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

[Minigiant]

BE a Warlord without expending ressources, for one thing. BE a Warlord at level 1 for another?

You could be a small town gang leader or militia lieutenant as a level 1 warlord.

 

[Manbearcat]

You've fallen a page behind.

Because the fighter has less to do in mechanical terms, the fighter player has the cognitive room to follow the fiction and the play, and so advise the wizards and bards on what they should do.

It's game-design genius!

Time to play the princess with no combat abilty.
I'll dominate the whole game.

GM: Alright Vanessa, Amy, Bill...here are your character sheets.

Vanessa, Amy, Bill: AWESOME!

Timmy: Where's my character sheet?

GM: Silly Timmy. You don't get one. You won First Prize for this campaign (Second Prize is a set of steak knives)! You're uniquely positioned to have the privilege of getting to "pay_attention" and "tell_other_people_what_you'd_like_them_to_do!" Now, I know...I know. You're going to ask me "BUT GM, THIS CRAZY OVERPOWERED ABILITY MUST BE RATIONED TO BE ONLY ONCE PER ADVENTURING DAY?!" No Timmy...this is the incredible thing... You can use this "at_will." Yeah...

Timmy: ...

 

[ECMO3]

That's.................not an improvised action. That's a persuasion check.

In the PHB under combat actions it is listed as an improvised action. That is the ONLY place it is listed under combat actions.

Where does the PHB (or any RAW) list a persuasion check as an action in combat?

I know people do not need to know every detail of the rules to play, and it is irrelevant anyway because it is just one action in both cases, but a persuasion check is clearly an improvised action according to the rules and it is one that is in this case "more powerful" than a standard action.

The game will never be unbalanced by making improvised actions more powerful than standard actions. By definition if you are doing them then are more powerful in that specific circumstance (or at least you think they are).

 

[ECMO3]

It's not intimidation, which would require some sort of intimidating act.

Slaughtering 15 people is pretty intimidating.

Generally intimidation appeals to fear and emotion, persuasion appeals to logic.

 

[ECMO3]

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.)

That is not true, most of what defined them was the same. According to the rules, Paladins and Rangers even became regular fighters with an alignment shift.

 

[ECMO3]

I don't quite get how this is an improvised action. It looks like a standard use of Intimidation.

Intimidation is not an action in the PHB.

Intimidation is covered under "improvised actions" on page 193, it is specifically mentioned as an example of an improvised action.

In the PHB, The only skill checks that are actually actions by themselves are stealth (part of "hide" action) and investigation or perception (part of "search" action). Athletics checks are also part of several things you can do with the "attack" action, but that is the attack action, not an athletics check action. In the DMG Athletics and Acrobatics checks are part of the "Overun", "Shove aside" and "tumble" actions (all of which are optional)

Any other skill check you do is part of the "improvising an action" action.

 

[ECMO3]

BE a Warlord without expending ressources, for one thing. BE a Warlord at level 1 for another?

Ok then play a warlord built on the Rogue chassis. Use your Rogue class features to take feats like prodigy, observant, skill expert

What is it that you want to do exactly? I keep getting vague references to "use intelligence, Charisma and Wisdom" in combat. What are you trying to build, I will help you get there and I am pretty sure I can build it using RAW.

 

[Don Durito]

Ok then play a warlord built on the Rogue chassis. Use your Rogue class features to take feats like prodigy, observant, skill expert

What is it that you want to do exactly? I keep getting vague references to "use intelligence, Charisma and Wisdom" in combat. What are you trying to build, I will help you get there and I am pretty sure I can build it using RAW.

I'm pretty sure the issue is not whether you can translate a fictional concept into 5e rules in some way.

The question is whether doing so will be satisfying and fun.

 

[pemerton]

That is not true, most of what defined them was the same. According to the rules, Paladins and Rangers even became regular fighters with an alignment shift.

In UA, a Cavalier can become a regular Fighter (but with weapons of choice rather than weapon specialisation) under certain conditions. Yet - for reasons that aren't clear to me - the Cavalier is not flagged as a sub-class of Fighter.

What defines a Fighter, in AD&D, is an attack and save table, a d10 HD, multiple attacks, the ability to use any armour and weapons, and the lack of an alignment restriction. A Fighter who builds a castle gets benefits.

What defines a Ranger, in AD&D, is sharing the fighter attack and save table, having a d8 HD (2d8 at 1st level), multiple attacks that are different from the Fighter's, the ability to use any armour and weapons, multiple special abilities like tracking and surprise enhancement, and having to be of good alignment and adhere to certain limits on owning wealth/goods. A Ranger who builds a castle doesn't get the benefits a fighter does.

Being a sub-class of Fighter dictates a ranger's attack and save tables. That's it. It doesn't dictate ability score requirements, nor HD, nor special abilities, nor alignment and related requirements. It doesn't dictate magical item use (qv Illusionists) nor weapon and armour use (qv Clerics vs Druids).

It's nothing like the concept of sub-class in 5e. In fact the only thing that sub-class defines in AD&D is irrelevant in 5e, where everyone uses the same progression table (ie proficiencies) for attacks and saves.

 

[ECMO3]

Like the example from Adventures in Middle Earth I gave earlier in the thread when you can get advantage on Persuasion when you wave your magic sword around. That's cool because it requires a certain kind of situation.

You can already do this if you convince your DM the situation warrants it.

convincing a group of relucnant guardsmen to follow you into the cultists headquarter as backup by giving a speech about how you used this sword to fight their nations enemy in the last war? - that's more in the Fighter's wheelhouse.

I don't think that has anything to do with class. It has to do with Charisma. Now if you are a fighter you might use your sword as a prop to do that, but it being able to convince those people has nothing to do with being a fighter. Quite frankly it has nothing to do with class at all and a Bard that decided to dump Charisma would not (and should not) be very good at it either.

Hitler did not convince 80 million Germans to follow him into WW2 by talking about a great soldier he was in WW1.