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

[Minigiant]

Can such mechanics be made into a class. Almost certainly. Should they be made into a class is the real question though. Can a class focused on those things even more than a battlemaster meet balance requirements, can a class based on them add to the conceptual space of 5e in any way, will adding this class in take away too much from other already existing classes, etc?

IMO. Part of the beauty of the subclass design space is you don't have to worry about any of that.

The issue is subclasses usually don't have the power and design space to give the full concept.

It's the Beastmaster Ranger all over again. There is just not enough room in the Ranger subclass to made a full on independent beast pet because the base ranger is a full on warrior and half caster. You'd have to strip the ranger of its Warrior side or Spells to make a true beastmaster.

It's the same as the warlord or the herbalist or the gish etc.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The Warlord concept is perfectly fulfilled by the 5e Battlemaster with appropriate maneuvers. He can do everything people want a Warlord to be able to do. That's conceptually. (Grant attacks, provide temp hp, reposition allies, grant an ally advantage, even push enemies away).

Right. It's not really "I can't do this character," it's "I don't like how 5e does this character." And I feel it often comes from the place of not liking how 5e does things in general and wishing it was more like another edition.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, I think it demonstrates that a warlord fits in just fine. Do we NEED a warlord? No. But we technically only need about 2 classes, the rest is "fluff". I think people like having more variety than that in D&D, and I think plenty of folks would enjoy having a warlord option (and for those that don't, just don't have that class in your games).

That's not actually a solution though. Part of what comes with having an official whatever, is people bellyaching about not being able to play it in games. So it's not like it doesn't affect those that don't want it. I personally liked the 4e Warlord in 4e and would loved to have seen the concept done some justice in 5e, but at this stage of 5e I'm no longer sure it should be.

The expert is maybe a little trickier. We already have expert classes in the bard and rogue.

A full caster that happens to be an expert and a full martial that happens to be an expert are much different than an expert class that normally comes with minimized combat and casting prowess in exchange for even more skill prowess.

I think creating expert subclasses for other classes would be a much cooler way to add that into the game. I'm not opposed to something like that.

However, the scholar can (and IMO should) be more than just an expert. All of the classes in 5e have a special thing about them that thematically and mechanically distinguishes them. I don't think that's hard to do with a warlord (in fact, more than one design has been shown in this thread).

The problem is that anything left to mechanically distinguish a Warlord for 5e would not be something the 4e Warlord had.

I think that the scholar also has ample room for this (in fact, I think they did give the AiME version something, though I don't recollect the specifics ATM).

Scholar has no combat capabilities - at least as far as I can tell by the name. Elaborate there and it might could get somewhere - but at the moment it just sounds like the 'mostest skills ever class'.

 

[Minigiant]

Of course it is limiting, you literally just say how it is limiting! Currently a wizard is one feat away from being about as good in any knowledge skill than anyone can in the setting. If you introduce a class whose thing is being even better, that limits that. And "Wizards don't understand Muggle science" is a trope that might make sense in a world where magic and non-magic are clearly separated from each other and rarely interact, it makes far less sense in world where magic is an integral and well known part of the setting.

Actually 2-5 feats.
A Fantasy scholar has expertise in 2 skills and proficiency in 4+ skills like a rogue.
The Wizard gets 4 skills total base and no proficiency.

Remember Wizards get the lowest HD because they do nothing be study arcane magic.

 

[Cadence]

The expert is maybe a little trickier. We already have expert classes in the bard and rogue. However, the scholar can (and IMO should) be more than just an expert. All of the classes in 5e have a special thing about them that thematically and mechanically distinguishes them. I don't think that's hard to do with a warlord (in fact, more than one design has been shown in this thread). I think that the scholar also has ample room for this (in fact, I think they did give the AiME version something, though I don't recollect the specifics ATM).

My point is there is a difference between mastery and learning. The wizard and the fighter are masters at their craft. Somuch so that they don't have base ablity of much else outside of the classes.

A scholar might want to learn History, Medicine, Nature, Religion, Survival, and Investigation and as well as a few tools and be experts at them like a "renaissance man". Neither the Wizard nor Fighter can do this until high levels when they take several feats.

Oh an contrary to popular believe, many fantasy writers include non-wizard experts in their settings as "Wizards don't understand Muggle science" is a common trope.

That was the bar already. Wizards are masters at Wizardry not Medicine or Nature or History.
The wizard is a Scholar of the Arcane (page 112) not Scholar of the Mundane.
It's not limiting. Like I said "Wizards don't understand Muggle science" is a common fantasy trope.
It's only D&D where "Everything must be a spell and if its not healing Wizard have access to that spell."

"College Professor" would hire a fencing coach before adventuring.
They wouldn't be a fighter though. A fighter is an elite warrior.

The college professor with a little fencing feels like a bard with no magic or songs - but even better rolls on knowledge checks. Or maybe the college professor with a little fencing is a rogue with no back stab - but better than bard roles on knowledge checks. Giving up all of the magic and songs for bonus knowledge checks feels like a nerf to me. Giving up backstab could depending on the campaign.

The alchemist is literally artificer subclass.

You can "fantasy adventurer up" almostany Fantasy jo.

Your Fantasy Adventurer Blacksmith has proficiency with warhammer and light hammers, a special hammer attack or two, can give X weapons and armors +1, and has fire resist from the forge.

