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

[Undrave]

but it is relevant to the OP.

the premise here is that a majority of players do not derive their enjoyment from finely tuned game balance. Therefore requiring near exact balance for casters and martials in combat is not required to deliver the games principal “product”….player enjoyment.

That's fine... but why is this inbalance always the same? Always favoring the same classes over and over again? Heck, if there are people that care about balance and people that don't... wouldn't it means pleasing MORE people to just work on the balance a little?

 

[Don Durito]

Balance is not important.

Therefore I suggest the following change for 6E.

Action Surge: You kill every enemy that you can see. If the enemy is already technically dead or not really alive you instead hack or pulverise them into hunks of meat, bone or metal as appropriate. You may use this a number of times per day equal to the age of the oldest player minus the age of the youngest player.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think that's two different arguments, though -

One, a rejection of the simplification. If consuming/plaing D&D is made easier, people will do it for the wrong reasons or the wrong people will do it! (Theodor Adorno railing that housewives might listen to opera on vinyl while washing dishes. They should attend the Opera!).

Two, a nebulous set of ideas about the right way the game is to be structured - and cosmic power for high level spellcasters is part of it. Interestingly, weak and fail low level spellcasters wasn't part of it, because people with this position don't seem to talk about that much. In a game where death was around every door this actually served as a balance mechanism of sorts.

I'm sure many people are in both positions, and they combine nicely, but they need not be present in everyone rejecting the idea of change.

I...don't really see those as fundamentally different arguments. Both are saying there is a fundamentally Wrong Way To Play. I...guess you could argue that the former is "forbid wrong-way"-ism while the latter is "one true way"-ism, but functionally the two reach the same place for essentially the same reason.

The identity issue I reckon is only a very small number of D&D players. Though they play an important role in popularising (or not) a particular version of D&D (see eg 4e) in virtue of their role in the networks, I don't think they are actually that numerous.

Does their number matter when they have an outsized influence on the network? Genuine question. Does it matter if only 1% of the fanbase raises a stink, if by doing so that 1% influences the designers, the playerbase at large, or both?

Heck, if it were only one single person doing that, would it matter that that person were singular, if they still had a significant observable effect on the game at large?

It would be nice if the subclass was actually better at that than it is.

Exactly. Like, I totally appreciate where @Sithlord is coming from on this, in that abnegation is a totally valid aesthetic of play (even if it's a little hard to properly square with the active/dynamic RP participation expected by most D&D games). But it would be really quite nice if the "man I just want to chill out" options didn't tend to be subpar unless you work to make them good. Not strictly bad, since 5e is generally better-balanced than the edition it's most clearly based on. But...yeah, it's actually pretty hard for a Champion to keep up with a Battlemaster unless you use the expected number of (combat) encounters each day. (I ran the numbers some time back; it actually works out within highly reasonable bounds IF the Champion gets about seven four-round combats a day; fewer but longer combats or more numerous but shorter combats can also work. The problem, of course, being that almost no one does this in practice.)

Going back to the warlord discussion. It seems to me the Battlemaster makes a solid level 3 warlord.

Theres 2 issues with that
1. You can’t start off with any warlord abilities till level 3
2. There’s very minimal scaling of warlord abilities they do get.

So I think that while conceptually the warlord exists and plays pretty well as a warlord at level 3 (I’ve played very leader fighters at that level before) - mechanically it’s a piece of crap for not scaling.

Well, I mean, not actually having the ability to heal real hit points hurts, literally and figuratively. (And we have actual tweets, from Mearls himself during the playtest, where he said martial healing was perfectly fine and if players didn't like it they could simply exclude that class from their games, so that argument can be laid to rest.)

Conceptually, something like a Warlord exists, I'll grant you that. But because it's shackled to the Fighter chassis--which is all about self-improvement/personal damage output/survival, and has multiple features geared toward that baked into the class itself--it's just not allowed to deliver a good Warlord experience. We even have a nice, simple comparison here: Eldritch Knight and Wizard. The Eldritch Knight meets your definition of "conceptually, a <class> exists," except swapping out Warlord for Wizard.

