D&D 5E Simple Warrior Buff and the importance of Game Balance

[Xeviat]

Ah, right. But Rogues are already faced with the same dilemma: Cunning Action or off-hand attack. So I'd be okay with it. And it would give Fighters and Barbarians an action economy similar to Monks and Rogues, who already have a bonus action pretty much every round.

Rogue's slightly different. TWFing for a rogue is a huge boost. It turns 65% chance to land a sneak attack into an 87.5% chance to land a sneak attack. Fighters don't have that, so the TWFing fighter would have 1d6 and a bonus action vs the greatsword fighter having 2d6 and a bonus action.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There, they discuss the importance of, or really for them, the lack of importance of game balance.

Call me cynical (really, go ahead, it's OK, I know I'm cynical, I've embraced it), but when I hear someone going on about how game balance isn't important, I have to suspect they're generally playing over on one side of the balance scales, the one that the imbalances in question favor.

In general. However, in the context of 5e, it's a little different. It's not that 5e is imbalanced (mechanically, it would be if you ran it in the stereotypical RAW 3.x or above-board 4e styles), but that 5e places balance, like so many other things, in the hands of the Empowered DM. Balance is still important, it's just not built in from the ground up by design, it's left to be established for and tuned to the individual table.

Now, I'm not advocating for "perfect balance".

Usually a misnomer, anyway. What's usually held up as 'perfect balance' - all characters are identical, there are no choices - is as completely imbalanced as the obvious worst-case of imbalance - there's one overwhelmingly powerful choice that renders all others non-viable (I mean, it's pretty obvious how those are functionally the same, I'd think).
Perfect balance isn't achievable - it'd be a game that allowed you to do literally anything you wanted, without invalidating anyone else's equally unfettered choices (the infeasibility that should be obvious).

And that's where I am today. I had a quick idea that I think could make some headway in making the non-casters compare more to the spell-casters. And it's based around Extra Attack.

The Grapple and Shove, and other maneuvers, are considered "attacks". You can mix them up with your attacks when you have Extra Attack. Arguably, you can mix them up with Two-Weapon Fighting too (I'd say yes, the rules are unclear to me). But what if you could do a little more?

Nod. 3.5 had a few more such combat actions, for instance.

What if Extra Attack didn't just give you an extra attack when you take the attack action. What if Extra Attack gave you an extra, limited, action? What if Attack, Dodge (Parry), and Help were interchangeable? A 5th level Fighter could make one attack and then help an ally, or dodge (parry) with one attack and attack their enemy with another. What if they could use that extra "action" for Dash? What if they could use it for Hide or other skill checks that require actions?

It wouldn't begin to close the gap with casters (not that every class can't choose to use spells somehow, another way in which it's kinda moot), but it wouldn't hurt.

What do you think?

It's not a bad idea, but ultimately it's no different from the bigger numbers that BA eschews. You don't let non-casters do anything special, they're still mundane, can only do what just anyone can do - just, instead of doing it with bigger numbers, they can do it more often in a given six-second round. Expanding that from attacks and a basic everyman maneuver or two to several more everyman checks is better than leaving it at just attacks.

But it's not going to 'balance' with spellcasting - achieving that is something the DM can make happen in play, by setting up and emphasizing situations in which one of those things matters enough to grab the spotlight, and doing so often enough that everyone gets their moment.

 

[Gradine]

Combat Balance = Combat Capability.

You're missing several points, which str that:

1) Game Balance is about more than Combat Capability, which means;
2) Class Balance is not the same as Combat Balance, because;
3) There are obvious and significant imbalances between classes among the other two pillars.

The Barbarian probably should be out-shining the Ranger in combat, certainly in 3e, because that's kind of the Barbarian's shtick; the Ranger should be out-shining the Barbarian out of combat. Spellcasters might have tricks that allow them to do things mundane characters can do (Friends, Charm Person, Knock) but these have significant disadvantages, not the least of which involve having to spend precious resources on them (meanwhile the Rogue can pick locks and charm the pants of people all day erry day).

If your version of D&D is 90%+ combat, that will certainly disadvantage specific characters and specific builds. Like the 3.X Ranger.

That's what I'm talking about. But I'm also talking about expanding the non-caster's options to do more. You notice, I was giving exploration and even potentially social things that they could then do with Extra Attack becoming (Limited) Extra Action.

That's a bit more admirable. But remember that skills, ability checks, tools; mundane ways to resolve exploration/social challenges that non-casters tend to be better at because they don't need to spend limited resources on them. CHA-based casters seem to have a leg up on social encounters until you realize how important a role Insight should be playing in most such encounters.

I 100% disagree with you. Your quick little "improvisation" suggestion isn't supported by the rules. There isn't even a list to give DMs example. Some may go crazy with it. Some may be stingy with it.

