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

[Crimson Longinus]

I think most people don't actually want to go back to the dungeon.

Also what I imagine as a 'dungeon' and what WotC imagines seem to be different things. The last session I ran was exploring a dungeon. It had three fights. Bugbear equivalents outside the dungeon, combined zombies and firebeetles at the upper level of the dungeon, gibbering mouthers at the bottom level. And that was the dungeon.

Generally I feel that the amount of time expected between long rests should be such, that it can be usually played in one session. My new campaign has thus far been far more combat heavy than I'd usually do and we manage like three or four fights per session. Six, let alone eight seems rather impossible.

I didn't pay that much attention the playtest when the edition was worked on. Was the expected amount of encounters stated then and was there a lot of discussion about it then? Are there actually a lot of people who do these six to eight fight days?

 

[Maxperson]

Also what I imagine as a 'dungeon' and what WotC imagines seem to be differnt things. The last session I ran was exploring a dungeon. It had three fights. Bugbear equivalents outside the dungeon, combined zombies and firebeetles at the upper level of the dungeon, gibbering mouthers at the bottom level. And that was the dungeon.

Generally I feel that the amount of time expected between long rests should be such, that it can be usually played in one session. My new campaign has thus far been far more combat heavy than I'd usually do and we manage like three or four fights per session. Six, let alone eight seems rather impossible.

I didn't pay that much attention the playtest when the edition was worked on. Was the expected amount of encounters stated then and was there a lot of discussion about it then? Are there actually a lot of people who do these six to eight fight days?

6-8 is for medium and hard encounters. It does say that if you use deadly encounters that you can use fewer, but doesn't say how to calculate that. And then it says that if you use easy encounters to have more than 6-8.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Also what I imagine as a 'dungeon' and what WotC imagines seem to be different things. The last session I ran was exploring a dungeon. It had three fights. Bugbear equivalents outside the dungeon, combined zombies and firebeetles at the upper level of the dungeon, gibbering mouthers at the bottom level. And that was the dungeon.

Generally I feel that the amount of time expected between long rests should be such, that it can be usually played in one session. My new campaign has thus far been far more combat heavy than I'd usually do and we manage like three or four fights per session. Six, let alone eight seems rather impossible.

I didn't pay that much attention the playtest when the edition was worked on. Was the expected amount of encounters stated then and was there a lot of discussion about it then? Are there actually a lot of people who do these six to eight fight days?

Something I've had a lot of success with recently is chaining 2-3 encounters together. Basically monster groups B and/or C are close enough to group A that (under normal circumstances) they'll hear the fight break out and move to engage in a few rounds. It makes "low difficulty" encounters much more challenging. Plus, I never liked it when the monsters are so spread out in a dungeon that they can't really call for reinforcements. It just doesn't make sense to me. Additionally, if they are clever and manage to take out a group without alerting reinforcements, they're rewarded for their good play with an easier encounter.

If you count a chained encounter as 1 encounter (and my players see it that way), then you can get 6-8 encounters into "2-3". I find it does tend to go faster, since no additional setup is required for reinforcements. The only thing to keep in mind is that PCs will probably need a short rest after each chained encounter.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Something I've had a lot of success with recently is chaining 2-3 encounters together. Basically monster groups B and/or C are close enough to group A that (under normal circumstances) they'll hear the fight break out and move to engage in a few rounds. It makes "low difficulty" encounters much more challenging. Plus, I never liked it when the monsters are so spread out in a dungeon that they can't really call for reinforcements. It just doesn't make sense to me. Additionally, if they are clever and manage to take out a group without alerting reinforcements, they're rewarded for their good play with an easier encounter.

If you count a chained encounter as 1 encounter (and my players see it that way), then you can get 6-8 encounters into "2-3". I find it does tend to go faster, since no additional setup is required for reinforcements. The only thing to keep in mind is that PCs will probably need a short rest after each chained encounter.

True. And in my earlier example the beetles and the zombies were kinda like that and the gibbering mouthers were two that were chained in a manner you describe rather than two at once (the second one would have been completely avoidable.) So in that sense it was five fights, so almost six!

 

[Undrave]

You're not wrong. That would work. I'm just not sure a sizable contingent of players wouldn't have a fit.

I know what kind of players...

"Why do you always have to nerf the wizard? Everyone should be buffed up to where we are."

"Okay, we'll let the fighter be capable of legendary and mythic feats of physical prowess..."

"OBJECTION!"

"Sigh... What is it now, Mr. Wizard?"

"That's unrealistic!"

... Wizard players! These pointy hat buggers are always out to ruin everybody else's fun!

Yes, but I'm not sure they fully realised that, at least not at first. They did try and sell it initially with a dungeon crawl adventure that it was notoriously unsuited for.

It's seems to be reflexive for WOTC, the future is always 'back to the dungeon'.

