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

[Mind of tempest]

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.

I believe a better description is if you pick a fighter you want to be good at fighting but you do not want to only be able to participate when the action starts right?

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Problem is a rather harsh word though. It was a compromise that could be a improved upon a bit while still holding up the primary tenets of the compromise.

Many fans refuse to say 5e has design issues.

IMO It almost seems like you are waging this battle in the name of another war. I brought up the comparison with the rogue (a martial class that's generally praised for being solidly designed for all pillars) to show that there's only a few things the rogue gets in heroic tier that help it out of combat. Even so, no one complains about the rogues out of combat capabilities relative to casters or even it's fighting ability relative to fighters. To me that indicates that the 'issue' is your desire for the fighter to be even better out of combat than the current rogue and not actually some overarching problem with the game itself. Heck with feats the heroic tier fighter likely trounces the rogue at combat.

I think the fighter could use a minor buff to out of combat capabilities. There's a few forms that could take. But all he's lacking out of combat when compared with the rogue is really 4 skill expertises. (Yes that does change some at higher level, but improving the first 10 levels would go a heck of a long way.

 

[Krachek]

Wow almost 100 pages!
For a game based on cooperation I find amazing that we got such long debate.
I just wonder what proportion it would take if dnd was really a PvP game!

 

[Mind of tempest]

Problem is a rather harsh word though. It was a compromise that could be a improved upon a bit while still holding up the primary tenets of the compromise.


IMO It almost seems like you are waging this battle in the name of another war. I brought up the comparison with the rogue (a martial class that's generally praised for being solidly designed for all pillars) to show that there's only a few things the rogue gets in heroic tier that help it out of combat. Even so, no one complains about the rogues out of combat capabilities relative to casters or even it's fighting ability relative to fighters. To me that indicates that the 'issue' is your desire for the fighter to be even better out of combat than the current rogue and not actually some overarching problem with the game itself. Heck with feats the heroic tier fighter likely trounces the rogue at combat.

I think the fighter could use a minor buff to out of combat capabilities. There's a few forms that could take. But all he's lacking out of combat when compared with the rogue is really 4 skill expertises. (Yes that does change some at higher level, but improving the first 10 levels would go a heck of a long way.

look if this was a video game I would be damn well complaining on the forums about them lock a lot of the game away from me for wanting to be good at the primary thing my class is for, telling me to mod it would not inherently be satisfactory, the rogue has expertise that cuts the worst of the problem of, I would like more but the rogue is mostly functioning so it is presently less an issue.

the first ten levels being kind trying to get things together is just depressing we even have old demotivationals for it.

 

[Minigiant]

Problem is a rather harsh word though. It was a compromise that could be a improved upon a bit while still holding up the primary tenets of the compromise.

You don't fix compromises. You fix problems. It is okay to say 5e's design of a class has flaws.

MO It almost seems like you are waging this battle in the name of another war.

Nope. Every edition is flawed. There is no war to be waged. That's is what holds D&D back: people refusing to admit their favorite edition has issues in order to not give warring factions ammo.

5e can be the most popular and biggest dungeon adventure TTRPG and still bungle a few classes, races, and rules.

I brought up the comparison with the rogue (a martial class that's generally praised for being solidly designed for all pillars) to show that there's only a few things the rogue gets in heroic tier that help it out of combat. Even so, no one complains about the rogues out of combat capabilities relative to casters or even it's fighting ability relative to fighters. To me that indicates that the 'issue' is your desire for the fighter to be even better out of combat than the current rogue and not actually some overarching problem with the game itself. Heck with feats the heroic tier fighter likely trounces the rogue at combat.

I don't want the fighter to be better than the rogue at out of combat. The fighter is better at combat that the rogue in 2 roles. The rogue is better in in all the exploration and social roles.

My issue is that 5e is based around the ability scores but the ability scores are not balanced at all. The rogue is based around the best score. Classes based around the mental scores have magic. Strength has one skill, all its fighting styles desire a positive score in CON, and has limited use outside of battle in the default rules.It's all patchable but the issues are deeper than many want to admit.

 

[pemerton]

I brought up the comparison with the rogue (a martial class that's generally praised for being solidly designed for all pillars) to show that there's only a few things the rogue gets in heroic tier that help it out of combat. Even so, no one complains about the rogues out of combat capabilities relative to casters or even it's fighting ability relative to fighters.

It's not just affirmative class abilities. It's also the stat dependency of the class. Because rogues default so strongly to DEX-only for combat, they have more room for using other stats for non-combat purposes.

