D&D 5E Feats, class balance and fun

[Waterbizkit]

Hiya!

I'll be brief: We tried Feats and MC. We found they made our games worse. Including them steered character creation and development heavily towards one of the "common builds" you see people who are obsessed with CharOp and DPS. Without Feats? Characters were MUCH more diverse in capabilities and personalities. Roleplaying from the players using their brains and thinking 'outside the box' also increased. Players put more time into trying to think of logical, situational advantages during a fight...rather than spending that time pouring over the books and sheets trying to find some magical synergy between various Feats/Spells/Class-Abilities that would create a "Win" button.

No more Feats or MC for me when I DM 5th. My players outright refuse to play in a game with Feats now...and I don't blame them.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

That's an odd situation you find yourself in I have to say. And I don't say that to criticize you or your players, not in the least, it just seems odd to me. On the one hand you have players who like to improvise, roleplay and "use their brains" when presented with a trimmed down version of the game (or one that doesn't offer the optional rules to be fair). These seem, to me, like the sorts of players that would love the feats that combat optimizers thumb their noses at... things like Actor, Skilled, Linguist, etc. Or players who would enjoy multi-classing because of an interesting character development. Yet, you say that offering them this sort of thing simply leads to the cookie-cutter character op builds we see so often. Seems to me like a player problem rather than a system problem.

I use the term problem very loosely though because it's clearly not an actual problem, you and your players have fun and so things are working as intended for you. Maybe... "interesting mindset" is a better way to phrase it. Either way, not something I'm trying to be critical of, just something I found interesting.

For my own part, I allow feats and multi-classing. I don't have any issues with them myself, so why not. What my players decide to do with their characters is up to them... though in the interest of full disclosure none of them have taken a feat yet.

 

[LapBandit]

So, you are assuming that the enemies fail all saves vs the fireballs, and that you never miss with with the firebolts? Plus you never have a fire immune enemy, and that none of the enemies are capable of casting counterspell?

Assuming average rolls, and assuming you crit on 1 in 20 attacks, that means you critted on one of those firebolts for another 16 points. Total damage: your wizard dealt out 1,096 damage.

OK, same general assumptions for a lvl 15 fighter - they have a feat (since you have elemental adept), they never miss, and none of their opponents have damage resistance, and they have 30 rounds worth of attacks.

level 15, 20 str, Greatsword, great weapon style (not that it matters with average damage), and for the feat, Great Weapon Master. Damage is 2d6+20 per hit with a non magical greats sword. (or 4d6+22 if they have the legendary weapon Haziwran. )

3 attacks per round, x30 rounds, +3 more attacks with actions surge = 93 attacks. Great weapon master gives a bonus action attack on a crit, assume he crits 1 in 20 rolls, so 4.65 crits, meaning another 4 attacks. Total attack rolls: 97

Average damage per attack: 22 x97 = 2,134 damage. Plus 8d6 for the four crits, so another 28 points of damage. Total: 2,162 damage

This gives us:

Wizard: 1,096 total damage to single targets. 651 damage to groups of 2+ from fireball, the rest is single target fire bolt damage.

Fighter: 2,162 damage to single targets. Or 651 damage to three different targets. If you take away the +10 damage from Great Weapon master, they still do 1,192 damage.

The number goes up if you assume the fighter has a magic sword with bonus damage (or some other way of getting bonus damage dice). Haziwran is a +2 greatsword that does +2d6 necrotic damage. If the fighter had that, they'd do an +5.5 damage per hit on average, for another 533 damage.

I haven't even added in potential damage increases from sub-class features (Champion critting on a 19-20, Battlemaster using Superiority dice, Eldritch Knight using Haste and Fireball). You did add in the +5 damage per firebolt for being a level 10 evoker wizard.

So yeah, a fighter can do that.

Wizards are best at battlefield control and doing AoE damage to clear out groups of lower HP creatures. Plus lots of utility spells.
Fighters are better at standing toe-to-toe with large bags of hit points and whittling them down. Plus various other tricks from feats and sub-class abilities.

Neither of them suck.