Do you think people who are fans of Wizards would have been satisfied if the Wizard flat-out didn't exist, and anyone asking for a Wizard was told, "Look, you can play an Eldritch Knight, that's basically a Wizard, just wear robes and fight with simple weapons, and if you want more of a caster-like experience, play Bard, Sorcerer, or certain Cleric subclasses." Or, "Wizards are just Eldritch Knights who shout hands back on are even more nerdy than usual." Or, "We see the Wizard as being like a cross between the Eldritch Knight and an unarmored Cleric."

It's good enough for what it needs to do. 5e is so easy that there is no bad subclass to play. There are only good and a little bit better.

I disagree vehemently with that last bit. There is not only "good and a little bit better." There's sub-par, adequate, good, and stellar. And guess which category has no super-simple classes in it?

I really dislike that argument. My 7 year old can do basic addition and subtraction. It doesn't require smarts to use THAC0. I personally believe that it's laziness rather than lack of intelligence that caused people to dislike it. There couldn't have been that many people playing D&D who weren't as smart as your average 7 year old.

It'd be nice if you didn't call me lazy. Especially since I've actually tutored math at the vector calculus level. I'm not, even slightly, lazy about mathematics (rather the opposite, I torture my friends discuss neat math topics with my friends almost constantly.) I vehemently dislike THAC0, and have always found it difficult to work with, despite having ample ability and desire to do calculation work when it comes to games.

That, too. My point was that it's certainly not a lack of intelligence. If you look at the 3e to hit progressions, they match THAC0. THAC0 didn't go away in 3e. It just changed a bit to as you say, make it easier to grok.

For the people I was specifically referring to, it DID go away though. The cumbersome process of translating things into and out of "low is good" math was the whole point of it, because it excluded people who weren't of sufficient intelligence (or zeal, given your preferences for calling people who struggled with THAC0 lazy.)

Nomwayn

No way would I allow something like that not being extremely magical in source. I have no problem with a ranger being able to do that. But call it what it is

As others have said, but I feel should be reiterated: "Magic" is a subset of "supernatural." There may be things that are not "magic" at all, but which are intensely, inevitably supernatural. We are saying that it should be possible for so-called "mundane" skill to become supernatural, by existing in a world where the supernatural is an ever-present part of existence (as opposed to our world, where even those who openly believe in the supernatural admit that it is restricted or difficult to locate.)

That's an opinion, but it's not the only one.

So it could be better at damage. So what, really. It's still plenty good for 5e. Damage output isn't the end all, be all of playing the game.

Well, it's an opinion that Mike Mearls himself backed up, seeing as how he admitted a few years ago now that the lack of flavor in the Fighter class was one of his regrets about 5e's core design.

And...okay, but what the frigg else is the Champion doing? Like, it's fine to say "there's more to the game than doing damage," but that's literally what 75% of the Champion's subclass features are ABOUT. The only things that AREN'T exclusively and explicitly about that are Remarkable Athlete (which is hilariously weak, other than giving half proficiency to Initiative, since it doesn't stack with Proficiency) and Survivor (which...is only useful if you're taking damage...which almost always means you're in a fight). You can't even hide behind the shield of "but but but Action Surge," because that's not a Champion feature, it's a Fighter feature--any Fighter would get it.

The thing with balance is that it's a pipe dream. It's utterly impossible to achieve in an RPG where you have different classes with different abilities.

False and false. Asymmetrical balance is completely achievable in RPGs and other genres besides.* Numerous other games have done it, not just 4e--there was a lovely list earlier in the thread, for example. D&D is, in fact, pretty stand-out in the RPG crowd for having issues of this kind (the only non-D&D game I know of that has similar issues is Shadowrun....which itself has roots in D&D.)

Balance is achievable. Full stop. It has actually happened in real games, and not just in 4e. Dungeon World, for example, is extremely well-balanced in my experience. 13th Age, which takes cues from both 4e and 3e, is a balanced game--in fact, a game that introduced an outright brilliant new tool for improving the balance of games, the Escalation Die. (It also genuinely solved the "3e Druid problem," aka the "I have special abilities that are more powerful than your entire class!" problem.)

