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

[Fanaelialae]

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.

That seems like a great reason for the warlord to be its own class.

 

[Fanaelialae]

They have more superiority dice than warlocks have spell slots

Warlocks are generally meant to spam EB. It's been their design since they first appeared in 3.x (when EB was a class feature).

 

[Vaalingrade]

That seems like a great reason for the warlord to be its own class.

I agree, but my original post was discussing someone else's compromise.

Also, it's never going to happen.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

most martial classes don’t do their special combat stuff more than a few times an encounter if that.

casters wouldn’t either but cantrips kind of bypass that.

Heck a high level Battlemaster gets 6 dice per short rest. That’s easily enough to use warlord stuff more than half their combat rounds.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I agree, but my original post was discussing someone else's compromise.

Also, it's never going to happen.

Never say never.

I don't think it would have realistically happened near the release of 5e. They were too gunshy about anything that was too clearly associated with 4e, and the warlord certainly is.

But nearer the end of the edition, when they've previously shown to be more willing to take risks and try different things (ie, Book of 9 Swords)? I think it could realistically happen.

 

[ECMO3]

That's actually a fairly even distribution.

Let's put this into perspective. Out of 100 people, this data is saying that 12 will play fighters and 8 will play wizards. 80 people will play neither. That's not a huge difference between the fighter and wizard.

No but it is strongly contrary to the idea that the fighter is demonstrably inferior to the wizard.

If the fighter was really "bad" to play it would not be on top of, nor even equal with the wizard. It would be way below Wizard.

 

[Vaalingrade]

most martial classes don’t do their special combat stuff more than a few times an encounter if that.

casters wouldn’t either but cantrips kind of bypass that.

That is literally the problem.

Martials aren't allowed to do anything interesting at-will because screw them.

 

[FrogReaver]

mechanics we could apply the ‘more of’ test to for new classes.

Paladin Aura’s
Bardic Inspiration
Barbarian Rage
Monks KI
Rogues Sneak Attack
Sorcerer Metamagic
Druid Wildshape
Etc.

Some of these might make good mechanics for classes but most would not as their conceptual space is already taken.

 

[FrogReaver]

That is literally the problem.

Martials aren't allowed to do anything interesting at-will because screw them.

Casters don’t do interesting stuff at will either. Cantrips just aren’t that interesting.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No but it is strongly contrary to the idea that the fighter is demonstrably inferior to the wizard.

If the fighter was really bad to play it would not be on top of, nor even equal with the wizard. It would be way below Wizard and to be honest, probably below the 5% noted for Druid.

Until you factor in that Fighter has been forced into the role of starter class.

And also, again, it's still the only game in town if you want to be a weaponmaster even if it isn't very good at the feel.

It's like how the choice for full caster used to be the wizard with its awful vancian casting and the sorcerer that got a staple in its eye for the sin of not having vancian casting.