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

[GMforPowergamers]

Of course, what I meant is that everybody gets a shot at getting one of those super shining moment, instead of always the same character. But also I'm REALLY not a big fan of the Ranger's 'favored terrain' system that just obliterate any interactivity and is just 'yup, you got it, no problem.' It's not a very cool 'spotlight' moment IMO.

1 totally agree favored terrain is not a fav of mine (I don't hate it... I just feel it needs to be more or just be fluff...it seems to take up too much space)
2 yeah I assumes the 'normal' would be someone gets a cool thing then someone else gets a cool thing but no one takes more then a few minutes... I don't mind if once every few levels someone stands out besides that... as long as it isn't always the same class, and as long as it isn't more then once every few levels.

The Knife Fighter should still be something neat to make up for the lack of damage.

sigh... yes it should

For exemple, maybe there's a style that gives them advantage when they draw their knife as part of their attack action, or maybe they land crits more easily, or maybe they get to throw their knives as a bonus action after attacking with it, that sort of thing.

all sound great

Or maybe they get a bonus to intimidate when they hold their knife. I'm a big fan of giving every weapons category a reason to be attractive to a player so that they don't simply always pick the same boring max damage weapon (see Rogues and Bards with Rapier...).

that too would be cool

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Just so you know you made my friends day (maybe her week) I sent her a screen shot of your post (this part) and she was so happy someone got to play a fighter and feel tough and strong… although she is also feeling a little envious

Edit: just as I hit send she asked if I would consider running a game where magic does… and not telling the others until a level in so she could be a fighter and feel it, I told her no, but I understand.

cool, maybe it was you that suggested it to me then...lol

 

[Willie the Duck]

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.

In combat. Out of combat I concede that they dropped the ball on the fighter. Excepting the (admittedly really frequent) situation of 5/15 minute workday (which is absolutely an issue, but then that's the point upon which I feel we should be focusing), I think fighters do a very good job of doing the one thing they are given leave to do.

no they don't... the fighter gets 2hp per level on a wizard a slightly better ac and at best a bit more damge per round

I understand that you are highly displeased with the fighter class, but I think you are selling these differences short. At first level*, the wizard has 6+2 (base) + 1d6+2 (one hit dice to spend) = avg. 13.5 hit points to leverage throughout the day. The fighter has 10+2 (base) + 1d10+2 (one hit dice to spend) + 3** x (1d10+1) (second wind) = avg. 39 hit points.
*let's say 14 con and dex (unless dex-build) for each, and 16 in primary/preferred attack/casting stat.
**assuming the old saw of 6-8 encounters with 2 short rests, and I acknowledged many games do not follow that formula, but if that is the area of contention, we can discuss that issue as a side issue.
The AC of the fighter can start at 16/18 if they choose chain mail (w/ or w/o shield). 14/16 if dex-based, but that can go up 1 when one gets 45 gp for studded. The wizard has an AC of 12, 15 if they want to spend 1/2 of their primary wizarding juice on Mage Armor.
The Fighter can be attacking for 2d6(re-roll 1-2)+3 (avg. 11.3) if gwf/greatsword; 2x(1d6+3) (avg. 13) if 2wf/shortswords; 1d8+3 (7.5) and a serious upgrade in to-hit if archery/longbow; 1d8+5 (9.5) if dueling and whichever 1d8+dex/str weapon one picks; or any number of other fighting styles (several of which open up entire new avenues of fighting, or provide solid defensive uses for reaction actions) with a still solid 1d8+3. The wizard in the same position will be doing 1d4+2 with a dagger, or 1d8+str with a 2h quarterstaff (str-build wizard being an interesting idea, but that will likely eat into
Both weapon and armor can change based on racial selection, but then the opportunity cost must be considered.
Those differences in damage can make the difference between whether a goblin goes down this round or the next, whether the combatant is hit or not, and whether said combatant drops or not.

At second level, the fighter gets action surge. That could just be another attack, but honestly if that's the most one can find to do to leverage this ability, that's the problem, not the class.