*FFXIV is exemplary in the MMO sphere, for instance. Its developers rarely get everything right on the first try. For example, my favorite job is Summoner, and it is almost always underpowered each time a new expansion drops. But it has always been fixed within six months, sometimes less. WoW fans made similar arguments to yours, that effective balance is a pipe dream, and the best you can expect is swatting down each new bug as it arises; FFXIV puts those arguments thoroughly to bed in the MMO sphere, and the aforementioned TTRPGs do the same in their sphere.

 

[Don Durito]

This is one of the easier fixes, true, but the problem is the book goes up to 20, so people want to see more than 60% of the range (whether or not that desire makes any sense).

Sort of like how once the epic level stuff for 3/3.5 was published, people wanted to play in that range, which was super broken even by 3/3.5 standards.

Yes. But the thing is, if Planeshift is on the table, then something like was posted by Pemerton below should be at some point. The issue is the idea that only casters get the tools to accomplish mythic things.

I did have this in mind, yes - it's the Dark Wanderer in Martial Power, an Epic Destiny for rangers and rogues:

Dark Road (24th level): You can walk to any destination you desire in a single, uninterrupted 24-hour period of walking. No matter how distant the location, or how many planes separate you from it, you reach the destination 24 hours after you begin, finding shortcuts, portals, or other modes of transport previously unknown to you. You do not require any rest, food, or water during this travel, except to recharge powers and regain healing surges. During your journey, you are safe from hazards, attacks, and other dangers.​

​

When choosing a destination, you must be specific. If your destination is within a structure, such as a particular room within a castle, the long walk leads you to the structure’s main entrance, not inside the structure.​

​

You can choose to be accompanied by a number of characters equal to 5 + your Wisdom modifier, all of whom share the benefit of this class feature.​

I frequently read posts saying that 4e limited PC options by spelling things out as abilities like this. The flip side of that has to be that this sort of thing can be done using the ability/skill system in 5e.

Now I know that a lot of people don't like giving martial characters access to mythic abilities like this, that's why you can separate the whole tier out. (And it seems people also don't like spells like Planseshift)

People who want to play traditional fantasy don't have Fighters with mythic powers and don't have archmages who will cast Planeshift for a fee. People who want to play warriors at that level don't have to play characters who just tag along until there is a fight and have to do things like check their jump distance when leaping over ravines that half the party have been able to teleport over for half a dozen levels now.

 

[Tinker-TDC]

I know this is a martial/magic thread but I really got the itch to do some math on the Champion (debatably worst Fighter but Bannerett is probably worse) and the Battlemaster (the 'standard' for what is a good Fighter). Note that these numbers are only damage output so it ignores effects of maneuvers and just assumes the Battlemaster uses a maneuver where you can choose to add the superiority die to damage after already hitting. Just gonna mark the levels where the Fighter gets extra attacks and the Battlemaster gets more or bigger Superiority dice and the Champion gets additional crit range. Champion will have a d8 damage column (for ranged or sword and board) and a 2d6 column for two-handed weapons (as the improved crit directly scales off of weapon damage dice and number of attacks).

Because of the nature of the Champion's resource-free improved crit and the Battlemaster's short-rest powered superiority the final column will show how many rounds of combat must occur for the Champion to out-damage the Battlemaster.

It also includes a proposal for a "Megachampion" that is exactly the same as a champion except the "Improved Critical" lets them crit on an 18-20 and the "Superior Critical" lets them crit on a 16-20 (statistically granting one critical hit per turn to a level 20 Fighter.)

The big thing I'm missing is the Great Weapons Fighting Style which would increase the damage output of a two-handed fighter and a Champion (with the bonus Fighting Style) would almost certainly take if they were a great weapon Fighter.

Also note the Battlemaster Column is additional damage per short rest while the Champion columns are additional damage per round.

Edit: I didn't account for Action Surge, so it would be fair to subtract 1 from the number of rounds for Champion victory in all columns.

 

[Don Durito]

I reckon you could just roll Purple Dragon Knight and Champion into one subclass.

 

[Stalker0]

Heck, if there are people that care about balance and people that don't... wouldn't it means pleasing MORE people to just work on the balance a little?