Range: Fireball has a 150 foot range. Firebolt has a 120 foot range. The Heavy weapon your fighter is using has a range of 5 feet. The Fighter has to constantly close that distance.

Empowered Evocation: We neglected Empowered Evocation for the Fireballs.

Overchannel: Maximize spell damage, I assume the Evoker chooses his 8th level slot to do this with.

Magic Items: D&D/WotC go to great lengths to let you know that magic items aren't necessary for the game to work. Are you saying (insert shocked face here), that isn't true!?!

Great Weapon Master: Really only useful when you have Advantage or against low AC creatures.

Still sure in a normal adventuring day the Fighter wins? And let's say he does, is the margin acceptable? Given that's ALL THE FIGHTER DOES, the difference is dubious at best in my opinion.

I'd say when I played a fighter to 15th combat usually lasted 3-5 rounds with the first round usually wasted on Dashing to get into range of an enemy, that first round is crucial to success, especially if you have an enemy spell caster as they are likely to change the battlefield in meaningful ways possibly excluding you from attacking them without cost. I agree with you on one point, a powerful magic weapon in the hands of a melee fighter drastically changes the math.

 

[Caliban]

Range: Fireball has a 150 foot range. Firebolt has a 120 foot range. The Heavy weapon your fighter is using has a range of 5 feet. The Fighter has to constantly close that distance.

So in your games all combats start with the opponents 100+ feat apart? That's a problem with your game, not with the fighter class. It's Dungeons and Dragons, not Fields and Felldrakes.

But if you want to go that route, make it a dex based fighter using archery style, Sharpshooter, and Crossbow Expert with hand crossbows. Now the fighter has 120 attacks over 30 rounds...

Empowered Evocation: We neglected Empowered Evocation for the Fireballs.

Overchannel: Maximize spell damage, I assume the Evoker chooses his 8th level slot to do this with.

And as I said, fighters have more damage increasing options depending on the subclass. I'm not going to do the math again, other people are more interested and better at keeping track of the theoretical outcomes better than me.

I will point out that you keep assuming that your wizard does fireball and firebolt and nothing else. That's not what happens in any game I've played.

Magic Items: D&D/WotC go to great lengths to let you know that magic items aren't necessary for the game to work. Are you saying (insert shocked face here), that isn't true!?!

Not at all - I showed that the fighter out damaged your wizard without any magic items at all, then showed that a powerful weapon only increased the damage gap.

Great Weapon Master: Really only useful when you have Advantage or against low AC creatures.

Hey, you are the one that left out AC and assumed all attacks hit in your initial presentation. And a properly played fighter or cooperative group can arrange for Advantage more often than not. (or Bless + Advantage, which is what my great weapon character operated with for most of his career. He wasn't a fighter though - he was a Bladelock with one level of fighter.)

Still sure in a normal adventuring day the Fighter wins? And let's say he does, is the margin acceptable?

Yes, in most combats, on average a well built fighter will out damage the well built wizard from round to round. The wizard will outpace the fighters when they spend more resources, but the fighter spends almost no resources to do their damage. The few they do spend are recovered on a short rest.

That is my experience. Your experience obviously differs.

But there is another issue here - This isn't supposed to be a competition. Does the fighter or the wizard have to "win" in order for the group to have fun and succeed? It's supposed to be a cooperative game, PC's vs the monsters. They should be helping each other set up their cool things.

Given that's ALL THE FIGHTER DOES, the difference is dubious at best in my opinion.

There's the important bit. In your opinion. If fighters have been lackluster in your game, it may be due to the way the combats are set up (your game seems to favor ranged attackers, since you describe combats mostly starting with enemies 60+ feet away). It may be due to the builds the fighters used. It may be due to the players. There are a lot of variables that differ from campaign to campaign.

The game I played in, we did a lot of dungeon delving and town combats. The casters helped out the fighters with Haste, the fighters pinned down enemies so they couldn't get to the casters, the cleric healed and buffed everyone, the barbarian was wolf totem and gave advantage to the fighters when he raged. We were a well oiled machine of destruction because we helped each other out.

