D&D 5E Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll

[Mort]

Unpopular opinion:
Classes shouldn't be balanced with each other. It's better for some classes to be better than others across the board, and to be better at certain things than others. Not everything needs to be a "another sword wizard, but with This One Weird Trick."

RIFTS essentially does this.

The end result is that there's just no point in some classes being in a party with other classes, they will add no value because the one class does everything better.

Gaming is generally a team game and the point is for everyone at the table to be able to contribute in a meaningful way. If one character is so outclassed by another that the player of the outclassed class can't meaningfully contribute - that's a problem.

And let's be clear about something - 5e has less of a problem with this than prior editions (with the possible exception of 4e).

Sure I'll argue that some classes are better than others or that some subclasses are better. BUT the differences aren't really THAT huge. I've yet to see a 5e class subclass that's can't contribute well within a group.

 

[tetrasodium]

RIFTS essentially does this.

The end result is that there's just no point in some classes being in a party with other classes, they will add no value because the one class does everything better.

Gaming is generally a team game and the point is for everyone at the table to be able to contribute in a meaningful way. If one character is so outclassed by another that the player of the outclassed class can't meaningfully contribute - that's a problem.

And let's be clear about something - 5e has less of a problem with this than prior editions (with the possible exception of 4e).

Sure I'll argue that some classes are better than others or that some subclasses are better. BUT the differences aren't really THAT huge. I've yet to see a 5e class subclass that's can't contribute well within a group.

RIFTS does it badly. The creator is known for running con games & such in ways that very much are not something that resembles the rules in the book. A better example would be this where everything (stats/races/discretionary spending beyond what class levels give/etc) is all point buy & a great deal of shared narrative-type stuff is baked in to let the gm & players wiggle things as needed.

 

[Steampunkette]

 

[Mort]

A 1st level caster can cast Sleep twice. It can certainly have a dramatic impact on one or two fight (three at most), then it has nothing to cast* for the remaining 4 to 6 encounters of the day (not even a defensive spell).

1. That's assuming you have 4-6 more encounters. Not every day does. But the point is, in 2 encounters the Wizard wasn't just effective but changed the encounter dramatically.

In other encounters, the Wizard is reduced to cantrips. Which are merely OK - but they're not useless. So it's a weird balance. Basically, at low levels, to be the MVP once or twice, the Wizard underperforms at other times (but still contributes and contributs ok).

As levels increase the Wizard can be the MVP more often, but still had to conserve resources (that's IF the DM pays attention to pacing and doesn't allow the Wizard to dictate the pace of play.

It's an interesting way to balance and it means the Wizard contributes differently but still effectively.

 

[Steampunkette]

More seriously, @tetrasodium's math is accurate. It is possible to make a fighter or Paladin that can chunk out 110 damage per turn.

Divided among 4 attacks for a maximum of 4 targets taking 1/4 of that damage. Assuming every swing is a hit, and depending on your dice there's no guarantee of that.

Meanwhile a single Fireball spell averages out to 28 paltry damage by comparsion.

To each target. With up to 52 Squares each targeted with that 28 damage. If there are 4 people in the area, the Wizard's one fireball deals 2 points more on average.

If there are 8 people in the area, and every last one of them makes their saving throw, the wizard still beats the fighter assuming the fighter hits every target. And after level 10 an evoker add 5 to every single one of the targets (Since Fireball only uses one damage roll). So even on a successful save that's 16 more points of damage.

And none of it requires the use of Feats, an optional system that not all DMs use. And even those of us who -do- use that optional system often say "No" to GWM.

If there are more than 8 people in the 40ft diameter fireball radius, the Wizard completely blows the fighter's damage for that round out of the water even if the fighter hits every turn and the enemies all make their saving throws.

