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

[Krachek]

Because as homebrewers quickly learned, no one can get close to agreeing about how to implement the dang thing in 5e.

Implement the dang thing as implications and concerns way over mortal being understanding and knowledge!

 

[FrogReaver]

Ask and ye shall receive. (Spoilered because it's nothing new, just trimming out the replies to the other poster for you.)

Thanks!

You keep saying this is what the Battle Master was supposed to do. I reject that argument, both in theory and in practice. I've already covered the practice side, and it seems you care about the other. So: On the theory side, I genuinely do not believe the Battle Master was ever "meant" to be a Warlord. It was, however, pretty clearly meant to capture the feel of a 4e Fighter. (Remember that the "baseline" 4e Fighter was called the Weaponmaster subclass, which is far too similar to be mere coincidence.) When the designers got backed into a corner because it took them forever to settle on the shape the Fighter class should have (seriously, it wasn't until like the final or penultimate document that the Fighter even started to look like it did in the published PHB), they had to resort to what measures were available.

There are a number of Battlemaster Manuevers that don't mimic anything that a 4e Fighter did and instead mimic what a 4e Warlord did. I don't think that's a coincidence. I think the Battlemaster was intended to allow you to play a number of different concepts, one being the warlord.

Now, the Purple Dragon Knight/Banneret? That I could at least admit was specifically supposed to be a Warlord--it even uses the word "warlord" in some of its text (e.g. "Banneret serves as the generic name for this archetype if you use it in other campaign settings or to model warlords other than the Purple Dragon Knights.") It is also about as close to "bad" as you can get for a subclass without actually BEING bad--that is, its features are painfully mediocre and limited, and (IMO) don't really deliver on the concept of a warrior who leads others in battle.

It's low level features are painful. By high level it actually looks decent.

The Battle Master is almost purely focused on doing tricksy things with weapons. It's not a Warlord. You can kinda-sorta-ish kludge part of a Warlord out of one, but it was very clearly intended for a different function--or, as I said, it's the EK of Warlords, where it's mostly a Fighter but has some Warlord mechanics stapled to it.

It's a subclass intended to allow a variety of playstyles. Warlord is one of those playstyles.

That bad EK comparison keeps getting brought up repeatedly. Should be obvious that repeating it 15 billion times doesn't make it a more compelling point.

Well, here's my thoughts.
Option 1, pros: the freedom to add things that are missing, and (for classes specifically) to not be limited by how much power a subclass is allowed to have; ability to tailor the solutions narrowly and specifically to what is needed
Option 1, cons: reduplication of effort/lack of parsimony, more difficult to balance (because, e.g., a character could MC BM/Warlord)
Option 2, pros: Can (in theory) be published as errata, makes the smallest possible changes while still changing something
Option 2, cons: Unlikely to actually be published as errata, unable to create new mechanics or fill holes that already exist
Option 3, pros: Requires zero effort and avoids any controversy about errata or lack of parsimony
Option 3, cons: Fails to address the problem.

Does that meaningfully address your concerns about failing to consider negative aspects of a solution? I do not consider absolute minimalism a virtue in design. Logical parsimony is only virtuous as long as it does, in fact, actually cover everything it's supposed to; remember that Occam's Razor is not "always use fewer entities," it is "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Newton's theory of gravitation is simpler (dramatically so) than Einstein's theory of general relativity, but we use the latter and not the former due to relativity covering more of the facts.

I'd say you have barely scratched the surface. But it's a start.

Option 1 - also has the following cons: conceptual overlap with different mechanical implementations. Lessens the Fighters already space - leaving him more and more fighting man and nothing else. Adding in very many different mechanics for similar things can cause issues with bounded accuracy and/or multiclassing.

Option 2 - There are also variant classes, not just errata.

Option 3 - This is more the - we have considered the pros and cons of the possible solutions and determined that the doing nothing solution is better than one of the bad solutions we have.

I am arguing, here, that trying to make the Battle Master Fighter cover both the Mighty Thews(/Agile Archer, I guess) AND the Inspiring Captain archetype is leaving both things under-served. That we are not seeing parsimony, but rather deficiency; not frugality, but miserliness.

Manuevers are very flexible. Much like a Wizard can play a necromancer or an evoker primarily based on his spell selection and this would be true even if he didn't have spell school related subclasses. The specific battlemaster implementation does them both well. Not great, but well.

