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

[FrogReaver]

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?

You can’t fix a fundamental problem with the game like that by tuning a single class much higher than the other classes most similar to it. It’s terrible and game breaking design to even suggest to do so.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

The better oomph I mainly identify as being able to aid the entire team not just individuals...

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.

I can picture someone asking a Player Character Warlord why they are part of a small team of champions when they could be leading armies... and the character responding, this team is my army.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Then this is an ENORMOUS, potentially impossible gap between your position and ours.

Conceptually a Warlord is a Warrior that leads. So a Fighter with Leader abilities fits that bill.

We can't really have a meaningful discussion with this disconnect. Forget mechanics.

FrogReaver's Warlord (and others) concept is not the concept of someone who is an ok warrior but adds value to a small group of fantasy adventurers primarly because of their leadership ability (no mechanics talk here). Maybe I shouldn't have reffered to this as Leader first/Warlord Prime because it is an entirely different concept than FrogReaver's Warlord. Thats the point! This concept is shared by at least 4-5 people on this thread and maybe more out in the world. Let's call it "Nate" for now until we come up with something better.

Posts that both argue that Nate is somehow the same as a Warlord AND that argue options and pros and cons for fixing the implementation of the Warlord in reponse to people talking about how to implement Nate are pointless!

I think I'm done as well.

Free Nate!

 

[FrogReaver]

We can't really have a meaningful discussion with this disconnect. Forget mechanics.

FrogReaver's Warlord (and others) concept is not the concept of someone who is an ok warrior but adds value to a small group of fantasy adventurers primarly because of their leadership ability (no mechanics talk here). Maybe I shouldn't have reffered to this as Leader first/Warlord Prime because it is an entirely different concept than FrogReaver's Warlord. Thats the point! This concept is shared by at least 4-5 people on this thread and maybe more out in the world. Let's call it "Nate" for now until we come up with something better.

Posts that both argue that Nate is somehow the same as a Warlord AND that argue options and pros and cons for fixing the implementation of the Warlord in reponse to people talking about how to implement Nate are pointless!

I think I'm done as well.

Free Nate!

We can't really have a meaningful discussion with this disconnect. Forget mechanics.

FrogReaver's Warlord (and others) concept is not the concept of someone who is an ok warrior but adds value to a small group of fantasy adventurers primarly because of their leadership ability (no mechanics talk here). Maybe I shouldn't have reffered to this as Leader first/Warlord Prime because it is an entirely different concept than FrogReaver's Warlord. Thats the point! This concept is shared by at least 4-5 people on this thread and maybe more out in the world. Let's call it "Nate" for now until we come up with something better.

Posts that both argue that Nate is somehow the same as a Warlord AND that argue options and pros and cons for fixing the implementation of the Warlord in reponse to people talking about how to implement Nate are pointless!

I think I'm done as well.

Free Nate!

IMO concepts don’t come in degrees. Either you are a warrior or you are not. Either you are a leader or you are not.

You are right that there is an impossible gap, but it’s not at the location you place it.

Your ‘Nate’ is a warrior that leads. That’s what a warlord is. Thus, Your ‘Nate’ is a warlord. My Fighter that leads is also a warlord.they are conceptually the same thing.

Better leader/lesser warrior and lesser leader/greater warrior are simply different mechanical implementations of the same concept.

This final point is the most important. Our imagination along with the relative constraints of the game system itself defines what makes a great leader or lesser leader in that game. So long as there’s a single implementation for a single concept then that implementation can be used for better warrior/lesser leader and lesser warrior/better leader and even better warrior/better leader (just not in the same campaign at the same time).

So I’m not denying the existence of ‘Nate’. I’m claiming we already have a ‘Nate’.

 

[Garthanos]

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?

I think the Paladin is a clue a class which can be very martial if they spend the effort that way... and which can peak in utility dependent on how the player chooses their character to exert themselves. The Paladin was a type of fighter originally in D&D

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Half dragons were monsters first and then had... sound of holding back vomit level adjustments. I don't know when The Unspellable became playable.

 

[Undrave]

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.

To keep the ‘Big Tent’ metaphor going… WotC took material from the 4e tent to build their big tent, then built a super elaborate and inviting entrance facing the 3.x/Pathfinder entrance and then told the 4e player to use the back service entrance and not let anyone see them if they want in. All the while claiming to be a tent for everybody…

 

[Vaalingrade]

To keep the ‘Big Tent’ metaphor going… WotC took material from the 4e tent to build their big tent, then built a super elaborate and inviting entrance facing the 3.x/Pathfinder entrance and then told the 4e player to use the back service entrance and not let anyone see them if they want in. All the while claiming to be a tent for everybody…

Don't forget the elaborate entrance for the 2e fans that physically crushes the 3e entrance.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You can’t fix a fundamental problem with the game like that by tuning a single class much higher than the other classes most similar to it. It’s terrible and game breaking design to even suggest to do so.

Then stop trying to make martials at all if you don't want to make them good. Let third parties clean up the mess like always.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Then stop trying to make martials at all if you don't want to make them good. Let third parties clean up the mess like always.

I seem to gather from your posts that you seem to hate the basic design principles of the edition. Most people don't think there is some huge problem, some minor flaws at most. Perhaps it would be the best to just accept that you don't like the game and play something that is better suited to your tastes? Like that's perfectly fine, there are a lot of games I don't like.