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

[Aldarc]

When you wanna hurt a bad guy you just add your modifiers and roll a d20 regardless of how you're hurting them. And on and on and on it went.

/shrug Sounds like D&D.

 

[pemerton]

Except Fighters and Barbarians also had area of effect attacks. And since an enemy target's saving throws were static, everyone rolled what was essentially an attack roll whether they targeted AC or Saves because they were all "Defenses". Very samey.

@EzekielRaiden mostly replied to this.

I'd add two things.

(1) Fighters (and other warrior classes) have had multiple attacks since at least AD&D (attack one foe per level if the foes have less than 1 HD). A 4e fighter's close burst weapon attack vs all opponents the character can see is no different in the sort of fiction it produces. (It's mechanically a bit more straightforward, because expressed in a standard mechanical lexicon.)

(2) I think this post shows how 4e is written for people who engage RPGing via fiction rather than mechanics and rules text. Thus the differentiation between a fighter and wizard in 4e is not a matter of how the rules text is written and what the mechanics are; the difference is between the fiction that results from the play of one or the other (eg fighters threaten and cut down adjacent foes using their melee weapons; wizards call down magical energy in the form of fire, acid, cold, etc).

 

[pemerton]

When you wanna force a door open using an Ability Check the Wizard and the Barbarian both have the same chance to do it because Strength and Intelligence are interchangeable for the task.

What system is this?

when a Fighter and a Wizard hit multiple targets in a small area, in 3e and 5e, the Wizard casts a spell and the DM rolls saving throws while the fighter makes multiple attack rolls.

And if I were to make a Videogame where every "Spellmaster" had the same 10 templates of powers but you could change the damage type from Fire to Ice and it would make the visual change as well... It would still be a Fireball dealing Ice Damage. You'd still feel like you're playing the exact same character if you made them a Lightning Spellmaster because there's no actual difference in how the spells would function

<snip>

When you wanna hurt a bad guy you just add your modifiers and roll a d20 regardless of how you're hurting them. And on and on and on it went. I get they were going for maximum flexibility for a Videogameish feel (One that translated really well into Neverwinter though obviously it's not the same) but that lost granularity just wasn't doing it for me.

There's just a point where it becomes so homogenous that it gets dull for some people.

Again, to me this seems to be identifying the play of a RPG with the technical mechanical minutiae, rather than the process of establishing the fiction and what that fiction consists in. I get that for videogames - there is no shared fiction in a videogame - but 4e was designed, I think, for people who enjoy what is distinctive about RPGing compared to videogames, namely, the shared fiction. Which is very different if it is fighter rather than a wizard that is involved in combat.

 

[pemerton]

Everything I see of these I think of the incredible, if everyone is special then no one is special.

I thought that was the villain's line.

It seems to me that if everyone is special - ie distinctive and significant - then everyone is still special - ie distinctive and significant.

if everyone is special then no one is special. Every class should have something they are best at.

The sentiment of these two sentences seems to be in contradiction.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Same here. Thus my preference for "one trick pony" martials.

The thing is some of us like a balance. Some options rather than just one - but not an overwhelming number.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Except when a Fighter and a Wizard hit multiple targets in a small area, in 3e and 5e, the Wizard casts a spell and the DM rolls saving throws while the fighter makes multiple attack rolls.

And if I were to make a Videogame where every "Spellmaster" had the same 10 templates of powers but you could change the damage type from Fire to Ice and it would make the visual change as well... It would still be a Fireball dealing Ice Damage. You'd still feel like you're playing the exact same character if you made them a Lightning Spellmaster because there's no actual difference in how the spells would function

When you wanna force a door open using an Ability Check the Wizard and the Barbarian both have the same chance to do it because Strength and Intelligence are interchangeable for the task. When you wanna hurt a bad guy you just add your modifiers and roll a d20 regardless of how you're hurting them. And on and on and on it went.

There's just a point where it becomes so homogenous that it gets dull for some people. Apparently not you or Neon Chameleon. Which is great. Seriously. I'm happy that you guys can play the naughty word out of 4e and enjoy yourselves.

But what I would prefer, which I kinda described? Is very much not 4e.

You're correct that 4e makes it so spells use attack rolls. But 5e also includes spells that involve attack rolls, lots of them actually. Everything from cantrips (fire bolt) to banishment effects (plane shift, used as a banishment, requires a ranged spell attack). According to 5e.tools, 34 spells currently include some component that involves a melee or ranged spell attack. (14 melee, 20 ranged.) And, as noted, there's at least one non-caster means by which one may attack multiple foes, such as the Sweeping Attack maneuver (available to anyone with a feat), and numerous maneuvers and non-spell effects call for saving throws. I don't understand why 5e is "not samey," when spells and attacks can do either thing (attack rolls, saving throws).

It is worth noting here that there's an important rationale behind specifically making all offensive actions attack rolls: it makes playing a support character much easier. Instead of having to balance both an accuracy buff AND an ally-save-DC-buff, you only have to balance one thing, attack roll bonuses. This means (for example) the 4e Warlord doesn't have to have long-winded features or multiple distinct mechanics in order to play nicely with both a Ranger and a Sorcerer, despite the former having (mostly) non-magical attack powers and the latter having very explicitly magical attack powers.