Again, I disagree--mostly because the Battle Master, as I argued earlier, is far too personally capable. The Warlord concept is not merely someone who CAN choose to inspire allies. The Warlord concept is someone who NEEDS to coordinate and strategize with allies in order to get things done. Now, this does not mean having NO combat capability without an ally--the Warlord could do some butt-kicking on her own. But it should mean that the best butt-kicking they do is either in direct combination with allies (e.g. Bravura Warlords who give allies risky opportunities), coordinating the whole team's movements to maximally exploit terrain (Tactical Warlords with repositioning, initiative, etc.), or dredging up those hidden reserves we all have but never tap because of self-protection instincts (Resourceful and certain other types of Warlord).

That's not ever been a part of the Warlord concept. Most fictional Warlords were also very capable warriors. I think alot of people are probably happy that 5e doesn't ask players to pick between an elite warrior that leads and a lesser warrior that leads better.

In general, the best thing a Battle Master can do is just attack more. It's going to be pretty rare, for example, for Commander's Strike to actually do better than the BM just attacking again. Distracting Strike isn't...the worst, but is pretty narrow--a chance for a chance for a good thing to happen. Rally is pretty much just bad, since it can't actually heal anyone. (Like...for real, even granting 6d12 healing at level 18 to every party member once per short rest is NOT that powerful, and doing that means you did LITERALLY nothing else special. A Life Cleric can do that easily, except that they can target just the people who need it most, and they still get all their spells on top.) Maneuvering Attack is probably the only "Warlord-type" maneuver that actually does more or less what a Warlord would do.

A level 3 Battlemaster can dish out 12d8 + 36 temp hp = 90 temp hp. A life cleric using all slots on cure wounds and his channel divinity will heal = 116 hp.

That's very Warlordy to me. And at this point what Warlord implementation could possibly compete with that at level 3?

And...that's literally it. Those exhaust the "Warlord options" for the Battle Master. It's not just a matter of no scaling; it's a matter of you get only four Warlord-like things you can potentially do, and most of them are just not worth doing when you could instead, y'know, just do it yourself. Which is the fundamental problem of the "Fighter-as-Warlord." To be a Fighter, any 5e Fighter, you must be good at kicking butt all by yourself. The Battle Master simply adds a layer of "oh and you can also potentially boost an ally along the way" on top.[/SPOILER]

I'm pretty sure there's more than 4 now. I'm not up to date on all the manuevers that have been added though.

 

[Don Durito]

The Battlemaster was intended to allow you to play something like a 4e Warlord yes.

A lot of people don't seem happy with it. I think I would personally be a bit more happy with it if the combat mechanics didn't have to do all the work.

If there actually was a simple mass battle system and a war and domain 'pillar' for the Battlemaster to plug into it would work better conceptually (although still not be fun for those who really want the 4e mechanics, obviously).

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I think you view concept as more mechanical in nature than I do. When I talk concept I'm talking fictional concept. "Warrior that leads". That's what a Warlord is conceptually.

So when you are talking 'a character whose primary impact is leadery/warlord stuff and teritiary impact is hitting things'. That to me is a statement about mechanics and not concept. It's just another way to say you want more Leadery mechanics and less fighting mechanics.

And I'm fine with that, but I think we need to have the discussion around whether we want classes created based on mechanical desires or conceptual desires - and the pros and cons related to various 'solutions'.


IMO, if all we are doing is moving the slider up or down 1-2 degrees for Leadery stuff and down 1 or 2 degrees for fightery stuff then that's admitting we have the fictional concept.

I actually think many of the fighters base features should have been replaced with subclass features. If I was going to solve the mechanical Fighter problems in general I'd have given fighters the most subclass related level up abilities of any class and the fewest main class related abilities. But that ship has sailed.

Nope, we agree. Concept is fictional as you say. There are a lot of mechanical ways to implement that.

"Warrior that leads" is not the concept that people are talking about though. Battlemaster does that fine. It's more like "Leader that warriors". The concept places the emphasis on the leading -- that's the whole point of the concept!

In the fiction it's the Squad leader or aging veteran whose primary value to the team is inspiring others, tactical know how, etc. She is an ok one on one fighter, so if she had to do it she can add some value but that's not why she is valued by the team and she's not going to reach for that solution first. If she's not primarily contributing though her leader stuff, she is not fulfiling her concept. The mechanics should sufficiently support this. I DO want a lot more mechanical heft/power/impact to the leaderly stuff and less on the fighting prowess, but that's because it's directly related to the concept.

