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

[Maxperson]

I chose the first creature I thought of, because I used it recently. As I said, it doesn't actually matter where the midpoint it, because better is always better. There is not really any 'good enough'.

Better is better. My point isn't that you can't do better. My point is that the game is forgiving and balanced around lower numbers(14 or 16), so if you give up utility with other stats so that you can optimize with a 20 in your prime stat, that's a trade-off that you chose. It's not the game's fault that you opted to do less well in other areas.

Ok. I didn't say that 10 wasn't average for the average person. I argued that it wasn't particularly meaningful (and it certainly is not the average for PCs). If you disgree with my reasons why it isn't meaningful then we can discuss it. If you don't understand them than you can ask questions.

It doesn't matter what the PC average is. The average for all PC races is 10. That PCs will often have multiple above average stats does not change what average is. Why I think it's meaningful is that it sets the baseline for bonuses. PCs don't suck if they have a 0 bonus. A +1 is above average. A -1 is below average and it's debatable whether that sucks or not.

 

[Don Durito]

Better is better. My point isn't that you can't do better. My point is that the game is forgiving and balanced around lower numbers(14 or 16), so if you give up utility with other stats so that you can optimize with a 20 in your prime stat, that's a trade-off that you chose. It's not the game's fault that you opted to do less well in other areas.

It doesn't matter what the PC average is. The average for all PC races is 10. That PCs will often have multiple above average stats does not change what average is. Why I think it's meaningful is that it sets the baseline for bonuses. PCs don't suck if they have a 0 bonus. A +1 is above average. A -1 is below average and it's debatable whether that sucks or not.

Ok. Whatever. See my post above. This argument is over.

 

[Undrave]

When we talk about skills the one that always kills me is constitution. For a non-caster going above 10 is mostly useless. There are no skills that use it and it is a few more hps that probably won't ever matter for most classes other than barbarian. If you are going to go down at a 10 constitution it is rare that a 14 would keep you alive. By the time the hps matter there are so many ways to avoid hits, avoid death or avoid damage that it is usually irrelevant the vast majority of the time.

Constitution is one of the three Good Saves though. CON, DEX and WIS saves will be what you face the most commonly and ideally you want to have a strong save and one decent-ish save out of those three so you don't end up being a sitting duck half the time. Classes usually give you proficiency in one of those three good save (and another random one) so ideally you'll want to put you stat to shore up one of the other.

Yeah this thread has drifted into a completely different area because of an inability to understand the key points about what people want.

The issue is not can you give up combat effectiveness to become better at non-combat stuff.

The issue is can you fill the basic roll of the class and have better ability to contribue in non-combat activities. D&D is a classs based system so there doesn't have to be a trade-off. Every class can be good in combat and out combat, because these things do not structurally have to be budgeted out of the same pool.

If I want to trade off these things why would I play D&D? There's lots of point buy systems out there which offer much more fine grained and flexibe options to trade things off and build specific characters and find the exact balance that you want.

Seriously, if people were happy with what was on the table now, why would they be asking for something different?

Yeah, and even then, the tradeoff for the Fighter is just bad. Your class doesn't offer you ANYTHING to make investing in out of combat stuff appealing. Sure you can grab a background and a feat but literally ANYBODY ELSE can do that and STILL have out of combat support from their class. Heck, the Totem Barbarian gets rituals! He gets 'speak with animals', one of the best investigative tool you can have in a setting where horses are the most popular mode of transportation.

The Fighter also has basically no identity outside of a fight. As soon as you're not fighting he's just a guy, a regular guy like every NPC who would fit the same background. Everybody's got a background, everybody's been something, but their class usually has some kind of identity outside of how they make things dead. Even the Barbarian because he can stride around with no shirt on and not suffer any downside. That's at least eye catching.

 

[ECMO3]

Putting 10 in your CONreally hurts your fighter's combat effectiveness if you play anything but a markmen if you play 5e as designed.

