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

[Don Durito]

The game isn't designed so that the GM is looking up the books and finding DCs. It's designed so the GM can eyeball it.

Is the GM mostly going to be calling for rolls for things they think are easy, or rolls they think are moderate? (I mean really, if it's easy why are we even rolling it most of the time?)

You might have a slightly better case if you can look through the published adventures and demonstrate that most of the checks in there are on the easy side. But I doubt they are.

And of course there are opposed checks, which depend on the passive score of the person you opposing. A 10 means they have no bonus and no proficiency at all. That's sounds more like it's closer to the bottom than the average.

 

[ECMO3]

What kind of idiot rogue just attacks an isolated dude like that? Of course you'll want to team up with your other party members!

So what you are admiting is the Rogue is more limited in combat. He can't do what a fighter can. I rest my case.

I will say a Rogue in medium armor with a 16 strength is very good in that role, almost as good as a fighter. But he gives up a lot to get it.

Or you can just bust out a hand crossbow and no bother getting into melee, since that also runs off you DEX and you get no penalty for shooting into melee in 5e and still get your Sneak Attack off.

You can and then do 1d6 base damage and get your SA off if the conditions warrant it.

 

[ECMO3]

The game isn't designed so that the GM is looking up the books and finding DCs. It's designed so the GM can eyeball it.

Is the GM mostly going to be calling for rolls for things they think are easy, or rolls they think are moderate? (I mean really, if it's easy why are we even rolling it most of the time?)

Considering stabilizing an enemy is easy, I would say yes they are going to call for easy checks a lot.

Also navigation and foraging are often easy and called for regularly.

I believe Storm King's thunder and TOA both have easy checks called for. The first in the town you start in, getting across the bridge to the keep and the second on the grassland parts of Chult. Those off the top of my head and I could be wrong.

I don't think they are more common than medium checks, but they are more common than hard checks.

 

[Don Durito]

Considering stabilizing an enemy is easy, I would say yes they are going to call for easy checks a lot.

Also navigation and foraging are often easy and called for regularly.

I believe Storm King's thunder and TOA both have easy checks called for. The first in the town you start in, getting across the bridge to the keep and the second on the grassland parts of Chult. Those off the top of my head and I could be wrong.

Ok so easy checks actually exist. Who'd a thunk it?

My point was that medium checks are probably more common than easy checks. You seem to agree.

I don't think they are more common than medium checks, but they are more common than hard checks.

And no one has said otherwise. I can see how you might have arrived at that misunderstanding, but it has since been corrected, so you need to drop this.

It seems to me that you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are not seriously trying to understand where others are coming from but are scanning posts for positions you can twist into something you can argue with.

Why? You are so against any changes being made to Fighters that you are just going to fight with any tactic you have? What do you hope this will achieve? Obviously you are never going to change any minds this way.

 

[Minigiant]

That is not true. They can move and attack and then disengage and then move and most enemies will be able to close and attack them the following turn. If they take dash then they can get hit by an AOO.

For example: Rogue starts 15 feat away, moves and attacks. Now what? He can take dash and get far enough away that he probably won't be attacked but then he get hit with an AOO. They can take disengage but then they can only move 15 feet and the enemy can walk right up and attack him next turn.

The only character that can do this like you claim is the swashbuckler and only then if the positioning is right and there is enough room to dash. Any other Rogue is not going to be able to do this without other characters blocking or holding enemies down which is a big part of combat.

What a Rogue can do with disengage a fighter can replicate by using a reach weapon against most foes. Walk up, swing from 10 feet away and then back away. This is functionally the same (actually slightly better) against most enemies and the fighter is doing this with more hps, a better AC, he doesn't need to set up a SA and he even still has his bonus action unused.

The rogue is fighting with a melee character to get Sneak Attack. The other melee PC is the reason why the rogue isn't chased around the field. And when they hit level 5, they can use uncanny dodge.
Or use Steady Aim from Tashas and stick in the back with a crossbow.

Fighters with strength can get heavy armor and ignore both dexterity and constitution, taking a 8 and 10 respectively. Fighters with dexterity can get medium armor and only need limited strength.

If a player comes to my table with a 16/8/10 fighter with 16 Charisma, I'd assume we were running a joke campaign.

Complete BS. The DMs are babying the Rogues that can be right up in the thick of combat wearing a shift and never getting attacked.

Rogues have good AC and one of the highest mobility in the game.
What 5e are you playing?

Your character or your fighter?

