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

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

the ranger has the ability to get a second attack but only against an adjacent enemy. I often wonder why they get a 2nd attack before fighters

 

[CreamCloud0]

I honestly think, apart perhaps from a few exceptions like eldritch blast, that cantrips shouldn't scale unless upcast, casters are already getting more and higher spell slots as they level, cantrips are meant to their most basic capacity, the rogue's daggers and the fighter's greatsword don't automatically become +1 and +2 as they level in addition to their stat increases
Edit: cantrips should function more like older editions wizards emergency dagger, something to give them minimum combat capacity, if they want to be dealing big damage they ought to be expending their resources, their spell slots, cantrips are treated more like the equivalent of a melee class’s standard weapon but then they get to go nova with their actual spells and rain damage with leveled spells

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I honestly think, apart perhaps from a few exceptions like eldritch blast, that cantrips shouldn't scale unless upcast, casters are already getting more and higher spell slots as they level, cantrips are meant to their most basic capacity, the rogue's daggers and the fighter's greatsword don't automatically become +1 and +2 as they level in addition to their stat increases
Edit: cantrips should function more like older editions wizards emergency dagger, something to give them minimum combat capacity, if they want to be dealing big damage they ought to be expending their resources, their spell slots, cantrips are treated more like the equivalent of a melee class’s standard weapon but then they get to go nova with their actual spells and rain damage with leveled spells

I find myself agreeing more and more with this idea. Some scaling I can see... maybe I will make a house rule thread.

Imagine Eldritch blast remains the same (so 1d10 new attacks at 5,11,17) the straight damage ones (toll dead and firebolt) loose the 5th and 17th level scaleing so they are 1d8/1d12 2d8/2d12 and 1d10/2d10 to keep them from being too wasted but that also means they never overtake 1st level spells. the others that get effects (ray of frost, chill touch, I can't remember them all) instead scale a die code at 11th... so one that does 1d8+effect at 1st level will deal 1d10+ effect at level 11 (when firebolt is doing 2d10) in this case I might even say at 5th you add your stat mod to all of them... let me run some math

Spoiler: some basic math

fighter 1 1d8+3 (4-11 avg 7.5)
fighter 5 1d8+4+1d8+4 (10-24 avg 17)
fighter 11 1d8+5+1d8+5+1d8+5 (18-39 avg 28.5)
fighter 17 1d8+5+1d8+5+1d8+5+1d8+5 (24-52 avg 32)

warlock same exact

wizard damage
1st 1d10 (1-10 avg 5.5)
5th 1d10+4 (5-14 avg 9.5)
11th 2d10+5 (7-25 avg 16)

wizard effect
1st 1d8 (1-8 avg 4.5)
5th 1d8+4 (5-12 avg 8.5)
11th 2d8+5 (7-21 avg 14)

bard VM
1st 1d4 (1-4 avg 2.5)
5th 1d4+4 (5-8 avg 6.5)
11th 2d4+5 (7-13 avg 10)

edit: I should do 1st level spells too but save 1/2 and tasha laugh are too good to calculate right... and that is before ALWAYS good options like shield... I will say I think Detect Magic should be a cantrip for wizard/sorcerer (and keep the invocation so warlocks CAN do so too)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

There's two critical flaws with this argument: First, It assumes that the only reason people would commonly play a class is that they are enthusiastic about every part of it. This ignores several known other effects, such as "new players should play Fighters because they're simple and thus won't overwhelm newbies," and "some people just don't like playing spellcasters, but almost all classes in 5e have access to spells." Second, it assumes that 5e players are one monolithic unit, not (as we know them to be) several very distinct groups who may have very little in common other than the fact that they play the same game.