I think that's why people were using the EK example. The Wizard concept is not really just "Arcane spell user".

If there was only the EK and and someone said "I want to play a character that studies ancient tomes to gain magical knowledge and power, is sort of physically weak, and primarily contributes to the party's success through spell casting, where my spell casting grows from cool to reality shaping".

Designer: "Here's the EK. No, you can't swap out that Fighting stuff for more spell power [leader power], just live with it."

Player: "But my concept is to PRIMARILY use my spellcasting [leadership] to add value and I don't want to be that good at fighting. Let's create a Wizard [Warlord] class that gets A LOT more spells [leadership] at the expense of fighting. I don't really think we can do that with a Fighter chasis and a subclass because Fighter is so tied to fighting. "

Designer: "Nah"

I think you are just arguing language now. If the "concept" is there for you because there are some leaderly stuff in Battlemaster BUT also because of the bad Fighter chasis we can't make a "Leader that warriors", then I actually don't think we have a sufficient slider. Maybe the slider is a bad way to put it. People envision a Warlord whose Leader stuff defines the class in the same way full spell progression and spell list define the Wizard and all the main Fighter features define the Fighter.

If you agree and still want to call that fulfiling the concept but not implemented well, you can. It's not reallly the definition of "fulfiling the concept" I would use but we don't disagree on anything then other than language.

Personally, I don't care how it's implemented mechanically, whether as a new Class or sub-class or whatever. This thread makes me think it can not be implimented as a sub-class of Fighter unless you can swap out all (most) of the Fighter base class features and create an uber-subclass. That's fine.

 

[Undrave]

"Hey, lets take all the cool tricks and maneuvers that Players would want any martial-based class to conceivably do normally, lock those away, and only give those options to characters who'd specifically take this subclass or specific feat!!" which I hate.

That's a good points! Maybe Maneuvers should just have been like Spells and be something anybody with melee skills could potentially learn, with different martial schools involved and different ways to get Superiority Dice. Like, Menacing Attack and Pushing Attack are SUCH Barbarian moves, aren't they? And Rally? That's totally a Paladin thing! Even a Bard would like to learn Rally I bet... Disarming Attack? Parry? Evasive Footwork? Feinting Attack? That screams ROGUE to me.

But I guess that would have felt too much like 'same mechanic' to some people and the Pointy Hat Brigade would have come flying in on their broom to complain and shoot it all down... We can't have nice things.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Unless you are going to make the Warlord a fake caster it doesn't work well to start with a full caster base.

Of course it doesn't make them a fake caster!? The things that replace the full casting can be anything! I think it just illustrates the level of emphasis that unsatisfied Warlord people want.

"Leader that warriors" not "Warrior that leads".

The leader stuff should be the primary essence of the Warlord. It doesn't have to be spell-like of course or work on a daily resource, but it should have the same kind of heft and importance ot the class that spells have for the valor bard.

It's just illustrating the "space" available for Warlord leadership abilities if the "Fighter chassis" is replaced. With a fighting chasis of Valor bard (AND significant leadership through inspiration AND significant skill bumps for out of combat), you get FULL CASTING as the "space" to develop your additional leadership abilities.

Now we can talk about degrees. Maybe the Warlord gets like 80% of FULL CASTING leadership stuff in exhange for a little better fighting than Valor Bard. 100% or 80% of full casting is a lot of design space.

 

[Don Durito]

That's a good points! Maybe Maneuvers should just have been like Spells and be something anybody with melee skills could potentially learn, with different martial schools involved and different ways to get Superiority Dice. Like, Menacing Attack and Pushing Attack are SUCH Barbarian moves, aren't they? And Rally? That's totally a Paladin thing! Even a Bard would like to learn Rally I bet... Disarming Attack? Parry? Evasive Footwork? Feinting Attack? That screams ROGUE to me.

But I guess that would have felt too much like 'same mechanic' to some people and the Pointy Hat Brigade would have come flying in on their broom to complain and shoot it all down... We can't have nice things.

Except for spells. Spells can be shared between classes.

But that's magic I guess, so it can overcome the laws of game design.

 

[Undrave]

I think you view concept as more mechanical in nature than I do. When I talk concept I'm talking fictional concept. "Warrior that leads". That's what a Warlord is conceptually.

