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

[pemerton]

Both INT and Cha mean something I never said they didn't. There is no reason a fighter can't have a high intelligence or a high charisma or both.

When a Bard boosts CHA s/he boosts her core performance (ie casting).

@Minigiant has repeatedly suggested that a warlord or similar battle captain character would be more viable if by boosting INT or CHA the character boosted his/her core performance (ie being a battle captain).

I am playing a fighter (Arcane Archer) right now with starting stats of S8,D16,C10,I15,W12,Ch14

Right. So you dump STR and CON.

I don't know if @Minigiant or any other poster agrees, but to mind the quintessential battle captain - say, Faramir - is capable in melee. In D&D that means STR and CON can't easily be dumped while retaining that capability. (I guess some battle captains might be high-DEX musketeer types, but clearly that's not Faramir or Eomer or Richard the Lionheart or Jeanne D'Arc or a range of other exemplars a player might draw inspiration from.)

The basic framework of the D&D ability scores probably isn't going to be changed at this point. But it's trivial to change other parts of the game to better fit with them. Allowing a battle captain to use INT or CHA to support combat in some fashion - yet to be fully specified, but obviously some options are being canvassed in this thread - reduces the pressure to ignore those stats in order to ensure viability at the character's key role.

There is a rule permitting Fighters and Barbarians and any characters for that matter to make strength(intimidation) checks. It is a variant skill check and is covered in the PHB on page 175. It is rarely used in my games and does not make a lot of sense to me personally but the rules are there if you need it in your games. I do not understand why it should logically be limited to fighters and barbarians though.

The logic of using STR for Intimidation is that - in the genre, and perhaps in real life too - Fafhrd is more intimidating than The Grey Mouser. And the way to achieve this in D&D, given the stat framework as it currently stands, is to allow the use of STR for Intimidation.

The reason for limiting it to those characters would be the same as the reason for any other class specialisation: it gives players of those characters something they can be distinctively good at (compared to, say, rangers and paladins). In the fiction, you could suppose that barbarians and fighters, being the toughest warriors, present the most fearsom demeanours.

 

[Undrave]

Paladins can bust out guidance and sacred flame all day long at level 2. Rangers can bust out guidance (but not sacred flame) all day long at level 2.

At level 1 Warlock Eldritch blast is not great damage at level 1, it does not get there until level 2 and invocations come online.

I play a LOT of Rogues. They are not great at level 1. They have sneak attack, they have two extra skills and they have expertise, that is not overwhelming (at least it does not feel overwheliming when the wizard casts sleep or the fighter heals himself mid battle). Level 2 is when Rogues really start to feel like Rogues to me.

Paladins feel like Paladins to me at level 1. A fighters "always on" combat abilities are superior to any others at level 1. This actually narrows as other classes gain levels. I know you are focused out of combat. Fighters can be great out of combat with the right choices, but they will never be optimized out of combat because the class is designed to be optimized in combat. If you want to be optimized out of combat I don't get why you would play a fighter.

The crux of it was more about FEEL than power level. It was about how class 'feel' like themselves at level 1 and what 'always on' traits facilitate that feel. Eldtrich Blast at level 1 is nothing spectacular damage wise, but it still has spectacular range and is pretty much what the Warlock is famous for anyway.

Rogues get better with Cunning Action, but Sneak Attack and Expertise are very much defining features of the Rogue, and both are always on.

That sort of thing.

A Paladin's level 1 ability are very cool, but they are limited in usage so you don't feel like a full time Paladin quite yet.

 

[Sithlord]

When a Bard boosts CHA s/he boosts her core performance (ie casting).

@Minigiant has repeatedly suggested that a warlord or similar battle captain character would be more viable if by boosting INT or CHA the character boosted his/her core performance (ie being a battle captain).


Right. So you dump STR and CON.

I don't know if @Minigiant or any other poster agrees, but to mind the quintessential battle captain - say, Faramir - is capable in melee. In D&D that means STR and CON can't easily be dumped while retaining that capability. (I guess some battle captains might be high-DEX musketeer types, but clearly that's not Faramir or Eomer or Richard the Lionheart or Jeanne D'Arc or a range of other exemplars a player might draw inspiration from.)

The basic framework of the D&D ability scores probably isn't going to be changed at this point. But it's trivial to change other parts of the game to better fit with them. Allowing a battle captain to use INT or CHA to support combat in some fashion - yet to be fully specified, but obviously some options are being canvassed in this thread - reduces the pressure to ignore those stats in order to ensure viability at the character's key role.


