D&D 5E (2014) Spellcaster/Warrior Imbalances Discussion

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, it's possible. But that happens less often. Combats are balanced around having multiple PC's. Utility scenario's are not.

Maybe they should be? Could be part of the problem.

 

[ccs]

And how many of you have figured out 5E uses a lot of 4Eisms..

If you pace you spells right they are effectively encounter powers you higher level spells are your 4E dailies.

And as a caster in BECMi/1e/2e/3x/PF if I pace my spell use right I get the same effect....
The only difference between editions is how many spells per day I get.

For the martial types instead of 3w or 4W etc you get 2 attacks with extra damage via stacking ability mods.

So again, just like 1e/2e/3x/PF.

I also suspect most classes get spells to duplicate 4E powers. I don't think most gamers care about the effect if its magical.

Or maybe most classes get spells because they've always gotten them (Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, & Bards), gotten them eventually (paladins & Rangers), or for the fighter and rogue had very popular kits/prestige classes/variants published along the way (2e+) that included them.
Leaving pretty much the Barbarian & the Monk as the only non-spellcasters.

Fighters also get more feats. Might be a reason perhaps.

Yep. If you're a fighter player & you think you're lacking in the exploration/social parts of the game?
1) Stop sitting there mutely playing with your phone while other people talk/explore. It doesn't matter what your stats are, PARTICIPATE!
2) But, if you must have +s..... Invest some of those feats or ASIs in something other than +'s to hit/damage. The options are there, make use of them.

 

[ccs]

BUT Fighters can take non combat feats......lets be honest the non combat feats are mostly crap.

Please, enlighten us as to wich is wich. And why.

 

[Xeviat]

I still feel like "the fighter can take non-combat feats" isn't a fair comparison. The wizard can prep level+Int mod spells. As long as they prepare a few offensive spells, their combat ability is covered, meaning they can prepare a bunch of social or exploration pillared spells with the rest. If the day ends up being all about combat, then they use their spell slots on combat. If the day ends up being mostly sneaking through a fortress, then they use a lot of spells on invisibility, charm person, and fly.

If the fighter picks up languages or extra skills or those nifty new expertise skill feats, they still have their high combat potency floor but they have chosen to not pick a permanent increase in their combat power, either temporarily (delaying a stat up) or permanently (by avoiding a feat that would synergize with their combat style.

The rogue, who has nearly the same combat potential as a fighter, especially against a single target where uncanny dodge really shines, has abilities like expertise to enhance their ability to do things out of combat. Most fighters have nothing of this nature. And, again, the primary casters take the cake on this one.

What I think is needed is an expanded skill system. More things to do with skills could help the noncasters to do more. Yes, the casters have skills too, but I liked how 3E all but skill taxed the casters with knowledge, spell craft, and concentration. I'd go back to something like that and then increase skill proficiencies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ccs]

If you feel fighters are lacking in the utility department... why in the world would you then choose not to use feats? There's a problem... there's an optional solution to your problem (because not everyone experiences the same problems with the game as evidenced by this very thread), but you choose not to use it and complain about said problem??

Because the DM isn't allowing feats?

 

[Imaro]

Because the DM isn't allowing feats?

I was assuming the group is in agreement that there is an issue... If not there's probably no solution (since it would be optional) that is going to work since the DM and other players won't feel it's necessary.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I still feel like "the fighter can take non-combat feats" isn't a fair comparison. The wizard can prep level+Int mod spells.

Nod. The wizard is more flexible, sure - it's more flexible than it's ever been, that way, really. Even compared to the notorious Tier 1 Wizard of 3.5, the neo-Vancian 5e Wizard's spontaneous casting gives him superior flexibility within an adventuring day. Comparing that to the fighter is hardly fair.

As long as they prepare a few offensive spells, their combat ability is covered, meaning they can prepare a bunch of social or exploration pillared spells with the rest. If the day ends up being all about combat, then they use their spell slots on combat. If the day ends up being mostly sneaking through a fortress, then they use a lot of spells on invisibility, charm person, and fly.

