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

[Don Durito]

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.

When 3e came around we had been playing point buy systems for years.

The Fighter class seriously looked like a character 'that guy, eg the munchkin' would make in a point buy system, with all abilities pooled into hitting things with a sword and basically nothing anywhere else.

In the early days of 3e, because none of us fully understood scaling issues, almost everyone who wanted to play a Fighter took Rogue at 1st level to get some actual skill points and actually make a character that felt like an actual person. Some people even went for Aristocrat.

5e is not quite as bad as 3e in this regard, but it is not greatly departed either. You still have to go digging around outside the class and trading off your baseline competency. (And the price for mult-classing is actually higher now).

 

[Undrave]

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?

A Rogue can just invest into DEX and be excellent in combat that way... AND be amazing at Stealth, Sleight of Hand and Acrobatics in the same breath (i.e core competencies of a Rogue). A Rogue is excellent in combat, their Sneak Attack is easy to trigger and can let them keep up DMG pretty easily, especially with a Rapier. And they get a bunch of ability to make them slippery and hard to hit.

The Rogue who wants to be better outside of combat doesn't actually need to sacrifice as much as the Fighter when it comes to combat ability and vice versa. Frankly, the Rogue is probably the best designed class in the game. The Rogue can easily be good at all three pillars of play in a way that feels exciting and effective but without feeling overpowered.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

It hurt my party's fighter. All 3 of them.

As a player, my 5e party lost 3 fighters attempting to dump CON before the player throw up his hands.

Your DM must be nice. I haven't seen an melee PC with a CON under 13 survive the whole campaign as a player or DM.

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.

5e made rogues damage monsters. If your fighter is not taking high STR/DEX and taking mental ASI and roleplay feats, a rogue WILL bypass him in combat power.

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.

Your highest score goes to your attacking ability score: STR or DEX
Your second highest goes to CON for HP or a RK, DEX because 5e DEX is OP and very strong in combat, or INT if you are a AA or EK
Your 3rd highest goes to CON if you didn't choose it already or DEX if you want a decent ranged attack and don't have one.

So really for Exploration and Social a fighter has:

• Go hardcore high Dex and take Dex skills from background. Archery works. TWF stinks without thee damage buffs rogues and half caster have.
  • By being a Dex archer, you can dump CON and Take INT/WIS/CON secondary, choose a social or exploration BG.
    • Convince another player to run melee.
• Take INT secondary and goes Eldritch Knight or Arcane Archer. Congratulations. Your fighter is not longer a noncaster.
• PRAY TO LADY LUCK. Roll well for stats.. Take INT/WIS/CON secondary, choose a social or exploration BG. Congratulations. You cheated the system.
• Generate a standard PC. Take INT/WIS/CON secondary, choose a social or exploration BG. Take roleplay feats. Hope the other players are okay with you running a weak fighter.

 

[Maxperson]

The Rogue who wants to be better outside of combat doesn't actually need to sacrifice as much as the Fighter when it comes to combat ability and vice versa. Frankly, the Rogue is probably the best designed class in the game. The Rogue can easily be good at all three pillars of play in a way that feels exciting and effective but without feeling overpowered.

I think that's bad design. You shouldn't be able to be good at everything. With 3 pillars, there should one you are good at, one you are decent at, and one that you poor at. Having classes with strengths and weaknesses makes for more fun in my opinion. It also allows others to shine where you are weak and vice versa.

 

[ECMO3]

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

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.

When you consider action surge, extra feats and 2nd wind it is that good.

Played intelligently, a fighter as a base class chassis alone is heads and tails above any other class at martial combat, even a barbarian. If you bring in battlemaster you increase that difference by quite bit.

If you don't think it is worth it then don't play it, but that doesn't mean it can't be played.

I don't think it is worth playing a Bard ever. That just does not appeal to me at all. I am not very fond of playing Paladins or Druids either and I will do clerics but I am always holding my nose. Just because I don't think those classes are worth it (for a variety of reasons) does not mean they are not viable classes.

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.

I disagree with con being better than dex, because dex can flat prevent hits (including many of those poison attacks), dex can be used on your own damage, it is used for saves more than con and it has skills associated with it. Those things IMO make dexterity more important for any class except a Paladin, Fighter or cleric in heavy armor.

The reason constitution is marginally viable for casters is concentration checks. I understand pumping it for that, but a lot of times that +2/3 won't matter and when it does you can just recast the spell.

Wild shape also works both ways. If Druids are ever low on hps they can wild shape too AND they can wild shape into something with a high constitution and/or constitution proficiency if they anticipate needing it.

 

[Tinker-TDC]

I'm looking over the Battlemaster to try and think of Warlord solutions and I'm wondering about a BM that, instead of having superiority dice, can use a maneuver once per turn without a superiority die or can forego one attack to use a maneuver with a level-appropriate superiority die.

Still a problem that it doesn't come online until level 3 but I consider that a flaw with most 5e class design.

Edit: Note: I do not mean this to replace a full Warlord class, just to give a possible quick-and-dirty solution.

 

[Undrave]

I think that's bad design. You shouldn't be able to be good at everything. With 3 pillars, there should one you are good at, one you are decent at, and one that you poor at. Having classes with strengths and weaknesses makes for more fun in my opinion. It also allows others to shine where you are weak and vice versa.