I would argue 5e actively took steps in that direction. Casters received several nerfs, less spells per day (MUCH fewer high level spells) and concentration dramatically weakens how "juiced up" a caster can get.

And from that, there are people that feel that casters are not as "fun" anymore.

At the end of the day, a lot of players just want to have simple classes to play the game. And complex will always be more powerful than simple. So either you keep nerfing complex until there is no point in play complex anymore....or you accept some degree of imbalance.

 

[Tinker-TDC]

I reckon you could just roll Purple Dragon Knight and Champion into one subclass.

This is the solution we've used in my game and it feels really good and not overpowered in-play. Really gives the character a heroic feel while still being as simple as a Fighter with no subclass.

 

[Krachek]

Do I understand that in 2021 some players take personal that another character can planeshift the party while his can’t and get frustrated?
Mommy I want to do that too!

 

[Maxperson]

As others have said, but I feel should be reiterated: "Magic" is a subset of "supernatural." There may be things that are not "magic" at all, but which are intensely, inevitably supernatural. We are saying that it should be possible for so-called "mundane" skill to become supernatural, by existing in a world where the supernatural is an ever-present part of existence (as opposed to our world, where even those who openly believe in the supernatural admit that it is restricted or difficult to locate.)

Yeah. I like how The Book of Nine Swords did it. Some maneuvers were martial only and others were supernatural.

Well, it's an opinion that Mike Mearls himself backed up, seeing as how he admitted a few years ago now that the lack of flavor in the Fighter class was one of his regrets about 5e's core design.

That's pretty meaningless other than he shares that opinion.

And...okay, but what the frigg else is the Champion doing? Like, it's fine to say "there's more to the game than doing damage," but that's literally what 75% of the Champion's subclass features are ABOUT. The only things that AREN'T exclusively and explicitly about that are Remarkable Athlete (which is hilariously weak, other than giving half proficiency to Initiative, since it doesn't stack with Proficiency) and Survivor (which...is only useful if you're taking damage...which almost always means you're in a fight). You can't even hide behind the shield of "but but but Action Surge," because that's not a Champion feature, it's a Fighter feature--any Fighter would get it.

But that's the entire point. It's not supposed to be for people who want to do a lot of different things. That's its function. If you want to do a lot of stuff, don't be a Champion.

False and false. Asymmetrical balance is completely achievable in RPGs and other genres besides.* Numerous other games have done it, not just 4e--there was a lovely list earlier in the thread, for example. D&D is, in fact, pretty stand-out in the RPG crowd for having issues of this kind (the only non-D&D game I know of that has similar issues is Shadowrun....which itself has roots in D&D.)

Balance is achievable. Full stop. It has actually happened in real games, and not just in 4e. Dungeon World, for example, is extremely well-balanced in my experience. 13th Age, which takes cues from both 4e and 3e, is a balanced game--in fact, a game that introduced an outright brilliant new tool for improving the balance of games, the Escalation Die. (It also genuinely solved the "3e Druid problem," aka the "I have special abilities that are more powerful than your entire class!" problem.)

The only problems here are that 1) 4e failed miserably at balance. Some classes that were better than other classes at damage, control, etc., and 2) you're wrong. For two classes to be balanced, they have to be identical. Once you give one class a different ability, it becomes better at some things and worse than others. The more different abilities you give the classes, the more those things shift and you will not end up with two classes that are equal. There will always be imbalance. The only thing that remains after that is how much imbalance is acceptable. 4e and 5e did pretty well keeping the imbalance in acceptable ranges.

*FFXIV is exemplary in the MMO sphere, for instance. Its developers rarely get everything right on the first try. For example, my favorite job is Summoner, and it is almost always underpowered each time a new expansion drops. But it has always been fixed within six months, sometimes less. WoW fans made similar arguments to yours, that effective balance is a pipe dream, and the best you can expect is swatting down each new bug as it arises; FFXIV puts those arguments thoroughly to bed in the MMO sphere, and the aforementioned TTRPGs do the same in their sphere.

And yet if you google FFXIV classes, you will find some that are better at DPS than others. Some that are more versatile than others. And so on. They are not balanced, but like 3e and 4e, within the acceptable amount of imbalance.