How is a party member where if you give them a few months can make weapons with a+1 enhancement bonus and has resistance to fire, but not great at combat because the fighter is the elite warrior, at all that useful actually on the adventure.

Your Fantasy Adventurer Barber has poficieny with daggers, deals bonus damage with them, can cause bleeding wounds, use their scissors as thieves tools, is an expert at disguise and disguising other, and knows all the gossip and sports news.

How is your barber not just a kitschy rogue? (But I like it).

You Fantasy Adventurer Herbalist knows all the plants, can make drugs with special effects, knows their way around the poisoner's kit, and has a few druid cantrips.

A PF alchemist without the Jekkyl and Hyde ability or bomb throwing feels again like someone you go buy things from.

Your fantasy Animal Handler tells their fully armored bear and wolf to maul the orcs.

And when the bear and wolf are killed they can go off for a few months to train more while the rest of the party keeps adventuring. Is a druid who is allowed to take 4x animal companion, but with no ability to magically summon animals, no spells, and takes time to train the animals because he doesn't have magic to do it a thing that works well after the animals are wiped out by the first fireball?

----

"Scholar" feels like it would be great at traditional medicine - which might cure poison but isn't going to remove a high level magical curse or bring you back from 0 to full in an instant. "Scholar" feels like they would be great at survival skills and could make sure the party doesn't get fatigue in a LevelUpA5e type setting, but they aren't going to magically conjure up food in a prison cell or make an instant hut or fortress on the tundra in a few seconds. "Scholar" feels like it would be great at identifying plants, but they aren't going to conjure up ones that aren't there or make them grow quickly into a defensive wall that grabs the enemies. "Scholar" feels like it would be great at history, but won't be able to decipher a language from a lost world or other plane in a few seconds. "Scholar" feels like they could probably do a ton of the fluff nature things a lot better than a Ranger can, and then be as good as a cantrip-less wizard or maybe rogue without backstab in combat.

Do you want "Super-Scientist" instead of "Scholar"?

If so, I retract my complaint about everything but the name.

 

[FrogReaver]

The issue is subclasses usually don't have the power and design space to give the full concept.

I mean - I don't disagree. But when the concept is leader who grants extra attacks, temp hp, movement, etc. We've proven the subclass has enough mechanical power to fulfill that concept. Seems people want much stronger leader powers than they got.

It's the Beastmaster Ranger all over again. There is just not enough room in the Ranger subclass to made a full on independent beast pet because the base ranger is a full on warrior and half caster. You'd have to strip the ranger of its Warrior side or Spells to make a true beastmaster.

I think the issue lies elsewhere with the Beastmaser. It's that people wanted a much stronger beast than they got. It's not that the beastmaster doesn't fulfill the cocncept.

 

[FrogReaver]

Right. It's not really "I can't do this character," it's "I don't like how 5e does this character." And I feel it often comes from the place of not liking how 5e does things in general and wishing it was more like another edition.

Not liking how 5e does things is fine IMO. But that's a discussion that doesn't need shoehorned into a discussion about what other classes should be in it as it is. There's certain constraints on design in 5e as it as, and the solution for new 5e classes isn't to throw those constraints out the window.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Speaking of beastmaster, I love the concept but the issue is that it is kinda hard to bake 'has a sidekick' into the class' rules. Now some subclasses have done it better but they still are a bit weird, but others tending to be some sort of magical summons makes their odd behaviour a bit more tolerable. But like can't my druid just awaken a bear and befriend them and have them adventure with them? Can't my paladin have a squire or can't any class just hire a sidekick or buy a trained animal? And obviously they can and those sidekicks tend to be better than the beastmaster's companion, so why shouldn't the ranger just play some other subclass and get a sidekick by other means?

 

[Neonchameleon]

I like the idea of roles as a way to help think about game design and what niches are left. But I think putting it front and center and using it to check boxes and fill in a grid leads to what some describe as making things not feel like not DnD and being too much of a straight jacket. Can there be a divine caster and arcane caster and martial character class that all full the same role?

It only involves filling in a grid if the grid gets filled in. The answer to that question is that pre-essentials no one came up with a martial character class that could fill the controller role so there wasn't one. And Mike Mearls' Hunter is normally considered in the bottom three classes in the game (alongside the binder and the assassin).

So is it worth seeing if there's a decent concept there? Yes. But if you can't find one don't force it. The hunter was the one time they forced it. Which of course was when Mike Mearls & Co. took over.

 

[Cadence]

Speaking of beastmaster, I love the concept but the issue is that it is kinda hard to bake 'has a sidekick' into the class' rules. Now some subclasses have done it better but they still are a bit weird, but others tending to be some sort of magical summons makes their odd behaviour a bit more tolerable. But like can't my druid just awaken a bear and befriend them and have them adventure with them? Can't my paladin have a squire or can't any class just hire a sidekick or buy a trained animal? And obviously they can and those sidekicks tend to be better than the beastmaster's companion, so why shouldn't the ranger just play some other subclass and get a sidekick by other means?

I'm imagining "Fight Promoter" as a class. Your PC isn't particularly good at anything except keeping fighters in shape and recruiting them (and getting a big share of their winnings/findings as an agent fee)... but the promoter comes with an NPC fighter and NPC ring coach (who buffs and heals the fighter).