D&D General Poll: As a player, I am always justified in pursuing every advantage I find, no matter what.

[James Gasik]

I can understand people wanting some balance (it’s not a big issue for our group but can see where the concern is).

However, I specifically did not like 4e and sold it all off because of its “balanced” magic system.

I suspect the focus of the group is so much of this—-we never want for fighters, paladins rangers. In fact, wizards—-straight wizards are rare.

Not sure if that is a function of us usually playing mid tier or if we are just into the role playing side. And that said—-we have super combat heavy games so we aren’t larpers. We’re fighting with minis on the board much of the time.

It’s interesting that fighters are so seemingly popular in general. How widespread is the dissatisfaction at power gaps between spellcasters and martials really?

Is this a high level play grog concern, a casual player concern or just an individual pet peeve?

Genuine curiosity since I see it online but not much in play. Certainly not dismissing the concern. If it bothers you it has merit. Just wondering how widely held that concern is

This is really one of those things that it either bothers you or it doesn't. Many, many words have been typed to "prove" casters have an unfair advantage. I've typed a few million myself over the years. But for many, it never materializes. Either their players don't cotton to the caster playstyle, or they don't tend to migrate to the spells that alter the game, or maybe the game just doesn't go on long enough. Maybe there are house rules in effect to alter the balance, or even just assumptions and unwritten rules. Or even "Gentlemen's agreements".

I have a story about this (no shock there, if you've seen other posts of mine) on this topic. I have a few friends I used to play AD&D with. For their own reasons, they never really felt the need to embrace newer editions of the game (or deride them outright with...let's say, unusual interpretations of how the game has changed), but when I got to see them, I'm happy to play with them.

Even if I have to bite my tongue at some of their "interpretations" of the rules, lol.

But about seven years ago, I witnessed something remarkable. The DM is one of my oldest friends, and he learned all the wrong lessons from AD&D- he's stingy, believes the DM is the player's opponent, and is well known for some ludicrous rulings (like deciding the target area for magic missiles means the spell does AoE damage, largely preventing anyone from ever being able to use it without harming other party members- no amount of argument can get him to budge on this position, not even Sage Advice!).

Since he prides himself on grueling campaigns with underequipped parties facing against "impossible" odds, it's rare that any of his groups ever reach decent level. But on this occasion, we were all in the 9th-ish level range. His uncle, who is usually a "forever DM", as he has the most well-developed setting, was actually playing a Druid. With 5th level spells.

This is unusual, since my friends seem to think fireball is the pinnacle of magic, and anything else is "cute tricks", lol.

We were running a modified Axe of the Dwarvish Lords when the DM decided it was time to have us face a "horde of goblins". All our attempts to get real numbers out of the DM failed- there were goblins mounted on dire wolves, and goblins with bows. Our Druid decided this was an excellent time to bust out Spike Stones. We had pressured the DM into drawing a crude map so we could see where everything was on the battlefield.

After describing the effects of the spell, the DM started to get very frustrated. He then stopped the game to read the spell. Everyone else also read the spell. I knew what the spell did, and so did the Druid.

Cries of disbelief and incredulity were heard as the spell completely shut down the the goblin cavalry, the damage piling up quickly. A lot of hand waving ensued do to the sentence "The success of each attack is determined as if the caster were actually engaging in combat", as said Druid had a girdle of stone giant strength. The DM ruled he couldn't apply his bonuses (not even from my bless spell). Still many foes were stabbed by pointy, hard to see rocks.

Surveying the chaos, the DM made the only logical ruling he could...ha, no, more like, after much griping about how this spell "destroys melee", he decided it can't possibly work the way the text reads, and started making ruling after ruling, nerfing the spell to the point it wasn't worth the spell slot.

The Druid player started getting pretty irate, and then one player quipped: "dude, come on, everyone knows Fighters are better than casters, it's obvious this spell can't work this way."

Giving the Druid player a ride home, I listened to his ranting. I mean, I agreed with him, but it just boggled my mind that people who have been playing the game longer than I have, have never actually seen how one spell can make an entire encounter implode.

Or the great narrative power of a spellcaster outside of combat.

 

[James Gasik]

God I wish more people understood this.

I hope you don't mind me quoting this in the future. Because it is such an important idea and so few people understand it.


This is...complicated. Perhaps it is worthy of its own poll, I dunno.

That is, I'm okay with the former but not the latter. E.g., if hypothetical-you know I as DM dislike traps and you tell me that's why you aren't looking for traps, okay, sure. It's not grubbing for advantage, just keeping things moving. Partly, that's because I can't see myself being secretive about not using traps. If I actually got upset, I could just put in a trap. Of course, I prefer talking like adults, but one small painful-but-not-deadly trap could work as a wake-up call.