I have never had it significantly hurt my fighters.

I know all the build guides for virtually every class list this as important and almost universally a second or third stat but I have found that intelligent play in combat usually overcomes the need for high constitution. And out of combat it is nearly useless, unlike every other skill.

To be honest, I think intimidation, stealth and perception are more important in combat than constitution and boosting abilities that improve those three skills will go a long way to covering the gap in hps. Wisdom in particular is going to help in terms of hp conservation by avoiding surprise and the advantage and free turn that comes with it.

The exception to this IMO is the Barbarian. They do actually need a high constitution because it is really hard for them to avoid hits.

An "all around" fighter is barely better than a Rogue in combat and extremely worse out of combat if you play 5e as designed..

It depends on exactly the Rogue build you are comparing him to. The Rogue as a chassis has more skills and is more versatile. The fighter as a chassis has more combat capability across a wide area.

Those differences do come into play and into the build. But a combat focused Rogue will not be very far ahead of a skill-focused fighter. Most of the stuff a Rogue has the fighter can get through feats. Sure a Rogue can get those same feats and stay well ahead, but he is well behind in terms of combat then.

They don't wonder. The 5e fighter is designed to have high Str/Dex and Con/Dex (with AAs and EKs subbing Int).

The fighter can be anyone you want him to be. To be honest it is rarely a good idea to invest in both dex and strength. If you were really optimizing damage using both bows and heavy melee weapons both and to the hells with everything else you might do that or if you wanted to be good in melee and at stealth, but that is a very high price to pay. Usually one of these two can be an 8 easy while compromising little in combat. In terms of all around play, a S or D fighter with an 8 in one of them is a lot easier to play than a fighter with a Wisdom or Charisma of 8.

I discussed constitution above and consider it a completely overated ability. Others at my table invest in it and they go down more than I do.

That's literally how the PHB and DMG design fighters to function.

This was true in earlier versions but in 5E any class can serve any function (tank, striker, leader, utility, support) with the right class and background choices.

DING DING DING. That's the point.
The Fighter is designed to be dominant in combat and bad most of the time outside of combat. 5e designed it to be this way.I

No it is not and I have played fighters that do not do either of these things.

I find this idea is generally held by players that lack imagination and see classes in terms of outdated tropes.

Taking INT/WIS/CHA as a secondary score and grabbing skill severely weakening your fighter's combat ability.

It is a tradeoff but it is not a severe loss when you can just dump constitution. It does make you use those skills to be effective in combat though.

If you need your fighter to be dominant in combat, yes you can't do that. But that is only 1 way to play a fighter.

 

[Minigiant]

The issue is can you fill the basic roll of the class and have better ability to contribue in non-combat activities? D&D is a classs based system so there doesn't have to be a trade-off. Every class can be good in combat and out combat, because these things do not structurally have to be budgeted out of the same pool.

Exactly.

Still after 40+ years, the fighter is still designed under a baseline of a "big dumb military jock". If your game has an iconic class with that base, it will severely affect the balance between the classes. outside of combat.

 

[Undrave]

No it is not and I have played fighters that do not do either of these things.

I find this idea is generally held by players that lack imagination and see classes in terms of outdated tropes.

It's more like you played your character IN SPITE of being a Fighter. You built in a way your class didn't get in the way by not actually using it.

To be honest it is rarely a good idea to invest in both dex and strength.

That's true. the GOD stat is DEX so you can just invest in that.

 

[Sithlord]

It's more like you played your character IN SPITE of being a Fighter. You built in a way your class didn't get in the way by not actually using it.

That's true. the GOD stat is DEX so you can just invest in that.

Maybe we can merge strength and constitution into might and to balance them out.

 

[ECMO3]

Constitution is one of the three Good Saves though. CON, DEX and WIS saves will be what you face the most commonly and ideally you want to have a strong save and one good save out of those three so you don't end up being a sitting duck half the time.