I'd say when I played a fighter to 15th combat usually lasted 3-5 rounds with the first round usually wasted on Dashing to get into range of an enemy, that first round is crucial to success, especially if you have an enemy spell caster as they are likely to change the battlefield in meaningful ways possibly excluding you from attacking them without cost. I agree with you on one point, a powerful magic weapon in the hands of a melee fighter drastically changes the math.

Like I said - having most combats start at 60' + range is not typical of most D&D games I've played. Dungeon raids and fighting room to room in towns and castles are much more common. We did have a significant number of combats at range, but by no means the majority of them.

 

[LapBandit]

So in your games all combats start with the opponents 100+ feat apart? That's a problem with your game, not with the fighter class. It's Dungeons and Dragons, not Fields and Felldrakes.

But if you want to go that route, make it a dex based fighter using archery style, Sharpshooter, and Crossbow Expert with hand crossbows. Now the fighter has 120 attacks over 30 rounds...



And as I said, fighters have more damage increasing options depending on the subclass. I'm not going to do the math again, other people are more interested and better at keeping track of the theoretical outcomes better than me.

I will point out that you keep assuming that your wizard does fireball and firebolt and nothing else. That's not what happens in any game I've played.



Not at all - I showed that the fighter out damaged your wizard without any magic items at all, then showed that a powerful weapon only increased the damage gap.



Hey, you are the one that left out AC and assumed all attacks hit in your initial presentation. And a properly played fighter or cooperative group can arrange for Advantage more often than not. (or Bless + Advantage, which is what my great weapon character operated with for most of his career. He wasn't a fighter though - he was a Bladelock with one level of fighter.)


Yes, in most combats, on average a well built fighter will out damage the well built wizard from round to round. The wizard will outpace the fighters when they spend more resources, but the fighter spends almost no resources to do their damage. The few they do spend are recovered on a short rest.

That is my experience. Your experience obviously differs.

But there is another issue here - This isn't supposed to be a competition. Does the fighter or the wizard have to "win" in order for the group to have fun and succeed? It's supposed to be a cooperative game, PC's vs the monsters. They should be helping each other set up their cool things.


There's the important bit. In your opinion. If fighters have been lackluster in your game, it may be due to the way the combats are set up (your game seems to favor ranged attackers, since you describe combats mostly starting with enemies 60+ feet away). It may be due to the builds the fighters used. It may be due to the players. There are a lot of variables that differ from campaign to campaign.

The game I played in, we did a lot of dungeon delving and town combats. The casters helped out the fighters with Haste, the fighters pinned down enemies so they couldn't get to the casters, the cleric healed and buffed everyone, the barbarian was wolf totem and gave advantage to the fighters when he raged. We were a well oiled machine of destruction because we helped each other out.


Like I said - having most combats start at 60' + range is not typical of most D&D games I've played. Dungeon raids and fighting room to room in towns and castles are much more common. We did have a significant number of combats at range, but by no means the majority of them.

I think your position is reasonable and well justified. The problem is the wizard being able to be in the same ballpark damage wise while being in a different universe for utility. That's the crux of it. We applaud when someone wants to bend reality with a wizard and then cringe and say Wuxia when someone wants to do something fantastic with a fighter.

In a world permeated with magic enough that people can learn incantations, movements, and materials to reproduce effects, why does it matter if one is using a sword as their focus and their own body as the target (fighter) and the other is largely externalizing the effects of their magic (wizard)? Why do we not grant them equal power? Because versatility and bending the world to your will is power, just as hitting things hard is. However you'd have to hit EXTREMELY hard to equal the versatility inherent in being a full caster.

 

[Caliban]

I think your position is reasonable and well justified. The problem is the wizard being able to be in the same ballpark damage wise while being in a different universe for utility. That's the crux of it. We applaud when someone wants to bend reality with a wizard and then cringe and say Wuxia when someone wants to do something fantastic with a fighter.

In a world permeated with magic enough that people can learn incantations, movements, and materials to reproduce effects, why does it matter if one is using a sword as their focus and their own body as the target (fighter) and the other is largely externalizing the effects of their magic (wizard)? Why do we not grant them equal power? Because versatility and bending the world to your will is power, just as hitting things hard is. However you'd have to hit EXTREMELY hard to equal the versatility inherent in being a full caster.

