D&D 5E Spellcaster/Warrior Imbalances Discussion

[mellored]

That’s not even remotely true though. That party composition has really strong damage, and that’s about it..

My party also has a wizard, for utility.

A large portion of the issues people have with comparing the fighter to wizard isn’t about DPR discussions, it’s about how fighter only shines in combat, whereas the wizard is still very valuable in combat and also able to contribute heavily elsewhere

I agree. It would have been better if every class had a mix of damage and utility, rather than one or the other.

Which is why warlock is my favorite class. It has a good blend of damage and utility. Maybe a slight bit on the spammy side, but you never think "I'm not being effective in this situation".

 

[Imaro]

Well, feats also increase complexity and, like MCing, open up 3e-style 'builds,' which you may not want to deal with, and there are some very attractive combat feats that

I honestly think it's unavoidable. I believe that if you want a wider breadth of utility in the martial classes then it is going to add complexity. The spell casters are more complex to play because they have this wider breadth of choices and available options.

 

[Imaro]

I didn't say that there was a problem. I said that if there was a problem, then the existence of feats as an optional rule does not negate the fact that the problem exists.

Nothing can negate it since the books are written and published... I'm saying a solution exists for those who have the problem. And it's not a fact the problem exists because not everyone is seeing or experiencing it.

There are plenty of reasons to not use the feats subsystem in this edition. Even if you assume that fighter utility is a real problem, allowing feats is a big decision that can have a lot of ramifications elsewhere in the game.

Like??

 

[Imaro]

As if the caster can't do this? The fighter gets 1 feat more than the caster for most of the game. You think 1 feat and maybe double single target damage compared to the caster really make up the difference?

The fighter can spend more than one of his feats on utility if he wants. Just claiming the fighter gets 1 feat and double damage against single targets compared to the caster ignores quite a few things like...

fighter has more hit points
fighter doesn't loose abilities if he gets hit hard enough and doesn't make a save
fighter has a higher armor class
fighter can self-heal himself
and so on. You're simplifying and thus erroneously presenting how much better the fighter's base really is at combat vs. the wizard's base.

 

[hejtmane]

My current campaign has hit high level and yes spellcasters can be ridiculous and fireball at 9th level is a waste because meteor swarm is ridiculous used it on my players created a villain pc yea made them hurt bad on one spell; feeblemind or forcecage have totally made fights easy. Everyone talks about GWM and pole-arm blah blah but at higher levels they are laughable in the presents of a caster

 

[Imaro]

My current campaign has hit high level and yes spellcasters can be ridiculous and fireball at 9th level is a waste because meteor swarm is ridiculous used it on my players created a villain pc yea made them hurt bad on one spell; feeblemind or forcecage have totally made fights easy. Everyone talks about GWM and pole-arm blah blah but at higher levels they are laughable in the presents of a caster

What was the casters initiative because the only way I can see this happening is if he caught the fighter offguard...

To cast 9th level spells a wizard has to be at least 17th level and most spell casters at that level can't survive a single round of attacks by a 17th level fighter using action surge and all of his attacks per round (especially if the first spell he casts is an attack) .

On a failed save meteor swarm on average does 70 pnts of damage... 35 on a successful save (which more than likely a Dex fighter is going to make without any resource expenditure, but even a Str fighter can spend Indomitable to pretty much guarantee he succeeds on that first save)

Now a fighter at 17th level with a 14 Con (though it would probably be higher) has 148 hit points... that spell is going to be little more than a scratch since he will more than likely make his save...

A fighter using Action surge twice at 17th level with an 20 in Str using a Greatsword (No feats, no BM dice, etc.) does on average 108 points of damage... 2d6+5 with 3 attacks +Action Surge (3 more attacks) +Action Surge (3 more attacks)... We also seem to miss the fact that the fighter can spread these attacks out over numerous foes that he can reach within his movement if he wants so it's not just single target damage... So I'll ask how is this wizard not getting outright murdered in the first round of combat once we throw feats and things like BM dice in the mix if he goes up against a fighter?

