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

[ECMO3]

Then your Monk is significantly weaker than baseline for very little mechanical gain.

You are paying an effectiveness tax for playing that character.

Effectiveness at what? Certainly not in terms of having fun and playing the game like I want to.

My Monk is no weaker AS A CHARACTER.

He can do as much damage as any other monk of his level, his AC is 1 point behind what it could be with a lower intelligence and his inteligence-based skills are a lot better. Going forward as he levels, the only place he is really behind compared to the Monk you feel you need to build is hps and that there is not enough of them to even worry about.

Aside from the fact this is the character I want to play, I think having decent or good Nature, History, Religion and most important Investigation is foing to do a lot more for the party "mechanically" than that 1 point of AC and 2 points of hps I could have if I had chosen differently.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think you are personally committing this error, given the quotes around "magic," but I really, really, really, really wish the D&D community as a whole would stop conflating ANYTHING "supernatural" with "magic." Not even 3e did that! 3e explicitly says that "Extraordinary" abilities are NOT magical, but CAN break the laws of physics. (It's really unfortunate, TBH, that they used the term "supernatural" for effects that ARE magical but aren't specifically spells. Because "magic" is NOT the end-all, be-all of supernatural phenomena!

Fighters ARE supernatural. Period. They exceed what is physically possible, sometimes impressively so. They should be allowed to do things that are by 3e's terms "Extraordinary"--non-magical but potentially physics-defying. If people could just let that ONE thing go, this whole problem could be solved. But caster fans want to completely and totally own ANYTHING supernatural, and that permanently ghettoizes anyone who isn't a caster.

Yeah. I'm right there with you that supernatural doesn't equate to magic. Magic is supernatural, but not all supernatural is magic. It IS beyond what can happen naturally, though, which makes it like magic in that regard, which is why I had the quotes there.

As someone who is generally fairly smart, but often plays characters who value stats other than Intelligence? Yes, it's extremely frustrating to be told "you can't suggest that idea to the group out-of-character, because your character wouldn't be able to come up with it."

I didn't say anything about out of character. I'm talking in character. For me personally, it's pretty unfulfilling to have to give my ideas out of character to the other players, because my PC is low intelligence.

"Low intelligence" of the kind described is actually extremely common, though. Remember that IQ scores are normed to 100 with a standard deviation of 15. This means that approximately one in six people is at least a full standard deviation below the mean--or, in other words, you've got a pretty good chance of at least one of the people at any given D&D table being there.

I disagree with this. I've played with literally hundreds of players over the years. Only one of which was low intelligence. All the rest were at least average and the majority above average. RPGs tend to appeal more to people of higher intelligence. In a random group of 6 D&D players, it's pretty unlikely to get someone below average. In a random group of people pulled off the street, yes.

You can quite easily have someone who can come up with a good plan, but has minimal formal education and a terrible memory. Consider people like Michael Faraday, who dropped out of the equivalent of primary school, but was one of the foremost experimental physicists of his day. Highly, highly intelligent man--but in D&D terms he might not even have cracked +1 modifier.

Formal education is not intelligence. Formal education is where proficiency comes from. Faraday would have been well above +1. That's how you can a Barbarian with only physical skills and a 20 Int. And terrible memory can be a flaw which your mental acuity and reasoning ability compensates for.

Someone with an 8 Int, though, is going to be low at all three unless he has some sort of what in D&D would be a merit or boon, and is some sort of savant.

This is why it frustrates me as much as it does when a DM tells me my character couldn't possibly have come up with an idea, because he's too dumb. If we can roleplay it out, why couldn't I? It's a load of hooey and if it happens too much, I am willing to walk away from the table over it.

I'm okay with a good idea now and then, but if someone with an 8 Int PC is coming up with good idea after good idea after good idea, he's not roleplaying his PC's intelligence which is a problem. I'm okay with someone walking away from the table over a refusal to RP his character's intelligence. If he didn't want to play it, he shouldn't have made the character's Int low.

 

[Don Durito]

Effectiveness at what? Certainly not in terms of having fun and playing the game like I want to.

My Monk is no weaker AS A CHARACTER.

He can do as much damage as any other monk of his level, his AC is almost as good and his inteligence-based skills are a lot better. The only place he is really behind compared to the Monk you feel you have to build is hps and that that is not enough to even worry about.

Ok. He's no weaker. Except for his AC and Hitpoints.

And his intelligence skills are better by what 10, 15 maybe as much as 20%.

Yep. As I said.

 

[Undrave]

Many groups also roll for stats,

So barbaric!

There is nothing saying you need a high STR, Dex or con with a fighter. RAW you can build a fighter with an 8 in all three if you want. If you want to multiclass you need a 13 in either strength or dex.

You need a STR of 13 to wear Chain Mail and a STR of 15 for anything better. You either need excellent DEX or STR to have decent AC. If you dump ALL THREE then you're just going to DIE. It's that simple. Any Orc that sneeze your way will hit you and your pathetic AC and knock you down to 0 HP.

You touch on this a bit in a later post, but it's worth calling out here: What counts as "similar mechanics"? Because I find that, much of the time, "similar mechanics" is so incredibly broad that it starts to sound like code for "mechanics that actually work and achieve things."

It sounds like that to me too.

