D&D 5E (2014) Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll

[FrogReaver]

So like I said, it's the fandom that prevents progress.

That’s not all you said. But if that’s all you are saying now, yes.

 

[Minigiant]

Smart noble' is a background and ability, not a class.

Archetypes can be expressed as background and class.

Entertainer Bard.
Criminal Rogue.
Outlander Ranger.
Artisan Artificer.

Wise general might be somewhere leading armies, not delving dungeons with three other people. But a general probably would be a professional soldier that has seen a lot of combat, so they probably would be some sort of not-low-level fighter.

So a general's intuition and insight cannot help him or his allies in combat?

Paladin is literally that. Though if you want a non-magical version (and I sympathise with that, I dislike how heavily knights are conflated with explicitly magical paladins in D&D) you can easily make them a fighter. And a historical knight most definitely would be a fighter, they're well-trained professional soldiers.

But that's my point

The fighter knight is a big ball of violent stupid.

The main way to make a knight with brainpower is to indoctrinate him with religious fervor.

And too me, that's a falling of D&D because it locks fighters out of being in aspects of noncombat if literally anyone but the barbarian wants to do it

 

[Maxperson]

Half dragons were monsters first and then had... sound of holding back vomit level adjustments. I don't know when The Unspellable became playable.

They were a PC race that was in the MM from the get go. Anything with a level adjustment was playable if the DM let you. As for the Unspellable, it was in 2003 like I said

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You're describing combat ability, though, not exploration and social ability.

Surely though, having these abilities implies the existence of, y'know, other things that come with it? Hence all the examples I gave earlier, of being highly observant, creatively exploiting opportunities, enduring things one shouldn't be able to endure, etc.

Like...you are demonstrating exactly the thinking that leads to Fighters getting shortchanged. It is not "let's give this a class," which often produces interesting and worthwhile mechanics (consider that the Bard and Paladin could have just been rolled into other classes, but instead they are both flavorful and very strong in 5e.) Instead, it's "but all they do is fight, so fighting is all they should get." Both parts of that principle are false; their prodigious skill manifests most clearly in fighting, but it is the skill that matters, not the fighting produced by it. And, as I've argued, it's just bad design to have classes that simply don't contribute to certain pillars of the game, if "pillar" is supposed to mean something important for play. Doubly so when it's...pretty much only Fighters (and to a lesser extent Barbarians) denied such; every other class, even some that have design that leaves things to be desired, actually participates SOMEWHAT in every pillar.

Like...it's one thing to argue "every class should have at least one area they're incapable of contributing to, so they have to depend on others to do that." It's quite another to argue that 5e actually does that, because every caster class (without exception) can have tools to address all three pillars simultaneously. Those tools might not always be useful in absolutely all situations, but they definitely are useful for obvious and relatively common situations: fireball, invisibility, enhance ability, etc. And it only takes one or two spells per pillar to be really quite good at that pillar. And some of these are so generally-applicable (such as enhance ability) that having them pretty much guarantees having something Very Useful to do at any time....particularly when short rests are uncommon (avg about 1-2 a day, rather than 2-3 a day*) and long rests happen much more frequently than intended (about every 3-5 encounters, rather than every 6-8*), as the designers have explicitly said.

It's reasonable to say "everyone should have something they're great at, something they're okay at, and something they're poor at." Even if I disagree with that concept at the level of entire pillars of the game, it's at least a cogent and reasonable position to take. It's not quite so reasonable to say that when most of the classes in the game don't follow that principle. Worse, when at least several of the game's classes have never consistently followed that principle in any official edition; for several classes, either they're at least pretty competent at the pillars overall but focused within each one (4e's method), or they only start out poor and become incredibly powerful (early-edition methods), or they're just good at anything they choose to be good at (3e's "method").

If Fighters are supposed to be held to this standard, maybe we need to clean house for all of the other classes first, mm?

*These are not absolute numbers, because I don't think the designers have given us any; they've just said that short rests are not happening as often as assumed by their designs, and long rests are happening more often than assumed by their designs, and--importantly--that these divergences are significant enough to negatively impact the intended play experience. But the statements they've made, and the data I've both seen collected and collected myself, thin as it is, loosely corroborate these numbers. Almost everyone who talks about it clearly says that 6-8 encounters a day is incredibly overlong, bordering on exhausting, and while I don't see too many saying that they skip out on short rests entirely all that often, taking three short rests during a day would be pretty unusual based on how people discuss it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

They were a PC race that was in the MM from the get go. Anything with a level adjustment was playable if the DM let you. As for the Unspellable, it was in 2003 like I said

Half dragon i 3e was a template for monsters with no rules for playing it. LA and playable monsters were introduced in Savage Species, an entire book of 'now shut up' material.

 

[Maxperson]

Is there a particular reason that, having established that Fighters and Rogues are extraordinary, we should start demanding "But only in combat".

I didn't say that. I asked what out of combat abilities a Fighter would have based on Fighter. In response I was given a lot of combat reasons, so I pointed that out. I've seen almost nothing offered up that is Fighter themed and that applies much to the social and exploration pillars.

 

[Yaarel]

I didn't say that. I asked what out of combat abilities a Fighter would have based on Fighter. In response I was given a lot of combat reasons, so I pointed that out. I've seen almost nothing offered up that is Fighter themed and that applies much to the social and exploration pillars.

(More skills helps the Fighter in other pillars.)

 

[Maxperson]

Half dragon i 3e was a template for monsters with no rules for playing it. LA and playable monsters were introduced in Savage Species, an entire book of 'now shut up' material.

This is from the 3.5 MM.

"Level Adjustment
This line is included in the entries of creatures suitable for use as player characters or as cohorts (usually creatures with Intelligence scores of at least 3 and possessing opposable thumbs). Add this number to the creature’s total Hit Dice, including class levels, to get the creature’s effective character level (ECL). A character’s ECL affects the experience the character earns, the amount of experience the character must have before gaining a new level, and the character’s starting equipment. See pages 172, 199, and 209 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide for more information."

Half-dragons were intended for use as PCs from day 1.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It’s not that they have to be lesser than casters because people want caster supremacy. That’s just a side effect. It’s that casters are set up at an impossible level for non-super powered / non-magical martials to reach (that’s because of fiction). Couple that with people wanting their non-superpowered fighters. And that’s D&D. The one time that changed in 4e there was much weeping and gnashing of teeth. We already know how bringing martials up and casters down and having them meet in the middle works out. Terribly!

They need to jettison "reality" for martials after 7th level and just accept that they become mythic figures/demigods. It's absurd that the 10th level fighter is making a jump check to get over 30' gaps. Give martials a different proficiency bonus, unlimited attuned items (and guaranteed gear that is magic just because it is used by a warrior of renown), significantly more stats (and uncap their maximum). Fighters, Monks, and Barbarians should get expertise as well, and then a third tier at 10th level that unlocks superhuman stunts. Swim up a waterfall, punch through stone, kill with a glance, lasso a tornado, tumble between reality with your acrobatics to teleport your movement, or pickpocket someone's skill. If we can devote half the book to spells, we can add some pages for each skill to outline mythic usage.

 

[Maxperson]

(More skills helps the Fighter in other pillars.)

Sure, but the majority of your skill list didn't really apply. You listed cooking, but armies had specific cooks to feed the men. Almost none had the ability to cook proficiently. You listed medicine/first aid, but armies had special non-combat medics to take care of the wounded. The common soldiers didn't know enough to be proficient. And so on. Not a lot of non-combat skills are Fighter centric, which is why I'm grateful for backgrounds. I can get my Fighter any skill I want that way.