D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Garthanos]

Even that's too many for a daily encounter total. A game should be balanced such that the DM can decide to challenge the whole group with 1 hard encounter or 9 much easier ones. It should be up to the DM how many happen in a day.

I am definitely a story driven kind of dm and making refresh a somewhat arbitrary thing works for me even when peoples refresh are approximately the same in the 4e environment. In 4e you have 2 encounters being one form of refresh called a milestone and 13A made their climactic/dailies refresh after 4 encounters. I have heard many 4e DMs talk about doing the 4 encounters as a house rule (which is I assume where 13A got it). The house rule allows higher consistency/predictability of threat. (though some encounters are likely skill challenges they can deplete or involve spending the parties healing surges or involve spending resources from powers to action points or money and similar)

 

[ECMO3]

My int is that D&D's social and exploration mechanics are not as complex as their combat ones.

I don't think that is necessarily true and it depends entirely on the game and DM.

Moreover I will say though that social interaction in particular is not always a party endeavor and often not even usually a party endeavor.

Language and situational factors often dictate which party member completes a "face check". Sometimes you can plan a face situation and strategize as to who would be best, but just as often there is no choice. Want to talk the Hill Giants into leaving Goldenfields alone, well you need someone who speaks Giant and if the only guy that can do that is your 8 Charisma Rune Knight then he is going to be the one doing it (real example from WOTC adventure).

In the example above I had a cute Rogue I built to be a face. Fey Touched background, 14 Charisma, Deception and Intimidation expertise and persuasion proficiency. Arcane Trickster with friends along with minor illusion and disguise self through race (Glasya Tiefling). Minor illusion is great to use on face checks, specifically deception or intimidation (causing a sound of whatever you are saying is waiting around the corner). It was a 3-person party with the above mentioned fighter and a Barbarian who also had a low charisma.

It was the biggest charisma check in that particular game and the one face we had could not speak their language. I think that kind of thing happens often on the social interactions.

Who gets to be the Face if there are 2 Charisma checks per session and 4 PC running a Faces?

Maybe the player who is not a face at all because he is the one who is there when it happens.

Examples from real play on the 3-face party I talked about earlier - We have 3 faces (Paladin, Rogue, Warlock), but it was the diviner who cast disguise self on himself and went into a gambling hall to get some information from the evil town mayor who was gambling. The Mayor knew who we were and what we looked like. None of the other characters could have pulled it off even though all of them are much "better" at charisma checks.

Another example from another WOTC adventure - A Gnome king sent the party to broker a treaty with some wererat Gnomes that were walled off in a corner of the city. As soon as we entered their area the wererat guards attacked us, which would have totally doomed up our mission. I was playing a mostly Bladesinger with an Undead Warlock dip and 13 charisma. I won initiative and went into form of dread (which looked like Skeletor from the he-man cartoon) and used my action to tell the wererats "Stand Down! We didn't come to fight but if we are to fight I am happy to send your souls to be tormented by my mistress for eternity." DM-Intimidation check with advantage but no proficiency - success. There were multiple players in that party that would have been better at that check than me, but I was the only person who could try it before blood was shed.

I think this happens a LOT on social checks, if not most of the time often enough. It is why I almost always invest in charisma over constitution, even if not building a "face".

Just1 or 2 Cha checks. Not enough for 2 Faces to feel lke Faces like how you can have 2 Damage Dealers.

I think that is play style. I try to use charisma checks more than most people do at my table, to include using it in combat a fair amount and my DMs usually allow it if it makes sense.

There is a lot of opportunity if people make their own opportunity. In one party we had a Bard, a Fighter-bladesinger with a 10 charisma but with performance proficiency and proficiency in a bugle and a Barbarian with bagpipe proficiency through background. The bladesinger also had a Raven familiar with the mimicry trait.

The Bard was really the only dedicated face and the only actual good musician, but we performed quite often as a group, with the Raven making sounds to go along with the tune, my character doing the singing and occasionally the horn and using minor illusion either for visuals or sounds, the Barbarian playing the bagpipes and the Bard playing and singing and doing everything else. We did this in several taverns, we did this on a sea voyage to entertain the crew and got crew members to join in, we did it to brighten the spirits in a town after a battle. We all rolled checks for that every time. Most times we were successful, some times we weren't, but we made that opportunity ourselves, it was not part of the story and wasn't planned as a party theme ahead of time. After we started playing the game and learned each others features we decided to do this frequently. I suppose the DM could have stopped us, but why would he?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sure.

So the claim was that the fighter gets 8 things to do over 8 fights and the wizard gets 16 things to do, which is silly since the 3rd level Battle Master had 15, but okay.

Since this is about resources spent and basic attacks and cantrips are not resources spent, and are roughly equal, those will be eliminated from both classes.

The wizard has 21 total spell slots for the day. He can get back 10 spell levels of 6th or lower. I'll give him 2 5th level spells. So 23 total slots. He needs to use 16 of them in the 8 combats, so with the 2 bonus 5th level spells, and spending his highest slots, he uses up every 4th-9th level slots plus 2 of his 3 3rd level slots. That leaves him with 4 1st, 3 2nd and 1 3rd level spell to dominate the rogue with in exploration(ain't happening).