The other is harder 'cause it's metagame in a way I don't like (not all metagame is bad, but some is.) Always showing paranoia and distrust without reason to so is off-putting. Yet other, similar thoughts may not bother me, e.g. "we know Ezekiel hates grimdark, so this situation has to have SOME kind of solution, we just need to keep looking and stay positive." Again, I'd prefer forthright, respectful discussion to deal with disruptive metagame thinking.

Maybe better to say why I find "DM loves face-heel turns, better prep for betrayal" off-putting, but "DM hates grimdark, there has to be a solution" is fine. The former looks openly irrational in-character, driven only by trying to outwit the DM. The latter is sensible for "real" people (tenacity/determination against hardship). It feels like playing along with the DM, leaning into the stuff the DM is doing. It's supporting, not disrupting, the intended theme and tone.

Quote away, I'm not the originator, the law was coined on the Giant in the Playground Forums. Technically, the quote is "You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use", but the intent remains clear. Taking something that isn't balanced, and then making it obnoxious to use doesn't make it balanced. It just makes it obnoxious to use.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

This is really one of those things that it either bothers you or it doesn't. Many, many words have been typed to "prove" casters have an unfair advantage. I've typed a few million myself over the years. But for many, it never materializes. Either their players don't cotton to the caster playstyle, or they don't tend to migrate to the spells that alter the game, or maybe the game just doesn't go on long enough. Maybe there are house rules in effect to alter the balance, or even just assumptions and unwritten rules. Or even "Gentlemen's agreements".

I have a story about this (no shock there, if you've seen other posts of mine) on this topic. I have a few friends I used to play AD&D with. For their own reasons, they never really felt the need to embrace newer editions of the game (or deride them outright with...let's say, unusual interpretations of how the game has changed), but when I got to see them, I'm happy to play with them.

Even if I have to bite my tongue at some of their "interpretations" of the rules, lol.

But about seven years ago, I witnessed something remarkable. The DM is one of my oldest friends, and he learned all the wrong lessons from AD&D- he's stingy, believes the DM is the player's opponent, and is well known for some ludicrous rulings (like deciding the target area for magic missiles means the spell does AoE damage, largely preventing anyone from ever being able to use it without harming other party members- no amount of argument can get him to budge on this position, not even Sage Advice!).

Since he prides himself on grueling campaigns with underequipped parties facing against "impossible" odds, it's rare that any of his groups ever reach decent level. But on this occasion, we were all in the 9th-ish level range. His uncle, who is usually a "forever DM", as he has the most well-developed setting, was actually playing a Druid. With 5th level spells.

This is unusual, since my friends seem to think fireball is the pinnacle of magic, and anything else is "cute tricks", lol.

We were running a modified Axe of the Dwarvish Lords when the DM decided it was time to have us face a "horde of goblins". All our attempts to get real numbers out of the DM failed- there were goblins mounted on dire wolves, and goblins with bows. Our Druid decided this was an excellent time to bust out Spike Stones. We had pressured the DM into drawing a crude map so we could see where everything was on the battlefield.

After describing the effects of the spell, the DM started to get very frustrated. He then stopped the game to read the spell. Everyone else also read the spell. I knew what the spell did, and so did the Druid.

Cries of disbelief and incredulity were heard as the spell completely shut down the the goblin cavalry, the damage piling up quickly. A lot of hand waving ensued do to the sentence "The success of each attack is determined as if the caster were actually engaging in combat", as said Druid had a girdle of stone giant strength. The DM ruled he couldn't apply his bonuses (not even from my bless spell). Still many foes were stabbed by pointy, hard to see rocks.

Surveying the chaos, the DM made the only logical ruling he could...ha, no, more like, after much griping about how this spell "destroys melee", he decided it can't possibly work the way the text reads, and started making ruling after ruling, nerfing the spell to the point it wasn't worth the spell slot.

The Druid player started getting pretty irate, and then one player quipped: "dude, come on, everyone knows Fighters are better than casters, it's obvious this spell can't work this way."

Giving the Druid player a ride home, I listened to his ranting. I mean, I agreed with him, but it just boggled my mind that people who have been playing the game longer than I have, have never actually seen how one spell can make an entire encounter implode.

Or the great narrative power of a spellcaster outside of combat.

Interesting story. And people.

Not allowing spells to do what they say would be a deal breaker for me.

And as an old 1e player, fighters especially with specialization! were…good. Even “gooder” for the M-U who was fragile and lost his spell when the kobold so much as sneezed on him!

We played for years but never had much by way of time stop or wish (other than from a ring). It took ages to advance!

