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

[Maxperson]

IT's not there. This is the 3e MM, not the 3.5

You said that what you showed was the entirety of half-dragons. It's not. I looked. You're missing the entire previous page where it begins talking about making a half-dragon. If you mean that the level adjustment isn't there. That's not at all relevant. They were still designed as a PC race from day one, as evidenced by the portion on the page you quoted talking about half-dragon characters. They just didn't have a level adjustment.

 

[Maxperson]

See here then. That was the third time in this very thread I gave this example.

I'm not really okay with a magic sword being given to every Fighter. Not only does that trivialize magic swords, but the game becomes MUCH easier once magic weapons are in the party. I control the magic weapons that go into the game very tightly.

 

[Don Durito]

I'm not really okay with a magic sword being given to every Fighter. Not only does that trivialize magic swords, but the game becomes MUCH easier once magic weapons are in the party. I control the magic weapons that go into the game very tightly.

I don't really care if you like it. That was just one particular approach to the problem, there were a bunch of others in the same post

I'm just sick of people saying the Fighter can't have Fighter appropriate social abilities and then complaining that there are no examples of such abilites. The Fighter can, and examples have been given.

Repeatedly.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's exactly my point! Spellcasters cannot shine in all three spheres on a daily basis. To gain utility, they give up combat ability and go with cantrips. If they want to shine in combat, they aren't shining anywhere else unless it's dealing with a skill that they have proficiency in.

That's...literally the opposite of what I said.

I said, and I quote, that they would be choosing to give up that utility BECAUSE doing combat things would be more valuable. The assumed baseline here was (bare minimum) a spell per combat, for an extremely long day compared to how most people play, and STILL having three spells they can decide what to do with thereafter.

And then you completely ignored all the parts where I showed, pretty clearly, that that "one spell per combat" thing can completely outclass the contribution from maneuvers. When you add in cantrips that are--exactly as the thread states--just as good as making attacks as a Fighter, what's left? The full-caster matches, beat for beat, all of the Fighter's supposed "always-on" benefits (besides AC and HP, which the Fighter isn't even the best at EITHER)....and then gets more benefits, so they can either choose to completely dominate fighting, or do cool and useful things elsewhere while still contributing as much if not more.

And the gap only grows larger with levels; extra superiority dice only add a total of 6 extra maneuvers (2 per rest), meaning one extra maneuver per combat on average (6 combats a day, start of day +2 SR/day). Full casters easily get enough spell slots to blow two on every combat and STILL have some left over (at level 10, you have 15 spell slots as a full caster; more if you're a Wizard or Cleric). When a first-level spell from a first-level slot is superior to a maximum-scaling maneuver, your responses don't look like you're actually considering the value (and frequency) of spells nearly as highly as you should.

Blowing an average of a three spells every two combats would leave a 10th-level full caster with 6 additional spells to work with--meaning they could cast a utility effect after each combat of the day. And that doesn't include rituals, either!

Relatively. If the max spell level anyone can ever get is five instead of nine it's pretty different.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that front. Fifth-level spells still include contact other plane, dominate person, legend lore, modify memory, raise dead/reincarnate, and temporal shunt. Those are pretty reasonably high-magic effects--reshaping minds with magic, learning all there is to know about a topic, reviving the dead cleanly and simply, affecting time itself. Sure, it's not time stop or wish, but those are "magic has completely conquered all but the final, flimsy barriers of reality" level high magic.

"Low" magic looks at mere cantrips and says, "Uh, no. How about not that?"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's your issue right there. Nobility could get you access to a lot. All those expensive tutors and fancy upper class learning.

Skill training
Weapons training
Magic training
Languages
Connections
Secret techniques

Really it D&D were sensible, their would be 3 skills classes: the noble, the scholar, and the rogue. In fantasy, the skill monkeys are street rats, aristocrats, and library nerds.

D&D just attempts to kldge it by forcing every primary skill user to be a rogue and aceept Thieves Cant and Sneak Attack.

Yes, being noble could be a background reason for getting various things or you could have acquired those skills in other ways. A noble who got into posh magic school trough money and connections is still a wizard.

However, if the thing you want is a non-magical, non-stabby skillmonkey class, that exists too. Play the expert sidekick class from Tasha's it seems to have pretty much what you want.

Dind ding ding
That's my point.

D&D fans have contradictory desires

1) "I want fighters to be big gruff slayers who have no out of combat skills"
2) "I want fighter to represent knights, nobles, mechants, generals, gladiators, and merchanaries that have training in exploration, social, war, and downtime settings"

If Fighters are supposed to be knights, they shouldn't have to spend their background on to get Presuassion. Clerics and Arcan can get Religion and Arcana from just class.
If fighters are supposed to include warriors of brain, they should have features of mind.

But D&D fans are two faced about it. They really want fighters to be Da Big Stupid. And if fighters optimally can only FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT, caster have to be nerfed in combat.

They want people to be able to personalise their characters. If you want to make your fighter to be stupid bruiser, you can. If you want to make them to be a suave knight, you can. And these don't need to be different classes any more than a grumpy anti-social wizard and a posh eloquent wizard need to be.