It could be that Fighter is just so gosh-darn popular as an archetype--regardless of its good or bad instantiation--that it simply rises to the top of its very nature. We can actually see a perfect example of this effect in 5e, one where WotC did eventually "admit" that there was a problem and fix it: dragonborn. People complained (I would know! I was one of them!) that 5e dragonborn were really, really weak--stupidly so, much weaker than any other race in the PHB. Yet for years, people assumed this was fully 100% intended, to the point that people trying to "reconstruct" the "rules" for how races are built explicitly told me that they basically had to assume that having elemental resistance was considered a HUGE bonus (like, the equivalent of an entire feat by itself). Yet, despite this weakness...dragonborn were popular. Very popular. In fact, they only grew in popularity. Early D&D Beyond statistics put dragonborn in 5th place, and over the next two or three years (not exactly sure) they to 3rd or 4th depending on exactly how you slice the data....and all of that was before Fizban's gave us the updated dragonborn options. Dragonborn were popular despite their weakness (which WotC has now officially addressed), not because of that weakness.

Likewise, it could be that certain segments of the D&D market are really, really happy with the Fighter (and thus play it a lot), and other segments are really, really not happy (and thus complain about it a lot). We can see this, for example, with the response to some options: the Beast Master Ranger (almost surely THE most likely class AND subclass to get heavy reworks in 5.5e), or the vehemently negative response to the proposed Spell Versatility optional feature for Sorcerers which came almost exclusively from people who don't play Sorcerers, or the notoriety of the honestly-not-THAT-bad Twilight Cleric.

And that doesn't even touch on the "make newbies play the class that sucks most the simple class because we don't want to scare them away" sort of things, the extensive cultural baggage associated with certain classes (like Wizard and Fighter) that will push people toward playing them even if they're actively bad. (Note, I'm not saying the 5e Fighter is actively bad--just that even if it WERE so, it would STILL get played, possibly a lot, because of its cultural significance.)

Finally...it could be the case that lots of people really like Action Surge (because it can be quite potent as a combat feature) and certain other aspects, even if they're quite disappointed with other aspects. This kinda connects with the dragonborn example above: people may be willing to put up with a lot of things they don't like simply to have "Fighter" written on their character sheet or to have Action Surge, Indomitable, and Second Wind. It might be that certain features are liked well enough that even vehement dislike of some other aspect is not sufficient to push people away.

In practice, it will almost certainly be a melange of all these effects. Some people are just diehard Fighter players and will play it even if it sucks. The market is segmented, even if WotC would like to pretend that it's all one big happy family, and that can lead to situations where 20% love it, 20% hate it, and 60% just don't care enough to say anything. There are quite probably some features that people would like to see changed--Mearls himself said that one of his biggest regrets was how little flavor the Fighter class had, for example--even though Action Surge and Indomitable are desirable features. There definitely are cultural factors pushing people toward the Fighter. Etc.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There's two critical flaws with this argument: First, It assumes that the only reason people would commonly play a class is that they are enthusiastic about every part of it. This ignores several known other effects, such as "new players should play Fighters because they're simple and thus won't overwhelm newbies," and "some people just don't like playing spellcasters, but almost all classes in 5e have access to spells." Second, it assumes that 5e players are one monolithic unit, not (as we know them to be) several very distinct groups who may have very little in common other than the fact that they play the same game.

I have no reason to believe that everyone playing ANY class is happy with how that class plays

It could be that Fighter is just so gosh-darn popular as an archetype--regardless of its good or bad instantiation--

I have to say I WANT to play more martial characters... in 4e it was almost all I played and I miss it

And that doesn't even touch on the "make newbies play the class that sucks most the simple class because we don't want to scare them away" sort of things, the extensive cultural baggage associated with certain classes (like Wizard and Fighter) that will push people toward playing them even if they're actively bad. (Note, I'm not saying the 5e Fighter is actively bad--just that even if it WERE so, it would STILL get played, possibly a lot, because of its cultural significance.)

the funny part is more and more over the life of 5e I have seen more new players wanting to play warlocks and sorcerers... and a push back against playing fighters

 

[James Gasik]

There's two critical flaws with this argument: First, It assumes that the only reason people would commonly play a class is that they are enthusiastic about every part of it. This ignores several known other effects, such as "new players should play Fighters because they're simple and thus won't overwhelm newbies," and "some people just don't like playing spellcasters, but almost all classes in 5e have access to spells." Second, it assumes that 5e players are one monolithic unit, not (as we know them to be) several very distinct groups who may have very little in common other than the fact that they play the same game.