EDIT: Ninja'd by @Minigiant.

 

[Stalker0]

To me that indicates that the 'issue' is your desire for the fighter to be even better out of combat than the current rogue and not actually some overarching problem with the game itself.

I do think this is partly a narrative disconnect.

When people think of the stereotypical "party leader in front with a blade" they think fighter. But I'd argue especially in 5e the rogue often serves that function better.

The rogue is evasive and fast, has lots of skills that give it all of those "action hero" manuevers or lets them be the inspiring charismatic "core" that the rest of the party rallies behind.

Aragorn is more rogue (if we are considering core 4 classes instead of adding in things like ranger) than fighter (he's just higher level and has better "racial stats" than most of his fellows). Gimli is more a true "fighter"

 

[FrogReaver]

You don't fix compromises. You fix problems. It is okay to say 5e's design of a class has flaws.

I don't think we can actually call the fighter being 4 expertise skills away from a heroic tier rogue in out of combat ability a 'flaw'. Look I'm all for calling out flaws but that's not one - or let me put it this way - if you insist that's a flaw then I insist it's such a minor one that it doesn't even deserve to be brought up.

Nope. Every edition is flawed. There is no war to be waged. That's is what holds D&D back: people refusing to admit their favorite edition has issues in order to not give warring factions ammo.

My issue is that 5e is based around the ability scores but the ability scores are not balanced at all. The rogue is based around the best score. Classes based around the mental scores have magic. Strength has one skill, all its fighting styles desire a positive score in CON, and has limited use outside of battle in the default rules.It's all patchable but the issues are deeper than many want to admit.

And now we get to the actual 'war' you are waging. It's now revealed that it's actually around ability scores. I agree the 6 D&D Ability Scores aren't the best mechanic ever, but it is part of what makes D&D be D&D.

One might say your fundamental problem is with D&D as D&D. And that's fine, but fundamentally changing the game to the degree you prescribe isn't going to make D&D be D&D anymore. IMO.

5e can be the most popular and biggest dungeon adventure TTRPG and still bungle a few classes, races, and rules.

Sure. But just because something could be a bit better doesn't mean it was bunlged.

I don't want the fighter to be better than the rogue at out of combat. The fighter is better at combat that the rogue in 2 roles. The rogue is better in in all the exploration and social roles.

Let's say we gave the fighter a single skill expertise at level 2 and again at 9. Is that enough for you or too much?

 

[Mind of tempest]

I do think this is partly a narrative disconnect.

When people think of the stereotypical "party leader in front with a blade" they think fighter. But I'd argue especially in 5e the rogue often serves that function better.

The rogue is evasive and fast, has lots of skills that give it all of those "action hero" manuevers or lets them be the inspiring charismatic "core" that the rest of the party rallies behind.

Aragorn is more rogue (if we are considering core 4 classes instead of adding in things like ranger) than fighter (he's just higher level and has better "racial stats" than most of his fellows). Gimli is more a true "fighter"

does this suggest we should improve the fighter or not?

I don't think we can actually call the fighter being 4 expertise skills away from a heroic tier rogue in out of combat ability a 'flaw'. Look I'm all for calling out flaws but that's not one - or let me put it this way - if you insist that's a flaw then I insist it's such a minor one that it doesn't even deserve to be brought up.



And now we get to the actual 'war' you are waging. It's now revealed that it's actually around ability scores. I agree the 6 D&D Ability Scores aren't the best mechanic ever, but it is part of what makes D&D be D&D.

One might say your fundamental problem is with D&D as D&D. And that's fine, but fundamentally changing the game to the degree you prescribe isn't going to make D&D be D&D anymore. IMO.


Sure. But just because something could be a bit better doesn't mean it was bunlged.


Let's say we gave the fighter a single skill expertise at level 2 and again at 9. Is that enough for you or too much?

so was thaco once and that is dead as dishwater.

if you care works but need frequent fixes to get it to go more than six miles I would call it worse than bungled and presently that is the fighter.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's not just affirmative class abilities. It's also the stat dependency of the class. Because rogues default so strongly to DEX-only for combat, they have more room for using other stats for non-combat purposes.

EDIT: Ninja'd by @Minigiant.

I'm going to push back here big time. Fighters are just as SAD as rogues. Both Classes max their primary stat (either STR or DEX for the Fighter and DEX for the Rogue). Both Classes add some Con. Both Classes then have plenty of stat points left for a mental score. The only real difference through level 10 is expertise in 4 skills.