But the problems we see are often from the games we are in…

 

[James Gasik]

Interesting story. And people.

Not allowing spells to do what they say would be a deal breaker for me.

And as an old 1e player, fighters especially with specialization! were…good. Even “gooder” for the M-U who was fragile and lost his spell when the kobold so much as sneezed on him!

We played for years but never had much by way of time stop or wish (other than from a ring). It took ages to advance!

But the problems we see are often from the games we are in…

Pretty much, yeah. Melee Fighters can do tremendous damage and are pretty much the rulers of most play. Even when casters get the good spells, spell slots are limited. Sure a Fireball can clear a dungeon room, but you get 1, 2 of those a day.

But as the game progresses from that point, spells that can end whole encounters appear. And sometimes, like spike stones, they don't allow a saving throw (though, granted, low AC would help you in this case).

And on top of that, you have spell that instantly solve problems. Need to quickly fortify the old keep you occupied to stave off an army? Guards and Wards! Need to quickly arm a village? Fabricate!

Need to scout an enemy encampment? Fly and Invisibility, outright scrying, clairvoyance- lots of options.

Enemies holed up in a castle? Dig, soften earth and stone, stone shape, transmute rock to mud, passwall, dimension door, teleport....or just fly over the fortifications, which medieval castles are not designed for.

What's that? The village is in danger of not having enough food? Cast a few plant growth spells, and increase the harvest by 50%!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Interesting story. And people.

Not allowing spells to do what they say would be a deal breaker for me.

Same. Even if I were the DM in a situation like this, I would have allowed it to work for that fight, and then had a conversation with the player later, basically saying, "I get that this should be a powerful spell, but in context this may be a bit much. Let's talk about it and how to do it differently." (I actually had to do this with some homebrew content in my DW game--I gave a player something that was too powerful by accident, and after a couple combats, we hashed out some small reductions in its power to make it more balanced. It has worked out pretty well.)

And as an old 1e player, fighters especially with specialization! were…good. Even “gooder” for the M-U who was fragile and lost his spell when the kobold so much as sneezed on him!

We played for years but never had much by way of time stop or wish (other than from a ring). It took ages to advance!

Well, in fairness, 1e was still kinda-sorta-vaguely balanced between the two. A lot of that balance was locked up in: (a) rules both public and private (e.g. loot tables) being inherently biased toward Fighters, and (b) Fighters becoming landed nobility at high level. Between those two things, you end up with a game that recognizes that it has given enormous power to Wizards, and counterbalances that against advantages for Fighters.

Unfortunately, because some of those rules were "private"/invisible, other rules were misunderstood, and still others were dropped because they were unwieldy or unworkable in the long run, we have ended up in a situation where casters have slowly shed all of the (let's face it, annoying and/or tedious) weaknesses and limitations they used to have, while Fighters have shed all the cool benefits and bonuses they used to get. Both 2e and (especially) 3e did this, and it seriously impacted the game.

4e hard-averted it. 5e is in a weird place, because it definitely didn't return to the heights of 3e imbalance between these archetypes, but it absolutely did bring back a large portion of that imbalance. Reducing spell slots and adding in Concentration (a much less annoying limitation) helped, as did deleting the automatic scaling by "caster level" from 3e. But the fundamental structures remain, the consistent subtle (or not-so-subtle) bias in one direction and not the other.

But the problems we see are often from the games we are in…

To an extent, yes, but system does have an impact. There's a reason "Epic 6" rules are so attractive to people who like the idea of 3rd edition but dislike how it works beyond the early levels (which, it's worth noting, are the only ones that got rigorous playtesting! Imagine that!)

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I can understand people wanting some balance (it’s not a big issue for our group but can see where the concern is).

However, I specifically did not like 4e and sold it all off because of its “balanced” magic system.

Did you dislike the system because it was balanced, or was the problem that it was just too limited compared to what magic used to be able to do in other editions? Would you have been fine with it if spellcasting was as good as in earlier editions even if that meant boosting non-casters up to the same level?

Not sure if that is a function of us usually playing mid tier or if we are just into the role playing side. And that said—-we have super combat heavy games so we aren’t larpers.

?
Larping is often pretty combat-heavy. Dependent upon system end event of course, but still.

It’s interesting that fighters are so seemingly popular in general. How widespread is the dissatisfaction at power gaps between spellcasters and martials really?

Is this a high level play grog concern, a casual player concern or just an individual pet peeve?