So when you are talking 'a character whose primary impact is leadery/warlord stuff and teritiary impact is hitting things'. That to me is a statement about mechanics and not concept. It's just another way to say you want more Leadery mechanics and less fighting mechanics.

And I'm fine with that, but I think we need to have the discussion around whether we want classes created based on mechanical desires or conceptual desires - and the pros and cons related to various 'solutions'.

I've probably mentionned this before, but I think one of my favorite example of a Warlord to point to is from this little show called Class of the Titans. Class of the Titans is about seven descendant of Greek mythological heroes who are recruited by the Greek Pantheon to stop Cronus who escaped from Tartarus (something about a prophesy). Each of them has a supernatural gift from their ancestor.

Herry gets the super strength of Heracles
Atlanta gets the super speed of Atalanta
Thessa gets the instinct of Theseus, which manifest as precognitive psychic powers
Odie gets the intellect of Odysseus and is a total Artificer
Archie is a descendant of Achilles who has all the natural aptitude of a warrior that his ancestor had (and he never gets sick)
I'll skip over Neil for a moment and go straight to Jay, who is the descendant of Jason.

Jay's gift is 'leadership'. He's a competant warrior of his own, but he doesn't any of the near superhuman gift of the others when it comes to facing monsters sent by Cronus. He's a normal human... But his skill at leadership become incredibly obvious whenever he's being kept from the others. Without him, they stop getting along as easily (they didn't know each other before this whole thing), they can't execute their plans well, they get fooled by the bad guys... It's a total mess. You take any of the heavy bruiser, the precog or the super genius away and they barely lose a fraction of their abilities, but take Jay away and it's like they lost 50% of their power.

As for Neil... Neil is totally the bard of the group (or a Warlord with my 'Chosen One' subclass, because he still learned to fight). He's a super model and the descendant of Narcissus. His gifts are 'good looks' and 'luck'. Surprisingly, him not being there is just as much trouble as Jay being missing. I swear, the two of them are like 90% of the team's power.

Anyway, fun show, legally available on Youtube too. David Kaye plays Cronus.

But it shows that 'someone who contributes mostly by being a leader' can totally be a narrative concept and not necessarily a mechanical one.

Because as homebrewers quickly learned, no one can get close to agreeing about how to implement the dang thing in 5e.

Ah! That's true... and also, that 5e has all sorts of small mechanical issue that make support character hard to design, but are not usually apparent in play. For exemple, you basically need two different effect to support both Casters and Weapon users instead of just one.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

That's not ever been a part of the Warlord concept. Most fictional Warlords were also very capable warriors. I think alot of people are probably happy that 5e doesn't ask players to pick between an elite warrior that leads and a lesser warrior that leads better.

This is one of the big disconnects then. I can see how the 5e Battlemaster fits your concept of Warlord ok then now. And since you acknowledge that this isn't a part of your Warlord concept, there is another Concept out there!

Let's call what unsatisifed Warlord fans want "Warlord Prime" or whatever? Something different. Now you know that people also want Warlord Prime -- whose concept is such a valuble leader that their ok but non -elite warrior status doesn't disadvantage the party vs. elite warrior that leads person! The concept that people are talking about IS the "lessor warrior that leads better"!

Why not have the option to pick between the 2?

Two different concepts! Two different names! Two different implementations!

Warlord = Battlemaster with manuvers and feats picked toward leadership
Warlord prime = ? Lots of debate. But at least we know the concept now!

 

[Don Durito]

This is one of the big disconnects then. I can see how the 5e Battlemaster fits your concept of Warlord ok then now. And since you acknowledge that this isn't a part of your Warlord concept, there is another Concept out there!

Let's call what unsatisifed Warlord fans want "Warlord Prime" or whatever? Something different. Now you know that people also want Warlord Prime -- whose concept is such a valuble leader that their ok but non -elite warrior status doesn't disadvantage the party vs. elite warrior that leads person! The concept that people are talking about IS the "lessor warrior that leads better"!

Why not have the option to pick between the 2?

Two different concepts! Two different names! Two different implementations!

Warlord = Battlemaster with manuvers and feats picked toward leadership
Warlord prime = ? Lots of debate. But at least we know the concept now!

I tend to think the character who leads primarily fits better with what, in a lot of 3e iterations, was usually called the 'noble'.