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

[Don Durito]

Rogue players who are somewhat decently skilled will generally get Sn Attack damage on 85%+ of their attacks that land. Sometimes getting an attack to actually land can be somewhat challenging.

That's why you need to dual wield. I remember being frustrated with my first Rogue until I realised that. (And once I got Uncanny dodge I realised I could afford to sacrifice cunning action and soak a few hits in melee).

And then I realised with Arcane Trickster I could get the familiar to take the Help action.

 

[pemerton]

And then I realised with Arcane Trickster I could get the familiar to take the Help action.

This seems a bit sad. Not that you did it - but that this is what the design pushes towards.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

For the whole leadership thing that was being talked about earlier, I think Fighters are pretty poor for it. They gotta invest in feats to get expertise, and buffing allies in general is not their forte.

More importantly, in regards to becoming a leader among NPCs, getting their trust and making them like you, they can't really compete at all. If he arrives in a settlement, his best bet is showing off his fighting skills, but any class can do that. While a Bard can walk in, flex his charisma expertises, heal the sick with Lesser Restoration, Cure Wounds hurt people, use Plant Growth on the fields to double their food, expose the corrupt leaders with Detect Thoughts and Zone of Truth, Raise Dead people, maybe make a permanent Teleportation Circle after a while to boost the place's importance, Magical Secrets Wall of Stone to boost their defenses, and the list goes on.

Magic just gives you so many choices and is so useful, and slot dependency doesn't matter much if you have enough downtime and want to stick around and make them like you. Sure, a Fighter can RP and work hard to be seen as a leader, but so can everyone else.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well 16 STR is fine for DPR but 8 CON is questionable as that 16 STR is really only useful in times when CON is good.

Stop obsessing about min-maxing combat? That's the whole argument in this thread. That fighter are min-maxed for combat by 5e design and it takes serious weakening of combat ability to make noncombat ability viable over any other member of the party.

The whole argument is that the returns forgaining noncombat features for the fighter and barbarian are so costly or terrible that it is wiser to focus on combat and letting party members handle noncombat. And this locks fighters and barbarians out of many archetypes that they are claimed to have.

So the desires of the most picked optionof the poll cannot happen because fighters are too limited in noncombat situations and customizing them to be better at it hurts the party.

So, what do rogues get out of combat through level 10? Answer: they get expertise (in 4 skills) and thieves cant. The subclass may add some additional out of combat ability from a ribbon to some skill bonuses.

I get fighters are behind out of combat compared to rogues. But it's not actually by all that much for the most played part of the game. So houseruling a fix to that should be a fairly minor thing. IMO.

 

[Maxperson]

Hurts the party? JFC, this is not some progression raid in a MMO! I would utterly hate to play with people with this sort of attitude and they would hate my ‘unoptimised’ characters.

A few things.

1. It does make the Fighter less effective than if he had a higher con.
2. As I said earlier in the thread, 5e is the most forgiving edition I've played, so the less effective fighter can still do well. I wouldn't have a problem with it, either.
3. What the heck is JFC? Some new fried chicken?

 

[Maxperson]

Your players don't discuss which roles your characters can fill, which ones they have duplicates of, and which ones they are missing? Ever?

Yall just roll up to the table with 4-5 damage barbarians and just run with it without a word?

My players do discuss it and I tell them what I always tell them. Don't worry about it. Play what you want to play and will have the most fun with. Let me worry about any "holes" in the group if it becomes an issue.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A few things.

1. It does make the Fighter less effective than if he had a higher con.

In combat, yes. More effective outside of it.

2. As I said earlier in the thread, 5e is the most forgiving edition I've played, so the less effective fighter can still do well. I wouldn't have a problem with it, either.

Exactly.

3. What the heck is JFC? Some new fried chicken?

Yeah, let's go with that.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

JFC = Jesus effing Christ.

 

[Minigiant]

They discuss it to have a varied party and have different niches somewhat covered. But characters don’t need to optimised. We have a bard with no social skills and the ‘face’ character is a rogue with good charisma. It would have definitely been more optimal to do it differently, but this made sense for the sort of characters the players wanted to roleplay.

Sure. Like I said, I'd question what role the player who comes to a game with a 16 STR, 8 CON, and 16 CHA. I don't know which role they would be filling in a serious game. It's not even about optimization. Such a PC would not be good at anything until their levels start to overcome their scores and they can get feats.

So, what do rogues get out of combat through level 10? Answer: they get expertise (in 4 skills) and thieves cant. The subclass may add some additional out of combat ability from a ribbon to some skill bonuses.

I get fighters are behind out of combat compared to rogues. But it's not actually by all that much for the most played part of the game. So houseruling a fix to that should be a fairly minor thing. IMO.

Sure, you can houserule a fix. However that is admitting there is a problem. The 5e fighter's design is flawed and TCOE does not fix all of it.

Many fans refuse to say 5e has design issues.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure. Like I said, I'd question what role the player who comes to a game with a 16 STR, 8 CON, and 16 CHA. I don't know which role they would be filling in a serious game. It's not even about optimization. Such a PC would not be good at anything until their levels start to overcome their scores and they can get feats.

They would be good at hitting things and possibly at athletics due the strength, and presumably would take social skills to go with the charisma, so they would be good at those. And if they were human they could have the feat right away. Granted, con eight seems a tad extreme, I'd probably go with ten or twelve for such a build, but it's the player's choice. I don't really see what the issue is.