It could be that Fighter is just so gosh-darn popular as an archetype--regardless of its good or bad instantiation--that it simply rises to the top of its very nature. We can actually see a perfect example of this effect in 5e, one where WotC did eventually "admit" that there was a problem and fix it: dragonborn. People complained (I would know! I was one of them!) that 5e dragonborn were really, really weak--stupidly so, much weaker than any other race in the PHB. Yet for years, people assumed this was fully 100% intended, to the point that people trying to "reconstruct" the "rules" for how races are built explicitly told me that they basically had to assume that having elemental resistance was considered a HUGE bonus (like, the equivalent of an entire feat by itself). Yet, despite this weakness...dragonborn were popular. Very popular. In fact, they only grew in popularity. Early D&D Beyond statistics put dragonborn in 5th place, and over the next two or three years (not exactly sure) they to 3rd or 4th depending on exactly how you slice the data....and all of that was before Fizban's gave us the updated dragonborn options. Dragonborn were popular despite their weakness (which WotC has now officially addressed), not because of that weakness.

Likewise, it could be that certain segments of the D&D market are really, really happy with the Fighter (and thus play it a lot), and other segments are really, really not happy (and thus complain about it a lot). We can see this, for example, with the response to some options: the Beast Master Ranger (almost surely THE most likely class AND subclass to get heavy reworks in 5.5e), or the vehemently negative response to the proposed Spell Versatility optional feature for Sorcerers which came almost exclusively from people who don't play Sorcerers, or the notoriety of the honestly-not-THAT-bad Twilight Cleric.

And that doesn't even touch on the "make newbies play the class that sucks most the simple class because we don't want to scare them away" sort of things, the extensive cultural baggage associated with certain classes (like Wizard and Fighter) that will push people toward playing them even if they're actively bad. (Note, I'm not saying the 5e Fighter is actively bad--just that even if it WERE so, it would STILL get played, possibly a lot, because of its cultural significance.)

Finally...it could be the case that lots of people really like Action Surge (because it can be quite potent as a combat feature) and certain other aspects, even if they're quite disappointed with other aspects. This kinda connects with the dragonborn example above: people may be willing to put up with a lot of things they don't like simply to have "Fighter" written on their character sheet or to have Action Surge, Indomitable, and Second Wind. It might be that certain features are liked well enough that even vehement dislike of some other aspect is not sufficient to push people away.

In practice, it will almost certainly be a melange of all these effects. Some people are just diehard Fighter players and will play it even if it sucks. The market is segmented, even if WotC would like to pretend that it's all one big happy family, and that can lead to situations where 20% love it, 20% hate it, and 60% just don't care enough to say anything. There are quite probably some features that people would like to see changed--Mearls himself said that one of his biggest regrets was how little flavor the Fighter class had, for example--even though Action Surge and Indomitable are desirable features. There definitely are cultural factors pushing people toward the Fighter. Etc.

Indomitable is a desired feature? By who? A 1/day reroll on a save, when you have at best, three saves worth a darn? That should be free save proficiency or legendary resistance, IMO.

I'll give you the other points though.

And bonus points for using "melange" in a sentence and not immediately saying "the Spice must flow"!

 

[TwoSix]

Cool. The people who have been speaking up on this divide make me wonder though. How many people on this thread who strongly disagree with the current balance between casters and martials are also 4e enthusiasts? I suspect there's a correlation...

I think the psychological traits and game style preferences that make one notice balance issues (I mean, I had noticed warrior types falling behind caster types even in the early 3e days) probably have a strong correlation to liking the style of changes that 4e introduced, yes.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Cool. The people who have been speaking up on this divide make me wonder though. How many people on this thread who strongly disagree with the current balance between casters and martials are also 4e enthusiasts? I suspect there's a correlation...

I'm not so much a 4E enthusiast, but 4E was the first edition where I wanted to play a non-caster. In 2nd edition I normally played some kind of multiclass. 3rd edition was a wizard, a cleric, and later a binder.