At third they get an archetype, and these can absolutely change the script. When discussing valor bards previously this was kind of overlooked. To get that decent armor and a second attack is most of a frontlining-caster (valor/swords bard, bladesinger wizard, hexblade warlock)'s archetype choice. For want of this they won't be doing the character-defining things a lore bard or diviner or celestial tomelock is doing. A fighter, otoh, gets the good at fighting core and then gets to choose an archetype on top of it.

At fifth level they get an extra attack a full level before any of the others. Much like the multiclassing on a spellcaster before 3rd level spells, delaying that extra attack can make or break whether a character fills a role or fails at a role.

At sixth they are an ASI ahead, meaning they can get that primary stat up to 20, or start really filling out the options through feat selection (still keeping pace by taking the expected advancements).

Once you hit seventh, things do peter out and fighters (and most of the <full casters) have some levels that feel unfulfilling. And the casters start having multiple 3+ level spells per day, and so on. Exactly when things flip over, and when the casters truly run away with the game is certainly going to be playstyle dependent. However I think you are perhaps being blindered a bit towards the advantages that fighters have at lower levels. They do fighting gud. They really do.

most of them are casters/magic users... becuse every fun useful thing in 5e is hidden behind the 'use magic' sub systems

Rune Knights and Eldritch Knights and Echo Knights are fighters, not wizards, regardless of whether an ability is coded as 'magic.' Are we discussing fighters vs. wizards, or are we discussing non-magic vs. magic? Because I don't think anyone is interested in another grievance fest on that issue. Yes, completely non-magical characters lose out in D&D. That's been true since there were monsters that could only be hurt by magical weapons (the original Unearthed Arcana barbarian had a real issue with that, pre-errata). I'm rarely impressed when people use discount high-school debate terminology, but this really does seem like goalpost shifting.

I don't discount your personal experience, and I decidedly agree that the fun stops for fighters once the combat encounter ends (barring things everyone can do), but I think you have extrapolated an experience perhaps dominated by loosely policed workday into a general idea that fighters aren't at least exemplary at their jobs. They are. I've never seen a valor bard or hexblade* or bladesinger come close to doing the fighter's job better than the fighter. These seem more like the caster class you take if your party front-liners are bad at keeping the enemies away from the rear-liners, so you want to be a little less squishy.
*hexblade is overtuned, and probably gets a little too close to a fighter while still getting spells (although warlocks in general are a little undertuned in the spell department), but still is not a fighter in combat.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In combat. Out of combat I concede that they dropped the ball on the fighter. Excepting the (admittedly really frequent) situation of 5/15 minute workday (which is absolutely an issue, but then that's the point upon which I feel we should be focusing), I think fighters do a very good job of doing the one thing they are given leave to do.

let me start by agreeing (becuse I am about to disagree alot)

in just a fight where the wizard is not trying to nova (aka 5 min work day) the fighter CAN shine and take the spot light (in first 3-5 levels) and it is VERY hard to make a fighter that makes any sense that isn't at least okay at fighting at those levels.

I understand that you are highly displeased with the fighter class, but I think you are selling these differences short.

yes and no... I sometimes go a bit overboard but I have a MAJOR issue with what you are about to do...

At first level*, the wizard has 6+2 (base) + 1d6+2 (one hit dice to spend) = avg. 13.5 hit points to leverage throughout the day. The fighter has 10+2 (base) + 1d10+2 (one hit dice to spend) + 3** x (1d10+1) (second wind) = avg. 39 hit points.
*let's say 14 con and dex (unless dex-build) for each, and 16 in primary/preferred attack/casting stat.
**assuming the old saw of 6-8 encounters with 2 short rests, and I acknowledged many games do not follow that formula, but if that is the area of contention, we can discuss that issue as a side issue.