I get that you actually believe you need to build your fighter a certain way that minimizes his utility out of combat. It is not true, but you believe it.

However there are 11 other classes. If you want to play a noble and you honestly believe that a fighter can not be a good noble then why not play one of the other 11 classes that can?

What you are saying is: "I want to be a noble and fighters cant be good nobles so I am going to play a fighter"

Thanks for making my point.

Fans say knights and nobles are fighters but fighters make poor knights and nobles in 5e.

You are changing your argument. Above you said it was the hard checks that mattered. In any case at 5th level and above a character with a 12 and proficiency will beat a DC15 half the time.

Never mentioned hard checks. I said moderate checks.
You are confusing me for someone else.

Most of the examples I gave arfe from the PHB and the DMG. Those are RAW.

Yes and a DC 14 is not an easy check.
And those are for level 1 mundane obstacles and 1HD NPCs.
And fighter still suck at those checks.

Why would you ever stop using them? A hunting trap will stop a CR6 medusa 65% of the time.

Because its weak.

Easy checks are called for more often than hard ones and hard ones would need to be called for more often for your previous statement about "failing most of them" to be correct.

That's my main argument with you.
I don't ask for easy checks often. You do.
You think a fighter with 10 Dex and 8 Con is good. I think that's crazy talk.

Your game is easier than standard so a nerfed fighter works fine there.

 

[Undrave]

So what you are admiting is the Rogue is more limited in combat. He can't do what a fighter can. I rest my case.

They're not supposed to do the same thing in combat, that's not being 'limited' that's having a different role.

A Rogue can do great damage that keep up with the ENEMIES without needing to look at the Fighter and they can do it with no investment at all into any other ability but their core DEX.

DEX gives them AC, it gives them attack and damage and boosts their iniative. DEX gives them Acrobatics, it gives them Stealth, it gives them Sleight of Hand, it can be applied to Thieve's Tools usage and it's one of the best saves in the game. The class gives them a ton defensive features as they level up designed to make them hard to hit. That baseline Rogue is still a strong enough combatant to fight off correct CR enemies, and has PLENTY of ressource to develop their out of combat tricks, but sure they also expand their combat skill further if they so choose. The class is superbly flexible in that way.

I will say a Rogue in medium armor with a 16 strength is very good in that role, almost as good as a fighter. But he gives up a lot to get it.

He gives up a lot to be a naughty word defender for no reason. Why do you even waste points on STR if you go for medium armor? All your weapons are ranged or finesse, you're not getting anything out of it?! Medium armor doesn't have a STR requirement?

Grabbing the feat to get Medium Armor prof is only good because it gives you Shield Prof so you can go up to 19 AC, but you still don't need medium armor at all to have good AC with a rogue.

Your grappler Trickster Rogue build is cute, but it's hardly playing so it's far from the average Rogue. The average Rogue is much more likely to be an artful dodger who can do solid damage on a regular basis with simple coordination with the party melee types (like that overtuned Bladesinger that focuses only on their AC you posted about). Also, if they stay in melee they might get an OA of their own and get to trigger Sneak Attack again, making THEIR opportunity attack actually stronger than a Fighter's. Rogues can also dual wield with a dagger in one hand and get a shot at landing Sneak Attack that way if their main hand attack missed.

You can and then do 1d6 base damage and get your SA off if the conditions warrant it.

So what?? Your best weapon as a Rogue is the Rapier and it does 1d8. That's 1 average damage less for the bonus of not being in melee... You're a ROGUE: The majority of your damage starting at level 3 is gonna come from your Sneak Attack rather than your weapon. 1 point of average damage is nothing to worry about.

 

[ECMO3]

They're not supposed to do the same thing in combat, that's not being 'limited' that's having a different role.

The are supposed to have the "role" that the player wants them to have.

And yes the Rogue as a class is a lot more restricted in combat. A fighter can get a reach weapon and kite around just like a Rogue and have a better AC and more hps while doing it. On the other hand a Rogue can't do what a fighter does in combat easily.

A Rogue can do great damage that keep up with the ENEMIES without needing to look at the Fighter and they can do it with no investment at all into any other ability but their core DEX.

Such a Rogue will not keep up with a fighter who invests in his strength and will not be able to do as many things in combat

DEX gives them AC, it gives them attack and damage and boosts their iniative.

Heavy Armor gives the fighter more AC and he has more hps too.

