D&D 5E Spellcaster/Warrior Imbalances Discussion

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone. I'd like to discuss the perceived imbalances between spellcasters and warriors. In this case, spellcasters includes the classes which gain 9th level spells, so the warriors include paladins and rangers even though they have spells.

I have not had the chance yet to play in a high level game. I've played in high level 3E and 4E games, but no 5E yet. So my knowledge is very limited. I've seen wizards cut a force of monsters in half with a well-timed fireball, but I've also seen a raging barbarian tear through what I thought was going to be a tough fight in one round.

But, spellcasters can do far more with their spells than just deal damage. If they could only deal damage with their spells, then I don't think we'd ever have a discussion about any imbalances (or at least they'd be easier to iron out). 4E was theoretically more balanced because each class had access to very similar toys. 5E is back to the classics.

Now, for this discussion, balance has as much to do with numerical balance as it does with spotlight balance. From my own experience, balance at the table only matters in three places:

1) Spotlight Balance: it's important that the game offers spotlight time to each of the players. For some, this means giving their combat focused fighter something worthwhile to fight, since that's what the player designed their character to do. Other times, it's giving the cleric undead to deal with or giving the Sorcerer fire-vulnerable enemies to roast. Still, sometimes it means giving the social rogue player a tense diplomatic encounter.

2) Balance of Choices: This is where I believe the numbers come in most importantly. If Option A is objectively more powerful than Option B, then Option B is chosen less. After some time, system savvy players feel like their options are limited by this. Other times, this can be noticed late when a player feels like they aren't contributing because they chose a weak option (like in my first 3E game when the ranger's player felt weak next to the barbarian character).

3) Known Balance: The DM needs to be able to know, with some contained margin of error, where the balance point in the game is. This can be both within combat (not making climactic encounters too weak or roadblock encounters too hard) and across a greater span of time (balancing spotlight time). The better balanced a system is, the easier time the DM has putting it all together.

I think 5E did a pretty good job at balancing things. It's not 4E's perfect balance, which some found too constraining, but spellcasters did get reined in (not having bonus spell slots really did a lot). At the levels I've played, when using the full DMG's daily xp target guidelines, I feel like combat Balance is in a good place; but I haven't gone above level seven yet. I know certain spells have been identified as having issues (wish/similucrum keeps getting mentioned).

Where I stand right now is that I want each class to offer something non-combative to it's player. I feel like only the Fighter is really lacking here.

What balance points really stand out to you? What are your stories of when balance issues affected your games? What elements of the game stand out as being in need of rebalancing. Or, what do you find especially well balanced in 5th Edition D&D?

Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

With regards to combat in my experience the game is reasonably balanced between warriors and casters. Concentration acts as a valve that limits how much power you can bring to bear. I mostly found that the encounter shifting spells are concentration so you can't just keep stacking up powerful effects against the enemy until they fall over. Once you have a concentration spell up you are forced into casting stuff mostly on par with what the warriors do at will. Deal some damage, prevent some damage, small utility effects, etc.

Out of combat is another story. Spells often replace rolls and straight up solve problems by themselves out of combat. The warrior types get some neat stuff like our ranger who was an expert tracker and navigator. But he was never able to overcome the kinds of obstacles I could solve with spells, like forming a bridge over a large gap to get an ox pulled cart through the underdark.

 

[Xeviat]

Out of combat is another story. Spells often replace rolls and straight up solve problems by themselves out of combat. The warrior types get some neat stuff like our ranger who was an expert tracker and navigator. But he was never able to overcome the kinds of obstacles I could solve with spells, like forming a bridge over a large gap to get an ox pulled cart through the underdark.

I wonder if most groups save spells for doing things the group couldn't do. Like I can't imagine a group using the knock spell as a first resort when there's a rogue with expertise in thieves' tools handy, or going straight to charm person if persuasion is an option. The creative thinking of the whole group in utilizing spells like that, and the spell's direct cost of their future offensive capability the rest of the day, may even that out for most groups.

I've always thought that expanding the recommendations of what can be done with skills could really help too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ExploderWizard]

Out of combat is another story. Spells often replace rolls and straight up solve problems by themselves out of combat. The warrior types get some neat stuff like our ranger who was an expert tracker and navigator. But he was never able to overcome the kinds of obstacles I could solve with spells, like forming a bridge over a large gap to get an ox pulled cart through the underdark.

