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

[FrogReaver]

The issue is that Feats are optional content design to be used in place of a ASI

Even a dual wielding battleaxes character is not accessible via the base game. That's a strong case that feats are meant to enable concepts that can't be realized in the base rules.

 

[FrogReaver]

We have exactly zero implementations of the Warlord. Not one. You're trying to take an existing class, the Battle Master, and squint at it sideways so you can declare it to be a Warlord. It's not a Warlord no matter how you look at it.

EDIT: Actually this comment has nothing to do with what I was talking about so I'm going to leave it be. I talked about the warlord concept and how the battlemaster fulfilled it probably 20+ pages ago.

In this post I was talking about the purpose of feats as concept enablers - despite being optional.

 

[Maxperson]

EDIT: Actually this comment has nothing to do with what I was talking about so I'm going to leave it be. I talked about the warlord concept and how the battlemaster fulfilled it probably 20+ pages ago.

In this post I was talking about the purpose of feats as concept enablers - despite being optional.

I'll give them half enablers, since they are optional and cannot be relied upon. You can take them to help fulfill a concept, but not to fulfill a class or subclass.

 

[pemerton]

Every time you add a new class, you narrow the conceptual space of the existing classes. By making a separate warlord class, you're saying that conceptually fighter cannot be that any more.

I don't think this is true.

The existence of an Assassin subclass of rogue doesn't mean a player can't play his/her fighter (probably DEX-based, with some appropriate Background) as an assassin.

Nature clerics and druids clearly overlap to a significant degree conceptually.

In AD&D the cleric - with its heavy arms and armour, turning of undead and healing with a touch - clearly overlapped archetypically with the paladin - also heavily armed and armoured, and able to turn undead and heal with a touch. And the last time I played a martial artist in AD&D it was built (as best I recall) on a thief chassis.

D&D classes are mechanics as much as concepts and have always tolerated a significant degree of overlap.

 

[Sithlord]

I don't think this is true.

The existence of an Assassin subclass of rogue doesn't mean a player can't play his/her fighter (probably DEX-based, with some appropriate Background) as an assassin.

Nature clerics and druids clearly overlap to a significant degree conceptually.

In AD&D the cleric - with its heavy arms and armour, turning of undead and healing with a touch - clearly overlapped archetypically with the paladin - also heavily armed and armoured, and able to turn undead and heal with a touch. And the last time I played a martial artist in AD&D it was built (as best I recall) on a thief chassis.

D&D classes are mechanics as much as concepts and have always tolerated a significant degree of overlap.

I kinda agree with the person. It seems to me a lot of things about a warlord is what a fighter would grow into as he gained experience fighting in a unit or team. That’s my opinion anyway.

 

[Minigiant]

The one and only implementation that we have - the one specific to 4e that gave all classes secondary stat riders used mental stats. Since very few of the other classes in 5e are tied to secondary mental stats, I don't get why you would be that tied to that specific implentation that had abilities scale by secondary stats?

Because it lets me be a warrior that has both a Combat Role and a Out of Combat Role and does them well.

The Fighter is very Dependent on their Physical stats. 5e is very weak on letting your physical stats push out of combat unless you use DEXTERITY KING OF THE ABILITY SCORES. And even then Dexterity is limited and Fighter only get Acrobatics as a DEX class skill. Only only STR skill. No Con skills. And Fighters get no tools by default.

It;'s a huge ask to get a DM to make your noble knight fighter work before level 8 by asking for 7and a half houserules.

This to me is the whole problem.

How the Gehenna is making a noble, knight, miltilia captain, chieftian or gladiator with High Str, High Cha, and Decent Con a bad choice in Dungeons and Dragons?
Many fighters based on the fluff of the fighter as an elite warrior would come out of the military or nobility and many would have decent or high mental stats.

But there are very few core ways to bring their mental stats to the battlefield unlike real life.
What the Hades Mearls and Crawford?
I mean the noble and knight NPCs in the MM have 15 CHA.

 

[pemerton]

Not really. The basic abilities of a Fighter, Ranger and Paladin were the same. Same attack tables, same save tables, same weapons (initially). Could use the same magic items (except for the subclass-specific holy avenger, which could actually still be used by fighters but not as well).

Subclasses in 1E were a lot closer to the base class with the vast majority of mechanics coming from the base class and only a few add on, mostly minor, abilities from the Paladin or Ranger subclass. The main thing was they all got to use all weapons and all armor. when the Paladin went under the Cavalier, they transitioned to the cavalier abilities and restrictions.

2E did introduce some separation between them.

The only mechanical difference between an AD&D paladin and a 2nd ed AD&D paladin is that the latter has its protection aura nerfed.

A 2nd ed ranger is quite different from an AD&D one, though - it has just about everything nerfed.

In AD&D being a "subclass" means that you use the same attack and save tables. That's it. It's nothing like the 5e conception of subclass. (Subclasses don't even necessarily overlap in magic items usable - look at the Illusionist entry in the AD&D PHB, for instance. Nor do they overlap in hit dice - look at the ranger in the PHB.)

 

[Sithlord]

The only mechanical difference between an AD&D paladin and a 2nd ed AD&D paladin is that the latter has its protection aura nerfed.

A 2nd ed ranger is quite different from an AD&D one, though - it has just about everything nerfed.

In AD&D being a "subclass" means that you use the same attack and save tables. That's it. It's nothing like the 5e conception of subclass. (Subclasses don't even necessarily overlap in magic items usable - look at the Illusionist entry in the AD&D PHB, for instance. Nor do they overlap in hit dice - look at the ranger in the PHB.)

I agree completely. But the 1E ranger was extremely overpower imho.

 

[pemerton]

There were no subclasses in either 1e or 2e. There were only classes. What some of them had were class categories, such as warrior, rogue, and priest, but there were no subclasses.

This isn't true of AD&D. Certain classes are expressly called out as subclasses. They are indented under their main classes in various of the tables. Being a sub-class determines attack and save charts, and creates a starting point for certain other mechanical interactions. It's a very rough precursor to ideas like "power source" in 4e or arcane vs divine magic in 3E and 5e.

 

[Minigiant]

Even a dual wielding battleaxes character is not accessible via the base game. That's a strong case that feats are meant to enable concepts that can't be realized in the base rules.

No
It's a strong case that it should have been in the base game.

Inspiring Leader shouldn't have been a feat. It should have been a choice as an alternative to Second Wind.

At level 2, choose Second Wind or Inspiring Word