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.

 

[Gradine]

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.

Balance without sameyness is a crapshoot, and way more subjective than it might appear. White room DPS math is one thing, but actual play is so varied that what is "balanced" will be wildly different from table to table. I've seen abilities referred to as "ribbons" that have changed the course of campaigns.

Outside of 4e's AEDU uniformity (which i don't necessarily think was a bad thing, mind), 5e is by far the most "balanced" edition of the game, for as much as it's even possible

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

All things that made casting super tedious except maybe casting times.

Per slot spell prep in particular isn't on fire enough.

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

That's the issue. Everything got downgraded, so the actual gap is the same.

 

[CleverNickName]

That sorcerer is just hanging on by a thread! I wonder how much better it would have been doing in this contest if a different subclass had made it into the finals...most of the commentary seems to be "stay out of the cleric's lane!"

 

[CreamCloud0]

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."

It’s usually a discussion that boils down to the following:
“Wizard spells give them large amounts of direct influence in all three game pillars, fighters only have the combat pillar and they don’t excel at that enough to justify only being competent in it alone”
“Well fighters have their skills and feats and backgrounds right? They can use those for leverage in the other game pillars”
“Except wizards have access to skills, feats and backgrounds too, but with spells on top of those that are often auto-successes bypassing the need to roll at all, and the fighter’s feats are often required to be consumed on combat oriented feats to keep pace on DPR”

 

[DND_Reborn]

way more subjective than it might appear.

True, and that is unfortunately the biggest issue with it.

5e is by far the most "balanced" edition of the game, for as much as it's even possible

I always found 1E to be more balanced. But again, it is subjective--as you say.

All things that made casting super tedious except maybe casting times.

Tedious to you (and probably others, I'm sure!), but not for me (or others as well, I know), but they did help balance things.

Per slot spell prep in particular isn't on fire enough.

But is a HUGE balancing point, regardless.

It’s usually a discussion that boils down to the following:
“Wizard spells give them large amounts of direct influence in all three game pillars, fighters only have the combat pillar and they don’t excel at that enough to justify only being competent in it alone”
“Well fighters have their skills and feats and backgrounds right? They can use those for leverage in the other game pillars”
“Except wizards have access to skills, feats and backgrounds too, but with spells on top of those that are often auto-successes bypassing the need to roll at all, and the fighter’s feats are often required to be consumed on combat oriented feats to keep pace on DPR”

Sure, that is a typical back-and-forth. I know (for myself) I argued the bonus feats fighters get could be used of those other pillars, as they other feats can help with keep pace on DPR (something I've never concerned myself with in any serious fashion).

However, I also recognized that wasn't really enough to match what spellcasters (again, not just wizards) could do. So, balancing spellcasters (which can be done in a number of ways--my preference) or increasing martials (not so much my preference, although I think they need a bump anyway... just not as much as some others want) is the way to go, or a point of both in between.

 

[Vaalingrade]

How about we just not make spell design better with no 'I win' buttons and problem solving tools that scale with what other classes get, ignore the guys complaining about the nerf to what requires nerfing and not use balance by annoyance at all?

 

[DND_Reborn]

How about we just not make spell design better with no 'I win' buttons and problem solving tools that scale with what other classes get,

Go for it!

I'd be interested to see what you come up with.

ignore the guys complaining about the nerf to what requires nerfing and not use balance by annoyance at all?

Well, ignoring them when they are trying to help is sort of rude. If you don't like their solutions (no issue) propose ones and show the work.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well, ignoring them when they are trying to help is sort of rude.

Good thing they never are!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Good thing they never are!

Yeah, really nice to see we're back to not agreeing on anything. It felt unnatural when we were.

I mean, you know you will never get rid of wizards in D&D, right? And they will probably just become more and more powerful so you can complain more and more. Maybe that will make you happy?

Cheers!

 

[Tonguez]

“Except wizards have access to skills, feats and backgrounds too, but with spells on top of those that are often auto-successes bypassing the need to roll at all, and the fighter’s feats are often required to be consumed on combat oriented feats to keep pace on DPR”

yes spellcasting should require a skill check just like weapon use does, auto-success spells suck. There needs to be more focus on other pillars and making everything a skill check would help balance things better.

While I didnt play 4e, I’ve been looking at martial powers and thinking that they might have been on to something …