Fighters ARE supernatural. Period. They exceed what is physically possible, sometimes impressively so. They should be allowed to do things that are by 3e's terms "Extraordinary"--non-magical but potentially physics-defying. If people could just let that ONE thing go, this whole problem could be solved. But caster fans want to completely and totally own ANYTHING supernatural, and that permanently ghettoizes anyone who isn't a caster.

When Casters talk about 'mundane' its usually code-word for 'ordinary' and 'everyday people'. It's not surprising that whenever someone can't think of a fitting class for a character from fiction, they default to Fighter. To Casters, a Fighter is just a peasant with better gear.

Sounds like a starting point. The devil, as always, will be in the details. Feats were supposed to be bespoke packages of useful effects, and hey, Fighters got zillions of them! Look how that turned out.

Feats are just WAY too good for combat efficiency... Honestly, the cost of non-combat powers is too high compared to the small ammount of advantages a Fighter gets in combat.

 

[ECMO3]

t if we make the trade offs to get the Fighter whose character sheet says that he is smart, he actually doesn't really play significantly differently than the dumb Fighter - where is the mechanical realisation of the mechanics? If there was no Intelligence ability score, then how would I roleplay the character differently?

But it is not true.

A high intelligence fighter does play significantly different than a low intelligence fighter, particularly if you make your optional choices (ASIs, feats, subclass features) to lean into that. I would add that you can choose your race and background to lean into this as well.

Is he worse at swinging a sword or slightly worse at withstanding a blow - yes, but that is only a problem if your concept of a fighter character is so narrow that these things have to be top tier and the best of the best or else "the whole character sucks".

The difference in the mechanics is both the different features you would choose and in the higher abilities you bring to the table compared to the stereotypical brute.

Also the Eldritch Knight subclass is actually framed around the idea of having at least a decent intelligence.

 

[Don Durito]

Ok a high Int Fighter is better at being a bad wizard than a low Int Fighter, I'll grant that.

Also better at being a History Professor.

I don't think anyone has ever denied that it is possible to give up your core competencies of your class to be mediocre at something else, or even passably good at something very niche.

 

[Maxperson]

You are confusing theory with reality. 10 is not average except by some theoretical standard where everyone were to roll 3d6 in order (even then it is slightly below average). A 10 ability score is most definitely welcome to sucktown population you. It might be average if we all rolled 3d6 and played through a game where everyone was studying for their high school exams, but we're not doing that. If you're the one making the Investigation checks for the party, well, we we're going to hope the GM is wise enough not to gate any important clues or magic items behind those checks.

A 10 represents an average person of average intelligence. That's what it represents in D&D. That's what it has always represented in D&D. It has nothing to do with high school exams.

But look the Saving Throw DC for a CR 13 Rakshasa is 18. If you have an ability score of 16 and your proficiency bonus is +4 at level 13 then you succeed 45% of the time. If it's 20 you succeed 55% of the time. The DC is 18 because the Rakshasha has a Charisma of 20. That's what you're being opposed to here at this level.

Here are the other CR 13 creatures.

Nalfashnee: DC 15 Success rate with +7, 60%
Adult White and Brass Dragons: Frightful Presence DC 14, Breath and Wing DC 19 Success rates: 65% and 40%
Storm Giant: DCs 17 Success rate: 50%
Vampire: Charm DC 17, Grapple DC 18 Success rates, 50% and 45%

+7 is average. Some things are easier. Some harder. Some right on the money. If you go to 20 it makes it all easier, but the game isn't designed with 20 in mind.

 

[Undrave]

I think a fighter who takes Fey touched, shadow touched, skill expert and magic initiate as feats through level 8 will be a better overall character than a character who takes all ASIs. Note those feats do include +3 total on abilities but at least 2 of those points need to go on I/W/Ch. If this fighter is by chance an Eldritch Knight I think he would be as powerful as a fighter who took all ASIs as well, but even if he isn't an EK he now has a ton of different things he can do and is still pretty good in combat.

"Become a Caster" is not the miracle solution you think it is.

Effectiveness at what? Certainly not in terms of having fun and playing the game like I want to.

My Monk is no weaker AS A CHARACTER.

He can do as much damage as any other monk of his level, his AC is 1 point behind what it could be with a lower intelligence and his inteligence-based skills are a lot better. Going forward as he levels, the only place he is really behind compared to the Monk you feel you need to build is hps and that there is not enough of them to even worry about.

Aside from the fact this is the character I want to play, I think having decent or good Nature, History, Religion and most important Investigation is foing to do a lot more for the party "mechanically" than that 1 point of AC and 2 points of hps I could have if I had chosen differently.

That's at level 1. Those deficiency will stack, your guy will not take hit well, will have bad save DC on his stupid Stunning Strike and bad saving throws of his own. And for 10% better roll on knowledge skills? For the chance to look down upon us and feeling superior because you play a subpar character, like it's a badge of honor?

 

[Maxperson]

So barbaric!

I personally refuse to point buy or use arrays. It's a deal breaker for me. Most of my group feels the same way. One guy would prefer to point buy or use an array, but doesn't mind rolling.

 

[Undrave]

Is he worse at swinging a sword or slightly worse at withstanding a blow - yes, but that is only a problem if your concept of a fighter character is so narrow that these things have to be top tier and the best of the best or else "the whole character sucks".

That's literally the only thing the Fighter class was designed to do?? They get nothing else... Why pick FIGHTER if you don't want to have those abilities?! Just play a high INT Swashbuckler rogue then???