Well, the example you used was an evoker wizard - they are the damage specialists of the wizard class. They should do good damage.

Thing is, the game isn't just about the amount of damage you can output every round. The wizard has to expend more resources on defense than the fighter - their precious spell slots. Mage Armor, Shield, Absorb Elements, Blur, Mirror Image, Counterspell, etc.

Even then, if they don't have time to prepare they may get mauled before they have a chance to cast their defenses. A fighters defenses are (mostly) always on and available. All things being equal, most fighters will be more durable than most wizards - and the wizards who are tanky types tend to expend more resources than the fighter to achieve it.

The fighter is always going to be more gear dependent than the wizard. It's the cost of being mundane vs. magical. They have to invest more up front (buying expensive armor, weapons, etc.) but in return their defenses and weapons are passive and permanent instead of dynamic and resource intensive.

The balance may not be perfect, but it generally works out.

Which one comes out on top depends a lot on the DM and how they structure their encounters, as well as what type of support they get from the rest of the group. One campaign may be set up to favor mages, one to favor archers, and another to favor melee tanks. The DM may not even be aware they doing it, they are just setting up encounters in the way that makes the most sense to them, or is more interesting for them.

 

[LapBandit]

....mundane vs. magical....

Which one comes out on top depends a lot on the DM and how they structure their encounters...

There is nothing mundane about fighters, because they don't manipulate magic the same way as wizards makes them no less magic. It's the fault of the community for reinforcing this argument, so please don't do it.

The guidelines on adventuring day design are unfortunately arcane and not drilled into the DM in the DMG as they should be. You rarely see the 6-8 encounters recommended in most groups.

 

[Rhenny]

I agree with those who have pointed out that it depends on the player and DM/campaign.

The last two characters I've created and played through 6th
Level focused exclusively on feats to build their character concept. The first was a variant human tempest cleric, raised by Elves; therefore he began the game with the defensive duelist feat and picked up healer at 4th. The other was an Elf Bladesinger who took mobility at 4th. To me, taking the attribute boost is boring. I like a more complex character, even if statistically it may be weaker.

Also, in a campaign that has a lot of social interaction or espionage, or stealth, fighters especially but also others may have a lot more to offer if they take feats that broaden their skill sets.

 

[Barolo]

I agree with those who have pointed out that it depends on the player and DM/campaign.

The last two characters I've created and played through 6th
Level focused exclusively on feats to build their character concept. The first was a variant human tempest cleric, raised by Elves; therefore he began the game with the defensive duelist feat and picked up healer at 4th. The other was an Elf Bladesinger who took mobility at 4th. To me, taking the attribute boost is boring. I like a more complex character, even if statistically it may be weaker.

Also, in a campaign that has a lot of social interaction or espionage, or stealth, fighters especially but also others may have a lot more to offer if they take feats that broaden their skill sets.

Just a question somewhat tangentially related to the main topic. As you mentioned you don't put a premium at primary attribute maxing: do you also create warriors with more balanced stats, for example not dumping str assuming your bladesinger and tempest cleric are dex-based to attack?

 

[abe ray]

new dragon feat(general, dragon)
feat name-rocket fart!
perquisite-energy based(fire or cold) breath weapon, fly speed
benefit-you can increase your fly speed up to 3 times your speed for 2 turns but you must fly in a straight line for the entire duration
what do you think and how would you improve upon it?

 

[Barolo]

new dragon feat(general, dragon)
feat name-rocket fart!
perquisite-energy based(fire or cold) breath weapon
benefit-you can increase your fly speed up to 3 times your speed for 2 turns but you must fly in a straight line for the entire duration
what do you think and how would you improve upon it?

The feat increases your fly speed, but does not require you to have a flying speed in the first place. So, what exactly is it supposed to do? There seems to be something missing.... ... anyhow, apart from the spelling mistake, lack of capital letters and punctuation, it sounds fun!