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

[Don Durito]

I'm not sure I buy that a Fighter should spend so much time fighting that they don't have time to learn skills. What does proficiency actually mean in Arcana, it is like having a Masters or PHD? How much time does the Rogue spend learning their sneak attack? What about the Bard? Lots of spells, and lots of skills and they get expertise and they fight a bit too?

And that's with the dubious assumption that some sense of realism is the most important thing here. It seems obvious that the primary point is the level of ability to contribute across all three pillars. (Or rather inside or outside of combat - we should probably stop pretending that 'three pillars' actually means anything).

It's not that hard. My Dunedain Warrior (basically a Fighter) in Adventures in Middle Earth has a culture virtue (Feat) which he can use either in or out of combat (and budget seperately) whereby revealing his ancestry can heal his allies and frighten enemies and gain a bonus to social skills during scenes when he reveals him. He also has a subclass ability that gives him advantage and disadvantage on intimidate or persuasion when he draws his magic sworld and makes an appropriate speech.

 

[Manbearcat]

Balance is not important.

Therefore I suggest the following change for 6E.

Action Surge: You kill every enemy that you can see. If the enemy is already technically dead or not really alive you instead hack or pulverise them into hunks of meat, bone or metal as appropriate. You may use this a number of times per day equal to the age of the oldest player minus the age of the youngest player.

I like this, but it doesn't have a "throw Wizard players into the sun" rider attached to it.

May I suggest the following change?

Action Surge: You kill every enemy that you can see. If the enemy is already technically dead or not really alive you instead hack or pulverise them into hunks of meat, bone or metal as appropriate. You may use this a number of times per day equal to the age of the oldest player minus the age of the youngest player. If the player of your party Wizard so much as looks at you without requisite envy (Fighter player's call), they are immediately thrown into the sun.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure I buy that a Fighter should spend so much time fighting that they don't have time to learn skills. What does proficiency actually mean in Arcana, it is like having a Masters or PHD? How much time does the Rogue spend learning their sneak attack? What about the Bard? Lots of spells, and lots of skills and they get expertise and they hit fight a bit too?

I haven't seen anyone argue that they don't have time to learn skills. What I'm saying is that all of the classes have time to learn skills. Fighters aren't special in any way when it comes to non-combat skills. They're the same as Clerics, Wizards, Barbarians, etc. You could actually make a better case for Barbarians to have more skills than Fighters, given the environment they grow up in.

And that's with the dubious assumption that some sense of realism is the most important thing here. It seems obvious that the primary point is the level of ability to contribue across all three pillars.

They already have it, though. Fighters get 4 skills. 2 from class and two from background. Proficiency in 4 skills makes them good at exploration and/or social if they want to be.

My Dunedain Warrior (basically a Fighter) in Adventures in Middle Earth has a culture virtue (Feat) which he can use either in or out of combat (and budget seperately) whereby revealing his ancestry can heal his allies and frighten enemies and gain a bonus to social skills during scenes when he reveals him. He also has a subclass ability that gives him advantage and disadvantage on intimidate or persuasion when draws his magic sworld and makes an appropriate speech.

That's pretty cool. Fighters also get more ASIs, which if you are using feats, means more feats than anyone else and they can choose non-combat feats, essentially doing the same thing.

 

[Yaarel]

Not all of them did. You could give them a tool to simulate that, though, if you wanted.

The Fighter should have 4 choices, to choose skills and tools. These choices depend on the character concept. Some will know how to make and repair metal armor, some wont. Some will be leaders of Persuasion, some wont. Some will fight stealthily in guerilla tactics, some wont. And so on.

Knights began training around the age of 10 and didn't become knights until adulthood.

That is my point. This Fighter who is a "knight" is highly educated since puberty. By the time a Fighter reaches level 1, is highly skilled − learns how to be a persuasive military and civilian leader, and knows how to repair his armor and weapons.

Wizards dont benefit from this intensive martial training. Because while youths, they are busy with magical sciences and magical combat.

Fighters don't do anything to deserve more skills than literally every other class. Every justification you used for Fighters can either be used for other classes, or equally valid justifications can be made for them. Right now all the classes that should be equal in skills ARE equal in skills. Raise one and you should raise all classes.

Fighters deserve to be more competent at Exploration and Social encounters. And skills help round out the undeveloped aspects of the Fighter class.

 

[Undrave]

All the non-gish Fighters are basically single target. I wouldn't really call the Battle Master maneuver multi-target when it does so little to a secondary target.

The Battlemaster can do a little Control, he can do Defender stuff, he can do some Leader stuff, he's got maneuvers that buff skills now and he gets to analyze an enemy by observing them and gets an extra tool... It's all small stuff that could be better, don't think I'm praising them much, but they do more than just damage.