Genuine curiosity since I see it online but not much in play. Certainly not dismissing the concern. If it bothers you it has merit. Just wondering how widely held that concern is

To be frank . . . it is impossible to tell.
There are a number of posters on EN world for whom it is a source of dissatisfaction, but by definition most ENworld posters are generally more in-depth in terms of interest and knowledge than the average player.
I first had my nose rubbed in the issue in 5e as a casual gamer (although I had been aware of it in 3e).
However, the assorted statistics presented by D&D beyond do not match those that I see in the games I am in, or the ones in the clubs that I admin, so maybe my 5e experience is atypical.

How people play D&D is unique to their group (other than AL, in which there is a definite issue). A 3-encounter adventuring day with only one short rest, and a lot of investigation, convoluted plot and downtime is going to heavily favour most spellcasters. A combat-heavy slog through underground labyrinths or similar restricted areas, and little attention directed to what the characters do between expeditions is going to heavily favour martials. Put a player from each of those groups together, and of course their opinion regarding martial/caster balance is going to clash.
Hence why discussions about how to fix such imbalances one way or another are best left to those who are actually experiencing said imbalance in that direction.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I can understand people wanting some balance (it’s not a big issue for our group but can see where the concern is).

However, I specifically did not like 4e and sold it all off because of its “balanced” magic system.

I suspect the focus of the group is so much of this—-we never want for fighters, paladins rangers. In fact, wizards—-straight wizards are rare.

Not sure if that is a function of us usually playing mid tier or if we are just into the role playing side. And that said—-we have super combat heavy games so we aren’t larpers. We’re fighting with minis on the board much of the time.

It’s interesting that fighters are so seemingly popular in general. How widespread is the dissatisfaction at power gaps between spellcasters and martials really?

Is this a high level play grog concern, a casual player concern or just an individual pet peeve?

Genuine curiosity since I see it online but not much in play. Certainly not dismissing the concern. If it bothers you it has merit. Just wondering how widely held that concern is

This tracks with my own experience, at least in 5e - people playing fighters and such at high levels don't seem like they're being overshadowed by the wizards and bards on a regular basis.

In combat, weapon-users just do a lot more damage and legendary resistance makes encounter-ending spells difficult to work. Most groups I play with don't assume they can rest after every fight (even if many time we can - it's not a guarantee so we conserve resources) which further limits how much the wizard can unload. And frankly casters just play a different role than weapon-types, so no toes are being stepped on.

One thing that might be helping is that high-level characters are treated like important people by npcs: a 15-th level fighter isn't just some guy with a sword, and one way or another has built up some clout. Plus the party tends to work as a team so the wizard teleporting everyone isn't seen as the wizard outshining the party, it's seen as the wizard supporting the team.

If someone's being overshadowed it's usually by someone playing a similar class but much more optimized. It's not a caster overshadowing a warrior.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I can understand people wanting some balance (it’s not a big issue for our group but can see where the concern is).

However, I specifically did not like 4e and sold it all off because of its “balanced” magic system.

I suspect the focus of the group is so much of this—-we never want for fighters, paladins rangers. In fact, wizards—-straight wizards are rare.

Not sure if that is a function of us usually playing mid tier or if we are just into the role playing side. And that said—-we have super combat heavy games so we aren’t larpers. We’re fighting with minis on the board much of the time.

It’s interesting that fighters are so seemingly popular in general. How widespread is the dissatisfaction at power gaps between spellcasters and martials really?

Is this a high level play grog concern, a casual player concern or just an individual pet peeve?

Genuine curiosity since I see it online but not much in play. Certainly not dismissing the concern. If it bothers you it has merit. Just wondering how widely held that concern is

I can't speak for others, but I enjoy melee martial characters (mostly monks) because of the risk associated with the playstyle, and the challenge of being impactful with a smaller toolkit.

Casting "I win" from 90 feet away just never really lit my fuse. It feels like cheating to me.

It's kind of funny, if casters were closer to equal in power to martials, I might actually be more interested in playing them.

 

[Maxperson]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

That's why Yoda was Sith.

 

[Maxperson]

i will give another example... stacking templates.

I had a DM in 3e (i think it was right before 3.5 but maybe it was 3.5) that had a house rule that level adjustment overlaped not stacked... but you had to make the character make sense... I told him it was a bad idea. I told him it would cause even more imbalances then it would solve... his answer was it didn't make sense that a teifling half dragon would have +1 and +4 level adjustment the 4 was enough...

So everyone pitched at least 1 level adjustment races... I had my character be a human and straight wizard... but I helped my then girlfriend make her character and background... she was from his underdark city that was aligned with the black dragons... so she was a drow half dragon, but she also was a descendent of lolth 6 generations back and tiamat 9 generations back... but one of lolths handmaidens was her mother... so she had the following race (try to keep track of the halfs) Drow Half Dragon Half Fiend Half Celestial making all but the highest free...

LOL Even if I had allowed something like that, I would have stopped you at two halves.