Now the Diviner is a popular subclass, so I'll use that. Diviner adds 3 uses of Portent.

So 16 spells and 3 uses of portent for 19 things to do in 8 encounters.

Now the 20th level Battle Master. 6 Action Surges per day. 7 maneuvers known. 18 superiority dice(if we put him on Krynn he'd have like 30 dice, but...). He gets 3 uses Indomitable. 3 uses of Second Wind. He also has Relentless. Since he has 4 attacks, this isn't optimal, but I'm showing just how many possible things he can do in 8 encounters, so I'm using a superiority die on every attack.

I will assume 3 out of 4 attacks hit, because hitting is easy at high levels. I'm also going to assume 3 round combats. So all 6 dice are used up in 2 rounds, and he gets 1 extra superiority die in round 3. So combat #1 he uses 7 dice. Combat #2 he uses 7 dice. Combat #3 he uses 7 dice. Now he's out for the day, so he only get 3 dice for encounters #4-8. Total superiority dice used 33.

So 33 superiority dice, 6 action surges, 3 second winds, 3 indomitable for 45 things to do over 8 encounters.

So we have the Battle Master still have more than double the resources to use over 8 encounters than the 20th level Wizard. Now of course the Wizard might have some combat spells chosen for Signature Spells or Spell Mastery, but I see more non-combat stuff chosen there.

Having thought about it some more, I think that your analysis and mine demonstrate something relevant that I've been making an argument for this whole thread (long before this thread, technically speaking).

Better fighter design would narrow the gap between wizards and martials considerably. Obviously, the gap between the Battlemaster you used as an example, and the Champion that I contrasted it with, is stark. 33 ability uses vs 12 over the course of a full adventure day? Yikes!

Imagine, if you will, if every fighter got superiority dice. Throw a maneuver in there that just deals big damage for a fighter player who just wants a nice "point and clunk" feature. Maybe maneuvers could (dare I dream) have higher level versions, not unlike spells? Utility would be a no-brainer, since the designers have already shown that they're interested in adding utility maneuvers.

Best of all, they could easily implement something like this in the revision.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think that is necessarily true and it depends entirely on the game and DM.

Moreover I will say though that social interaction in particular is not always a party endeavor and often not even usually a party endeavor.

Language and situational factors often dictate which party member completes a "face check". Sometimes you can plan a face situation and strategize as to who would be best, but just as often there is no choice. Want to talk the Hill Giants into leaving Goldenfields alone, well you need someone who speaks Giant and if the only guy that can do that is your 8 Charisma Rune Knight then he is going to be the one doing it (real example from WOTC adventure).

In the example above I had a cute Rogue I built to be a face. Fey Touched background, 14 Charisma, Deception and Intimidation expertise and persuasion proficiency. Arcane Trickster with friends along with minor illusion and disguise self through race (Glasya Tiefling). Minor illusion is great to use on face checks, specifically deception or intimidation (causing a sound of whatever you are saying is waiting around the corner). It was a 3-person party with the above mentioned fighter and a Barbarian who also had a low charisma.

It was the biggest charisma check in that particular game and the one face we had could not speak their language. I think that kind of thing happens often on the social interactions.

I think you are missing one thing...

Maybe the player who is not a face at all because he is the one who is there when it happens.

Examples from real play on the 3-face party I talked about earlier - We have 3 faces (Paladin, Rogue, Warlock), but it was the diviner who cast disguise self on himself and went into a gambling hall to get some information from the evil town mayor who was gambling. The Mayor knew who we were and what we looked like. None of the other characters could have pulled it off even though all of them are much "better" at charisma checks.

Another example from another WOTC adventure - A Gnome king sent the party to broker a treaty with some wererat Gnomes that were walled off in a corner of the city. As soon as we entered their area the wererat guards attacked us, which would have totally doomed up our mission. I was playing a mostly Bladesinger with an Undead Warlock dip and 13 charisma. I won initiative and went into form of dread (which looked like Skeletor from the he-man cartoon) and used my action to tell the wererats "Stand Down! We didn't come to fight but if we are to fight I am happy to send your souls to be tormented by my mistress for eternity." DM-Intimidation check with advantage but no proficiency - success. There were multiple players in that party that would have been better at that check than me, but I was the only person who could try it before blood was shed.

I think this happens a LOT on social checks, if not most of the time often enough. It is why I almost always invest in charisma over constitution, even if not building a "face".

... single events are not the same as providing a role.

If someone wants to be a face or a sage, the DM should allow them to.

However if 2 people want to both have the experience of the face or the sage, it gets iffy. Because on purpose D&D doesn't have a complex social nor exploration ruleset. D&D does not have a base system to constantly and consistently carve out multiple parts of a social or exploration role without seriously altering the game. If you don't heavily add to or alter the game, one player will be unfulfilled.

 

[Undrave]

I think he should do it better because he is a wizard. It makes sense for me for a Wizard to be the most powerful class. It makes no sense that fighters should be just as powerful or versatile.