DEX gives them Acrobatics, it gives them Stealth, it gives them Sleight of Hand, it can be applied to Thieve's Tools usage and it's one of the best saves in the game. The class gives them a ton defensive features as they level up designed to make them hard to hit. That baseline Rogue is still a strong enough combatant to fight off correct CR enemies, and has PLENTY of ressource to develop their out of combat tricks, but sure they also expand their combat skill further if they so choose. The class is superbly flexible in that way.

Acrobatics is strictly inferior to athletics in combat because it can only be used defensively in combat and is less useful out of combat. As a matter of fact I play a lot of Rogues and most of them have a strength of 8 and expertise in athletics because it is a better skill. A Rogue who takes both acrobatics and athletics is going to be using 2 proficiencies on things that overlap. A Rogue who does not take athletics can't climb worth a crap unless they boost strength.

Rogues are my favorite class. they are awesome, everything youn are saying here is true, but a Rogue who invests only in dex is not the equivalent in combat of a fighter who invests only in strength.

He gives up a lot to be a naughty word defender for no reason. Why do you even waste points on STR if you go for medium armor? All your weapons are ranged or finesse, you're not getting anything out of it?! Medium armor doesn't have a STR requirement?

You need to put points in strength to wear medium armor, carry a decent array of geat and not be encumbered. Half plate is 40 lbs.

Grabbing the feat to get Medium Armor prof is only good because it gives you Shield Prof so you can go up to 19 AC, but you still don't need medium armor at all to have good AC with a rogue.

A fighter can have a 21 at first level if he can find the money to afford plate. The maximum a Rogue can have without a feat or a spell is 17 and with point buy he can't do that until 8th level and needs to put everything into dexterity ASIs to get there. That is a pretty big difference between 17 and 21.

Your grappler Trickster Rogue build is cute, but it's hardly playing so it's far from the average Rogue. The average Rogue is much more likely to be an artful dodger who can do solid damage on a regular basis with simple coordination with the party melee types

Yeah the average Rogue, that isn't optimized for combat and isn't as good in combat.

So what?? Your best weapon as a Rogue is the Rapier and it does 1d8. That's 1 average damage less for the bonus of not being in melee... You're a ROGUE: The majority of your damage starting at level 3 is gonna come from your Sneak Attack rather than your weapon. 1 point of average damage is nothing to worry about.

You are a ROGUE and you are not as good as fighting. You are saying it yourself, over and over but you won't admit it.

And like I said the fighter with a reach weapon doesn't have to go into melee either .... but he gets the advantage of being harder to hit with ready action by most foes because he is never within reach, and when they do get off a rare attack he has a better AC.

 

[ECMO3]

The rogue is fighting with a melee character to get Sneak Attack. The other melee PC is the reason why the rogue isn't chased around the field. And when they hit level 5, they can use uncanny dodge.
Or use Steady Aim from Tashas and stick in the back with a crossbow. If a player comes to my table with a 16/8/10 fighter with 16 Charisma, I'd assume we were running a joke campaign.

Steady aim is useful at times, both in melee and ranged, but hardly somethign you can do effectively every single turn, especially with cover.

The Rogue is fighting with a melee character to get SA and without that other character he sucks. He is pretty bad unless you build him specifically to be able to reliably create his own sneak attack and if you do that without picking a race that gets medium armor you are way behind.

People are throwing up all these conditions - the Rogue can do as much damage IF there is another PC in melee, he doesn't need a blocking character because another PC is doing that. If those things are true he won't get attacked a lot so he worse AC won't matter and he will reliably do SA so he can keep it close in damage. IF-IF-IF then he can almost keep up with a fighter.

All of that is conditions and it illustrates why as a class the Rogues are inferior to a fighter in combat.

A fighter needs none of that. He can be surrounded by orcs and still do full damage. The entire party can even be down and he is still a combat machine. And that is still true if he came to your table with a 16/8/10 S/D/C and you laughed.

Rogues have good AC and one of the highest mobility in the game. What 5e are you playing

They have the highest mobility in the game, higher even than a Monk until very high levels. But their AC is bad unless they are an AT with shield or they get medium armor through a feat or race.

I am playing 5E according to the rules. The maximum AC a point buy Rogue can have at 1st level is 15 without a feat or racial ability, that is tied for THE WORST in the game. Here are classes ranked first to last in terms of maximum AC at first level.

