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

[Maxperson]

How do you determine what concepts require classes and which ones can be handled via feats?

It can only be determined by the person conceiving the character concept. Nothing irked me more than being told by people that X class fulfills my concept, so I don't need Y class to be made. They had no ability to determine that for me.

What I'm saying is that you can achieve or partially achieve a concept through taking a feat(as determined by the player), but you cannot achieve a class or subclass by taking a feat. A class or subclass requires an actual class or subclass.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't quite get how this is an improvised action. It looks like a standard use of Intimidation.

It isn't even intimidation. There was no threat of cutting them open and letting their entrails spill out if they don't surrender. It was just a demand to drop their weapons. That's persuasion. I'd give it advantage since 15 of their friends were just wiped out.

The blue box in the PHB, though, seems to make any skill use in combat an action, which is silly to me.

 

[FrogReaver]

It can only be determined by the person conceiving the character concept. Nothing irked me more than being told by people that X class fulfills my concept, so I don't need Y class to be made. They had no ability to determine that for me.

I think we've got to uncouple concept from mechanics. I don't think the 5e Battlemaster has great warlord mechanics. I do think it fulfills the concept though. I think there is some objective truth in there and not just truth 'for you' as you described it.

I think there's potentially some pitfalls with creating conceptually similar but mechanically different classes. Which is why I'm so adamant to point out the concept is there.

What I'm saying is that you can achieve or partially achieve a concept through taking a feat(as determined by the player), but you cannot achieve a class or subclass by taking a feat. A class or subclass requires an actual class or subclass.

So Warlord in 5e isn't a class or subclass and so the concept of Leadery Fighter can be achieved via Battlemaster Manuevers and feats, right?

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think so. Not everything can be placed into the base game.

Sure.

But core fantasy concepts should.

Why the Elemental Chaos is being a battle captain an optional rule?
Whats next? In 6e you need an options book to be an archer?

 

[pemerton]

This to me is the whole problem.

How the Gehenna is making a noble, knight, miltilia captain, chieftian or gladiator with High Str, High Cha, and Decent Con a bad choice in Dungeons and Dragons?
Many fighters based on the fluff of the fighter as an elite warrior would come out of the military or nobility and many would have decent or high mental stats.

But there are very few core ways to bring their mental stats to the battlefield unlike real life.
What the Hades Mearls and Crawford?
I mean the noble and knight NPCs in the MM have 15 CHA.

I think this is an out-and-out consequence of the skill system.

In AD&D a fighter could have a modest or even decent CHA and might therefore be just as charming as a bard or druid, or close to it. At least until 2nd ed AD&D bards there was no class feature, let alone a level-dependent one, that influenced how charming a character was. (The only exception I can think of is the Friends spell. Personally I never saw that spell in play; but even then it's not going to be dominating the sphere of social interaction.)

A good CHA also allowed a fighter to bolster the morale of NPCs - somewhat significant in AD&D given the tendency of that game to include henchmen and hirelings. That's not really a feature of 5e play as best I can tell.

Once you introduce social skills, and don't give them to fighters; and once you create classes which have a strong reason to have high CHA at the same time that points-buy encourages fighters to have at best modest CHA; then the problem you (Minigiant) describe emerges.

4e D&D had a bit of the same issue for fighters; hence warlords. It also had the weirdness that clerics and paladins tend to be weak at Religion because that skill is INT-based.

I don't know how much damage it would do to balance to allow a fighter to trade some armour proficiency for a CHA bonus to AC (in 3E didn't some prestige classes allow this sort of Panache feature?). But something like that might be a simple way to do it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure.

But core fantasy concepts should.

Why the Elemental Chaos is being a battle captain an optional rule?
Whats next? In 6e you need an options book to be an archer?

Fighter currently handles the battle captain concept in 5e via battlemaster. Inspiring Leader is nice but Battlemasters alraedy get a similar effect via Rally maneuver. The feat is just extra. It's not actually required.

