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

[Don Durito]

So what would you want? What would that identity of fighter outside of combat be? What sort of mechanics you would want to have to support that?

I am also a tad confused how people complain that fighter is just a dumb jock want to separate anything that is not a dumb jock from the fighter and make them into their own classes to make it super sure that conceptually fighter can never be anything except a dumb jock...

See my posts earlier in this thread with examples from Adventures in Middle Earth.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

See my posts earlier in this thread with examples from Adventures in Middle Earth.

Yes, I'm totally gonna find them in this 80 page thread! I have a vague recollection of being able to use your dunedain heritage or impressive magic sword for bonuses in social rolls. Neither sound fighter specific, and both just sound like situational bonuses many GMs would be willing to just grant anyway. Though the rulebooks suggesting such things certainly would be a good idea.

 

[Minigiant]

I am also a tad confused how people complain that fighter is just a dumb jock want to separate anything that is not a dumb jock from the fighter and make them into their own classes to make it super sure that conceptually fighter can never be anything except a dumb jock

I think this is more of a concession.

Many D&D fans think the fighter will never be separated from the dumb jock base. Therefore they request a new class that had is a warrior that is not based on being a dumb jock

Ultimately 5e was built on being nostalgic and simple. So mechanics and class features that would allow for incentives for mental fighters were not included outside of just giving fighters spells.

 

[Don Durito]

Yes, I'm totally gonna find them in this 80 page thread! I have a vague recollection of being able to use your dunedain heritage or impressive magic sword for bonuses in social rolls. Neither sound fighter specific, and both just sound like situational bonuses many GMs would be willing to just grant anyway. Though the rulebooks suggesting such things certainly would be a good idea.

Birthright, which grant's you a magic sword and not just combat uses is a subclass feature.

Birthright
You have acquired a weapon of fine make and long
lineage. Give your weapon a name. When you first acquire
this weapon, you gain advantage on any Charisma
(Intimidate) or (Persuasion) ability checks while you carry
it.

That is from the Weaponmaster subclass, but the Knight Subclass gains you something of a similar nature.

Minstrel’s Tales: After completing a task for your liege
lord, you may declare that your deed has passed into
song. In any social encounter, improve the starting
attitude towards you by one step (see the Attitudes table
on page 193).
For example, if you would normally be considered a Friend
by another culture, you are now Favoured in their halls. If
you would normally be looked upon Askance, they are at
least now Neutral towards you. If your culture is Unknown
in these parts, you at least are seen in a Neutral light.
You may take this mark multiple times; each time it
improves attitudes by one step.

You can see how these particular rules tie directly into the game's social pillar - the audience phase. Unlike D&D, Adventures of Middle-Earth doesn't just say it has three pillars, it actually has them. The Rules make sure that Warriors (Fighters) have clear ways to contribute to the audience phase from within their class and in a way that reflects the specific flavour of their class.

This type of thing. Basic reputational benefits seem to me like something that works fine within the Fighter as already conceived in D&D.

Without stretching far you could also give abilities like the Tiger Warrior Training ability from Exalted which lets you turn peasants into soldiers after a week (great for Seven Samurai type scenarios), advantage on social rolls dealing with soldiers and mercenaries, or ability at a certain level to raise a banner and have soldiers flock to it etc.

 

[Krachek]

It’s fine to want to be part of every solution, every discussion, show to the table that you have clever idea and character tools to solve all problems encountered.

It’s not the case of all players around the table. Surprisingly there is classes for them that allow less involvement and solution crack.

In 5ed there is no assigned role, all players can play a full caster, all players can play martial. It may cause some glitch, but the DM can handle that easily. So I don’t see why all classes and subclasses should be designed to fit expectation of elite style players.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah. But it is a nice build. I generally ban green flame and similar spells. But it’s a clever build.

Turn 1. Cast Blur + mage hand grab a vial of something.

Turn 2. Grapple - (at level 8 you'll have a +9 grapple. A standard Str Fighter with max Str will have a +8 grapple. +9 still leaves far from nearly guaranteed success)

Have magehand drop the vial of something on an enemy

Turn 3. Attack with Greenflame Blade (with advantage if you successfully grappled the creature)

Have magehand grab another vial.

Turn 4: Look at that the combat is probably already over.

 

[Undrave]

It’s fine to want to be part of every solution, every discussion, show to the table that you have clever idea and character tools to solve all problems encountered.

It’s not the case of all players around the table. Surprisingly there is classes for them that allow less involvement and solution crack.

In 5ed there is no assigned role, all players can play a full caster, all players can play martial. It may cause some glitch, but the DM can handle that easily. So I don’t see why all classes and subclasses should be designed to fit expectation of elite style players.