Welcome to 5e; rulings not rules is the key mantra. Between emphasizing ability checks over skill checks and advantage/disadvantage, this kind of "improvisation" is entirely supported by the core rules. A lack of guidelines (and therefore table-to-table consistency) does not make it any less so.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Hi everyone. I've been watching a lot of Web DM over on YouTube, and one particular episode got me thinking, and not in the direction I think they were intending: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7oV4qhh2l0&index=36&list=PLNnRdBIGJX6y5znfAbYHxeBNbGflyh6Pv. There, they discuss the importance of, or really for them, the lack of importance of game balance. I wholeheartedly disagree, especially about combat balance. But, I do believe I play the game in a fundamentally different way than they do. I've seen imbalances make the game not fun for certain players, whether that was the Ranger player who built what seemed to be a sound concept but was out-shinned in combat by the Barbarian, the Wizard who's player delighted in wrecking every encounter with "creative" uses of spells, or the player who took "Improved Grapple" and was shocked it didn't make his Str 14 character an uber grappler (all of these were from 3E).

I haven't counted pages, or words really, but I'd venture to say that a sizable portion of the PHB rules are for combat resolution. Large swaths of the spells are combat spells, whether offensive or defensive. A significant portion of class abilities are combat. The Combat Chapter it self is almost as long as the "Using Ability Scores" (which have combat usage) and the "Adventuring" chapters put together.

Now, I'm not advocating for "perfect balance". 4E attempted that, an while I liked it, most of my players didn't, so I acquiesce. But, ensuring different options in the game are of comparable utility is still something I care about. I want the Sorcerer to be comparable to the Wizard. I want the Champion Fighter to be comparable to the Battle Master and Eldritch Knight. I want spell-casters to not out-shine the non-casters.

And that's where I am today. I had a quick idea that I think could make some headway in making the non-casters compare more to the spell-casters. And it's based around Extra Attack.

The Grapple and Shove, and other maneuvers, are considered "attacks". You can mix them up with your attacks when you have Extra Attack. Arguably, you can mix them up with Two-Weapon Fighting too (I'd say yes, the rules are unclear to me). But what if you could do a little more? What if Extra Attack didn't just give you an extra attack when you take the attack action. What if Extra Attack gave you an extra, limited, action? What if Attack, Dodge (Parry), and Help were interchangeable? A 5th level Fighter could make one attack and then help an ally, or dodge (parry) with one attack and attack their enemy with another. What if they could use that extra "action" for Dash? What if they could use it for Hide or other skill checks that require actions?

Spell-casters have spells that allow them to circumvent skills, or at least mimic them. Knock, Charm Person, Fly. But what if non-casters were just "better" at these mundane things.

This is a half-baked thought at best, but I think it's on the right direction. I'd sure like it if my imposing warrior could intimidate someone with one "attack" and attack with the other, without having to jump through a hoop to have a subclass give me that, or a feat.

What do you think?

Yoink! Stolen! I love this idea and I'm gonna run with it.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Its a good concept, but I think requiring a bonus action is bad implementation: It limits other, already marginal styles.

I already allow Help to be used in place of an attack rather than an action. Dodge action gives disadvantage to all incoming attacks so I don't think that that should be messed with, but exchanging one attack for imposing disadvantage on a single incoming attack might work.
Disengage as an attack-replacement rather than action actually sounds quite reasonable.
Dash - maybe. - Although I'm tempted to make this part of the Champion Fighter's Remarkable Athlete ability.

 

[Xeviat]

Its a good concept, but I think requiring a bonus action is bad implementation: It limits other, already marginal styles.

I already allow Help to be used in place of an attack rather than an action. Dodge action gives disadvantage to all incoming attacks so I don't think that that should be messed with, but exchanging one attack for imposing disadvantage on a single incoming attack might work.
Disengage as an attack-replacement rather than action actually sounds quite reasonable.
Dash - maybe. - Although I'm tempted to make this part of the Champion Fighter's Remarkable Athlete ability.

I wasn't saying for it to cost a bonus action. As an attack in an attack action was my thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Combat Balance = Combat Capability. That's what I'm talking about. But I'm also talking about expanding the non-caster's options to do more. You notice, I was giving exploration and even potentially social things that they could then do with Extra Attack becoming (Limited) Extra Action.

I 100% disagree with you. Your quick little "improvisation" suggestion isn't supported by the rules. There isn't even a list to give DMs example. Some may go crazy with it. Some may be stingy with it.

Ok, fair enough to disagree. I'm thinking we are closer to opposite sides when it comes to preferred play style, so I'll just bow out of the conversation here and say: Game on!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[guachi]

In a campaign that was low in magic weapons and armor such additions would go a long way to adding cool and interesting things for martial types to do instead of relying on their magic items for additional cool and interesting things.

I'm tempted to keep these rules, or similar rules, in mind for a low magic item campaign if I were to ever run one.