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

[GMforPowergamers]

Expertise at their primary skill or one class skill of their choice is a good way to fix that. Clerics get religion, Wizards Arcana, etc.

yup... sometimes I just outright say "cleric make a religion roll, no thief you can not make one" I try not to do it too often (since the other character DID spend resources to get it) but sometimes I have to call on 'special knowladge'

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In a roundabout way - class balance is a thing because bad class balance can cause bad intra-party balance. EG if the wizard can do all the stuff the fighter can do and a bunch of other stuff, the fighter's player might feel left out because they picked the class that looked cool but was actually lame.

I, for one, haven't seen that in practice with 5e. But some people apparently have.

I only saw it a few times... like 3e we just kind of worked around it by either EVERYONE is a caster or NOONE is a caster... so the balance gets closer. we just don't have a group that is a fighter a warlock a rogue and a druid... because the rogue and fighter would feel out stripped.

 

[Maxperson]

yup... sometimes I just outright say "cleric make a religion roll, no thief you can not make one" I try not to do it too often (since the other character DID spend resources to get it) but sometimes I have to call on 'special knowladge'

Yeah. I don't do that, but I do use trained/untrained as a method of gatekeeping rolls. So a wizard with no Religion and +4 won't get a roll to know something obscure, but the Cleric with his +3 and proficiency will.

 

[HammerMan]

I only saw it a few times... like 3e we just kind of worked around it by either EVERYONE is a caster or NOONE is a caster... so the balance gets closer. we just don't have a group that is a fighter a warlock a rogue and a druid... because the rogue and fighter would feel out stripped.

This is Our problem. We have players that really want to play fighters, or at least a concept of a swordswoman However we also have players that only want to be casters. So it is rare for us in 5e to get to play the fighter unless we A) go as less powerful less fun less versatile or B ) we hit the casters with BIG nerf bats and make it unfun for them.

Basically we can’t keep our group all happy with 5e

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is Our problem. We have players that really want to play fighters, or at least a concept of a swordswoman However we also have players that only want to be casters. So it is rare for us in 5e to get to play the fighter unless we A) go as less powerful less fun less versatile or B ) we hit the casters with BIG nerf bats and make it unfun for them.

Basically we can’t keep our group all happy with 5e

I'm sorry to hear that. As a player i am in that boat with your friends. I can get my players as a DM to go 'all non casters' so people can feel cool as martials (even using the adventures in middle earth 5e as a base twice) but as a player it is SUPER rare to do so.

I have a list I keep on my phone of concepts I just don't play even though I want to because I know at the table I will get annoyed at them for being under powered or under optioned. I sometimes try to refluff... I did a 3rd level rogue X level Bard trying to refluff as a warlord and it was kind of cool... but it just wasn't the same

 

[Helldritch]

nope sorry I just outright disagree with your whole mentality.
something made a launch is made to begin with. SOmething made 4-6 years in to a 10+ year life span just isn't 'late' it is mid at best... and again if 2024 DOESN'T do a .5 or 6e (and I hope it does) it could be EARLY if they go 5 more years after that before 6e. (6 years into a 15 year life span is early... 7-8 years aka now is mid point)



why stop at the part of the game that most people play to?
why talk about the first half the game?
simple even if you are right and a 20th level fighter is equal to a 20th level war cleric or sword/valor bard or hexblade (and I don't believe it is) that doesn't make the first 10 levels fair when those classes out shine them.

tbh a 20th level fighter with all his feats, class and subclass features (2 action surges, 3 indomitables 4 attacks) BUT only have 10HD (so basicly taking every thing a scunching it down) and the prof of a 10th level character would be ABOUT equal to an optimized melee caster. IMO

I ran 2 'gritty' games. 1 I made short rest require 8 hours of rest with food and water, and required 1 week in a safe place (base, town ect) with food water and recreational activities that didn't count as downtime and 1 I made the short rest as above but the long rest was 2 days with food/water/safty... neither of these effected ranged vs melee (but I will say the second one had casters and it DID curtail them.

okay I did miss read the multi attack that is my bad (like I said I don't memorize stats)

could be... if you hit with all three. then again a 3rd level wizard crit by a big brute in melee can do that too... it happens just not all that often

except you are not at 3 round (1 for wizard 2 for cleric...) and I can't imagine any of my group (maybe we just play too well or too high power...see name) takeing 3 rounds to drop a manticore with 60ish hp. that would mean the party is on average doing less then 20pts per round. I mean it's possible, but it would be a bad day.