Fighter: 21
Paladin: 20
Cleric: 19 (20 if he picks a subclass with heavy armor, and more with spells)
Ranger: 19
Artificer: 19
Barbarian: 19
Druid: 17
Wizard/sorcerer: 16 (21 with shield)
Warlock: 15 (or 19 for a hexblade or 24 with a hexblade with shield)
Rogue/Bard: 15

Now Rogues will usually have a better dexterity than some of the others near the bottom so that may move them up a spot or two, and if they pump dext they can boost it to 17, but even with maximum dexterity, their 17 AC will still be among the worst of any class and it will stay that way unless they get a feat, spell, magic item or racial ability that improves it.

Thanks for making my point.

Fans say knights and nobles are fighters but fighters make poor knights and nobles in 5e.

Fans are wrong and 5E rules say both knight and noble PCs can be any class.

Never mentioned hard checks. I said moderate checks.

You said " because your fighter will fail most of their checks." Underline and bold is yours. A moderate check is DC 15. At 5th level and above a fighter proficient with a a 12 will not fail most moderate checks.

If you were talking about moderate checks you then you were just wrong.

Yes and a DC 14 is not an easy check.
And those are for level 1 mundane obstacles and 1HD NPCs.
And fighter still suck at those checks.

Most CR1 monsters have checks well below 14. For example Imp poision is 11, Harpy song is 11, Quasit scare is 10, Ghoul paralyzation is 10, Brass Dragon Wyrmling breath is 11. All of those are CR 1 monsters.

That's my main argument with you.
I don't ask for easy checks often. You do.
You think a fighter with 10 Dex and 8 Con is good. I think that's crazy talk.

It is good if it is the kind of character you want to play. Also for clarity it is 8 Dex and 10 con (although I may have put them backwards earlier).

Your game is easier than standard so a nerfed fighter works fine there.

No it isn't and I play with all kinds of DMs both in person and online, so it is a large sample. I just don't believe I have to build a fighter to a stereotype. Let the Rogue be the guy to hold down enemies in place if that is what he wants to do, let me do my thing.

 

[Undrave]

On the other hand a Rogue can't do what a fighter does easily.

And a Fighter can't do what a Rogue does easily, that's why they're different classes. Not sure why that's an issue. If I want to play a Fighter I'm not gonna try to contort the Rogue into one, same for the other way around. They exist as different class for a friggin' reaosn.

A fighter can have a 21 at first level if he can find the money to afford plate.

First of all, Plate Mail is 18 AC. That's 20 with a shield, not 21. 20 with a shield means no reach weapon.

Secondly, that Plate Mail is a whopping 1500 GP. Nobody can afford that at first level. That's 'party investment' money for a while.

EDIT: Oh wait, I forgot the defensive fighting style... Okay 21... but you're still not getting that Plate Mail at first level. The Rogue's maximum AC, if they get Shield prof, is 19. That's only 2 point below.

You are a ROGUE and you are not as good as fighting. You are saying it yourself, over and over but you won't admit it.

You don't need to be 'as good' as a Fighter, you just need to be good enough to defeat the enemies placed in front of you. You're not in a competition with the Fighter.

The point is that the Rogue doesn't need to compromise that baseline effectiveness to be good at out of combat stuff. And even if they DO invest more in combat stuff, like your insistence that Rogue need STR and Half-Plates to survive, they can still kick butt out of combat thanks to Expertise and, eventually, Reliable Talent. The Rogue is equipped to reduce the impact of its lower AC through its features and by using good tactics and movements.

The Fighter has to go MAD to gain any sort of baseline skill roll that doesn't involve STR or DEX because their class doesn't give them SQUAT to do with any mental stats. Rolls that the Rogue can blow out of the water with no effort and no sacrifice at all.

Optimizing a Fighter for combat will result in a stronger output than a Rogue, they have a higher power ceiling than the Rogue, but they get way more punished for investing in a mental stat by a complete lack of synergy with their class features.

 

[Maxperson]

To start with there is more to combat than damage. The Rogues AC in specific severly limits their combat potential unless you invest in options to get medium armor and if you do this you need hamper stealth or invest in feats to counter it. You also need to invest in strength to overcome the weight, meaning you have to pump both strength and dexterity. Both of these will reduce investment in other areas and make the Rogue weaker in other things "typical" Rogue's excel at. This point aside, at a basic level Rogue SA does not keep up with fighter extra attack in pure damage for a variety of reasons:

What are you talking about? Armor is pretty much the same down the board. The best medium armor AC you can get is 17. The best light armor AC you can get is 17. The Rogue does not need to waste options trying to get into medium armor when he has Studded Leather and is done.