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

[Minigiant]

Yeah. A part of the issue is that people try to shove non-D&D characters in D&D exactly as they are. This is not gonna work. D&D is very particular game with specific expectations. It's not a generic game for everything. Seriously, pick a game system that suits the thing you want to do.

Now, you can make D&D character that is inspired by these characters, but it's probably gonna involve significant changes. My main FFXIV character is Holmes-inspired, and she would work as a D&D character with minor changes, but in D&D she would probably be a necromancer or possibly a diviner. It is her personality and attitude that is Holmes inspired, not the exact things she does (she's a magical researcher and problem solver who's a borderline psychopath and a genius with a superiority complex, using questionable and unorthodox methods.) Though as I noted earlier, you could do more direct Holmes in D&D as an inquisitive rogue. Sure, it would probably bump combat power a bit (though Holmes was no slough in combat) but that's just because in D&D every character is weirdly competent in combat.

Yeah.

But it's also stupid that every smart, wise, or charismatic adventurer in D&D used spells to bypass obstacles or is a sneaky backstabber attached to criminals.

 

[Maxperson]

Eh, I fully believe that some of those choices were made as a 'now shut up' statement that D&D sometimes does when an option is in high demand but they don't actually want it in the game. Like the Raptorians in 3.5 as a response to a desire for a flying race or all the weird not-half dragons in Races of Dragon.

But 3.5 had Half-Dragons from day 1. Races of Faerun added in Aarakocra to 3.5 in 2003, the year it came out.

 

[FrogReaver]

And that's why it doesn't make sense as a D&D character! D&D party is a squad at most. Yes, some sort of master strategist or tactician organising things behind the scenes or coordinating grand manoeuvres of armies is a concept. But it is not a concept for character that would be running around in dungeons with three or four other people.

Yea. Squad leader is also what concept the 4e warlord really fulfilled. Which is what is so weird - so many are acting like the warlord from 4e was something else entirely.

 

[Maxperson]

And that's why it doesn't make sense as a D&D character! D&D party is a squad at most. Yes, some sort of master strategist or tactician organising things behind the scenes or coordinating grand manoeuvres of armies is a concept. But it is not a concept for character that would be running around in dungeons with three or four other people.

I disagree. A D&D party is outside the normal scope of things. They may be the size of a squad, but they are eventually capable of taking out entire armies and decimating cities. Normal rules don't apply.

 

[Maxperson]

William le Marshal - started out as an incredible Squad Leader (open melee small team tourneys) and Warrior and Became the highest ranking champion and Marshal for several kings. Also lived an incredibly long but dangerous life. (actively fighting into his 60s)

Which puts him the high ranking office category I listed. He was a squad leader when very low level, went into Warlord and quickly rose through the ranks.

 

[nevin]

But 3.5 had Half-Dragons from day 1. Races of Faerun added in Aarakocra to 3.5 in 2003, the year it came out.

Araakocra got introduced in 2e with dark sun

 

[Maxperson]

Araakocra got introduced in 2e with dark sun

Sure, but he was talking about 3.5, not 2e.

 

[Garthanos]

Which puts him the high ranking office category I listed. He was a squad leader when very low level, went into Warlord and quickly rose through the ranks.

I disagree. A D&D party is outside the normal scope of things. They may be the size of a squad, but they are eventually capable of taking out entire armies and decimating cities. Normal rules don't apply.

William seemed somewhat outside the box both a very extraordinary personal combatant and tactical genus and bloody hard to kill; others like Alexander the Great who could have been pure tactical and started at the top in military terms nevertheless occasionally raced personally into the fight to inspire his men. William started out with probably the lowliest knight rank and eventually progressed to the Highest ranks (which is not 1 man army class in real world though your army might be 4 times as resilient because you had one of his nature in charge). William is more the Marshal/Warlord of D&D even than Alexander and his badassery is why I have come to terms with the class name Marshal(Warlord) and Battlemaster is good too as a name but the subclass needs some better oomph.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I guess the silver lining is that you know what you want.

But implementing something like that would be a gamebreaker IMO.

How? It's not like it would blow 5E's easymode difficulty setting anymore than the bard, paladin and other top tier classes do. Fighters still get to suck, as required by the 80's Revenge of the Nerds accords. They'd just be worse than one more class.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Because the Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian/Rogue/Monk/Ranger aren't and the Warlord more closely resembles them.

So it has to suck with the other non-ful casters (paladin aside) cuz ... why? Wizards rule, fighters drool? What kind of logic is that?