I'm interested in why your experiences are so different from mine...it's been running wizards as a DM that's made me realize that without some kind of advantage outside their own abilities (followers, ambushes, terrain, preparation, etc.) fighters will pretty much dominate a wizard easily in combat, even when they are a lower level. My solution has been to try to make sure my spell casters have one or more of these advantages but that doesn't exactly speak to a wizards combat prowess.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I honestly think it's unavoidable. I believe that if you want a wider breadth of utility in the martial classes then it is going to add complexity.

Sure, but if that's the main issue you're trying to address why add complexity across the board with feats? (OK, obviously, because it's an extant optional sub-system you just flick on.) If you're willing to do the work, adding options directly to the few benighted sub-classes in question would address the specific problem - greater impact with less overall added complexity, in all likelihood. So, not wanting to add the complexity of feats to already-complex classes that don't need it would be a reason for not just opting into feats. Another reason might be not wanting to add reputedly OP feat combos to your game. I'm sure that's not exhaustive, either, but it answers your question.

What was the casters initiative because the only way I can see this happening is if he caught the fighter offguard...

Nothing in the post you're replying to suggested a PvP scenario.

To cast 9th level spells a wizard has to be at least 17th level and most spell casters at that level can't survive a single round of attacks by a 17th level fighter using action surge and all of his attacks per round (especially if the first spell he casts is an attack) .

On a failed save meteor swarm on average does 70 pnts of damage...

Likely to the whole party (or whole encounter if a PC is doing it). And, really, who's more likely to get a jump on their enemy? The wizard who has all sorts of magical resources for movement, detection, & misdirection, or the fighter, who isn't even necessarily trained in Stealth or Perception?

(which more than likely a Dex fighter is going to make without any resource expenditure, but even a Str fighter can spend Indomitable to pretty much guarantee he succeeds on that first save)

Indomitable is hardly a guarantee vs the kinds of DCs you see at such high level.

I'm interested in why your experiences are so different from mine...

Expectations, perception, pre-conceived notions... two people can have the same experience but take away very different things from it, and recount it quite differently.

 

[Zardnaar]

Fighters are not super popular in my games I have seen them on average being picked every second campaign. However that is still a lot more popular than a wizard as our current wizard is the 1st time that player has picked one in 15 years. Even in 3E she usually played Rogues and Bards.

Clerics have been more popular than wizards, hell I have seen more of them rolled up than fighters as well.

I think 5E has a spotlight type design and it more or less lets you break the game a limited amount of times per day. If you think meteor swarm is a good spell for wizards to pick please hang up your hat (take wish or foresight instead). Hell you might be better off casting foresight on a high level fighter if you want to deal a lot of damage.

I did keep track of how much damage the classes were doing the other session, 3 days ago. The PCs were level 5.

The Rogue can consistently hit for around 20-30 damage (1d4+3d6+8). Can nova around double that (assassin)
The fighter managed to nova around 50 damage and can do this 2 or 3 times per day. Consistent damage is around 20. Sword and board champion
Monk can deal around 25 damage per round on a good round with around 30 on damage spikes.
Wizard (bladedancer) can get around 10 damage consistently (Firebolt, Green Flame Blade, attacks with short sword). Can nova for around 20-30 damage spread out (best was 200 total damage to 8 targets)
Cleric (nature). Puts out about 15 damage consistently. He did manage to spike 50 odd damage via spirit guardians but had the spell interrupted after that 1 round. He can nova around 25 damage per round to a single target.

We used 2 3pp feats. THe fighter has one called weapon specialization (reroll 1's and +1 dice on a crit), The Rogue has small arm master (strength+dex when you use daggers, shortswords) and if you have multiple attacks lets you treat thron weapons as if they had the ammunition property. Both feats give +1 str or dex.

The main goal is fun. We had a fighter action surge for 4 attacks the other day and he managed to roll 2 consecutive crits with a 19 and a 20, each crit was 3d8+6. Wizard damage sucks until they get fireball and even then its only good a few times per day. When the spell casters get around 8 level 3+ spells is where you can start being awesome.