not all cantrips, and not any bows... and that is if no one can close the distance.

in the years of 5e (and even most of 4e and a good portion of 3e not withstanding things immune to it) I have not seen many fights that rogues can't set up SA at least a few times per combat. in 5e it is crazy easy with ranged attacks (as long as not at max range for disadvantage) its called Aim. It is a bonus action that also uses your move (I think only mechanic that uses both) and you get advantage on the attack.

who needs a magic mart? I didn't even have many items for sale (outside of what I imagine people who are not adventurers would make/sell) in 3e so I sure as heck am not in 5e...

Iwill say 1 DM I play under (about 1 in 3 campains) has a long running (back to 2e) tradition of having hidden magical societies that do sell items (sometimes its a plane thing, sometimes it's a black market it is always diffrent) and we almost always find it when we hit level 7-10... it is fun sometimes to find an item we want, then have to quest for what they want for it... My warlock wanted the staff of the Maji and had to get like 3 rare items and 50,000gp... funny thing is that the DM also rolled for random treasure and got me a robe of magic so I had like the 2 most powerful items in the game (and a 26 cha by the end)...

in 3.5 that same DM was big on magic mart/mages building items for you, so we did abuse that (might be part of what burnt us out of it) for like the last few years of 3.5 we always had belts of magnificencs and we had MORE then 1 belt +6 that was also a belt of healing AND a Belt of battle... that was so broken. Funny thing though, most times a wizard cleric or druid well made with much fewer items could run circles around non casters even with the most broken belt ever...

because you keep talking like every fight IS surprise ambushes by your monsters. (I have DMed for people with alert feats, but tbh the only time a weapon of warning came up that I remember is in an adventure it was in)

I don't know what side initaitve is... does that mean you roll the best PC and all act on that then roll best monster and all act on that... cause I would NOT want all my pcs acting togather, anytime they won intiaitve I am sure they would make short work of my monsters (even if they don't kill them all they would hurt/kill enough that my return fire would be very weakened) I already throw what the book calls deadly encounters (level+4) and have few deaths or even major setbacks... no thanks.

wait... aren't you one of the people (and I am really asking because I confuse posters all the time when they take similar but not the same stance) that says the 2 extra feats over 20 levels (1 over 10 levels and 0 over 10 if the non fighter race gives it) is a balance point for fighters!?! if so how can nerfing feats help?

1) For the game development: Well, we have radical views on what is the "late development" here. We will have to agree to disagree.

2) Stopping at level 10 in no way justify if a class is balanced or not. The fighter gains its 3rd attack at level 11 and most games stop at level 12-13. This give the fighter a small boost in damage that the Hexblade won't get save for eldritch blast. Yes the game start to get a bit wonky around level 14 but I regularly have groups that go beyond that and end around level 19-20. It is a lot of work for a DM to play at these levels. A lot more than stopping at level 12-13 but soon rewarding. Yet, most DM stop their group around that because the amount of work can be quite a deterrent.

3) Why would a manticore go melee if it does not have to? Eliminate the healer(s) from range protects the manticore from melee and adds the benefit of being out of range from most cantrips. Especially those of a cleric but not limited to these.

Also, the Aim action is in TCoE. Not every body uses that piece of ********. That book is pure power creep. Meaning that no, the rogue will not have access to sneak attack damage unless the group have someone able to fly.

4) Not all fights are surprised. But I use a lot of terrain and features that can restrict or add a lot of combat options both for the players and their foes.

5) Side initiative is great. Try it. It speed thing up by quite a lot.

6) No I am on the side that feats should have been a bit more numerous for the fighter or that the battlemaster should have been the basic chassi for the fighter.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

1) For the game development: Well, we have radical views on what is the "late development" here. We will have to agree to disagree.

yup agree to disagree

2) Stopping at level 10 in no way justify if a class is balanced or not.

correct in and of itself that is true. the problem is if you ONLY count level 17+ (4th attack) as balanced that is more or less no balance. I mean why play 10 levels unbalanced for level 11 (and I don't think 3rd attack is as good, powerful or versitile as 6th level spells to begin with) starts to close the gap...

