D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Shadowedeyes]

Or we could just not have one class be more powerful than the others?

(Perfect Balance is probably unachievable, I know, I know. Doesn't mean we can't try to make things better. The enemy of the good is the perfect after all.)

 

[ECMO3]

Or we could just not have one class be more powerful than the others?

(Perfect Balance is probably unachievable, I know, I know. Doesn't mean we can't try to make things better. The enemy of the good is the perfect after all.)

I reject the hypothesis that balanced is "better"

4E was more balanced than 5E. There is no doubt about it, yet 5E is VASTLY more popular.

If balance was a good thing, why did 4E fail? Why is it the numbers who prefer 4E to 5E very small even among the grognards that played both?

We should try to make the game enjoyable, not balanced and WOTC has done that in spades with this edition. I think the lack of balance and putting each class in the place that makes sense is a small part of that popularity. Affirmitive action to boost the weak classes will not make the game better, it will be going backwards.

 

[Mecheon]

It is not too strong. I think it is about just right. It is good that it is more powerful than the other classes though. I think it makes sense thematically and makes the story better.

I disagree strongly. It isn't better for one class to be adbsurdly stronger. I submit as my evidence the decades of discussions held since the existence of the Cavalier, which very much fell into this issue as its attempts to keep it balanced weren't great either. You can have "The one strong class" if you're playing a single-player RPG, but D&D isn't a single player RPG. Its a multi person one. There is no main character and the idea that "You picked this, therefore you're the Big Special Class above the other players" just would offend me as a player at this metaphorical table.

Frankly, the other way to resolve the issue is to nerf the wizard so its on par with everyone else, but my go-to with balancing has always been 'bring everyone up to the same level' rather than dragging folks down.

We should try to make the game enjoyable, not balanced and WOTC has done that in spades with this edition. I think the lack of balance and putting each class in the place that makes sense is a small part of that. We don't need to go backwards.

3.5E was also ridiculously unbalanced in the wizard's favour, and that isn't as popular as 5E. So I'd contend the counter, that being balanced or not has nothing to do with popuarlity.

The balance is there because you want the game to be fun for all of the people playing, and all of them to have an equal input in things going on. If the game becomes "Wizard no-sells encounters while the fighteer just has to twiddle his thumbs", that's a person who's not having fun. And based on the number of "Fixes for Beastmaster Ranger" and "Fixes for Four Elements Monk" stuff that's out there, people don't want classes that are unbalanced in poor directions, they want to be able to contribute and will call out things that don't let them contribute.

 

[Minigiant]

Thought experiment: you're playing a fighter and your DM offers you the ability to trade off your Extra Attack feature for the ability to, once per short rest, move incredibly quickly and strike all enemies in a 40 foot line, causing them to need to make a dexterity saving throw against 8 + your PB + your Strength or Dexterity. Anyone who fails the saving throw takes 8d6 damage, anyone who passes takes half damage.

Is giving a martial themed lightning bolt to the fighter fundamentally broken? Or do we need to keep dealing with fighters who walk forward and give 'em the bonk?

A warrior running forward and making a single attack on every for in range isn't too crazy. It's basic swordmaster stuff.

8d6 damage and it being a save is off me home but..


Lightning Attack

As an action, you move in a straight line equal to double your remaining walking speed. You can make a attack against any creature you move within 5 feet of during this movement.

 

[James Gasik]

A warrior running forward and making a single attack on every for in range isn't too crazy. It's basic swordmaster stuff.

8d6 damage and it being a save is off me home but..


Lightning Attack

As an action, you move in a straight line equal to double your remaining walking speed. You can make a attack against any creature you move within 5 feet of during this movement.

Why can't a warrior do 8d6 damage though? No one seems to mind when a Rogue does 8d6 damage.

 

[Minigiant]

Why can't a warrior do 8d6 damage though? No one seems to mind when a Rogue does 8d6 damage.

The rogue can only do it to once a turn.

