both play and DM 5e. And find that 5e is a pretty mediocre experience to DM - but as a player it's fine even if the combat is kinda flabby, but it works for a lot of people. That's no reason not to bring back the warlord - it's a character that worked and worked well and would fit in 5e.

Like sure, if you're like me who liked some small parts of it but still feel that overall 5e is a massive improvement that wouldn't make sense, but it seems that certain people feel that 5e was just a step backwards and 4e was simply better. So play 4e! People play Basic and AD&D still too.

And even if you're someone like you why not bring more of the good parts of 4e in? Especially given that if you don't like a given character class you don't have to play it.

There are basically four things I want in 5e that came from 4e because I think that they'd make 5e a better 5e than it currently is. It wouldn't make 5e into 4e (you couldn't do that without a redesign from the ground up).

• 4e style monster design. Which meant that I could create an encounter on the fly very easily and make it interesting in a way I can't really in 5e.
• Tactically complex fighters rather than simple attack spammers. This doesn't mean I want all fighters to be tactically complex. It means I want the option.
• Simple blast mages with few moving parts. In 4e this was the Elementalist Sorcerer. In 5e I'd create the Arsonist Warlock patron. ("Your power comes from an entity, probably a demon or elemental that looks at almost everything and whispers to you 'Wouldn't it look better on fire?' and lends you the power to make it so. You know, however, that it also thinks that you would look better on fire, but is happy with you not being as long as you set enough on fire to satisfy it.") and add a couple of invocations.
• The Warlord. It opens up a range of archetypes that should be covered. Most of them are adventuring types.

5e would remain 5e with these changes - but it would IMO be better at being 5e than it is now because it covers options that should be covered that 5e doesn't do so well.

And on preview @Asisreo 's claim that the warlord has no design space mechanically is utterly risible. The handing over your attacks, the getting people to recover by using their own energy, and the synergy is its own combination of things.

 

[FrogReaver]

They aren't nonadventurer archetypes.
These are non-magical non-fighter archetypes.

Not every nonwizard non-fighter is a super sneak criminal rogue.

Fantasy is full of nobles who had a fencing or archery coach, simple thuggish brutes, and assorted scholarly gadget heroes. And that's before creation of new ones like the fire resistant, hammer welding blacksmith or scalpel swinging barber-surgeon.

And in 5e those would be fighters with the noble background, wizards or artificers with the scholar background.

there’s not space for a simple scholar or noble on the adventure.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And even if you're someone like you why not bring more of the good parts of 4e in?

Most likely because we can't agree on what the good parts were...

Especially given that if you don't like a given character class you don't have to play it.

My concerns about class design are really not just about what I like to play, I think the game as a whole and I am unreasonably neurotic about class design. For example my dislike of sorcerer goes far beyond me not liking to play them, I feel their existence makes the game worse as they limit warlocks conceptually and mechanically and are generally a badly designed class. It bugs me to no end that warlock mechanics (rapidly recovering magic, always-on magical effects) would make far more sense for the sorcerer, who's thing is that they're an innately magical being.

Anyway...

4e style monster design. Which meant that I could create an encounter on the fly very easily and make it interesting in a way I can't really in 5e.

Whilst I think 4e monster design went a bit too far in the gamey direction and I greatly dislike the minion rules, I agree that there were certain things that were done better in 4e. I liked having several different versions of certain monsters, so that it was easier to make a themed but still varied groups. Also monsters had more interesting abilities, though I feel that only more elite monsters really need to have more complexity than what 5e offers.

Tactically complex fighters rather than simple attack spammers. This doesn't mean I want all fighters to be tactically complex. It means I want the option.

That's battle master. Give it more powerful high level manoeuvres and we're good.

Simple blast mages with few moving parts. In 4e this was the Elementalist Sorcerer. In 5e I'd create the Arsonist Warlock patron. ("Your power comes from an entity, probably a demon or elemental that looks at almost everything and whispers to you 'Wouldn't it look better on fire?' and lends you the power to make it so. You know, however, that it also thinks that you would look better on fire, but is happy with you not being as long as you set enough on fire to satisfy it.") and add a couple of invocations.

I really like this! Doing this as a subclass is the way to go! And the theme is pretty solid too.

The Warlord. It opens up a range of archetypes that should be covered. Most of them are adventuring types.

The sort of warlord I'd be cool with would be doable as a fighter subclass.

And on preview @Asisreo 's claim that the warlord has no design space mechanically is utterly risible. The handing over your attacks, the getting people to recover by using their own energy, and the synergy is its own combination of things.

Battle master can already hand over their attacks with commander's strike. But if there was a dedicated warlord fighter subclass, they probably should be able to do so more freely. They should also be able to expend their action surge and second wind to give the effects to a party member. So that's the things you mentioned covered, add some more tricks and synergies and we're done.

 

[Minigiant]

And in 5e those would be fighters with the noble background, wizards or artificers with the scholar background.

there’s not space for a simple scholar or noble on the adventure.

Nah.

It's having a class with

• Light armor and shields
• simple and martial weapons
• Expertise with 2 skills
• All the INT, WIS, CHA skills as class skills
• Bonus languages
• Extra Attack at level 5 or 6
• Ability to add one of their mental score modifiers to common combat rolls or defenses
• Can reroll skill checks
• Advanced skill checks.
• Subclass to get heavy armor and fighting style.
• Subclass to get Inspiration.
• Subclass to magic if must