Heh, I disagree with your asessment. I don't think you need to be poor at one of the three, certainly not to the point of being practically a liability like certain classes can be in social situations.

The Rogue has to choose what to be GREAT at, but they can still contribute to all three pillar without overshadowing someone else who chose to be GREAT at that particular pillar.

Also, we talk about 'three pillar' but that's really mostly just marketing hype. D&D has two pillar: Combat Resolution and everything else.

The reason constitution is marginally viable for casters is concentration checks.

The Druid's best spells are ALL Concentration. Compared to the other full caster I'd say he's the one who needs good Concentration the most. If nothing else, nabbing CON save proficiency is worth skipping an ASI for them. If you're not a Moon Druid you should try to sty away from the front line as much as possible.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm looking over the Battlemaster to try and think of Warlord solutions and I'm wondering about a BM that, instead of having superiority dice, can use a maneuver once per turn without a superiority die or can forego one attack to use a maneuver with a level-appropriate superiority die.

Still a problem that it doesn't come online until level 3 but I consider that a flaw with most 5e class design.

Edit: Note: I do not mean this to replace a full Warlord class, just to give a possible quick-and-dirty solution.

That's actually too strong.
That's the issue with the subclass solution. There's little room available to tweak.

 

[Undrave]

I'm looking over the Battlemaster to try and think of Warlord solutions and I'm wondering about a BM that, instead of having superiority dice, can use a maneuver once per turn without a superiority die or can forego one attack to use a maneuver with a level-appropriate superiority die.

Still a problem that it doesn't come online until level 3 but I consider that a flaw with most 5e class design.

I've always felt like Goading Attack should just have been the default attack of the Fighter. No extra d8 thrown in, just a thing they can do all the time.

 

[ECMO3]

It hurt my party's fighter. All 3 of them.

As a player, my 5e party lost 3 fighters attempting to dump CON before the player throw up his hands.

Your DM must be nice. I haven't seen an melee PC with a CON under 13 survive the whole campaign as a player or DM.

I play them all the time, I have played with 8 different DMs in the past year, many of them on roll 20.

I don't play stupid. I don't just walk up to the enemy and stand there and swing my sword.

Even if you play stupid, protection fighting style is probably worth 2 points in constitution alone. More if you don't have any healing in your group.

5e made rogues damage monsters. If your fighter is not taking high STR/DEX and taking mental ASI and roleplay feats, a rogue WILL bypass him in combat power.

No he won't, not reliably against an intelligent foe that uses ready action, dodge, shove, cover etc. Even against a stupid played enemy such a Rogue would have to invest in combat-related ASIs and/or combat feats to keep up with the fighter that starts with a 16 S and invests in nothing.

When you average it out, considering the fighters fighting style (if applicable), maneuvers (if any), extra attacks and the times Rogues are not getting SA, the Rogue will not keep up.

An 11th level Rogue gets 6d6+1d8+5 when he gets SA, which is most of the time but not every turn. An 11th level fighter that invests nothing at all into combat can do 6d6+9 every single turn, he is already equal to SA with his always on ability. Plus he can do action surge, has a fighting style and maneuvers or runes or crits on a 19 or a host of other potential subclass abilities without investing in combat ASIs at all.

He also has hps slightly better than a Rogue with 2 points higher in constitution and can get a full hit dice plus level back in combat once per short rest.

He is simply better in combat than the Rogue even without dumping any ASIs into it.

Your highest score goes to your attacking ability score: STR or DEX
Your second highest goes to CON for HP or a RK, DEX because 5e DEX is OP and very strong in combat, or INT if you are a AA or EK
Your 3rd highest goes to CON if you didn't choose it already or DEX if you want a decent ranged attack and don't have one.

A decent ranged attack on a strength melee character is almost useless when you can just use a thrown weapon.

You invest in what you want and let me build the character I want.

So really for Exploration and Social a fighter has:

• o hardcore high Dex and take Dex skills from background. Archery works. TWF stinks without thee damage buffs rogues and half caster have.
  • By being a Dex archer, you can dump CON and Take INT/WIS/CON secondary, choose a social or exploration BG.
    • Convince another player to run melee.

This is your problem, your opinion of the fighter class is built around a stereotype.

In one of my groups I play with regularly we have no problem convincing the Wizard to "run melee" as you put it. She is far better at avoiding hits and staying alive than I am, far better than the Paladin in the group and better than the barbarian and is better than a fighter would be even if optimized for this specifically. In a previous game the same player, playing a similar wizard character went multiple levels being the primary front liner without getting hit a single time in combat by an attack. Unlike me, her tactic was run to the front get right up to the enemies and don't move until he is dead.

She was a bladesinger that could push her AC to about 30 while also imposing disadvantage. She pretty much never got hit. She had low hps as it was but she could have had just 1 hp and she still would have survived almost every combat that did not involve casters or breath weapons. How high do you need to pump constitution to make up in hps for a character that will go 25ish battles without getting hit by a single attack at all?

You want to really play a character who is really optimized for taking attacks - play a wizard. Nothing else is close (well Barbarian is close but that is it). Wizards don't do a lot of damage though when played that way. It is the rest of us that really kill the enemy.