D&D 5E What is balance to you, and why do you care (or don't)?

[Maxperson]

Maybe if you squawked harder you could have wizards who die from paper cuts back.

Edit lol

My 1e Wizards were tougher than that. It took an infected splinter to take me out.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, that's the root problem right there.

At any given level Fighters should be hella better than Wizards at fighting.

They will have the same plus to hit, but the Fighter will be swinging multiple times. They went with extra attacks, Action Surges, Superiority Dice and such to represent the increased fighting ability. Wizards aren't even remotely close to being as good at fighting as a Fighter. The difference is just not reflected in the to hit bonus.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

My 1e Wizards were tougher than that. It took an infected splinter to take me out.

Watch out for cats though! Claw/claw/bit/rake... fearsome beasts that left many a 1st level adventurer in their grave.

 

[James Gasik]

Well, they have to get people to play Bards somehow, don't they?
View attachment 156704

Despite the frequent complaints levelled at the system on forums and the like, players seemed content with how martials operated at the time that this data was pulled from D&DBeyond. Perhaps WotC saw this and somehow felt Fighters were in a good place while Sorcerers and Druids needed some juice?

Sorcerers? Yes, I mean, compared to the other casters (and even their closest relative, the Wizard), Sorcerers are in a weird place in this edition. Their big trick, not having to prepare spells, is nearly useless given how many spells other casters can prepare at once, and how few spells Sorcerers get. Then with Wizards having unlimited access to spells (with the only limiting factor being money, which most games have little use for after about level 5), the Wizard can have a Swiss Army Spellbook, and is no weaker than the Sorcerer.

The Sorcerer may have some cool nova rounds, but for all day performance, the Wizard has them beat. I have no evidence but I would not be surprised if a Wizard without a subclass is still better than a PHB or SCAG Sorcerer. Sorcerers got a little better in later books though. It's weird to say that a full caster is behind the curve, but compared to his fellows, he is.

As for the non-casters, even without taking power into consideration, they have a lot less versatility, which I think hurts them as well. I mean, if you're a Fighter you swing your melee weapon. Maybe you add a cool move to that and a bonus die of damage every so often. Maybe you take -5 to hit for more damage. Or make a bonus action attack. Or Action Surge for...more attacks. You might get an opportunity attack, or a reaction attack.

Now one can suppose this is what Fighters do, so what's the problem? And for a decent chunk of Fighter fans, nothing. But it feels like a few cool stunts they could do, like things the Melee Hunter Ranger gets, would make Fighter a lot more fun, I think.

Spellcasters, on the other hand, well yeah, they spend a lot of time firing off cantrips. But they have several to choose from, and each has their own unique effect (well, other than Firebolt). Then they have this vast and deep well of magic to draw on, to do many different things. Maybe I need an AoE damage burst. Or a single target attack. Or maybe I need to debuff one guy or lock down many guys. Maybe I need to buff my party with haste. Maybe I need to give the Rogue some flight or invisibility to scout around. Maybe I need to offload 600 lbs. of fine silk, so I cast Fabricate and make a killing in the kimono market. Maybe I need to bamf the whole party to a major city, or change the weather.

The sheer amount of options is insane, and that just makes casters more fun for me, and anyone else who likes to play them. The fact that the Fighter really doesn't pull ahead of "gish" subclasses until the back half of the game, and that the Eldritch Knight, the "gish" Fighter, feels pretty lame compared to a Valor Bard or Bladesinger (especially when you can't even cast spells until 3rd level) feels bizarre to me. And yeah, nothing we say here will change the game one iota- WotC seems to know what they want to do, and they're gonna do it. This is the game we have to work with.

And it's not a bad game. It certainly does what 4e Essentials wanted to do, bring players into the hobby, quite well. But it could be better. It's just frustrating when you run into a guy who is like "this is the best and greatest D&D ever, sales don't lie, and you are wrong for wanting anything other than what it is, Fighters are fine, caster dominance is a lie, and nothing needs to change, and I'm offended that you dared even think such blasphemy. Also, 5e is super easy, so in my game we use gritty realism and nerf half the spells in the PHB, and ban Tasha's outright just to make the game playable!"

 

[James Gasik]

They will have the same plus to hit, but the Fighter will be swinging multiple times. They went with extra attacks, Action Surges, Superiority Dice and such to represent the increased fighting ability. Wizards aren't even remotely close to being as good at fighting as a Fighter. The difference is just not reflected in the to hit bonus.

Not to nitpick, but they said "any given level". At level 1, the Fighter doesn't have much over other classes. : )

Personally, I think the Fighter should get Extra Attacks at a faster rate than other classes, and maybe even get Extra Attack 4 in there somewhere...

 

[Maxperson]

No. They got 4 (or, at DM's option, 5) to start with, as per the DMG; then [this might be RAW or just an ages-old houserule, I'm not sure] got one random new one each time they trained into a new level.

From the 1e DMG. It was not a house rule.

"Naturally, magic-user player characters will do their utmost to acquire books of spells and scrolls in order to complete their own spell books. To those acquired, the magic-user will add 1 (and ONLY 1) spell when he or she actually gains an experience level (q.v.) ."

It is interesting that the DMG says you get 4 spells when you finish your apprenticeship, but if you have a 17 intelligence the minimum number of spells know per spell level is 8. You only start with 4, but can't be below 8.

