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

[Don Durito]

Honestly, based on concept of the Fighter (and possibly the Barbarian) I'd actually give them additional bonuses to Charisma as they level up.

Basically reflects the inspiration for Fighters, both in the old eventually become a Lord aspect, and the Conan the Barbarian rise to the top through skill, courage and experience part.

Because it's not that hard for a Fighter to start with a decent Charisma. It's that it won't scale.

Edit: Yes the current Fighter could spend their extra ASIs on Charisma. But as it stands +1 in two or three skills is a really bad use of an ASI.

 

[Sithlord]

What does this mean?

How is their mind different? They're both human beings (or elves or whatever). They're both remembering things they were taught by their mentors, learned at their schools, and have picked up during their travels.

Some of the issues I'm pointing to look like the result of supplements: I assume that Ambush, Commanding Presence and Tactical Assessment are later editions to the PHB list.

But Know Your Enemy looks original, and its already stupid that that is not done via the skill system in the same way as (say Rogues' Reliable Talent.

There mind is different in the way people of different professions approach problems differently.

 

[pemerton]

There mind is different in the way people of different professions approach problems differently.

I still don't know what this means.

Presumably a Bard from Furyondy approaches problems differently from a Bard who rides among the Paynims. (For those who don't know The World of Greyhawk, substitute appropriate FR or whatever references - maybe Cormyr vs wherever the pseudo-Mongolian horse riders calm from,)

But they both use the Expertise mechanic.

Whether a Rogue excels in sneaking or in scholarship, they use the Expertise mechanic.

But Battle Masters use a limited-use dice mechanic that allows them, at their peak, to do better than either the Bard or the Rogue. It's just silly. No one would come up with this if they were actually trying to mechanically implement the concept. It's just a product of trying to retrofit skill expertise onto the superiority dice framework.

(As for who thought Know Your Enemy was a good implementation, I don't know - I assume that it's a workaround (an inevitably clunky one) for the fact that few Battlemasters will have good bonuses in WIS (Insight).)

 

[Krachek]

One thing to consider for balance issue in DnD, is that DnD is a cooperative game.
In DnD the players that control the wizard and the fighter play together to have fun, they are not piss off each other trying to have the spot light.

 

[Minigiant]

One thing to consider for balance issue in DnD, is that DnD is a cooperative game.
In DnD the players that control the wizard and the fighter play together to have fun, they are not piss off each other trying to have the spot light.

The crux of the issue is that the fighter, as designed in 5e, is only good in a few combat roles. The fighter can expand to other combat roles or out ofcombat roles but the class has few incentives to do so and is not naturally great at them. Almost every other classes do the other combat or noncombat roles better and at fewer cost.

This causes the fighter to often be a dominator in combat and a wallflower in noncombat. This makes player sharing of spotlight and DM movement of spotlight harder.

 

[FrogReaver]

I still don't know what this means.

Presumably a Bard from Furyondy approaches problems differently from a Bard who rides among the Paynims. (For those who don't know The World of Greyhawk, substitute appropriate FR or whatever references - maybe Cormyr vs wherever the pseudo-Mongolian horse riders calm from,)

But they both use the Expertise mechanic.

Whether a Rogue excels in sneaking or in scholarship, they use the Expertise mechanic.

But Battle Masters use a limited-use dice mechanic that allows them, at their peak, to do better than either the Bard or the Rogue. It's just silly. No one would come up with this if they were actually trying to mechanically implement the concept. It's just a product of trying to retrofit skill expertise onto the superiority dice framework.

(As for who thought Know Your Enemy was a good implementation, I don't know - I assume that it's a workaround (an inevitably clunky one) for the fact that few Battlemasters will have good bonuses in WIS (Insight).)

While it's not a particularly great solution - it does solve the issue of fighters lacking non-combat stuff. They at least have something for that now.

 

[Sithlord]

If a fighter wants to shine out of combat. Pay attention to the plot of an adventure. Know all the NPC’s by name. Learn what they all do and how they relate. You will be picking up clues that others making die rolls will completely miss.

 

[FrogReaver]

If a fighter wants to shine out of combat. Pay attention to the plot of an adventure. Know all the NPC’s by name. Learn what they all do and how they relate. You will be picking up clues that others making die rolls will completely miss.

Any character can do that...

Things that any character can do are non-solutions IMO.

 

[Campbell]

Hand anyone that fighter chassis in 5e and regardless of subclass features the calculus is going to be Attack! Attack! Attack! It's just that good, especially with any feat support.

 

[Campbell]

If a fighter wants to shine out of combat. Pay attention to the plot of an adventure. Know all the NPC’s by name. Learn what they all do and how they relate. You will be picking up clues that others making die rolls will completely miss.

So be a skilled player of roleplaying games like anybody else can be?