About the only way I have discovered to break 5E with magic is at the higher levels with 4 primary casters and even then you still need a beat stick or 2 around. 6 person party doesn't work so well, a BECMI 6 person party I think was meant to be 2 fighters (or 1 + Elf or Dwarf), 2 clerics, 1 rogue, 1 wizard.

When I play spellcasters and pace myself for a 6-8 encounters I try to use 1 encounter defining spell every 2 encounter at low levels or 1 an encounter once I hit levle 5 or so. At higher levels this means fireball and hypnotic patter, at low levels bless, faerie fire, burning hands, sleep. I treat something like a light clerics radiance of the dawn as a spell I can use 2-6 times per day.

Low level spells do not scale that will so they usually end up being used as utility (shield, absorb elements), the one exception is bless but if I am a melee cleric I will be using spirit guardians a lot. If I am ranged or support bless will be used a lot.

5E spells also scale similar to 4E powers, martial damage does as well. At level 5 a spell can deal 3d8 damage, upcast it to a 4th level slot and its 4d8 its not to far out of whack. Fireball is a lot better than the 4E fire square but even in 4E Fireball was a meh power. Relative to what you are hitting though 5E damage is better than 4E due to less hp the opponents have if nothing else.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Like??

Like added complexity, and the further requirement to then add or exclude every single individual feat. (Remember, feats are double opt-in: first the DM has to allow the feats option, and then the DM needs to specifically allow every single feat that they want in their game.) As the DM, I don't want to have to make a judgment call on which feats are balanced and which ones are broken, knowing that the players are likely to second-guess me. I don't want to be put into that position, when I'm just trying to run a game.

I also don't want to put the players into the position of needing to choose between being effective in combat and being effective outside of combat. By sticking with stat boosts only, any stat they boost will apply equally to their saves and their skill checks. Nobody has to feel obligated to gain proficiency in Wisdom saves, only to lament that it doesn't make them much better at Wisdom-based skills; and nobody has to choose whether to stay true to a character concept by taking a skill-based feat, only to die later on from missing a related save. That whole headache can be avoided, but just not adding feats to the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Fighters are not super popular in my games I have seen them on average being picked every second campaign. However that is still a lot more popular than a wizard as our current wizard is the 1st time that player has picked one in 15 years. Even in 3E she usually played Rogues and Bards.

Clerics have been more popular than wizards, hell I have seen more of them rolled up than fighters as well.

OK, you've established that you & your group are atypical. ;P

I think 5E has a spotlight type design and it more or less lets you break the game a limited amount of times per day.

I'd tend to agree. Every class has limited-use abilities - some more (a lot more) than others, but all have some. Even the non-casting Rogue archetypes have abilities that are limited by situation instead of n/rest uses.

Low level spells do not scale that will so they usually end up being used as utility

Nod. That's an added level of versatility.

5E spells also scale similar to 4E powers, martial damage does as well.

Not remotely, no. 4e scaling was mostly in terms of d20 bonuses, and evenly by level. Uses/day (& /encounter) barely scaled after heroic, topping out at 4 for attack powers, and, again, were evenly scaling across classes.
5e scales much less by level in terms of d20 bonuses, but scales rapidly in terms of hps & damage, and scales unevenly (across levels & across classes) in terms of attacks/action and uses/rest. It's a very different sort of scaling that slaps a multiplier on static bonuses, makes encounters/day pacing critical to class balance, and makes numeric superiority tell heavily in an encounter, among other things. The overall effect evokes the classic game very well, in spite of BA.

Relative to what you are hitting though 5E damage is better than 4E due to less hp the opponents have if nothing else.

Much beyond apprentice tier hps are typically higher in 5e than they were in 4e at the same level (though, of course, they don't go to as high a level). But, yes, 5e damage quickly outstrips that of 4e - 5e has to scale somehow, and BA leaves hp/damage.