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

[Cadence]

I know no one cares because they're busy edition warring, but the discussion is actually about spellcaster vs fighter combat balance.

It feels like the other constraints the system being used puts on the classes outside of combat is the important thing in answering the question about in combat for a lot of us.

 

[Fanaelialae]

A time to start buying trained dinosaurs!


But that's just so bizarrely gamey. "Sorry Bob, you can't bring your dog with us because then we would get less XP." And who even uses XP? Such a pointless hassle.

What I want to know is where Bob found a dog who can level up!? Also, where can I get a trained dinosaur, and what kinds are on offer?

That said, not everyone wants to treat their companions as expendable. They don't want to have to "trade up" their dog for a dino (even though that's nuts, because dinos are evidently better).

I think plenty of groups still use XP. I've tried using milestones before, but the folks I play with typically seem to prefer XP.

In my next campaign I'm sneaking in milestone XP. The players will be traveling through some mystical realms (demiplanes). Most of them will have a temple where they need to obtain the blessing of the local goddess, and a dangerous primal beast that they can hunt to take its power (or which might hunt them). Achieving either of those goals will earn them a level. To keep them from complaining though, XP will earn them insight points that they can use to purchase little QoL improvements for their characters (like making a Dragonborn's breath weapon a bonus action). Trust me, if I didn't have XP, I'd never hear the end of it.

There are groups that are fairly open to companions. Mine are. We've had insanely large parties as a result of endless recruiting of companions. In the campaign the other DM is running, he actually added a rule that each player can only have one companion and one pet as a result (it was necessary, for the sake of everyone's sanity).

However, I've also seen (with other groups) players react poorly to a player wanting to bring in an XP drain. I've seen players reluctant to accept companions because they would be an XP drain.

Baking the companion into the class circumvents these issues, since it will scale and won't take XP from the party. Granted, it can still have issues since a poorly designed companion feature may not scale sufficiently well, but that's more a function of bad implemention. Just because something can/has been done poorly doesn't mean it can't be done well.

 

[Minigiant]

I know no one cares because they're busy edition warring, but the discussion is actually about spellcaster vs fighter combat balance.

Well there is a secondary discusion based on it.

If spellcaster can be equal to the martials in combat AND do everything else via broken spells, should martials be buffed in everything else?

 

[FrogReaver]

I know no one cares because they're busy edition warring, but the discussion is actually about spellcaster vs fighter combat balance.

That’s what the thread started about. About 20-30 pages threads usually veer off an a tangent. This discussion is not about that tangent.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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?

Hmm... On thinking about it the Battlemaster is really missing one needed aspect of the Warlord, which is to yell at someone and tell them to stop lying down on the job and bring them from 0hp to back onto their feet. (The Banneret can actually do this part but has to wait so long for anything else).

But more warlord can be integrated as options into both fighter and battlemaster without substantial changes.

For the fighter (and paladin) I'd add:

Fighting Style: Teamwork: The fighter can use their attacks to distract enemies near them, creating openings for their allies. Instead of attacking this fighter may spend an attack as a set-up on an adjacent enemy. One other ally adjacent to that enemy may then use their reaction to make an attack.

Battlemaster Maneuvers:

• The Battlemaster needs more maneuvers anyway; the obvious design flaw in the class is that at seventh, tenth, and 15th level you are picking maneuvers which did not, for you, make the grade at third level.
• Maneuver: Stop lying down on the job! (Normally with more profanity). When you have an ally with 0hp who you can see and can hear you you may spend a superiority die as a bonus action. The ally regains that many hit points [or even just 1hp]
• Maneuver: Duck! When an ally you can see and who can hear you is hit you may spend your reaction to add the roll of your superiority dice to their AC. If the attack now misses the next attack against the foe has advantage.

I think that combination of fighting for others as a combat style and battlefield awareness and changing would be what it would take for me to feel that we had something that actually felt like a warlord.

Edited a full action to one attack for one attack in teamwork. It still only gives rogues an extra one sneak attack.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What I want to know is where Bob found a dog who can level up!?

It can level up if the GM lets it use sidekick rules from Tasha. And that's pretty arbitrary whether they do. In a game where the characters can relatively easily get proper sidekicks, having a baked-in companion from the class seems pretty pointless. As a result, I would actually feel a bit weird letting other characters have such sidekicks if one player was playing a character with a baked-in sidekick, as that would be kinda giving the others for free a better version of the thing one person used their subclass for... The whole thing is a tad awkward.

Also, where can I get a trained dinosaur, and what kinds are on offer?

Ask the Eberron halflings.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Hmm... On thinking about it the Battlemaster is really missing one needed aspect of the Warlord, which is to yell at someone and tell them to stop lying down on the job and bring them from 0hp to back onto their feet. (The Banneret can actually do this part but has to wait so long for anything else).

But more warlord can be integrated as options into both fighter and battlemaster without substantial changes.

For the fighter (and paladin) I'd add:

Fighting Style: Teamwork: The fighter can use their attacks to distract enemies near them, creating openings for their allies. Instead of attacking this fighter may spend their action as a set-up on an adjacent enemy. One other ally adjacent to that enemy may then use their reaction to make an attack.

Battlemaster Maneuvers:

• The Battlemaster needs more maneuvers anyway; the obvious design flaw in the class is that at seventh, tenth, and 15th level you are picking maneuvers which did not, for you, make the grade at third level.
• Maneuver: Stop lying down on the job! (Normally with more profanity). When you have an ally with 0hp who you can see and can hear you you may spend a superiority die as a bonus action. The ally regains that many hit points [or even just 1hp]
• Maneuver: Duck! When an ally you can see and who can hear you is hit you may spend your reaction to add the roll of your superiority dice to their AC. If the attack now misses the next attack against the foe has advantage.

I think that combination of fighting for others as a combat style and battlefield awareness and changing would be what it would take for me to feel that we had something that actually felt like a warlord.

Yeah, to me this feels like a really good way to do it and fits the edition well.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It can level up if the GM lets it use sidekick rules from Tasha. And that's pretty arbitrary whether they do. In a game where the characters can relatively easily get proper sidekicks, having a baked-in companion from the class seems pretty pointless. As a result, I would actually feel a bit weird letting other characters have such sidekicks if one player was playing a character with a baked-in sidekick, as that would be kinda giving the others for free a better version of the thing one person used their subclass for... The whole thing is a tad awkward.

Not in my experience. I played in a campaign where we had companions. Without getting too into it, they were run as full classed characters. Everyone got one. I decided to play a halfling revised ranger beast master with a companion who was also a revised ranger beast master. So I was essentially running around with my PC and 3 sidekicks, 2 of which were baked-in. It was a lot of fun.

There's no reason the player with a baked-in sidekick can't also have a regular sidekick, if everyone else gets one.

 

[Aldarc]

Hmm... On thinking about it the Battlemaster is really missing one needed aspect of the Warlord, which is to yell at someone and tell them to stop lying down on the job and bring them from 0hp to back onto their feet. (The Banneret can actually do this part but has to wait so long for anything else).

But more warlord can be integrated as options into both fighter and battlemaster without substantial changes.

Or even a Maneuver that lets an ally spend one of their recovery HD in the middle of combat.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Or even a Maneuver that lets an ally spend one of their recovery HD in the middle of combat.

That's another option I've been thinking of for a while (and actually makes it into my warlord class), yes