 

[Maxperson]

Not to nitpick, but they said "any given level". At level 1, the Fighter doesn't have much over other classes. : )

Not at level 1. He can have a fighting style that gives bonus damage to the dagger strike. But that's about it. At 2nd level he gets Action Surge. At 3rd level he gets his subclass, which adds fighting ability. He pulls ahead of the Wizard pretty quickly.

Personally, I think the Fighter should get Extra Attacks at a faster rate than other classes, and maybe even get Extra Attack 4 in there somewhere...

Yeah. I can see starting at 3rd level and completing at 18th level(+5 levels after 3rd) with 5 attacks in total.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Not to nitpick, but they said "any given level". At level 1, the Fighter doesn't have much over other classes. : )

Personally, I think the Fighter should get Extra Attacks at a faster rate than other classes, and maybe even get Extra Attack 4 in there somewhere...

I'd rather see "at will" weapon attacks similar to the weapon cantrips, than a bunch of attacks. It would allow some choice beyond "hit thing 1" or "hit thing 2" on repeat. For whatever reason, multiple attacks also seem to slow people down. Then again, I roll my attack and damage at the same time, so /shrug.

I get they didn't want to have a bunch of saves, buffs, bleeds, etc, but we already have that with spells (ie, the thing that essentially all classes use), so that baby went out with the bathwater long ago.

 

[Medic]

Sorcerers? Yes, I mean, compared to the other casters (and even their closest relative, the Wizard), Sorcerers are in a weird place in this edition. Their big trick, not having to prepare spells, is nearly useless given how many spells other casters can prepare at once, and how few spells Sorcerers get. Then with Wizards having unlimited access to spells (with the only limiting factor being money, which most games have little use for after about level 5), the Wizard can have a Swiss Army Spellbook, and is no weaker than the Sorcerer.

The Sorcerer may have some cool nova rounds, but for all day performance, the Wizard has them beat. I have no evidence but I would not be surprised if a Wizard without a subclass is still better than a PHB or SCAG Sorcerer. Sorcerers got a little better in later books though. It's weird to say that a full caster is behind the curve, but compared to his fellows, he is.

As for the non-casters, even without taking power into consideration, they have a lot less versatility, which I think hurts them as well. I mean, if you're a Fighter you swing your melee weapon. Maybe you add a cool move to that and a bonus die of damage every so often. Maybe you take -5 to hit for more damage. Or make a bonus action attack. Or Action Surge for...more attacks. You might get an opportunity attack, or a reaction attack.

Now one can suppose this is what Fighters do, so what's the problem? And for a decent chunk of Fighter fans, nothing. But it feels like a few cool stunts they could do, like things the Melee Hunter Ranger gets, would make Fighter a lot more fun, I think.

Spellcasters, on the other hand, well yeah, they spend a lot of time firing off cantrips. But they have several to choose from, and each has their own unique effect (well, other than Firebolt). Then they have this vast and deep well of magic to draw on, to do many different things. Maybe I need an AoE damage burst. Or a single target attack. Or maybe I need to debuff one guy or lock down many guys. Maybe I need to buff my party with haste. Maybe I need to give the Rogue some flight or invisibility to scout around. Maybe I need to offload 600 lbs. of fine silk, so I cast Fabricate and make a killing in the kimono market. Maybe I need to bamf the whole party to a major city, or change the weather.

The sheer amount of options is insane, and that just makes casters more fun for me, and anyone else who likes to play them. The fact that the Fighter really doesn't pull ahead of "gish" subclasses until the back half of the game, and that the Eldritch Knight, the "gish" Fighter, feels pretty lame compared to a Valor Bard or Bladesinger (especially when you can't even cast spells until 3rd level) feels bizarre to me. And yeah, nothing we say here will change the game one iota- WotC seems to know what they want to do, and they're gonna do it. This is the game we have to work with.

And it's not a bad game. It certainly does what 4e Essentials wanted to do, bring players into the hobby, quite well. But it could be better. It's just frustrating when you run into a guy who is like "this is the best and greatest D&D ever, sales don't lie, and you are wrong for wanting anything other than what it is, Fighters are fine, caster dominance is a lie, and nothing needs to change, and I'm offended that you dared even think such blasphemy. Also, 5e is super easy, so in my game we use gritty realism and nerf half the spells in the PHB, and ban Tasha's outright just to make the game playable!"

Total agreement wit this post, I was merely musing on their wider reception and some peculiar trends in published material. Expanding on this idea, more recent data still has Fighter in the lead, albeit a narrower one, and the Echo Knight/Rune Knight subclasses seem to have been received quite well. I still see Fighters of other subclasses appearing in games regularly enough. The additional feat/ASI they provide is considered a linchpin by powergamers. Regardless of their many faults, there is a demographic of veteran players that enjoy what the class brings to the table (or at least the idea of it), and that seems to be who the current iteration of Fighter is targeting.

 

[Lanefan]

From the 1e DMG. It was not a house rule.

"Naturally, magic-user player characters will do their utmost to acquire books of spells and scrolls in order to complete their own spell books. To those acquired, the magic-user will add 1 (and ONLY 1) spell when he or she actually gains an experience level (q.v.) ."

It is interesting that the DMG says you get 4 spells when you finish your apprenticeship, but if you have a 17 intelligence the minimum number of spells know per spell level is 8. You only start with 4, but can't be below 8.

That minimum is, I think, for casters and foes being generated at levels higher than 1st.

In any case, it's a rule I've ignored forever. If a mage's spellbook gets shredded they're gonna have access to way fewer than 8 spells per level for a while.