It's fine that some people just don't want to participate in a section of the game... But why is that linked to specific archetypes?!

"I don't care much for the talky bits of D&D. I like combat."
"Oh, so you'll play a Fighter then?"
"What? NO! I want to throw fireballs and blow up bad guys!"

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

As for constitution, it isn't a prime ability and in point buy I always dump constitution to 10 on every single fighter I play. The only time I am running a fighter with higher than a 10 constitution is if I am rolling. I always have at least a 14 in ONLY one of strength or dex and more often than not a 16.

Logically with point buy a fighter that is built to be good at combat and good at social skills you should have a 10 constitution, an 16 Str or Dex an an 8 in the one you don't have a 16 in. That is the most complete fighter build you can make and it is the one I routinely make. Sometimes I have 14 in all of I/W/Ch, sometimes I have a 16 in one and 12s in the other two. Like I said that is for a good all around fighter and such a fighter still outrun most Rogues in combat while being good in social situations. If you want to min max instead of being all around then to optimize combat stats then dump the social skills, if you want to optimize social skills then dump the combat stats. It is a pretty simple concept. The same concept is true for a Rogue. If you want a combat focused Rogue you should take a 14 dexterity and a 16 strength and a 14 or 16 constitution and dump the social skills. Such a Rogue will be far more effective in combat than a "traditional" Rogue but will not be as good out of combat.

For some reason people in this board refuse to do these things though and then wonder why their fighters that has a 16 str and 16 con and 8 charisma sucks in social situations. It is because they chose that build!

The skills take care of the social aspects, the story part is either from your background or how you play your character and for the most part the actual class is irrelevant to that unless your theme is a caster.

People talk about "always on" abilities. Fighters right from level 1 can choose many always on fighting styles and they are the only class that can do that at level 1. They also have an always on heavy armor from 1st level, one of two classes that can do this (some subclasses can to). Those things are very significant features.

Bottom line: If you need to be "dominant" in combat you won't be dominant or even good out of combat. If you are ok with being just good in combat then you can be both good in combat and good out of combat.

And all that sounds somewhat reasonable when you're just comparing with another Fighter.

But bear in mind that this thread is about comparing the fighter that had to sacrifice a significant amount of their primary combat and other ability scores in order to become mediocre out of combat with classes that don't have to make that sacrifice. If your primary ability score determines both your combat and your non-combat performance, you can increase both at the same time, while staying decent at secondary ability scores like Dex and Con.

This is part of the reason for the thread: even if you removed all of the Wizard's utility spells, ritual casting etc, they would still be better at out of combat stuff than the fighter.

In one of my groups I play with regularly we have no problem convincing the Wizard to "run melee" as you put it. She is far better at avoiding hits and staying alive than I am, far better than the Paladin in the group and better than the barbarian and is better than a fighter would be even if optimized for this specifically. In a previous game the same player, playing a similar wizard character went multiple levels being the primary front liner without getting hit a single time in combat by an attack. Unlike me, her tactic was run to the front get right up to the enemies and don't move until he is dead.

She was a bladesinger that could push her AC to about 30 while also imposing disadvantage. She pretty much never got hit. She had low hps as it was but she could have had just 1 hp and she still would have survived almost every combat that did not involve casters or breath weapons. How high do you need to pump constitution to make up in hps for a character that will go 25ish battles without getting hit by a single attack at all?

You want to really play a character who is really optimized for taking attacks - play a wizard. Nothing else is close (well Barbarian is close but that is it). Wizards don't do a lot of damage though when played that way. It is the rest of us that really kill the enemy.

That sounds really cool!
How much of the Wizard's Intelligence score, rituals, and utility spellcasting did they have to sacrifice to achieve it?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's fine that some people just don't want to participate in a section of the game... But why is that linked to specific archetypes?!

"I don't care much for the talky bits of D&D. I like combat."
"Oh, so you'll play a Fighter then?"
"What? NO! I want to throw fireballs and blow up bad guys!"

But you can do that... You can play a non-talky caster that throws fireballs. You can also play a talky fighter.

 

[Maxperson]

So what would you want? What would that identity of fighter outside of combat be? What sort of mechanics you would want to have to support that?

This is the main issue I think. Classes have meaning and their skills and abilities reflect that meaning. What would a Fighter be good at outside of combat? Stuff related to his fighting obviously, which doesn't really bode well for the exploration and social pillars.

There's some leeway with the subclasses, because those also have meaning. Samurai and Knights traditionally had other non-combat skills. Etiquette and Poetry for example.