Augh... I remember the second module, the one after Keep on the Shadowfell... It had WAY too many plain 5 feet wide winding corridors with like two or three enemies... it was claustrophobic and honestly super boring. 4e worked best when you had a big and INTERESTING set piece fight! Some fights I DM'd included repelling kobold pirates on a ship, stopping a group of undead from building a flying ship for their Necromancer master in a large cavern with enemies on multiple levels of scaffolding, battling a goblin who could control rats in a flour mill where he could throw barrels and crates filled with rat swarms or flour sacks could be used to create obscuring terrain (don't use fire attacks!) and so forth...

A good 4e fights needs varied terrain (preferably with some verticality), some hazardous zones you would rather avoid (maybe some traps?), stuff you can interact with (terrain powers!), and a good mix of interesting enemies of different roles! You don't even need to work hard on that last one because, usually, the Monster Manuals suggested encounter groups were actually on point!

 

[ECMO3]

I didn’t? My only reply to you since then was the first time you quoted me after that. And all it was for was as a reminder that I’m not discussing that with you.

And here you remind me again. Exactly when are you going to back out for once and all?

P.S. You have now replied three times since your alleged bow out. Once to "correct" me regarding my post, once to remind me you bowed out and now reminding me again.

 

[ECMO3]

Okay. So it's only one subclass that can do it. I'm okay with that, but it would still only get one object from inside the pouch, so it wouldn't be very effective at stopping a Wizard in the middle of a fight.

I think RAI he is supposed to be able to take the entire pouch, but even if you nerf it like this he can choose what he takes out of the pouch.

If you have seen this guy cast forcecage before or suspect he will then grab his ruby dust on turn 1. If you beat his initiative you have just taken away one of his most powerful spells. If you see him cast fireball go after his bat guano the turn after he does that.

The Rogue is doing this with a bonus action, so it is not like he is wasting his action, he still gets to sneak attack or cast a spell himself or whatever. So the effect is limited (or nill if you fail the check), but it is not like he is giving up a whole lot to do it in many cases. And if he has something better to do that turn with his BA - like dash or hide or use the hand to pick up an enemies dropped weapon or use it to bandage a downed ally .... then he can do that as a bonus action instead.

 

[ECMO3]

I'd probably allow it in combat at disadvantage simply because of the movement involved, but it is entirely do-able. Just as I'd allow it to be attacked with the intent to destroy it, also at disadvantage.

It is in the rules! I could see disadvantage as a judgement for doing this with a normal mage hand done by a wizard as an action, because you are making a judgement call there. I could even see it for a thief standing next to him in melee trying it using fast hands (although that is a bit harsh IMO). The Arcane Trickster ability however says nothing about disadvantage and it is pretty obvious that it is intended to be used against enemies in combat. Thematically, that is why the AT's hand is invisible when the normal wizards mage hand isn't.

If this is the logic, do you give Rogues disadvantage when trying to hide in combat (assuming fully obscured)? The same logic would apply there-the enemy is alert, it is harder to hide.

In this discussion, let's remember that the Rogue is arguably the weakest class in combat, so I hardly think it is some sort of imbalance to let him use the defining feature of his subclass as it was designed to be used.

 

[Maxperson]

I think RAI he is supposed to be able to take the pouch, but even if you nerf it like this he can choose what he takes out of the pouch.

It's very clear that the intent is for it to only take ONE object from a container that's worn, and the pouch is in fact a container that is worn. Nothing is being nerfed. You are increasing the power of the ability, much the same way that a lot of people treat Charm Person like some sort of mind control, rather than the 1st level spell that it is. The ability was never intended to be able to disarm Wizards like that. It's intent is to allow you to steal a single small item.

If you have seen this guy cast forcecage before or suspect he will then grab his ruby dust on turn 1.

Yeah, I wouldn't allow that. You can't see inside the pouch, so if you're grabbing a small item, it's going to be a random small item. Unless you've somehow previously gained access to the pouch and memorized where the ruby dust is. The Rogue ability doesn't grant X-ray Vision or omniscience.

 

[Maxperson]

It is in the rules! I could see disadvantage as a judgement for doing this with a normal mage hand done by a wizard as an action, because you are making a judgement call there. I could even see it for a theif trying it using fast hands, although that is a bit harsh IMO. The Arcane Trickster ability however says nothing about disadvantage and it is pretty obvious that it is intended to be used against enemies in combat.

In this discussion, let's remember that the Rogue is arguably the weakest class in combat, so I hardly think it is some sort of imbalance to let him use the defining feature of his subclass as it was designed to be used.

Yeah. I agree with you that it's intent is to use in combat to take something small if you make the opposed check. However, it's not as good as you are trying to make it out to be. It's a 3rd level ability for God's sake. You can't see into unknown pouches to know what to take, nor can you take multiple objects at once. At best, you get lucky and take something for a significant spell.