These situations are ones in which magic actually feels like magic. If every person can do things which mimic the effects of such magic then they aren't magical anymore. If every class had the ability to essentially pull a bridge out of their rear end, what would it take for the "magic users" to actually feel like they were doing magic?

When the entire party pulls out effects such as that then the whole game feels more like Superfriends rather than fantasy.

 

[Xeviat]

These situations are ones in which magic actually feels like magic. If every person can do things which mimic the effects of such magic then they aren't magical anymore. If every class had the ability to essentially pull a bridge out of their rear end, what would it take for the "magic users" to actually feel like they were doing magic?

When the entire party pulls out effects such as that then the whole game feels more like Superfriends rather than fantasy.

But what happens when the meta game tells savvy players that a Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard party makes the best party and everyone is throwing around magic?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mellored]

The big balance point with 5e, is that warrior classes deal damage, casters have support/utility. (Warlocks and monks are somewhere in between).
For instance,
A level 5 fighter action surge for 2d6+4*2*2 = 44 damage, three times per day, and 22 damage every other turn.
A level 5 caster can fireball for 8d6 = 28, twice per day. amd deal 2d10 = 11 damage every other turn.

For a wizard, casting haste or fly on the fighter is nearly always better than a damage spell (unless you can hit 3+ enemies with a fireball). Even spells like hold person are only good if you have a fighter to follow up with damage. Even at level 9, foresight on the fighter better than meteor swarm (unless you're against a literal army).

Wish->simulacrum is an oversight. That's easy enough to say "no, you cannot have an infinite clone army". Or just ban wish orr simulacrum from the game.
It's 1 spell-combo, not the entire casting system.


Personally, I don't think damage<->utility is the best balance point, and prefer's 4e's damage + utility (4e had other issues, like number inflation and being too codified, but I liked it's balance ideal).
But it's also not the worst. Wizards want fighters to deal damage, and fighters want wizards for the buffs.

 

[mellored]

But what happens when the meta game tells savvy players that a Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard party makes the best party and everyone is throwing around magic?

It doesn't, because none of them can deal much damage.

The best party (or at least a candidate for the best party) is a sorcerer who uses twin-haste/greater invisibility on 2 sharpshooter fighters, and a cleric 1/divinity wizard who cast's bless and covers any utility.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1) Spotlight Balance: it's important that the game offers spotlight time to each of the players. For some, this means giving their combat focused fighter something worthwhile to fight, since that's what the player designed their character to do. Other times, it's giving the cleric undead to deal with or giving the Sorcerer fire-vulnerable enemies to roast. Still, sometimes it means giving the social rogue player a tense diplomatic encounter.

We could call this 'table' or 'play' balance, too, I suppose, because it only happens as the game is being played. It's the kind of balance the DM has the most control over, because he can choose the kinds of challenges that confront the party, tailoring the mix of challenges to give each character a chance to shine. The DM can even resort to an arbitrary spotlight - an item only one of the PCs can use or foe only he can defeat, not because of any choice the player has made or statistic on the character sheet, but simply because Fate has decreed it so - it needn't always be quite so obvious, either.

2) Balance of Choices: This is where I believe the numbers come in most importantly. If Option A is objectively more powerful than Option B, then Option B is chosen less. After some time, system savvy players feel like their options are limited by this. Other times, this can be noticed late when a player feels like they aren't contributing because they chose a weak option (like in my first 3E game when the ranger's player felt weak next to the barbarian character).

There's whether an option is viable compared to other possibly numerically superior alternatives, yes.
There's also the number of options available, and the number and timing of decision points.

3) Known Balance: The DM needs to be able to know, with some contained margin of error, where the balance point in the game is. This can be both within combat (not making climactic encounters too weak or roadblock encounters too hard) and across a greater span of time (balancing spotlight time). The better balanced a system is, the easier time the DM has putting it all together.

A game can be balanced or it can be balance-able. If it's a matter of finding the 'balance point' or managing balance over time, it's the latter. With 4e (as usual) the outlier, D&D has always been balance-able, and 5e is probably the edition that's tried the hardest to telegraph to the DM just were that balance point might be, and give him the latitude to impose as much or as little such balance as he cares to. The 6-8 encounter 'day,' that we hear so much about, for instance, is guidance to help the DM find that balance point.