It is. I would put it third of these though and a fighter is proficient in it, so dumping constitution takes him from great to good at early levels and even better at higher levels when the proficiency is more important than the ability

Yeah, and even then, the tradeoff for the Fighter is just bad. Your class doesn't offer you ANYTHING to make investing in out of combat stuff appealing. Sure you can grab a background and a feat but literally ANYBODY ELSE can do that and STILL have out of combat support from their class. Heck, the Totem Barbarian gets rituals! He gets 'speak with animals', one of the best investigative tool you can have in a setting where horses are the most popular mode of transportation.

But you can do that and still be good in combat. A fighter who invests in out of combat stuff is still good in combat and has more versatility in combat than most other classes too. He is not as awesome at dealing damage, but he is still good if not great at it. I don't get why you feel that he needs to be the best possible at it and to hells with everything else. That is a very narrow concept design regardless of the class.

The Barbarian loses more than the fighter but investing in anything outside of the combat abilities. He does not have heavy armor so he needs dex, he can't take rage bonus on a dex attack so he needs strength and he can't use reckless attack effectively without expecting to take damage. This is the one class that actually needs constitution to be effective IMO.

The other thing about a barbarian is even with high combat scores he needs to bring a ton of healing between fights to be effective in combat. A fighter, regardless of how you invest points, doesn't need nearly as much.

The Fighter also has basically no identity outside of a fight. As soon as you're not fighting he's just a guy, a regular guy like every NPC who would fit the same background. Everybody's got a background, everybody's been something, but their class usually has some kind of identity outside of how they make things dead. Even the Barbarian because he can stride around with no shirt on and not suffer any downside. That's at least eye catching.

A characters identity is framed far more around his background than his class and around how he is role played more than either of these. This is part of the 5E design.

 

[ECMO3]

That's literally the only thing the Fighter class was designed to do?? They get nothing else... Why pick FIGHTER if you don't want to have those abilities?! Just play a high INT Swashbuckler rogue then???

Heavy armor for one thing ..... Fighting style ...... Battlemaster abilities ..... action surge. None of those things are necessarily "swinging a sword".

I could turn that upside down too. Why would you ever invest in combat abilities in a Rogue (or for that matter play a swashbuckler subclass at all). A Rogue should dump everything possible into skills, expertise and non-combat, because that is what the class was designed to do. Why pick ROGUE if you want to be good in combat?

I have played a high intelligence Rogue (a lot of them actually). A Rogue is my favorite class. However they are not as capable in combat as a fighter, so if you absolutely positively must be able to deal the maximum DPR round after round, why would you pick a Rogue?

See what I am getting at here? If you can't play a character that is not metagamed and optimized for combat then you can never play any Rogue (because you can't get there). If it is ok to make tradeoffs to build and play the character you want to play than a Fighter who invests in those other things is completely viable.

 

[Undrave]

A characters identity is framed far more around his background than his class and around how he is role played more than either of these. This is part of the 5E design.

Not saying otherwise, but Class still brings something to your identity for everybody else.

A fighter who invests in out of combat stuff is still good in combat and has more versatility in combat than most other classes too.

I don't believe a Fighter who neglects combat stuff is THAT good in combat. I don't believe the difference between a Fighter and other classes in combat is SO amazing as to be worth no getting squat outside of combat. I don't mind a little give and take when it comes to combat and out of combat, I just completely disagree with the current ratio. It's not worth having less skills than a Ranger, for exemple. Even with heavy armor.

It is. I would put it third of these though and a fighter is proficient in it, so dumping constitution takes him from great to good at early levels and even better at higher levels when the proficiency is more important than the ability

For a Fighter yes, but the point was about characters other than Fighters. Poisons, for exemple, usually involve a CON save. A Druid, for exemple, is probably better off with CON rather than with DEX. If they ever need to do some stealth or acrobatics, they can just Wildshape into a cat or a squirrel.