D&D 5E 5th Edition -- Caster Rule, Martials Drool?

[Minigiant]

My experiences with casters and noncasters have shown that noncaster are a lot more efficent in combat, athletics, and stealth. Casters can outdo noncasters but it tends to be either build limited, very slot expensive, risky, temporary, or require near perfect set ups.

Our mage levitated the team archer over the owlbear and an giant bird stole him. And we couldn't chase it because we had no level 3 slots left. But that was DM shenanigans.

Overall in our short game, a caster's best AOE damage did just about the same or less than as a warrior's damage to each target and their best Single target did less with an effect or equal to a warriors good round if they roll well.

As for utility and trickery. Spell sots were too precious. If the noncaster could do it, we let them. There were no throwaway slots nor "in case of' scrolls/wands.

 

[sunshadow21]

It was a bit unique in essentially being near the 'natural' end of it's run at release. Hasn't seemed to hold Paizo back, though.

Perhaps. Are those the classes from the survey mentioned a few posts upthread?

Paizo certainly does seem to be displaying a lot more 'agility' in the market than WotC.

This is the last formal count I could find; I listed all the classic classes, there are more votes beyond that rogue, but it's gets pretty sparse for cohesive support at that point. Oracle, Barbarian, Ranger, and Sorcerer are all noted as being generally more flavorful as cleric, fighter, and wizard while filling the same role. There's no clear replacement for the rogue, but several of the new ACG classes have popped up as potentially viable. It's hard to say how most of the ACG classes will fit in just yet. In the end, neither pure martials nor wizard like casters fared well. Paizo, however, has the advantage that they don't have the massive weight of history to fight if they can show that most people don't care for the classic classes; they made their brand around Golarion and not around the rules, so changes over time like this one don't really hurt them. Changing the classes they choose to feature won't hurt them as long as the basic mechanics they end up using are reasonably compatible with existing material. WotC doesn't have that luxury; their entire brand is written around those 4 roles and the expectations that come with them. Because they've changed mechanics so many times, and haven't been able to decide on a single IP to be their core world, they have nothing else to fall back on but the classic races and classes. Thus, any changes to those classes will be felt far more keenly in the absence of any other stabilizing material in the system.

Bard - 51 votes
Barbarian - 44 votes
Sorcerer - 38 votes
Oracle - 33 votes
Alchemist - 32 votes
Inquisitor - 30 votes
Cleric - 28 votes
Ranger - 27 votes
Magus - 26 votes
Druid - 26 votes
Fighter - 26 votes
Slayer - 24 votes
Paladin - 22 votes
Wizard - 21 votes
Witch - 20 votes
Monk - 16 votes
Rogue - 16 votes

 

[pemerton]

My experiences with casters and noncasters

At what levels?

 

[I'm A Banana]

So far as I've seen, most of the claims of casters being too powerful are only theorycraft, without much actual play experience. That makes a certain amount of sense -- probably more people have read the 5e PHB than have played 5e at this point in time.

Most of the actual play experience I've seen or heard or read about basically matches [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] 's report above, and seems to be the intent of the design: martial characters are consistent, spellcasters fluctuate between extremes.

This is actually just about the power curve that, say, 4e Slayers had in comparison to 4e Weaponmasters. Maybe a tetch up or two on the knob from that, but not much (5e casters still have encounter powers; 5e martial classes do, too). It's an attractive difference in play that is part of the charm of D&D for a lot of folks.

The gamebreaking combos don't seem to be a real issue in most play reports I've seen.

Regardless of the lack of gain for non-spellcasters, this is one of the reasons why Background Traits had me initially intrigued by 5e's potential, final iteration. They provide some manner of mundane, thematic trump card/fiat ability to all characters, not just spellcasters. No one seemed to get their panties in too much of a twist over them. I wonder then why sprinkling such abilities throughout the mundane classes would (inevitably) make people lose their minds.