I think 5E did a pretty good job at balancing things. It's not 4E's perfect balance

Perfect balance is impossible, of course - 4e may have been much better-balanced than other editions of D&D, could be characterized as balanced rather than balance-able, even, but it was nowhere near perfect.\

spellcasters did get reined in (not having bonus spell slots really did a lot).

Sure, spellcasters have fewer slots than they did in 3.x - though a lot more than they did in comparatively-balanced 4e - but they also have more flexibility in how they can use those slots than ever before, so fewer of those slots are likely to be 'wasted' (on a spell that's poor for the situation, or sitting un-used at the end of the day). Ritual casting and at-will cantrips also reduce the pressure on spell slots, so that casters 'need' fewer. Even other nominal restrictions, like Concentration (which limits stacking many spells together), also happen to reduce the number of slots casters need to expend to be optimally effective.

Where I stand right now is that I want each class to offer something non-combative to it's player. I feel like only the Fighter is really lacking here.

Any caster has the option of learning/prepping some non-combat spells and casting them as rituals or using slots on them, and even the Fighter can be a spellcaster. So the non-combat options are open to the class, as to all classes. Non-combat skill can also come from Background as well as class.

What balance points really stand out to you?

1st level stands out as being pretty random and thus poorly balanced in a number of senses, but you can always start at third, and the exp to get to second is quite low.

What elements of the game stand out as being in need of rebalancing.

Nothing stands out, specifically - if you look at relatively balanced game, the imbalanced bits stand out and ways to hammer them into place are often pretty obvious. With a balance-able game, it's a more dynamic, and champaign-specific exercise. You don't need to change or 'fix' specific game elements, you just have to put the campaign together and manage it as it goes to keep all the characters relevant and maintain a sense of challenge and interest.

Or, what do you find especially well balanced in 5th Edition D&D?

DPR, presumably because it's so easy to check. Striking a balance among level-scaling cantrips, Extra Attack, and rogue SA can't have been easy, but it seems to hold up moderately well.

But, what really stands out and is well-done in 5e is DM Empowerment. The DM can impose balance of the sort he likes, whether he re-writes the game or tailors his campaign to do it.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

These situations are ones in which magic actually feels like magic. If every person can do things which mimic the effects of such magic then they aren't magical anymore. If every class had the ability to essentially pull a bridge out of their rear end, what would it take for the "magic users" to actually feel like they were doing magic?

When the entire party pulls out effects such as that then the whole game feels more like Superfriends rather than fantasy.

I agree that differences to distinguish various classes are important. The Superfriends feeling you describe is one of the reasons I and others I've talked to got bored of 4e as fast as we did. Everyone's powers are in a similar scope and most take the form of "do damage and apply some rider to the enemy." However, I think the reality bending aspect of magic goes a tad to far at high level. When the wizard can travel through the planes of existence and call forth beings of power, the pace of adventures starts to become dictated by them and what they can do in a day. I'm okay with the flexible nature of magic to solve problems presented by the DM. I'm a big fan of it actually, and I tend to play classes that have some form of spellcasting because I love that flexibility. Looking back at my previous post I didn't quite elaborate on that.

My experience overall with 5e is that it's pretty balanced. Entire classes can't be replicated with summon spells and there are limits in the right places. Characters take the spotlight when they deserve it and it feels like everyone contributes (except when they choose not to because "my character wouldn't help out here" but that's a whole other kind of issue).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

My experience with spellcaster imbalance is mostly on the monster end. High-end spells look impressive, but they are highly unreliable. If something offers a save, then it's too unreliable to actually use, because the enemy has a significantly-greater-than-even chance of making that save. High-level PCs have good saves, and any high-end monster that you would want to spend a high-level slot on is going to have legendary saves.

Out of combat, spells can do a lot, but they mostly affect the entire party. Tiny Hut is a game-changer, and it requires Dispel Magic to counter, but it doesn't really steal any spotlight; it basically removes that spotlight entirely, since finding shelter becomes a non-issue, and the only time anyone pays attention is if a wandering enemy spellcaster manages to disrupt it. Likewise with Teleport, it lets you ignore the overland travel aspect of the game, but it doesn't give the spotlight to the wizard since it only takes a minute. Spotlight is measured in table-minutes, and utility magic only takes that for a short period of time.