 

[Maxperson]

I think we've got to uncouple concept from mechanics. I don't think the 5e Battlemaster has great warlord mechanics. I do think it fulfills the concept though. I think there is some objective truth in there and not just truth 'for you' as you described it.

Sure, but you can only make that determination for you. For others, anything that isn't a good Warlord fails to achieve the concept. I mean, some people would think that $100 fulfills the concept of having a lot of money. For me it's not even close. You can say these objective qualities(Battle Master maneuvers) are what I use to fulfill the concept of Warlord for me, but that doesn't meant that they will for others. Each person has to make that determination for himself, and I doubt the majority of those who want a Warlord will agree with you on this.

I think there's potentially some pitfalls with creating conceptually similar but mechanically different classes. Which is why I'm so adamant to point out the concept is there.

As I pointed out earlier, I don't feel that way at all. I'm happy with 10 different classes that are all conceptually close, but not the same. When I look to fulfill a concept, I want to hit it exactly. I don't want, "Well this is kinda sorta in the same ballpark." Now, I'm exaggerating a little with the number 10, but I don't see were 2-4 similar classes are a bad thing.

So Warlord in 5e isn't a class or subclass and so the concept of Leadery Fighter can be achieved via Battlemaster Manuevers and feats, right?

For some, sure. For others it might not be enough. It won't be a Warlord, though, and Warlord is what folks want.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think this is an out-and-out consequence of the skill system.

In AD&D a fighter could have a modest or even decent CHA and might therefore be just as charming as a bard or druid, or close to it. At least until 2nd ed AD&D bards there was no class feature, let alone a level-dependent one, that influenced how charming a character was. (The only exception I can think of is the Friends spell. Personally I never saw that spell in play; but even then it's not going to be dominating the sphere of social interaction.)

A good CHA also allowed a fighter to bolster the morale of NPCs - somewhat significant in AD&D given the tendency of that game to include henchmen and hirelings. That's not really a feature of 5e play as best I can tell.

Once you introduce social skills, and don't give them to fighters; and once you create classes which have a strong reason to have high CHA at the same time that points-buy encourages fighters to have at best modest CHA; then the problem you (Minigiant) describe emerges.

4e D&D had a bit of the same issue for fighters; hence warlords. It also had the weirdness that clerics and paladins tend to be weak at Religion because that skill is INT-based.

I don't know how much damage it would do to balance to allow a fighter to trade some armour proficiency for a CHA bonus to AC (in 3E didn't some prestige classes allow this sort of Panache feature?). But something like that might be a simple way to do it.

I think standard array/point buy character gen methods also leads to alot of this problem.

 

[pemerton]

It isn't even intimidation. There was no threat of cutting them open and letting their entrails spill out if they don't surrender. It was just a demand to drop their weapons. That's persuasion. I'd give it advantage since 15 of their friends were just wiped out.

Here is p 62 of the Basic PDF:

Intimidation. When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision.​

​

Persuasion. When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check. Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith, to foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see the king, negotiating peace between warring tribes, or inspiring a crowd of townsfolk.​

Inviting some opponents to surrender lest they be killed like their (former) companions doesn't seem to me to be a use of tact, social graces or good nature. Nor the fostering of friendships or exhibition of etiquette. It looks like an attempt to influence someone through overt threats and physical violence. Much like convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation.

 

[Minigiant]

Fighter currently handles the battle captain concept in 5e via battlemaster. Inspiring Leader is nice but Battlemasters alraedy get a similar effect via Rally maneuver. The feat is just extra. It's not actually required.

It handles the concept poorly. That's the problem.

It's like saying you could be a beastmaster in 5e before Tasha's. You could. But you'd stink at it and sacrifice a lot of resources to make it serviceable. Despite beastmasters being a D&D archetype for multiple editions by then.

The only people pleased by then implementation were people who were not going to run the archetype. And it took SIX YEARS to come out. That's just... inexcusable.