D&D 5E Companion thread to 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part XV: The FINAL ROUND)

[Ancalagon]

Full casters in general, and wizards in particular, have the potential at higher level of "molding the game". It's what makes running high level games challenging. It's not about doing more damage, or better control of the battlefield. It's the capacity to manipulate events.

This makes them very difficult to balance properly, because the "value" of that capacity is tremendously table dependent.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The last page of this thread?

Did you look at it before posting that? The last page basically two posters arguing about smite damage vs. fighter ability. The only mention I saw of wizards was about it casting Hold Person:

also you can turn this upside down too, maybe your wizaerrd is about to lay Hold Person on several of them so you don't want him focusing on wounded ones.

Most of the time it's not outright 'Don't nerf my Wizard' and more 'Naaah, the Wizard is fine! No need to nerf it! Fighters should just role-play more!'...

Hmm... maybe. I don't recall much of people simply claiming "Fighters should just role-play more...", but I know many people who don't want the Wizard nerfed have said things like "Then make the Fighter more powerful."

and you have outliers like ECMO3 who claims 'choosing weapon and armor' as a Fighter is somehow complicated?! Not that I want to rag on the guy, but he always throws me for a loop with his experience.

LOL if they claimed that I would probably ignore just about anything else they have to say.

Full casters in general, and wizards in particular, have the potential at higher level of "molding the game". It's what makes running high level games challenging. It's not about doing more damage, or better control of the battlefield. It's the capacity to manipulate events.

This makes them very difficult to balance properly, because the "value" of that capacity is tremendously table dependent.

Very true and well put.

This leads to another issue of contention. Spellcasters can often do things outside of combat that martials cannot. Outside of combat, many martials have nothing other than skills to rely on. This becomes more apparent as levels continue to rise.

However, in combat those martials can shape an encounter tremendously IME. Yet, unfortunately, so can most spellcasters. I think this leads to the feeling of imbalance between the two.

Still, I really can't understand the "remove the wizard from the game" mentality. If it is just preference, that's cool (I don't like Sorcerers or Warlocks as classes, for example) but I know that is just my preference because. It isn't because I find them too powerful or too weak or have issues with their features over all.

 

[Gradine]

Unfortunately, WotC has thrown balance out the window.

Is it? Unfortunate, that is? Is a lack of class balance a bug, or is it a feature?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Is it? Unfortunate, that is? Is a lack of class balance a bug, or is it a feature?

Bug.

Like when those Samsung phones exploded type bug.

 

[CleverNickName]

Is it? Unfortunate, that is? Is a lack of class balance a bug, or is it a feature?

Hmmm...that's a good point. Do you even want (need?) the different character classes to be the same?

 

[Aldarc]

Is it? Unfortunate, that is? Is a lack of class balance a bug, or is it a feature?

If you enjoy playing the privileged classes on top of the others, it’s a feature.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Is it? Unfortunate, that is? Is a lack of class balance a bug, or is it a feature?

Bug.

Something (which rarely happens) @Vaalingrade and I agree on.

Hmmm...that's a good point. Do you even want (need?) the different character classes to be the same?

The same? No. Balanced? Yes.

Balance can be obtained in a number of ways, and in prior editions they existed in those ways. In 5E, they have mostly been cast aside. I have read people posting this was because of blowback from 4E, but I can't really say about that.

 

[Ancalagon]

. In 5E, they have mostly been cast aside.

... compared to 3.x, 5e casters have been reduced in potency, by a LOT.

 

[Vaalingrade]

... compared to 3.x, 5e casters have been reduced in potency, by a LOT.

I think he's alluding the 2e 'let's just make things tedious' balance like aging and system shock and such.

But you're right. Casters have less power in 5e. Except so does everyone else. Rogues used to be amazing at damage, Fighters at least got feats, and Rangers... existed, which is still better than whatever they're doing in 5e.

 

[DND_Reborn]

... compared to 3.x, 5e casters have been reduced in potency, by a LOT.

Sure, but that is only one part of balance.

I think he's alluding the 2e 'let's just make things tedious' balance like aging and system shock and such.

LOL partly, but also longer casting times so spells can be interrupted in combat, choosing all your prepared spells by slot instead of free-casting prepared spells, getting rid of spell foci and spell component pouches so spell components actually matter, etc.

But you're right. Casters have less power in 5e. Except so does everyone else. Rogues used to be amazing at damage, Fighters at least got feats, and Rangers... existed, which is still better than whatever they're doing in 5e.

It seems like those things are still in 5E, just reduced (less power), right?

TBH, I only played 3E for about a year (if that) and only had cursory look at 4E. So, I can't really make comparisons between them and 5E, other than hearsay.