I (and many on here) have found that were HD healing is good... it is seldom to never the main healing of a game. counting HD is at best a little dishonest and at worst outright trying to break the argument. I will conside 1 use of second wind.

so fighter 12hp + second wind of 6 or 7 (yeah average is 6.5 but you can't have .5hp) so 18 or 19 to the wizard 8...so about double when counting second wind (although it doesn't scale well so it wont be double for long) and the wizard (I assume) wont be a main melee character. However the Cleric or Hexblade or Bard will be... and they get the same spells and cantrips. they have 10hp instead of 8, advantage IS still to fighter.

each level the d10 calls adds 8 (6+2) the d8 class ads 7 (5+2) and the d6 class adds 6 (4+2) second wind adds +1 per level
so
level d10 d8 d6 d10+sw
1 12 10 8 19
2 20 17 14 28
3 28 24 20 37

even at 3rd level we have gone from double wizard to just over 1.5x wizard

The AC of the fighter can start at 16/18 if they choose chain mail (w/ or w/o shield). 14/16 if dex-based, but that can go up 1 when one gets 45 gp for studded. The wizard has an AC of 12, 15 if they want to spend 1/2 of their primary wizarding juice on Mage Armor.

yup fighters can have a slightly better AC at lower levels... armor though is not guaranteed after starting and ACs are low in this edition unless you really focus.

The Fighter can be attacking for 2d6(re-roll 1-2)+3 (avg. 11.3) if gwf/greatsword; 2x(1d6+3) (avg. 13) if 2wf/shortswords; 1d8+3 (7.5)

here we go... two handed (the most optimized for damage) is doing good damage... I don't know how your short swords do d8's I will assume a typo. when you do out a long sword and sheild it is a bit better then a cantrip... when you go to 2 weapons or a 2 handed weapon it is much better then a cantrip... and if cantrip user/fullcaster could not use those 2 handed weapons or 2 weapon fighting that would mean something...

Hexblade, half the clerics, and a 1/3 of the bards are useing the same weapons... and that reroll 1's and 2's from fighting style is your best advantage (and action surge is a close second) but again those don't add up compaired to full casters.

and a serious upgrade in to-hit if archery/longbow; 1d8+5 (9.5)

ranged attacks with the archery fighting style IS the most accurate.

part of me feels like if we were ONLY able to do combat and they got +1 to all weapon attacks and reroll 1's on all damage dice and fighting styles that would be better (still not perfect)

if dueling and whichever 1d8+dex/str weapon one picks; or any number of other fighting styles (several of which open up entire new avenues of fighting, or provide solid defensive uses for reaction actions) with a still solid 1d8+3.

some of the best fighting styles are giving the sup dice that fighters SHOULD just have for free and/or giving cantrips... I know there is one in an unearth arcana that gives a climb and swim speed I don't remember that is pretty good too

The wizard in the same position will be doing 1d4+2 with a dagger, or 1d8+str with a 2h quarterstaff (str-build wizard being an interesting idea, but that will likely eat into

or the hex blade cleric or bard with the exact same weapon

Those differences in damage can make the difference between whether a goblin goes down this round or the next, whether the combatant is hit or not, and whether said combatant drops or not.

I watch goblins drop from 1 shot from wizards... let alone again the other caster that ALSO have full weapon prf

At second level, the fighter gets action surge. That could just be another attack, but honestly if that's the most one can find to do to leverage this ability, that's the problem, not the class.

action surge is great. It is so great I see people both IRL and in theory crafting taking 2 levels of fighter for it... I have no complaints about THAT ability in a vacume... with a bit of work it could even help in non fights too

At third they get an archetype, and these can absolutely change the script.

any class that doesn't have it's sub class by 3rd (and look wizard cleric and druid all do already) gets it at 3rd... they are tied for last place in getting it.

When discussing valor bards previously this was kind of overlooked. To get that decent armor and a second attack is most of a frontlining-caster (valor/swords bard, bladesinger wizard, hexblade warlock)'s archetype choice.

yes it is and every one comes with a cool rider ON TOP of that... valor gets to add inspiration to damage for instance, and has had inspersation and song of rest and jack of all trades this time already

For want of this they won't be doing the character-defining things a lore bard or diviner or celestial tomelock is doing. A fighter, otoh, gets the good at fighting core and then gets to choose an archetype on top of it.

they ALL get cool abilities from subclass

At fifth level they get an extra attack a full level before any of the others. Much like the multiclassing on a spellcaster before 3rd level spells, delaying that extra attack can make or break whether a character fills a role or fails at a role.

nope...hexblade can have there 2nd attack at 5th... all casters increase cantrip damage then too

At sixth they are an ASI ahead, meaning they can get that primary stat up to 20, or start really filling out the options through feat selection (still keeping pace by taking the expected advancements).

