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

[Manbearcat]

This sounds like a proxy war. Narrative mechanics without in-fiction causality are a controversial topic (yes 5e already has some). But Solutions overly relying on them will not work for a significant portion of the player base. Which is why I call this a proxy war. It’s not about finding a solution but proposing a preferred solution and telling everyone else to ‘shove it’.


Magic is pure fantasy and works any way we fictionally describe.

I could be wrong here, but I don't read @ehren37 as engaging in a proxy war on a segment of the playerbase's claims of verisimilitude violation.

I read the statement as a lament over (i) "verisimilitude violation" being a refrain that has been usefully weaponized since time immemorial against (ii) increases in martial class move-space/competency/capability in reliably moving/controlling the trajectory of D&D's gamestate (particularly at level 7+ and scaling up from there).

Both sides can be sincere (sincere about verisimilitude issues and sincere about grievances over martial disparity in gamestate trajectory control).

The problem is, so far as I can tell, the only way to thread the needle of both sincerities is "nerf wizards" in some way (removal of spell slot proliferation after level 7 - eg 13th Age model...or making Wizardry costly and dangerous but structured in their cosmic power like the Whisper in Blades in the Dark model). But then another form of sincerity arises - (iii) "I don't want my Wizard nerfed!"

So, you've got three forms of "needle-threading sincerity (let us allow for the sincerity)" to accomplish that are at tension with one another in some way shape or form. To date, the (i) and (iii) camps have been successful in maintaining the status quo (even if the line has been drawn back on from 3.x to 5e)...so the needle has yet to be threaded among the D&D playerbase.

I think it’s worth considering that in approaching 5e as the big tent compromise edition that the issues we perceive with martial/caster balance may be irreconcilable without removing important comprises that were made to support the big tent.

EDIT TO ADD THIS - I think this is probably true. I think (i) + (ii) + (iii) above are almost surely irreconcilable or that the answer is somewhere out there, well-hidden, in the fertile design spaces being explored in the wild. Maybe at some point in the future those 3 needles will be threaded and put under the D&D header...but I'm not seeing it (particularly because there is culture war intertwined with any allowances for sincerity).

 

[TwoSix]

I think it’s worth considering that in approaching 5e as the big tent compromise edition that the issues we perceive with martial/caster balance may be irreconcilable without removing important comprises that were made to support the big tent.

I think you're exactly right. I don't think the solution they did is perfect, as I think there was room for a more complex martial and a "pew-pew" caster within the classes they picked for the PHB. But magic is still D&D magic in feel without being the balance smasher it was in 3E.

Edit: And as @Manbearcat said, they never really engaged with the idea that there's room in the game for non-magic narrative permissions to be given to martials, or the idea that high-level martials are inherently supernatural/mythic by the definition of what "levels" mean.

 

[Undrave]

* I will NEVER EVER EVER again spend the cognitive overhead required to tailor play to PC tactical niches or to rotate spotlight or to balance a natively unbalanced engine. Won't do it. I'm not going to Arms Race with Spellcasters or impose content upon play so weak PC archetypes can follow my bread-crumbs to Power Fantasy. Its anathema to skilled play and I want to spend all of my cognitive horsepower on creativity and dynamism...I don't want to spend one cent of it on making up for the system's issues that I have to curate out of existence.

Now there's a good definition for balance that can work for D&D: Can the DM come into a group with an adventure WITHOUT knowing in advance what the players are playing and can they complete that same adventure WITHOUT needing to adjust for said PC's classes?

I remember the Ravenloft season of Adventure League was really bad if no caster showed up that night. One time we had a Fighter, a Ranger and a Rogue and we literally couldn't damage that single werewolf enough that we could overcome their regeneration, and they, in turn, couldn't hit my Fighter reliably, OR the other players because of my Protection style giving them disadvantage. The DM just GAVE US THE WIN because we were at it for like... 15 rounds by then.

then, later, it's my fighter again, this time with a Monk and a Paladin against two animated trees. We were stuck and couldn't retreat, the Paladin spent all their Smite, and their resistances meant we did very little damage. We only got out of that jam because the DM let us set them on fire using my lantern oil. I was the only one with a lantern with oil. And they gave us enough damage.

There was probably more ideas we could have tried but it really felt like those adventures were designed with a caster in the party. You should be able to design an adventure without having ANY 'required' class.