Who cares if he's a friggin' Wizard? Who decided Wizard had to be the most powerful class all the time? This is just imposing your favorite archetype on other people. Typical Wizard player behavior "Wizard HAVE to be the strongest class, they're Wizards!" so friggin' what? Who say so? In most fiction before the Wizard's the BAD GUY Who gets his head chopped by Conan types or the wizen mentor who just lets his brave student embrace his destiny, he's barely a main character. It's all made up, there's no rule to it all.

I can make any BS if I want about Fighters too. They're the best at fighting because they worked HARD and they're not cowards who cheat with Magic. Their strength is pure and overwhelming, and their iron will means they can accomplish anything they set themselves to with their own two hands. Boom, then throw in some Wuxia moves and the Fighter's the best class now.

The social contract is set up front. If we say we are playing 5E RAW then part of that contract is certain classes are more powerful.

Again, that's not what's in the book. Is the book lying? And if it is lying how is that not a problem? The 5e book never says the Wizard is the most powerful class, how is that the default 'social contract' up front?

and Rangers are pretty powerful.

lol no. You will not find a single other person on this board who will agree that Rangers are 'pretty powerful'. People like the Ranger because they like the concept. The Fighter, Rogue and Wizard all have free versions available and are also straight forward concepts for newbies.

 

[Oofta]

Having thought about it some more, I think that your analysis and mine demonstrate something relevant that I've been making an argument for this whole thread (long before this thread, technically speaking).

Better fighter design would narrow the gap between wizards and martials considerably. Obviously, the gap between the Battlemaster you used as an example, and the Champion that I contrasted it with, is stark. 33 ability uses vs 12 over the course of a full adventure day? Yikes!

Imagine, if you will, if every fighter got superiority dice. Throw a maneuver in there that just deals big damage for a fighter player who just wants a nice "point and clunk" feature. Maybe maneuvers could (dare I dream) have higher level versions, not unlike spells? Utility would be a no-brainer, since the designers have already shown that they're interested in adding utility maneuvers.

Best of all, they could easily implement something like this in the revision.

I don't want superiority die when I play a fighter. If I did, I'd play a battlemaster.

 

[Minigiant]

I think your right on standard resourse recover as the only perfect way, but there are probably ways to mitigate the effect so it's not as bad as today.

- if the top level spells were not as powerful then they are not as bad if you can use them all at once. Or you could limit highest levels of spells to one per enounter with some kind of "can't channel that kind of power again without waiting" or whatever reason you want
-- if there were less spells per day that assumed more of a 4 encounter per long rest as default then when there were 1-2 enounters per day or 6-7 it wouldn't be quite as dramatic
-- if short rest features were balanced as encounter powers that you always had instead of also depending on narrative cadence

I'm sure there are more.

Not perfect, but seems like you could still have this different ways of recharging without it being as bad as it is.

I don't think standard resource is require.

I just 8 is too big a number.

You can't have 1 class designed with no resources, 3 classed with immediate access to 2 encounters of resources, and 9 classes with immediate access to 8 encounters of resources.

Then tell the 9 classes "Pace you spells, please!".

 

[Maxperson]

Having thought about it some more, I think that your analysis and mine demonstrate something relevant that I've been making an argument for this whole thread (long before this thread, technically speaking).

Better fighter design would narrow the gap between wizards and martials considerably. Obviously, the gap between the Battlemaster you used as an example, and the Champion that I contrasted it with, is stark. 33 ability uses vs 12 over the course of a full adventure day? Yikes!

Battle Master is at 45. It was just 33 maneuver dice.

Contrasting the champion with any other fighter subclass is probably a mistake. It's designed to be the super simple fighter for people who just don't want to deal with a lot of class decisions. As such, it has decent/good baked in abilities that are constantly active. Increased critical, bonuses to athletics, etc. It's not designed to give options.

Comparing the Battle Master to the Eldritch Knight or the Psi Warrior is better.

Imagine, if you will, if every fighter got superiority dice. Throw a maneuver in there that just deals big damage for a fighter player who just wants a nice "point and clunk" feature. Maybe maneuvers could (dare I dream) have higher level versions, not unlike spells? Utility would be a no-brainer, since the designers have already shown that they're interested in adding utility maneuvers.

There needs to be a champion. I've played with too many people who just want a simple no thinking fighter.

 

[Minigiant]

There needs to be a champion. I've played with too many people who just want a simple no thinking fighter.

The champion shouldn't be the fighter.
The simple warrior should be its own class or part of the barbarian. The lore and fluff matches better that way.

But that's a different story and thread.

 

[Maxperson]

My int is that D&D's social and exploration mechanics are not as complex as their combat ones.

So don't support 2 PCs both playing Face and feeling like theiy are the Party Face without optional rules or a change of style.

That's why there are no real party faces in my game. Will there be one or two charismatic people with good persuasion skills? Probably, but that doesn't matter. The king is not going to just talk to the party face. When he wants to know what the norther tribes will do, he's going to talk to the 9 charisma barbarian and the barbarian is the one that the king is going to expect to answer the question. NPCs don't just talk to one person. That's not realistic.