And, if they actually manage to prepare a slate of spells so bad that none of them are ever useful the end the day with all their slots wasted. (OK, that's a bizarrely improbable corner case, I admit.)

If the fighter picks up languages or extra skills or those nifty new expertise skill feats, they still have their high combat potency floor but they have chosen to not pick a permanent increase in their combat power

Doesn't really matter that much to the point you've made, above. Assuming a fighter puts his two net bonus ASIs towards some extra skills or other non-combat-meaningful feat, he's as good at combat (with weapons) as any Ranger or Paladin with the same fighting style and the same ASI & feat choices. Which is surely good enough. But whatever those two feats are, he doesn't get to change them at the end of the day, let alone the middle of the adventure, and that's a profound lack of flexibility compared to the case you've made for the wizard, above.

The rogue, who has nearly the same combat potential as a fighter, especially against a single target where uncanny dodge really shines, has abilities like expertise to enhance their ability to do things out of combat. Most fighters have nothing of this nature. And, again, the primary casters take the cake on this one.

Nod. I'm sure y'all've heard this before, but you could combine the Fighter & Rogue into one class, taking the best of each and cutting nothing, and it still wouldn't be overshadowing anyone...

What I think is needed is an expanded skill system. More things to do with skills could help the noncasters to do more.

Depending on how you expanded it, it could also just serve to broaden their incompetencies. If you just added more skills and more detail to the skill system, for instance, you'd just have more options for the limited set of proficiencies & ASIs to chase after.

Now, maybe more elaborate skill uses (group checks are as inclusive as it gets in 5e) in exploration & interaction could help - like 'complex' skill checks from 3e or 'skill challenges' from 4e?

Yes, the casters have skills too, but I liked how 3E all but skill taxed the casters with knowledge, spell craft, and concentration. I'd go back to something like that and then increase skill proficiencies.

Concentration was very useful, though, it negated long-standing restrictions on and risks of spellcasting. If 5e casters were 'taxed' with a concentration skill that let them negate the Concentration mechanic, they'd be coming out far ahead. And Knowledge skills are already there, and already useful. And Spellcraft would presumably be useful any time you encounters spellcasters, which, given that every class uses spells to some degree, and that casters are among the most challenging potential opponents, couldn't help but be pretty useful, too.

But, yeah, by all means, throw a few more proficiencies to the handful of non-magic-using sub-classes. Couldn't hurt.

 

[FrogReaver]

That prettymuch can't literally be the case for the same reason the fighter can't be considered literally useless out of combat - 5e's brilliant BA design philosophy. Imagine a hypothetical caster with absolutely no combat-usable spells available, not even cantrips that take attack rolls or saving throws. In combat, he can still use weapons (even if his STR & DEX both suck, he's still proficient in some of them) and hit some of the time thanks to BA, and every little bit of damage puts the current focus of the party's focus fire that much closer to 0 hps, so is useful and helping. He could also literally be helpful by using the Help action. And he could always improvise actions.

I would denote such a character you describe as being very little benefit to combat. Do you disagree? And if not, then why can you not also agree that the fighter is of very little benefit in out of combat situations? It's not a situation where a fighter just has lower skill checks for out of combat stuff than the full caster and bounded accuracy still helps him contribute at half or 1/4 effectiveness. Instead most of the out of combat stuff in the exploration pillar that full casters get to do he literally cannot do.

That said I feel challenged now to actually try and see just how strong the non-combat fighter can be! I might be pleasantly surprised. I kind of doubt it though...

 

[mellored]

Maybe they should be? Could be part of the problem.

They attempted it in 4e with skill challenges. Everyone joined in and you need to roll a certain number of "hits" in order to succeed in the challenge.

It kinda worked, but also didn't.

 

[mellored]

Maybe if they replaced "fly" with "reduce weight", "find food and water" with "transform food and water", and "dimension door" with "dimensional hallway-that-you-still-need-to-walk-down", it would work a lot better.


Change the "I win" spells into "I help" spells.