Fighters do comparable, or better, damage than Wizards when the Wizard is out of spell slots or isn't a Damage-Caster. And even that doesn't include "Combat Enders" or "Damage Multipliers" like Haste or Hold Person.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

1. That's assuming you have 4-6 more encounters. Not every day does.

5e is balanced around 6 to 8 medium to hard encounter in a typical adventure day. Days that have less encounters are supposed to be balanced by day that have more. If a DM deviate for this on average, he'd tend to improve the efficiency of long rest ressource users, sometimes dramatically, sprinters over marathonians.

As levels increase the Wizard can be the MVP more often, but still had to conserve resources (that's IF the DM pays attention to pacing and doesn't allow the Wizard to dictate the pace of play.

It's an interesting way to balance and it means the Wizard contributes differently but still effectively.

I think it's quite balanced that way in 5e (especially since the dangerousness of fights can't be really guessed in advance so spellcasters should be wary of nova'ing too early in the adventuring day, and risk ending the day with amajor ressource unspent). If the party adhere to 5-minute adventuring day, I guess they'd be better off playing only "long rest ressource users" (mostly casters). But that's not because they are casters but because of the way the ressources are refreshed.

 

[Mort]

RIFTS does it badly. The creator is known for running con games & such in ways that very much are not something that resembles the rules in the book. A better example would be this where everything (stats/races/discretionary spending beyond what class levels give/etc) is all point buy & a great deal of shared narrative-type stuff is baked in to let the gm & players wiggle things as needed.

Interesting, but in theory, equal point buy mean equal power levels across ranges. The only way for one character to be better than another at EVERYTHING would be for one character to have more points - and that's not really a fair comparison. It would be like comparing a 100 point GURPS character to a 500 point GURPS character. If course the latter will be "better. "

 

[Mort]

5e is balanced around 6 to 8 medium to hard encounter in a typical adventure day. Days that have less encounters are supposed to be balanced by day that have more. If a DM deviate for this on average, he'd tend to improve the efficiency of long rest ressource users, sometimes dramatically, sprinters over marathonians.


I think it's quite balanced that way in 5e (especially since the dangerousness of fights can't be really guessed in advance so spellcasters should be wary of nova'ing too early in the adventuring day, and risk ending the day with amajor ressource unspent). If the party adhere to 5-minute adventuring day, I guess they'd be better off playing only "long rest ressource users" (mostly casters). But that's not because they are casters but because of the way the ressources are refreshed.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not completely moot though.

At 3rd level a rogue will have about a 65% chance to pick a standard lock (DC 15 and assuming 16 Dex and the rogue having expertise and thieves tools). A knock spell gives you a 100% chance. That's not insignificant when you REALLY need to get past a lock.

But that's also not the whole story. If the rogue doesn't have tools and has to improvise then he's picking the lock at disadvantage - that's only a 42% chance of success. The Wizard remains at 100% (without needing access to anything since knock is a V only spell).

If the rogue can't improvise tools (say he's locked in a dungeon cell and the DM is being overly strict) he can't pick the lock. The wizard - still at 100%.

Now how many wizard players memorize knock as their sole 2nd level spell? Not many, unless they know it will almost certainly come up - then yes they would - at a significant resource cost.

But allowing it as a ritual? That obliterates locks as an obstacle completely, which is a bit much - especially for 3rd level. I'm comfortable giving that to a rogue at 11th (reliable talent and a high skill check) they've more than earned it - but not to a wizard at 3rd.

Wizards at 3rd level can have two 2nd level spells memorized, so knock only has to be one of the two. When they hit 3rd level, they can get 2 free second level spells for their book. When preparing spells, they get a number of spells equal to wizard level + int modifier that can be of any levels, so they prepare both of those second level spells.

 

[CleverNickName]

And none of it requires the use of Feats, an optional system that not all DMs use. And even those of us who -do- use that optional system often say "No" to GWM.

This always bears repeating. Feats are optional, and not everyone uses them (or uses all of them).

In my next campaign, I'm considering limiting all feats to only a small handful of the most generic ones (Heavily Armored, Moderately Armored, Lightly Armored, Linguist, Resilient, Skilled, Tough, and Weapon Master.)