D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Parmandur]

This is obviously not true outside of combat. You can't say "game balance" and then just talk about combat. That's combat balance - and 5E is pretty good about that - almost as good as 4E. It's outside of combat you see real problems, and it's just a silly fantasy to argue that a Champion is balanced with a Full Caster of the same level (certainly above about level 7) outside of combat.

Outside of combat, to do most impactgul things, a caster needs to spend a resource thst has specific in-combat implications further on the road in the day. For full balance, that's why the Adventure fay is important. Now, the game works if the game isn't pushed that far, it will still work,but it won't be "balanced" if that matters.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Underpowered or less powerful is just a gradual difference if any. I didn't mean way underpowered. Just not as powerful.
Sorry to have used the wrong key phrase...

I get that they're very similar words in English and that's probably not your first language but in the context of RPGs they have totally different meanings, so it's important to keep them distinct, yeah. Underpowered indicates something which is "too weak" - whereas "less powerful" might be 0.5% less powerful.

 

[Parmandur]

Not agreeing or disagreeing here, just stating that every class has access to magic, so IMO if you feel magic is overpowered or has advantages that can't be matched by non-casters... well then take some magic.

Fair, but the Eldritch Knight and the Champion balance out in the math department.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The article he's linking to makes a fundamental rules error - he should have scrolled down and read the comments rather than relying on it. And the article's assumptions are also bad on top of the rules error.

Does not matter. As already established by others: access to magic always dwarves anything else you bring to the table.
I never acknowledged the analysis in the article.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I get that they're very similar words in English and that's probably not your first language but in the context of RPGs they have totally different meanings, so it's important to keep them distinct, yeah. Underpowered indicates something which is "too weak" - whereas "less powerful" might be 0.5% less powerful.

Yes, not first language. So I stand corrected.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Outside of combat, to do most impactgul things, a caster needs to spend a resource thst has specific in-combat implications further on the road in the day. For full balance, that's why the Adventure fay is important. Now, the game works if the game isn't pushed that far, it will still work,but it won't be "balanced" if that matters.

The issue is that this isn't true. Casters rapidly gain so many spell slots that they don't meaningfully degrade their combat performance by also using utility spells. You'd have to pretty much halve spells/day at higher levels to do that.

Furthermore, casters the same number of skills as Fighters - or more, in many cases (!!!) - and have better primary stats for using skills - far more skills key off INT, WIS and CHA than STR or DEX. And none key off CON (the Barbarian secondary, and the practical secondary for most Fighters). This is obvious and inarguable. Casters thus have a clear advantage even if we ignore their spells and only look at skills.

 

[Parmandur]

skills are VERY DM dependent... someone above posted all the things religion let you do in 4e, and I doubt many DMs would let it in 5e. I am pretty lenient with what you can or can not do (except with athletics/acrobatics... I will almost NEVER allow acrobatics in place of an athletics check just because Dex is SOOO much more useful then str) but I saw a DM at my FLGS tell a player they couldn't use insight to see if an NPC was lying or not, they had to figure it out themselves... and later in that campaign I heard (not myself but by story of others in store) the same DM would not allow a rogue with expertise in persuasion to use it to bluff someone... because "sorry I know it's not true my NPC an't falling for it"
I also argue even in my own group about making athletics checks to get a little more distance on a jump (I allow it but 2 out of 3 of the other regularity DMs don't)

One that came up not super long ago but in the last campaign was is it Investigation, Perception, or tool use Theives tools (or in theory tool use tinker tools) to look for a trap on a chest? (and if it is a tool what stat goes with it... can you do theives tools/dex?) of the 5 of us at the virtual table we ended up with 5 "I would say X" answers with 3 of us (including me) hedgeing with "But I would also maybe allow Y or Z if it made sense"

now in all these cases the DM gets the final call... but boy is it weird how open to interpretation it is.

The openness to interpretation is by design, and it's a good thing.

 

[Parmandur]

there is NO DPR for 'can move us past encounters' or "I can end encounters' or "I can skip the skill checks you have to make"

Sure there is. Particularly if you lose a resource you need latter in the day to do so. Using Knock to open a chest is suboptimal to letting the Rogue do his thing.

 

[Parmandur]

The issue is that this isn't true. Casters rapidly gain so many spell slots that they don't meaningfully degrade their combat performance by also using utility spells. You'd have to pretty much halve spells/day at higher levels to do that.

Furthermore, casters the same number of skills as Fighters - or more, in many cases (!!!) - and have better primary stats for using skills - far more skills key off INT, WIS and CHA than STR or DEX. And none key off CON (the Barbarian secondary, and the practical secondary for most Fighters). This is obvious and inarguable. Casters thus have a clear advantage even if we ignore their spells and only look at skills.

The Spell slots have a specific mathematical value, in HP terms.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Does not matter. As already established by others: access to magic always dwarves anything else you bring to the table.
I never acknowledged the analysis in the article.

It doesn't, though, that's the point, because EK doesn't get strong enough magic compared to a full caster. They don't get enough spells to do utility and combat - whereas a full caster does. An EK has to pick - and most will pick combat. If they don't pick combat, then, they are actually are "underpowered" in combat compared to a BM. EKs have to go very hard into combat spells (particularly Shadow Blade) to even stay close to BMs.