 

[Maxperson]

The Fighter should have 4 choices, to choose skills and tools. These choices depend on the character concept. Some will know how to make and repair metal armor, some wont. Some will be leaders of Persuasion, some wont. Some will fight stealthily in guerilla tactics, some wont. And so on.

Then give yours 2 tools. I don't think that's necessary, since they would use different tools for leather, mail and plate armors, but you can do it.

That is my point. This Fighter who is a "knight" is highly educated since puberty. By the time a Fighter reaches level 1, is highly skilled − learns how to be a persuasive military and civilian leader, and knows how to repair his armor and weapons.

Wizards dont benefit from this intensive martial training. Because while youths, they are busy with magical sciences and magical combat.

Wizards grow up learning skills before they apprentice, and during their apprenticeship they learn many secrets and much knowledge, not just about arcana. They should also have 4 skills to represent that knowledge and training in non-magical areas. They also have to learn to find secrets(investigation), see that which is hidden(search), etc.

As I said, you can make the same kinds of justifications to increase the skills of every class.

Fighters deserve to be more competent at Exploration and Social encounters. And skills help round out the undeveloped aspects of the Fighter class.

They already get 4 skills when you factor in background, and get more ASIs, so if they use feats can take the skilled feat and gain 3 more. What Fighters get already allows them to be one of the most skilled classes in the game(excluding expertise). 4 skills at level 1 and with their 3 bonus ASIs, they can easily afford to use one to be proficient in 7 skills. Then they can take other feats like Actor to get advantage on deception and performance checks, etc.

 

[Maxperson]

The Battlemaster can do a little Control, he can do Defender stuff, he can do some Leader stuff, he's got maneuvers that buff skills now and he gets to analyze an enemy by observing them and gets an extra tool... It's all small stuff that could be better, don't think I'm praising them much, but they do more than just damage.

Yes, but it's still pretty much all single target. He's just more complex. The Champion is the simple class for those who don't want to have to worry about all of that kind stuff.

 

[Don Durito]

Honestly the problem is basically this.

Fighter: Guy who fights
Barbarian: Guy who fights and has a little bit of nature skills and does seem to get more skills fairly randomly as he levels up.
Ranger: Guy who fights and tracks and hunts and has some nature magic.
Paladin: Guy who fights and smites and has a good Charisma and has some divine magic.
Barbarian: Guy who fights and has a little bit of nature skills.

Conceptually, right back to 1e the non-fighter warriors were basically Fighters+.

Fighters need more identity. Personally I'd lean more into aspects of crossover of Fighter and Warlord. It makes sense based on what the Fighter has evolved into that the Fighter is the person who knows how to lead armies and train warriors and besiege castles and possibly even repair and forge weapons. This gives you something to actually hang non-combat options on.

But what about the guy who just wants to hit things and not engage beyond that, I hear people say?

Tell them to ignore the class features they don't want to use.
Or just give them a sidekick character. Apparently balance isn't important anyway.

 

[Don Durito]

Honestly giving Fighters more skills doesn't really achieve that much. The skill system in 5e is pretty awful. The random element overwhelms the actual skill to a significant degree.

 

[ECMO3]

As I mentioned, the disadvantage would be due to the movement involved. In combat, creatures are assumed to be moving around within their space, dodging blows, or just angling for a specific view. If you're trying this before initiative is rolled, or the wizard is paralysed, there will not be disadvantage.

Well that isn't RAW. Also if we are going to start looking at the situation dodging, moving and all - the hand is invisible and therefore "unseen" which would logically apply advantage to cancel something like disadvantage because he is moving and dodging.

Also if we use this logic, every attack be made with disadvantage, after all they are assumed to be moving around in their space, dodging, so someone swinging a sword at them would have disadvantage too right? Especially since unlike the hand they attacker is not unseen.

I think the rules already consider the difficulty of doing such things in combat. The difficulty to overcome dodging, moving and defending to hit with a weapon is factored into the AC of the enemy when the combat rules were written. The difficulty of a Rogue's mage hand stealing something from someone dodging and the advantage by doing it while invisible are factored into the Lergdemain ability .... and it is why a normal mage hand can not explicitly do this.

I read the intent of the action declaration to be removal of the entire pouch. Since component pouches are generally attached to the belt, or held by a strap looped over the shoulder, the Trickster would probably be trying to saw through the strap with a knife, and then gently easing the bag off the wizard so they don't notice the sudden loss of weight.

If he had to do all that, then I could agree with disadvantage.

I know from using my hand, my DM would make me take three turns to do this (unless the thieves tools were already in hand), using 3 bonus actions and 2 checks. 1BA to remove the tools from my pack. One BA and check to cut the cord or detach the pouch unoticed (probably a thieves tool dexterity check), and one BA and check to actually steal the pouch the following turn. She would also make me drop the tools on the ground. She would not impose disadvantage on either check (unless there were some other mitigating factors).