1 feat or ASI... i account for it in like 50 posts on this thread... over the first 10 levels you get action surge second wind 1 eaxtra feat/ASI and 1 use of indomitable and either 1 or 2 more hp per level... compaired to 5th level, 4th level ect spells AND other class features (like song of rest, or summon sword)

Once you hit seventh, things do peter out and fighters (and most of the <full casters) have some levels that feel unfulfilling. And the casters start having multiple 3+ level spells per day, and so on. Exactly when things flip over, and when the casters truly run away with the game is certainly going to be playstyle dependent. However I think you are perhaps being blindered a bit towards the advantages that fighters have at lower levels. They do fighting gud. They really do.

I find it funny that one person is telling me to go through 10 levels 'to get to the even part' and you are telling me the 'first 7ish levels are the even part'
I disagree with both... fighter is NEVER equal... you MIGHT have a point at level 1, maybe

Rune Knights and Eldritch Knights and Echo Knights are fighters, not wizards,

all useing magic... and as I said that alone is what somepoeple don't want. they want a MARTIAL character not a martial half caster or martial with magic rune or magic shadow (although I do like echo knight idea... take it and battle master and throw on some better level 11+ abilities and you have something)

regardless of whether an ability is coded as 'magic.' Are we discussing fighters vs. wizards,

I was talking caster/magic vs noncaster/martial... I don't know what you want to talk about until now

or are we discussing non-magic vs. magic? Because I don't think anyone is interested in another grievance fest on that issue.

I am. I will continue to do so until it is fixed (I want it more 4e like but maybe another fix witll work I am willing to listen)

Yes, completely non-magical characters lose out in D&D. That's been true since there were monsters that could only be hurt by magical weapons (the original Unearthed Arcana barbarian had a real issue with that, pre-errata). I'm rarely impressed when people use discount high-school debate terminology, but this really does seem like goalpost shifting.

it isn't... it is "If I want to play a non magic character that keeps up I can't"

extrapolated an experience perhaps dominated by loosely policed workday

sigh... the go to arguement

into a general idea that fighters aren't at least exemplary at their jobs. They are. I've never seen a valor bard or hexblade* or bladesinger come close to doing the fighter's job better than the fighter.

well I have... for years many times at my game, at store games, at con games...

These seem more like the caster class you take if your party front-liners are bad at keeping the enemies away from the rear-liners, so you want to be a little less squishy.
*hexblade is overtuned, and probably gets a little too close to a fighter while still getting spells (although warlocks in general are a little undertuned in the spell department), but still is not a fighter in combat.

the only one of those I see played that way is bladesinger

 

[Undrave]

1 totally agree favored terrain is not a fav of mine (I don't hate it... I just feel it needs to be more or just be fluff...it seems to take up too much space)
2 yeah I assumes the 'normal' would be someone gets a cool thing then someone else gets a cool thing but no one takes more then a few minutes... I don't mind if once every few levels someone stands out besides that... as long as it isn't always the same class, and as long as it isn't more then once every few levels.

I don't mind if the 'cool moment' is born of the player being clever with the tools given to them. Everybody should have reliable tools they can use to flex their creativity.

 

[HammerMan]

.

I don't discount your personal experience, and I decidedly agree that the fun stops for fighters once the combat encounter ends (barring things everyone can do), but I think you have extrapolated an experience perhaps dominated by loosely policed workday into a general idea that fighters aren't at least exemplary at their jobs. They are. I've never seen a valor bard or hexblade* or bladesinger come close to doing the fighter's job better than the fighter.

I have seen my buddy livid becuse her fighter concept can not keep him ace with a hex blade (something that needs a major wack from the nerf bat)

I have seen bald singers dip 3 into fighter for HD action surge and fighting style over the course of 18 levels (meaning they were ONLY a 16th level caster and ONLY knew 8th level spells) be the main line tank.

I have seen a part of 4 Bards and an Artificer never need a non caster at all

By the way NONE of the examples were less the 6 encounters a day and some where 10+ at higher level.

