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

[Crimson Longinus]

That has more to do with Power Fantasy than Power Gaming.

People play the character class they want to experience, by and large. Whether that's one of the myriad "I kick your entire butt in combat" fighters or "I make pacts with dark powers" edgelords. If I wanna make a big tough fighterman who gets a lot of attacks and is super easy to play I roll a Champion up. Not an Evoker.

Yeah, and these people get it. That's what ultimately matters much more. The truth is that 5e is well enough balanced that people can play what they want and do mostly OK. Majority of players don't really care about the sort of minute balance differences we here obsess about.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In addition to the full casters ahead of Wizards; Rogues and Fighters are ahead of them too. Here is the full list based on a D&D Beyond survey in 2020:

• Warlock (13%)
• Fighter (12%)
• Cleric (11%)
• Sorcerer (10%)
• Rogue (9%)
• Wizard (8%)
• Barbarian (6%)
• Bard (6%)
• Paladin (6%)
• Monk (6%)
• Druid (5%)
• Ranger(5%)

The really undercuts the central arguement of this thread. Suggesting that a fighter is useless or needs to be buffed to make it equal to a wizard is a is a difficult one to support when the Fighter is 2nd most common class played (and in many polls it is 1st).

The problem here is that the question is one of balance. And the last time the base fighter class gets something genuinely new rather than a single extra use of something they already have or an option that wasn't good enough to choose last time is level 11 when they take the lead for attacks per round. And level 11 is basically the last time the rogue gets anything new that they can actively choose to use rather than reactively. Most people don't of course go much above level 10

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The problem here is that the question is one of balance. And the last time the base fighter class gets something genuinely new rather than a single extra use of something they already have or an option that wasn't good enough to choose last time is level 11 when they take the lead for attacks per round. And level 11 is basically the last time the rogue gets anything new that they can actively choose to use rather than reactively. Most people don't of course go much above level 10

In which case the balance above level ten hardly is a major issue...

 

[Steampunkette]

Yeah, and these people get it. That's what ultimately matters much more. The truth is that 5e is well enough balanced that people can play what they want and do mostly OK. Majority of players don't really care about the sort of minute balance differences we here obsess about.

Them picking what they like when there is an imbalance isn't them "Getting it". It's them picking what they like.

The imbalance still exists. Being able to ignore a problem doesn't mean there isn't a problem. See literally every ill that has existed since recorded history. From Warfare to Price Gouging to Favoritism to Lying. There's always going to be people who can ignore it, that doesn't make it good or just or right.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I disagree. Battlemasters are fully fledged fighters. I've seen quite a few in the campaigns I've played in and run, and IMO they're quite good (I've seen them all the way to 19th level).

Don't get me wrong, I understand why you would want more, I'm just not convinced that the subclass needs more.

If it you're trying to punch the battlemaster into warlord shape in a desperate attempt to not make a proper warlord, then the battlemaster can't just get by on being a battlemaster on average 2 round of each combat and a Simple Class that can't master any battles or lord over any wars the rest of the time.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Them picking what they like when there is an imbalance isn't them "Getting it". It's them picking what they like.

The imbalance still exists. Being able to ignore a problem doesn't mean there isn't a problem. See literally every ill that has existed since recorded history. From Warfare to Price Gouging to Favoritism to Lying. There's always going to be people who can ignore it, that doesn't make it good or just or right.

Depends on the 'it' they get.

If the 'it' is 'shut up pleb, you're lucky to get any martial ability in Wizard Town', then...

 

[FrogReaver]

If it you're trying to punch the battlemaster into warlord shape in a desperate attempt to not make a proper warlord, then the battlemaster can't just get by on being a battlemaster on average 2 round of each combat and a Simple Class that can't master any battles or lord over any wars the rest of the time.

What about a warlord says he has to do things like that every single round? Can’t there be a few rounds he simply attacks with his weapon?

 

[Vaalingrade]

What about a warlord says he has to do things like that every single round? Can’t there be a few rounds he simply attacks with his weapon?

Not the majority of rounds though. And that should be a choice, not a mandate because of overly restrictive design.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not the majority of rounds though. And that should be a choice, not a mandate because of overly restrictive design.

They have more superiority dice than warlocks have spell slots

 

[Fanaelialae]

The problem here is that the question is one of balance. And the last time the base fighter class gets something genuinely new rather than a single extra use of something they already have or an option that wasn't good enough to choose last time is level 11 when they take the lead for attacks per round. And level 11 is basically the last time the rogue gets anything new that they can actively choose to use rather than reactively. Most people don't of course go much above level 10

Them picking what they like when there is an imbalance isn't them "Getting it". It's them picking what they like.

The imbalance still exists. Being able to ignore a problem doesn't mean there isn't a problem. See literally every ill that has existed since recorded history. From Warfare to Price Gouging to Favoritism to Lying. There's always going to be people who can ignore it, that doesn't make it good or just or right.

Speaking as someone whose group regularly plays well into the teens (all the way up to 19th level), I don't entirely agree with this.

In terms of depth, fighters and rogues can hold their own against casters all day. A high level martial character is a demon on the battlefield (and the rogue's skills can do plenty off the battlefield as well).

I think their issue, such as it is, is breadth. Casters, as they level, gain breadth and depth. They get stronger spells, and they get more of them. Martials, primarily gain depth. They don't really get much more that they can do, they just get better at doing what they already do well.

While this is imbalanced in one sense, it isn't really imbalanced. There was another edition of D&D where, when I experienced it, the martials were an afterthought. If they hadn't shown up that night, I doubt the casters would have noticed. And you could tell that the martial character players weren't exactly enthralled by the disparity. 5e isn't like that IME. Martial characters are very good at high levels, and if they're missing for a session you will most definitely note their absence.

Don't get me wrong. I would very much love to see high level martials as mythic, based on archetypes such as Beowulf. That would go a long way towards giving them the breadth they lack. However, as it stands I don't think they are unbalanced per se. Just more limited than their caster counterparts.