8d6 to 2+ targets should require a resource.

I wrote Lightning Attack as at will.

Lightning Attack (Weapon+Mod damage in a line) or Fireball Attack (Weapon+Mod damage in a burst) is an appropriate at will Action for a level 11 fighter.

(But this is too much fighter talk in a wizard thread.)

 

[James Gasik]

The rogue can only do it to once a turn.

8d6 to 2+ targets should require a resource.

I wrote Lightning Attack as at will.

Lightning Attack (Weapon+Mod damage in a line) or Fireball Attack (Weapon+Mod damage in a burst) is an appropriate at will Action for a level 11 fighter.

(But this is too much fighter talk in a wizard thread.)

Well, the Rogue isn't doing that damage until like level 14 anyways. I don't see why a Fighter can't be doing similar damage at that level, and so what if it affects more than one guy vs. the Rogue doing single target damage- shouldn't a Fighter be better at fighting mobs than a sneak thief?

 

[Minigiant]

Well, the Rogue isn't doing that damage until like level 14 anyways. I don't see why a Fighter can't be doing similar damage at that level, and so what if it affects more than one guy vs. the Rogue doing single target damage- shouldn't a Fighter be better at fighting mobs than a sneak thief?

Well it should.

Lightning Attack vs 3 foes deals more than 8d6 total. It's just spread out.

 

[SakanaSensei]

I dislike the idea that “wizards can do this at level 5, but martials doing it ever sounds kinda OP.” I chose 8d6 for a very deliberate reason.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Indomitable doesn't count? It's not legendary resistance, but that's reserved for monsters.

So they need Hulk or Superman levels of strength? Able to throw tanks like they were frisbees?

Can any class do that? Exactly what kind of power would this be? It's quite situational, but you're talking about what ... super intimidate?

You clearly have a different definition of powerful than I, or people I play with, do. What you're talking about is mythic level/comic book superhero. You want demigods, I want mortals who are fighters of legend but still ultimately mortal. I've played martial types to 20th level and they felt plenty powerful to me.

I agree that your suggestions would make them powerful. I have no idea how you'd balance it out. I also don't see how it would fit D&D.

I was getting ready for bed when I posted last night, so I overlooked this, but you seem hell bent on characterizing my suggestions in the most negative (from your perspective anyway) light possible.

The three examples I gave can be done without any superpowers whatsoever in terms of justifying their fictional positioning.

A death attack with no save. This is the easiest one (and also the one you seem to have skipped over addressing). The fighter, rather than having to hack through the entire pool of ablative HP, gets an ability that lets them skip to the front of the line. Easily flavored as stabbing a creature in the heart or chopping off its head, which is obviously something that the guy who is best at fighting ought to be able to do.

Tearing through a porticulis like it were made of paper. Okay, I'll grant that my description gave this a superheroic feel, but that's obviously not necessary. The fighter grabs a two handed weapon, and using his exceptional ability to assess his surroundings, determines the optimal point to strike the porticulis, rending an opening. Exceptional? Yes. Superhuman? No. I've seen my buddy pull off similar stunts and he's a carpenter (in other words, not a warrior of legend).

Making a regiment of soldiers back down with a glare? This is classic stuff drawn from stories. It's about presence, which real people do possess. Intimidation is not a super power. And again, no, it does not count as part of the class if it's done via DM fiat. The wizard can route the regiment by casting Fear. The fighter can't even give the soldiers pause (despite being an alleged warrior of legend).

You say that the high level fighter ought to be a warrior of legend, as opposed to a super hero. Okay. Then why don't I see fighters being able to do things that seem perfectly reasonable for legendary warriors to do?


As an aside, to the folks making the argument that fighters are fine because folks still play them. I see a lot of people agreeing that the wizard/fighter disparity was a real issue in 3e. Even from people who think it doesn't exist in 5e. Yet people still played fighters in 3e. Just a little something for you to chew on.