The logic of using STR for Intimidation is that - in the genre, and perhaps in real life too - Fafhrd is more intimidating than The Grey Mouser. And the way to achieve this in D&D, given the stat framework as it currently stands, is to allow the use of STR for Intimidation.

The reason for limiting it to those characters would be the same as the reason for any other class specialisation: it gives players of those characters something they can be distinctively good at (compared to, say, rangers and paladins). In the fiction, you could suppose that barbarians and fighters, being the toughest warriors, present the most fearsom demeanours.

Is using strength for intimidation against the rules in this edition. I been doing that all along. I also been slowing thieves to use thieves tools and their dexterity to find traps because they are being tactile while they search. I think it’s stupid that a wizard would be better at finding a trap. And even dumber that wizard would say hey here is this mechanical poison tip trap can u remove it.

 

[Don Durito]

Is using strength for intimidation against the rules in this edition. I been doing that all along. I also been slowing thieves to use thieves tools and their dexterity to find traps because they are being tactile while they search. I think it’s stupid that a wizard would be better at finding a trap. And even dumber that wizard would say hey here is this mechanical poison tip trap can u remove it.

No it's part of the skills variant rules in the players handbook.

It my opinion it sits a bit oddly with the intended function of the rules - in which what abilitiy scores govern is supposed to be fixed and it's proficiencies that are supposed to be flexible and somewhat nebulous.

In other words, based on the design, a Barbarian waving his gore spattered axe around should by the logic of the rules be rolling Cha(Axe proficiency) rather than Str(Intimidate) - but the fact that the playtesters weren't willing to let go of fixed skills kind of occludes that aspect of the design.

 

[ECMO3]

You could always take a look at my own Warlord coughshamelesplugcough

They can't heal allies or manipulate the action economy of allies.

I think that character is WAY overpowered at early levels and would need scaling to make them on par with other classes. Here are some recommended changes through level 5:

1. The battlefield insight ability to regain insight dice every time you roll initiative is comparable to a level 20 Bard or a level 15 battlemaster and you are giving it to him at level 1. You should have dice equal to your proficiency at level 1

2. Improve advantage are more powerful than similar level 1 features. Consider a fighter can add up to 1d6 to his attack roll only if he chooses the superior technique fighting style, but he can do it only once a short rest. You are giving full advantage and allowing it at least once a battle. Improve damage is also higher damage then comparable level 1 abilites from other classes, but it is only on one attack so that is probably ok (if he did not have so many dice).

3. Shouts are ok but they should be a 3rd level feature to marry with similar features from other classes/subclasses.

4. Student of banners should be a background feature, not a class feature IMO. I think that would be a great idea for a homebrew background add a tool, or make one up like siege weapons, and a couple proficiencies.

5. I like Warlord presence but it should be number of proficiency bonus per long rest IMO.

6. I think insightful aid should be 3rd level. I think you might should choose two of those too since you have the two earlier features.

7. I am not a fan of the traditions plus the things I mentioned above, I think the things above I mentioned as 3rd level should be worked into a tradition to be selected alongside these.

8. Extra attack: I don't see the need for this character to have an extra attack. He is about helping others and I think it is plenty powerful without it.

 

[Sithlord]

No it's part of the skills variant rules in the players handbook.

It my opinion it sits a bit oddly with the intended function of the rules - in which what abilities score govern is supposed to be fixed and it's proficiency's that are supposed to be flexible and somewhat nebulous.

In other words, based on the design, a Barbarian waving his gore spattered axe around should by the logic of the rules be rolling Cha(Axe proficiency) rather than Str(Intimidate) - but the fact that the playtesters weren't willing to let go of fixed skills kind of occludes that aspect of the design.

6 years of DMing at least one game a week I’m a flgs and no one ever called me out on that.

 

[Don Durito]

6 years of DMing at least one game a week I’m a flgs and no one ever called me out on that.

"the fact that the playtesters weren't willing to let go of fixed skills kind of occludes that aspect of the design."

 

[Sithlord]

"the fact that the playtesters weren't willing to let go of fixed skills kind of occludes that aspect of the design."

Good thing I’m not afraid to house rule. Even in a flgs

 

[Maxperson]

But in 1E that is most of the class. The classes, especially fighter classes, in 1E are extremely thin.

Also all the magic items restricted to fighters could also be used by Rangers and Paladins.

It's most of the Fighter class. It isn't even a start on Ranger or Paladin, making all three CLASSES very different. Regardless of the word Gygax used, none of those two classes qualifies as a subclass of any sort, let alone Fighter.

 

[Maxperson]

Monk is on the fence.

Where else do you expect them to practice their martial arts?