Thats the weird part. Wizardfans insisting fighters have no brainpower end up nerfing their wizards 2 editions in a row.

Spellcasters could use a bit more nerfing.

 

[Minigiant]

Maybe the skills should be there for however they want to develop their character. If a fighter wants to be persuasive then take the persuasion skill. It’s not that the fighter can’t do things out of combat. He has the option to decide what he wants to be good at outside combat.

Sigh
It's like yall don't get it.

A person can play a berserker barbarian, an illusionist wizard, a pious cleric, or master thief rogue without touching one's background, taking feats, or nerfing one's combat ability.

But to play a charismatic knight or a intelligent army general, 2 common fantasy warrior archetypes, I must do all three.

That is a flaw of the game. Few care because D&D has a caster bias. However if you had to take 14 ST and a feat, to be a bad illusionist wizard, there would be riots (AKA 4e).

 

[Maxperson]

I don't really care if you like it. That was just one particular approach to the problem, there were a bunch of others in the same post

I'm just sick of people saying the Fighter can't have Fighter appropriate social abilities and then complaining that there are no examples of such abilites. The Fighter can, and examples have been given.

Repeatedly.

Being given a sword isn't an ability man. Not even a little bit. An ability is something they can do. Like magically being able to turn your arm into a sword. Why not just add in that DM can just give them even more magic items to "fix" the issue?

 

[Minigiant]

Yes, being noble could be a background reason for getting various things or you could have acquired those skills in other ways. A noble who got into posh magic school trough money and connections is still a wizard.

However, if the thing you want is a non-magical, non-stabby skillmonkey class, that exists too. Play the expert sidekick class from Tasha's it seems to have pretty much what you want.

Indeed. I still think the bard shoulda been kicked out for a more general skill/magic class. Same for a warrior/skills class and a warrior/mage class. Locking skill abilities in the Thieves Cant, Criminal Rogue limits the game.

I've thought the Expert class should've been buffed and made a normal class since 3e.

Or had a new class created like it, Like the factotom with a better name.
But I know how you hate new classes.

 

[Maxperson]

That's...literally the opposite of what I said.

I said, and I quote, that they would be choosing to give up that utility BECAUSE doing combat things would be more valuable. The assumed baseline here was (bare minimum) a spell per combat, for an extremely long day compared to how most people play, and STILL having three spells they can decide what to do with thereafter.

And then you completely ignored all the parts where I showed, pretty clearly, that that "one spell per combat" thing can completely outclass the contribution from maneuvers. When you add in cantrips that are--exactly as the thread states--just as good as making attacks as a Fighter, what's left? The full-caster matches, beat for beat, all of the Fighter's supposed "always-on" benefits (besides AC and HP, which the Fighter isn't even the best at EITHER)....and then gets more benefits, so they can either choose to completely dominate fighting, or do cool and useful things elsewhere while still contributing as much if not more.

As I already mentioned, 3 spells to use out of combat doesn't allow them to be good at another pillar unless they get extremely lucky and can use all of them. What is far more likely to happen is that those 3 spells never get used. The limited situations that those spells are used for probably doesn't happen, but if one does, yes the Wizard is good at that instance for what is probably a very short time.

And the gap only grows larger with levels; extra superiority dice only add a total of 6 extra maneuvers (2 per rest), meaning one extra maneuver per combat on average (6 combats a day, start of day +2 SR/day). Full casters easily get enough spell slots to blow two on every combat and STILL have some left over (at level 10, you have 15 spell slots as a full caster; more if you're a Wizard or Cleric). When a first-level spell from a first-level slot is superior to a maximum-scaling maneuver, your responses don't look like you're actually considering the value (and frequency) of spells nearly as highly as you should.

What happened to the vast majority of campaigns ending at level 7 or lower? You're now in territory that according to the flawed studies, only a few percent of people ever reach.

At level 10, many of your spell slots are worthless. You rarely cast 1st level spells, either in or out of combat, unless you have Shield or are healing trivial amounts of damage with them. Second level slots also don't have a lot of value, but at least there are a few limited out of combat uses, if you get lucky enough. Blowing 12 spells in combat pretty much means you've used up all of you 3-5th level spells and probably all of your 2nd level spells. You still aren't doing much out of combat. And the monsters are much harder, so you need to be casting those spells or you aren't pulling your weight.

Blowing an average of a three spells every two combats would leave a 10th-level full caster with 6 additional spells to work with--meaning they could cast a utility effect after each combat of the day. And that doesn't include rituals, either!

Yeah. They would probably actually be good at another pillar if they did that. They wouldn't be pulling their weight in combat, though.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You said that what you showed was the entirety of half-dragons. It's not. I looked. You're missing the entire previous page where it begins talking about making a half-dragon. If you mean that the level adjustment isn't there. That's not at all relevant. They were still designed as a PC race from day one, as evidenced by the portion on the page you quoted talking about half-dragon characters. They just didn't have a level adjustment.

Yeah, there's no non-player characters the DM is supposed to create.

And the MM was explicitly a player-facing book in 3e.

And this was entirely the point of what I was saying about 'now shut up' content and not you arguing just to argue.