And no, hiring an NPC with that class doesn't count as a solution! It still means that the class was required to be present! If I can't overcome an obstacle without having a Cleric in the party, hiring a NPC Cleric to do the job doesn't meant we didn't need the Cleric, it means we had to pay gold as a fine for not having a Cleric in my party. We were punished for not playing a Cleric.

 

[Minigiant]

I think it’s worth considering that in approaching 5e as the big tent compromise edition that the issues we perceive with martial/caster balance may be irreconcilable without removing important comprises that were made to support the big tent.

That or you know create multiple fighter and wizard classes and have groups allow the classes that fit their fantasy.

Therefore the only fight will be who gets to claim the original class names and who gets their suite of classes first.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That or you know create multiple fighter and wizard classes and have groups allow the classes that fit their fantasy.

Therefore the only fight will be who gets to claim the original class names and who gets their suite of classes first.

No, that's a mess. The game has to choose how to do each archetype and commit to that. You can't just keep recreating same archetypes because some people don't like the mechanics that were chosen. And there are other games that do things differently; one game cannot do everything at once.

 

[Minigiant]

No, that's a mess. The game has to choose how to do each archetype and commit to that. You can't just keep recreating same archetypes because some people don't like the mechanics that were chosen. And there are other games that do things differently; one game cannot do everything at once.

WOTC doesn't want to choose.

And the community is to fractured to come to agreement.

Your solution would be best but it isn't feasible anymore.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

WOTC doesn't want to choose.

And the community is to fractured to come to agreement.

Your solution would be best but it isn't feasible anymore.

I don't think the community is fractured to the extent that WotC cares. The game is literally more popular than ever.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't think the community is fractured to the extent that WotC cares. The game is literally more popular than ever.

There's no evidence that the market is particularly concerned about the current martial/caster imbalance in 5e (which, again, is much better than 3e). Any possible solutions here in thread are either something to be floated when a 6e playtest appears or something to address via homebrew.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think the community is fractured to the extent that WotC cares. The game is literally more popular than ever.

That’s because 5e as is largely works for them - warts and all. But yank at a few threads by solving in a manner only a portion of the community is good with and the compromises that made this edition work for so many start to unravel.

 

[Undrave]

No, that's a mess. The game has to choose how to do each archetype and commit to that. You can't just keep recreating same archetypes because some people don't like the mechanics that were chosen. And there are other games that do things differently; one game cannot do everything at once.

I wouldn't mind.

The Fighter is already such a badly defined mess that having two different 'Fighter', that are just a little tighter in design space so there's some difference between them, wouldn't bother me. Just have one be the 'Knight' that absorbs the Battlemaster, the Cavalier, the Samurai, the Banneret, maybe the Rune Knight, Psy Knight, Eldtrich Knight, and then a simpler 'Fighter' that would even absorb the Berserker (to keep the Barbarian more Shamanic), include the Champion, probably the Arcane Archer (since it's simpler than the Eldtrich Knight), maybe even a Martial Ranger (mostly flat damage buff, skirmishing and some nature skills) thrown in, maybe a Brawler/Wrestler with hand-to-hand specialty. One having a stronger social pillar than the other by virtue of being a more high standing figure.

If Wizards and Sorcerer and Warlock can totally have enough fluff difference between them, we can totally have a Fighter, a Knight and a Rogue. It's just a matter of how your spin it.

Or just bring the Warlord back

Heck, I wouldn't mind smaller, tighter and more numerous 'classes'. Probably classified by general gameplay aesthetics (i.e. guys who fight in melee in this chapter, guys who fight at a distance here, guys who support here and guys who do lots of skill stuff there) with a mix of martial and magical. You wouldn't have a 'Fighter', you'd have ten levels of 'Knight' and 'Ravager' and 'Blademaster' and 'Whirlwind Dervish' and 'Duelists', while on the caster side you'd have the 'Pyromancer', the 'Illusionist', the 'Necromancer', the 'Witch' and so forth. Ideally, all these mini classes could fit in a two-page spread.

Of course, that would break the sacrosanct 'Wizard are Magical Batman' gimmick by restricting spells so that'd be a huge no no. And probably wouldn't be D&D enough to work.

Though, now, I'm wondering if it would be possible to pre-build those mini-classes with the actual 5e rules and have them come out decent? Hmmm...