 

[Helldritch]

not only... but ingeneral we start at 3rd and we HAVE (once maybe twice) made it to 20+epic boons, on average most games end between 13 and 16 (some as early as 7th though... or lower if TPK happens)

even if we get to 11-15, we played MONTHS at 3-10, and I can't imagine playing a fighter for 7 levels with the rest of the party having spells

and the hexblades non magic abilities work too... 1HD (average 1hp if the same con) less and only missing the 3rd attack and action surge... and again even if 2 out of the 5-8 encounters do this, you have your show stopper spells for the other 3-6 encounters... unless EVERY encounter does this, and that would get old quick (and most likely just go back to the no one is casters... witch is the on/off we have everyone or no one)

3 book stat beholders 3 trolls, 2 ogers and 10 goblins (those looked like a joke at first) in a room that as the entered there magic went down... I can't remember if they were 12th level yet but there abouts... would a fighter have helped a bit in the encounter (1 extra attack per round and an action surge would have helpped a bit.) it was tough, but at no poiint did I think a PC would die...

wow... I would expect in my group that fight to be the end of a 3-5 enocunter night (but maybe hit 8 rounds)

wow that sounds epic... I can count on 1 hand the number of times we went past 10 rounds (and once it was cause I cheated and every other round brought in more cannon fodder)

I have never seen a 5e fight last that long... wow

cool... unfortinatly I am more used to my dragons doing that after they burn through my legendary resiteance and cast hold as I try to fly awya

The fact that I use my BBEG mod helps a lot.
But for the dragon, a flyby attacks in a clearing where players see the dragon barely a round, one player might be snatched or a breath is unleashed on the group. The dragon is smart enough to grab the weakest PC, that is Dex based character or casters. The 8th times the dragon went for a PC, it was the rogue and with a good, very good roll, she jumped on dragon as she evaded the grab and it was her damage with a simple dagger that finally forced the dragon to land. The Cleric was dead, The Sorcerer too. It took the rogue (thief) to use a scroll of revivify on the cleric to start the group on the road again.

With such long battles, it takes a lot of resource management to get through them. Players learn to hold on their resources but also have to judge when to go "all in" or not. It is almost a cat and mouse game with the DM (me) as to whether or not other encounter(s) might occur.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The fact that I use my BBEG mod helps a lot.

sigh/// okay I will play what is your house rule?

But for the dragon, a flyby attacks in a clearing where players see the dragon barely a round, one player might be snatched or a breath is unleashed on the group.

okay what happens when your players pick the battle ground?

The dragon is smart enough to grab the weakest PC, that is Dex based character or casters.

good luck identifying the 'weakest' PC when none are wearing heavy armor and none are in wizard robes... and all are casters atleast 1/2,,,

The 8th times the dragon went for a PC,

your PCs just stood there for 8 attacks?! no wonder you don't see a problem your players don't DO anything.

it was the rogue and with a good, very good roll, she jumped on dragon as she evaded the grab and it was her damage with a simple dagger that finally forced the dragon to land.

what part of this has to do with them being a rogue? they could have done it as any class

The Cleric was dead, The Sorcerer too. It took the rogue (thief) to use a scroll of revivify on the cleric to start the group on the road again.

good thing that non magic character had magic to get the magic character up... how is this not proveing caster supremacy?

With such long battles, it takes a lot of resource management to get through them.

my players find it is better to use tactics quick thinking and powers (normally spells) to shut down encounters before round 5.

Players learn to hold on their resources but also have to judge when to go "all in" or not.

great plan not useing spells for 8 rounds while you let the dragon kill party members... what were they saving the spells for?

It is almost a cat and mouse game with the DM (me) as to whether or not other encounter(s) might occur.

that sounds like you have fun... I will run D&D and have my players just keep to the higher power or the lower power classes until they learn how to balance them again.

 

[Lanefan]

again thats all I see... or at least 98% of what I see (unless you count level dips... I do see casters take 2 fighter levels for action surge)

"Level dips" are something else I would ban without a second's thought were I running 5e (or 3e or 4e for that matter). I'd be more than tempted to ban multiclassing altogether, but that would be a bigger step. Rationale: I specifically don't want characters who are good at everything; I want them to have weaknesses that they need other people to cover off, thus promoting the idea of the interdependent party.

this normally only comes up with a death or retire...let me go to the next to answer it.