The fighter gains its 3rd attack at level 11 and most games stop at level 12-13.

okay lets add 2 then (giving you the best argument you can) and lets pretend I agree that (I don't) a 3rd attack evens out the 6th level and 7th level spells (I will ignore the 8th level one at 15th level) again giving you the best chance... so your arguement is to play a game where 2/3 of the time there is no balance becuse the last 1/3 is balanced? is that correct, or am I reading this wrong?

This give the fighter a small boost in damage that the Hexblade won't get save for eldritch blast.

yeah a small boost in damage, no extra versatility and that small boost has to ignore one of the cantrips and the fact that the hexblade still has 3 5th level spell slots per short rest and 1 6th level spell per day...

Yes the game start to get a bit wonky around level 14 but I regularly have groups that go beyond that and end around level 19-20.

I wouldn't say I regularly do, but I have played to 20+ a few epic boons once, and to 17th twice and ran to 18th one 20th kind of (last session we ran they were 20 so for 1 game night) and 2 to 16th level. but I have also played in more then a handful of games that ended around 5-7th level (only 1 was planed to be short)

It is a lot of work for a DM to play at these levels. A lot more than stopping at level 12-13 but soon rewarding. Yet, most DM stop their group around that because the amount of work can be quite a deterrent.

I have never personally stopped do to work load... normally it is a story beat is a good ending point for everyone to get there happy ending... or a tpk or a bad non tpk defeat ends the game. but okay I will take your word for it. I personally have seen more campaigns end becuse players/dm have new ideas to try then work load though...

3) Why would a manticore go melee if it does not have to?

why would it choose to... it most likely would not choose to... but the PCs sure as heck can choose to force it to.

Eliminate the healer(s) from range protects the manticore from melee and adds the benefit of being out of range from most cantrips.

but not all cantrips, and not bows and cross bows.

Also, the Aim action is in TCoE. Not every body uses that piece of ********. That book is pure power creep. Meaning that no, the rogue will not have access to sneak attack damage unless the group have someone able to fly.

well your opinion of the book aside, I know of people who disallow some of the book but I know no one that bans it out right and you are the first person even on the internet that thinks the aim action is a problem.

4) Not all fights are surprised. But I use a lot of terrain and features that can restrict or add a lot of combat options both for the players and their foes.

yes they can and the fighters can use it to there advantage... but so can the hexblade or the warcleric or the wizard(bladesinger) or the bard... but they ALSO get spells

5) Side initiative is great. Try it. It speed thing up by quite a lot.

I am sure it would speed things up... when the first side to go first focus fires and drops members of the other sided... that just isn't the speed up I want

6) No I am on the side that feats should have been a bit more numerous for the fighter or that the battlemaster should have been the basic chassi for the fighter.

I agree in theory with both, but without higher level feats and/or manuvers that can compeat with higher level spells that is lipstick on a pig

 

[James Gasik]

Unless I see evidence to the contrary with the re-released of the PHB, I think discussing class balance is pretty much kicking a dead horse (with regards to 5e). The people who say the game is just fine are playing happily. The people who say the game is not fine can go play any of the other classes WotC made that works better for them.

At this point I highly doubt WotC is going to create a "martial" class that is better than the Fighter, especially given what happened the last time they tried this (the Warblade).

If you like Fighters (and to a lesser extent Rogues) the way they are, you will play them. If you don't, you'll play a caster who can mimic them. If you don't want to play a caster and are unsatisfied with the Fighter/Rogue, you can wait for a new subclass, or seek out another game, because WotC seems happier to crank out more spells than feats or a whole new class.

It's a cynical take, and I'd rather be wrong...but it feels like, from the perspective of the developers, the problem is solved- don't like a class, here's an alternative.

 

[Bloodstone Press]

Balance is an art, not a science.

As a DM, I have a sense of how things are going in the game and what the group can handle. I adjust accordingly to keep the players on the edge of their seats.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I only saw it a few times... like 3e we just kind of worked around it by either EVERYONE is a caster or NOONE is a caster... so the balance gets closer. we just don't have a group that is a fighter a warlock a rogue and a druid... because the rogue and fighter would feel out stripped.

In 5e I can imagine it happening if the fighter doesn't get any magic items, allies, or other boons from adventuring to cover access to stuff otherwise granted via magical class features - but I have never seen a high-level game without magic items. That would be weird.

At low levels, fighters tend to outshine wizards, really. At mid levels, unless the dm runs the game oddly all classes tend to get their moments.