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

[TwoSix]

Heck, I wouldn't mind smaller, tighter and more numerous 'classes'. Probably classified by general gameplay aesthetics (i.e. guys who fight in melee in this chapter, guys who fight at a distance here, guys who support here and guys who do lots of skill stuff there) with a mix of martial and magical. You wouldn't have a 'Fighter', you'd have ten levels of 'Knight' and 'Ravager' and 'Blademaster' and 'Whirlwind Dervish' and 'Duelists', while on the caster side you'd have the 'Pyromancer', the 'Illusionist', the 'Necromancer', the 'Witch' and so forth. Ideally, all these mini classes could fit in a two-page spread.

I've been advocating for tight, 2-page classes for years now, so I'm totally onboard. I think it's easily doable for a 10 level class that doesn't have subclasses.

 

[Undrave]

I've been advocating for tight, 2-page classes for years now, so I'm totally onboard. I think it's easily doable for a 10 level class that doesn't have subclasses.

And if you want to expand the game beyond those ten levels? Just come up with new two-pages 'paragon' or 'epic' classes.

 

[TwoSix]

And if you want to expand the game beyond those ten levels? Just come up with new two-pages 'paragon' or 'epic' classes.

And/or multiclass. It's the system that Shadow of the Demon Lord uses, and I think it would be perfect for D&D.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think the community is fractured to the extent that WotC cares. The game is literally more popular than ever.

Won't last forever. Once people get most of what they want of what they expect out of you, their eyes move elsewhere.

 

[ECMO3]

In the spirit of the initial post, if you find martials undervalued here are a few things that are RAW that could be used to increase their attractiveness as a class:

1. Implement optional mark rule (DMG p 271). This allows AOOs without using a reaction and it is free requiring no action except the attack you are already making. This optional rule works for any class, but it is far more valuable for martials because you need to be in melee to use it. If you have more than 1 attack a turn you can use it to mark more than one creature within reach. Depending on your DM you could also use it to get two AOOs against a single creature (one using your mark and one using your reaction).

2. Implement optional cleaving through creatures (DMG p 272). This allows melee combatants who down one creature to transfer remaining damage to another creature in reach. This obviously benefits melee martials and melee Rogues the most. It also means your level 5 GWM can take the +10 against a horde of Goblins, walk into the center and probably wipe out every one within reach in a single action, then move and wipe out another group on your GWM bonus action attack.

3. Encourage martials to play races with weapon and armor proficientces. These proficiences can EACH be traded for an artisans tool. This means a mountain dwarf could get 6 extra artisan tools (plus the one he gets for being a dwarf) along with a +2 in two stats and all the other dwarf abilities.

4. Implement optional flanking rules.

5. Implement optional disarm rule (DMG 271). This is not as powerful as the other things here, but typically a martial is going to have a better attack roll than an opponent will have athletics or acrobatics. Use your attack to disarm, then use your free action to pick up the enemies weapon off the ground. Then if you have extra attack make a normal attack (with the enemies weapon if it is better than yours).

These things are all RAW and with the exception of flanking most DMs don't play them IME.

 

[Maxperson]

No, that's a mess. The game has to choose how to do each archetype and commit to that. You can't just keep recreating same archetypes because some people don't like the mechanics that were chosen. And there are other games that do things differently; one game cannot do everything at once.

I don't agree with that. 3e's biggest strength was that it had so many classes and prestige classes that if one didn't fit my character concept, I could generally find one who did. If they have 10 different non-magical fighting classes, 10 different arcane spellcaster classes, 10 different holy spellcasters, etc., I'd be happy.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't agree with that. 3e's biggest strength was that it had so many classes and prestige classes that if one didn't fit my character concept, I could generally find one who did.

3e was a mess.

If they have 10 different non-magical fighting classes, 10 different arcane spellcaster classes, 10 different holy spellcasters, etc., I'd be happy.

I'd hate that. There are already too many classes.

 

[Maxperson]

3e was a mess.


I'd hate that. There are already too many classes.

It's a trade-off. I can't achieve most of my character concepts and have been forced into the lines created by the limited number of classes and subclasses. It's gotten a bit better with each new setting releasing new subclasses, but it's still pretty tight.

3e's mess wasn't really that bad. It was good, actually. If a group really wanted to power game, they could. If a group was concept driven and didn't care about power, they could make nearly any concept that they wanted. It was win-win.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd hate that. There are already too many classes.

Really we only need 2-3 more.

The resistance to splitting the fighter into 2 is seriously holding the class and all of D&D back.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's a trade-off. I can't achieve most of my character concepts and have been forced into the lines created by the limited number of classes and subclasses. It's gotten a bit better with each new setting releasing new subclasses, but it's still pretty tight.

If you feel that way probably just easier to play a non-class based system.