In a linear or single-party campaign, quite likely. In a multi=party campaign where characters cycle in and out relatively frequently, knowing who owns what can become rather important.

in general if you die we take any equipment we would not consider iconci to you (We take your ring of prot and a random +1 bow, but if you have Skull Crusher the +1 mace you are known for...that most likely goes to your family or is buried with you)

Many of our PCs make up wills. Surprisingly often they are even followed if-when the character perma-dies.

If you retire it is up to you. I have seen it both ways. I have seen players retire characters and throw some or even most (never all) magic items 'back in the pot', but I have seen (and even once it was me) a player have there character walk out, retire and still have enough items to blind anyone dumb enough to cast detect magic.

Yeah, I'd always keep my items if only because one day I might want to bring that character back into play.

we just don't consider magic items money. We split the money, and if no one can use an item we try to sell it (depending on world) or keep it to give away to an NPC... but it is never 'just gold value'. so none of my main group considers it a rip off... then again we rarely if ever are motivated for money. (If we are those are short lived characters... it is unheard of for us to go more then 3 levels without being rich enough to just go home and have our grandchildren not ever need to work... and that is before favors owed)

We look at it as "how much would it cost to get one of those items if we didn't just find it in the field?", and go from there.

again your POV is odd because I have never played your version of D&D (Although I understand my 2e experience of about 7ish years is close) and you seem to have little to no experience with a modern 5e game or a 4e game

Were I ever to run 5e (I wouldn't touch 4e) I'd have to kitbash it into near-unrecognizability first in order to make it a system I'd want anything to do with.

During playtest I was kinda hopeful that 5e (or Next, at the time) would be a system I could adopt with relatively little reworking, but alas that was not to be.

a Hex blade is a melee weapon using armor wearing shield using full caster....

TLDR: hex blades sing "anything you can do I can do better...I can do anything better then you" to fighters.

So if they're that broken why don't you rein them in via houserule? It's hella easy: just say they can't (and that no arcane caster can) cast spells while in armour. Boom - now they have to choose before each combat whether they want to act as a caster or a warrior - can't do both at once.

 

[James Gasik]

"Level dips" are something else I would ban without a second's thought were I running 5e (or 3e or 4e for that matter). I'd be more than tempted to ban multiclassing altogether, but that would be a bigger step. Rationale: I specifically don't want characters who are good at everything; I want them to have weaknesses that they need other people to cover off, thus promoting the idea of the interdependent party.

In a linear or single-party campaign, quite likely. In a multi=party campaign where characters cycle in and out relatively frequently, knowing who owns what can become rather important.

Many of our PCs make up wills. Surprisingly often they are even followed if-when the character perma-dies.

Yeah, I'd always keep my items if only because one day I might want to bring that character back into play.

We look at it as "how much would it cost to get one of those items if we didn't just find it in the field?", and go from there.

Were I ever to run 5e (I wouldn't touch 4e) I'd have to kitbash it into near-unrecognizability first in order to make it a system I'd want anything to do with.

During playtest I was kinda hopeful that 5e (or Next, at the time) would be a system I could adopt with relatively little reworking, but alas that was not to be.

So if they're that broken why don't you rein them in via houserule? It's hella easy: just say they can't (and that no arcane caster can) cast spells while in armour. Boom - now they have to choose before each combat whether they want to act as a caster or a warrior - can't do both at once.

Because, at the end of the day, a caster trying to be a warrior, even if they can occasionally be better than a warrior, is still inferior to a pure caster.

Spells pull ahead at the higher levels, and the ways to mix melee and magic are limited. So generally you can do one or the other, not both.

I'm not even convinced the Hexblade/Valor Bard/Bladesinger/what have you is better than a Fighter, mind. They problem with them is their versatility. They can mimic a good chunk of what the Fighter can do for short periods of time, and when they can't, they can fall back to being a spellcaster.

If a Fighter is tragically low on hit points they can...fall back to being an OK archer. Not quite the same.