I am going to be more than a little surprised if the DMG (and even the MM) does not contain more out-of-combat options for characters to do their shenanigans, but the reason they aren't in the PHB I'd imagine is pretty much because that's not what fighters and thieves are to a lot of D&D fans. IE, those elements are much more DM-dependant. Not every thief wants to join a guild, not every fighter raises an army.

Right now, in Basic, the fighter and the rogue are the Kill Guys person and the Sneak About person, respectively, which is precisely where they should be given D&D history (I'd also note that a rogue is arguably the Talk To Folks person, because EXPERTISE!). Wizards are the Swiss Army Knife class, which is also basically what they have been in D&D history, too (and now in 5e, they can't dominate in any region, though they can contribute to any of the three pillars quite well on a momentary spike basis). Clerics are the Undo button (and not the self-buff rampager that they were in 3e). For a basic "four folks go into a dungeon and kill some stuff" adventure, that's pretty much what the D&D experience probably should be. Every character has their place, no one class dominates all the time, and the contributions aren't so binary as to be insane.

I daresay this is basically working as intended from a design goal standpoint...at least so far.

 

[Quickleaf]

Do you feel that worked as an approach to balance?

Well, the reason I was asking about folks' actual play experiences with 5e is because I don't have extensive experience with the system. I suspect there are things that at knee jerk / theory level remind folks of different editions, but there may be subtleties in rules that we miss without playing, or the play experience ends up different than how it reads.

I'm questioning what "balance" means, whether it is actually a thing that is experienced at my table or not. Right now we're in between games for life reasons and may be starting up a 5e campaign... in the interim I'm just trying to get a better feel from others about the game. True, the ultimate test is at my table, but it can only help me as DM knowing what works (or doesn't) for others.

Maybe the better question is simple "Was everyone having fun throughout the session? Could their fun have been improved in any way?"

Anyhow, in the playtest example I gave, my group seemed to be having modest fun, but could definitely have been better. Unfortunately, a lot of my impression was colored by the adventure - Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle - being a miserable little railroad. Additionally I found the group...how do I say this politely...hard to roleplay with? I really was getting into character and adlibbing stuff and it was like pulling teeth trying to get any of the players to step outside their bubbles and roleplay (in the "I say what my character says" characterization sense). As far as the actual fighter...I always have fun playing no matter what...so I would say my enjoyment of the fighter was not in the class mechanics but more in being a skilled Old School player and having a flamboyant character personality. The rules were bland, but that has never stopped me from having fun. At least they didn't get in the way of having fun.

While others noticed the difference between wizard and fighter, as a group we tended to gloss over it to focus on the fun hijinx of play and not get too caught up on the system.

 

[Stalker0]

So far as I've seen, most of the claims of casters being too powerful are only theorycraft, without much actual play experience.

As far as raw power...I would agree. Especially to see how the concentration mechanic really plays out.


In terms of caster utility...I think theorycraft can highlighting the range of abilities a caster gets that a noncaster does not. I think what experience will show is how often can the casters do it with the new low slot system?

 

[pemerton]

So far as I've seen, most of the claims of casters being too powerful are only theorycraft, without much actual play experience.

<snip>

The gamebreaking combos don't seem to be a real issue in most play reports I've seen.

Well, the reason I was asking about folks' actual play experiences with 5e is because I don't have extensive experience with the system. I suspect there are things that at knee jerk / theory level remind folks of different editions, but there may be subtleties in rules that we miss without playing, or the play experience ends up different than how it reads.

The only reports of actual play at mid-to-high levels that I've read are coming from [MENTION=6777377]Jack the Lad[/MENTION]. Who is reporting issues. (That said, I'm not sure what level(s) [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] is playing at.)

I'm not too worried about 1st to 4th level, as the wizard's low number of slots are likely to be a fairly hard cap, except perhaps in a certain sort of city or similar urban intrigue/exploration adventure.