 

[Helldritch]

I honestly think, apart perhaps from a few exceptions like eldritch blast, that cantrips shouldn't scale unless upcast, casters are already getting more and higher spell slots as they level, cantrips are meant to their most basic capacity, the rogue's daggers and the fighter's greatsword don't automatically become +1 and +2 as they level in addition to their stat increases
Edit: cantrips should function more like older editions wizards emergency dagger, something to give them minimum combat capacity, if they want to be dealing big damage they ought to be expending their resources, their spell slots, cantrips are treated more like the equivalent of a melee class’s standard weapon but then they get to go nova with their actual spells and rain damage with leveled spells

Not a bad idea, a very bad idea IMO.
If you go this way, spells must upgrade with levels and with spell slots.
In addition, the at-will cantrips removed a lot of spell slots from the casters, these would need to be restored to a higher number to simply not gimp the casters. It was a big trade off to have cantrip being barely under melee attacks (save for Eldritch blast) because with martial attack, the martial gets to add his stat bonus with every single attacks, not so with a cantrip (save Eldritch blast... again).
This would bring back spell interruption as must in the rules. The removal of concentrations would also be necessary. In other words, a lot of rework for little benefits. Because restoring these, would simply allow casters to Nova even more than what they can do and would encourage the 5MWD even more.
Martials seems a bit lacking, but it is always in games where the 6-8 encounters per day guidelines are not met.

For the pure narrative play style that so many seem to like; these guidelines are a bane as they can break the narrative.

For those in the middle (like me) it simply takes experience as a DM to include these guidelines into a cohesive narrative.

For the pure lovers of combats, they have no problems at all to reach the 6-8 encounters, in fact, they occasionally go a bit beyond these numbers (I know at least one group that does that. RP is really low, but combat... ho boy...).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not a bad idea, a very bad idea IMO.
If you go this way, spells must upgrade with levels and with spell slots.
In addition, the at-will cantrips removed a lot of spell slots from the casters, these would need to be restored to a higher number to simply not gimp the casters.

no... I disagree.

lets look at level 5 you have 4 cantrips... lets say they don't at all scale
they then have 4 1st level 3 2nd level and 2 3rd level... plus recall 2 levels (lets say a 2nd level slot)

in a given day that is 10 spells plus cantrips. if we assume that most encounters are about 3-5 (I am going to round to 4) so if every fight they use 2 spell slots and 2 cantrips they would go for 5ish encounters. Now having said that we could also have an encounter or two with ONLY cantrips.

tasha's hidus laugh can shut down an entire target.
Mysty step is teleporting not useing your action
hold person and charm person can both shut down a target.

none of the damage spells need to scale.

shield can turn a hit to a miss at the right moment at 20th level
comprehend language can give you the spotlight at any level
Detect magic and Identfy give you a level of flexability that no non caster has

none of the damage spells need to scale.

It was a big trade off to have cantrip being barely under melee attacks (save for Eldritch blast) because with martial attack, the martial gets to add his stat bonus with every single attacks, not so with a cantrip (save Eldritch blast... again).

sigh... but those trade offs for '70% damage' didn't weaken the 'everything else' wizards get

This would bring back spell interruption as must in the rules. The removal of concentrations would also be necessary.

hell to the no

In other words, a lot of rework for little benefits. Because restoring these, would simply allow casters to Nova even more than what they can do and would encourage the 5MWD even more.

or... and hear me out I know this is radical...

Magical characters don't have to be better then non magical ones of teh same level

Martials seems a bit lacking, but it is always in games where the 6-8 encounters per day guidelines are not met.

right becuse sitting back while the casters handle the first 3-5 encounters then getting to shine in the last 2-3 is SOO much better and not at all a 5 min work day issue...

For the pure lovers of combats, they have no problems at all to reach the 6-8 encounters, in fact, they occasionally go a bit beyond these numbers (I know at least one group that does that. RP is really low, but combat... ho boy...).

i actually know groups that run mega dungeons where you can go weeks of in game time (and almost a year out) going room by room with 90% of the time being fights... do you know what classes show up in those the most... full casters. Wizards not so much (but at least 1 per campaign) but warlocks, clerics druids and bards are often seen (sometimes multi of the same one in a campaign)

when you DO see a fighter or rogue it is almost ALWAYS 1 of 2 things... multi classed or the spell casting type (actually 2 different groups I have seen multi classed fighter (eldritch knight) with a full caster so they still get a spell level when they really want action surge.