But Jack the Lad's reports of high level play seem to be confirming my theory-crafting concerns.

Wizards are the Swiss Army Knife class, which is also basically what they have been in D&D history, too

My concern is that they seem capable of shining in combat when the mood strikes them, and will likely dominate utility-type stuff due to their extreme versatility.

I'm questioning what "balance" means, whether it is actually a thing that is experienced at my table or not.

<snip>

Maybe the better question is simple "Was everyone having fun throughout the session? Could their fun have been improved in any way?"

<snip>

Unfortunately, a lot of my impression was colored by the adventure - Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle - being a miserable little railroad.

<snip>

As far as the actual fighter...I always have fun playing no matter what...so I would say my enjoyment of the fighter was not in the class mechanics but more in being a skilled Old School player and having a flamboyant character personality. The rules were bland, but that has never stopped me from having fun. At least they didn't get in the way of having fun.

To be honest, that's not a play report that's selling me on 5e!

If you had wanted to break out of the railroad, did you feel that, playing a fighter, you had the mechanical resources to do so?

 

[Quickleaf]

To be honest, that's not a play report that's selling me on 5e!

If you had wanted to break out of the railroad, did you feel that, playing a fighter, you had the mechanical resources to do so?

Maybe it was our DM, but Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle just struck me as an utter railroad, and there wasn't anything any class could do about it. And the swamp portion, which had a couple open-ended goals didn't give us any reason to care about them. I think this speaks to the quality of the adventure, and not the 5e system; the system reminded me a lot of AD&D with slicker rules. Disclaimer: I haven't read the adventure, so I just have my impressions as a player, and we only played five sessions or so.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

It might be hard to anecdotally confirm that this isn't an issue now, because there are a good number of people who didn't even see it as an issue in 3.5, and there are plenty more who will see anything short of 4e's broad mechanical equality as unplayable.

 

[Sadras]

Using the PHB rules with 7th level characters we have had no problems so far, only 1 session in, playing an add-on to the TToEE where the PCs investigated a stone quarry near the Temple which was supplying it with building materials. As DM I have toned down the magic for the setting.

• Limited the cantrips between short rests (casting in excess would lead to Fatigue, Spell Casting Failure for normal spells.
• Removed spells Invisibility, Fly, Gaseous Form, Raise Dead, Resurrection, Revivify, Speak with Dead,
• Healing does not mend broken noses, limp arms, mangled wrists, lame legs..etc unless the healing is cast immediately. Otherwise after a short period of time, casting healing on such injuries just closes the wound, stops the bleeding and any pain.
• Haste has a possibility of attaching a necromantic component on spell's effects which slightly ages the character.
• Casters need to have 10 + x in the casting ability stat to cast spell level x.

Characters played Outlander Fighter (primarily archer), Sage Wizard Abjurer, Acolyte Cleric Warpriest, Fighter-Thief Criminal and Soldier Fighter Champion (Knight).

They had one protracted TotM fight in an open stone quarry against a group of slaver bugbears, the giant Bugbear dreadlock-wearing leader and his 4 protective female warrior-wives/mistresses. They used the terrain and surprise to their advantage all done through a series of skill checks.

• Wizard did not dominate combat, he mostly assisted and directed combat (Ray of Frost, Slow spell, Hold Person)
• The non-casters were loving their feats which they surprisingly were able to use all of them within one session- Alertness, Heavy Armour Master, Mounted Combat, Mobile, Athlete, Sharpshooter, Shield Master, Magic (Druid) Initiate, they felt it provided them with versatility. Even the Wizard was useful with his Linguist Feat.

It was really an interlude session with pregen characters I drew up. They liked their characters, two of the five will be drawing up their own for when we officially start - as their previous playtest characters perished in a TPK.

I do think a lot of the enjoyment has to with DM style, adventure and your players, but I have not experienced any short-comings in the system thus far. Can't speak for higher level play, it will be a long while before we get there.