Your other points, here, are...uh, just wrong? Like I'm really confused how you got to those ideas, because they just aren't true.

There aren't 10 templates of powers. Powers run the gamut of all sorts of things: they include keywords (which, officially, only the DM is allowed to alter--but they did support DMs doing so to help make a player's character more thematic, just as 5e does), but you could have Effects (stuff that Just Happens when you use the power) or not, could cause secondary or even tertiary attacks/effects, and could (often did) have riders that hook into other class features. Just as, in 5e, every spell has a specific format--level, school, casting time, range, components etc.--even if it doesn't necessarily need all of those parts, exactly the same thing applies to 4e powers, there's a format and you use whatever parts of it are needed to achieve the power's effect. Like, if your standard is that there's only a few templates that then get tweaked, 5e is worse, because spells have ONE template! It is literally almost never the case that two powers for the same class in 4e work perfectly identically; you do sometimes get two powers that work identically across two different classes, but that's not particularly common due to rider effects.

And...I don't even know what you're talking about with the "Strength and Intelligence are interchangeable for the task" thing, because...that's literally just false. Flat out. There were some ways, by layering together various benefits, that you could substitute Arcana checks for several other kinds of checks, but I've never heard of any way to substitute Intelligence for Strength when making an Athletics roll. If anything, 5e is the one that you should be leveling this criticism at, because it actually includes official rules options for substituting different stats with a given skill!

Like, if you just don't like the idea that spells and attacks use a common resolution mechanic, that's fine. But don't say things that are...simply, demonstrably untrue in the process.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Everything I see of these I think of the incredible, if everyone is special then no one is special.

So...leaving your other points aside, you do realize that this was said by a supervillain, right? And not just a supervillain, but a specifically "angry about not being instantly beloved by senpai~~" supervillain. A supervillain who had built his whole life around trying to "prove" that Mr. Incredible was ACTUALLY the REAL jerk because he refused to accept the supervillain-kiddo's UNDYING LOVE AND PRAISE.

Like...this is a dude who was literally stalking someone, got super ultra told off for it. Then instead of, y'know, learning to respect others' boundaries and accept that just because you feel something for someone does not in any way oblige them to feel anything for you, he instead bent his (significant!) genius to proving that Mr. Incredible SHOULD have loved him just as much as he loved Mr. Incredible.

That line is, quite literally, exactly equivalent to an internet Nice Guy becoming so upset about a pretty woman not reciprocating his feelings, that he spends his whole life finding a way to make everyone beautiful solely to prove that beauty is unimportant. It's honestly mind-boggling how many people think this is a Vital Philosophical Truth when it's just an angry man-child vapidly insisting that the world SHOULD revolve around him.

(It also doesn't work at all if you even slightly think about it. "If every food is delicious, then no food is delicious." "If every book is good, then no books are good." "If every outfit you wear is comfortable and stylish, then no outfit you wear is comfortable and stylish." It's just utter nonsense that SOUNDS profound. Which is the whole point of Syndrome as a character; he's vain, completely self-absorbed, and so shallow that a walk through the ocean of his soul wouldn't get your feet wet.)

 

[Manbearcat]

(2) I think this post shows how 4e is written for people who engage RPGing via fiction rather than mechanics and rules text. Thus the differentiation between a fighter and wizard in 4e is not a matter of how the rules text is written and what the mechanics are; the difference is between the fiction that results from the play of one or the other (eg fighters threaten and cut down adjacent foes using their melee weapons; wizards call down magical energy in the form of fire, acid, cold, etc).

And the fiction and the mechanics reinforce each other in a very tight feedback loop...constantly...in the course of play.

The idea that the actual play of 4e produced homogeneity of archetypes is so estranged from the games I GMed I can't even fathom what was happening at these reported play experiences (that produced said homogeneity).

Any singular action declaration and resolution of a Wizard (whether its a combat or a Skill Challenge) looks nothing like a Fighter...and vice versa.

When you put together a sequence of actions and resolution? The contrast could not be more stark.

* The Fighter is skirmishing through a thicket line of danger across the battlefield, menacing enemies physically, a veritable black hole of melee, catching all would-be pursuers of the Fighter's allies in their orbit and cutting them down or imposing a brutal catch-22 upon them via Mighty Sprint > Come and Get It > Combat Challenge/Combat Superiority. Meanwhile, the Wizard (unthreatened and unharrassed due to the Fighter locking down the Brutes/Skirmishers/Lurkers), erects a Gale Wall to protect his allies against the entrenched enemy archers (Artillery) on the ridge line, then uses Charm of the Defender to ensorcell the BBEG's guard into turning against their former master.

* The same Fighter is using Mighty Sprint to run and leap and grab a swinging rope bridge to get propelled across a chasm. Meanwhile the Wizard is manipulating the rope bridge via an Arcana-driven Telekinesis. Both get a success in a Skill Challenge...both control the gamestate and open up the subsequent move-space for Team PC...but very different fiction.

* The same Fighter uses Steely Persuasion to get a huge bonus on their Intimidate (at level 10 its likely +5 and scaling on from there) as they look down at the hilt of their blade when they intimidate someone in a social conflict. The same Wizard uses Arcane Mutterings to impress or manipulate their enemy. Skill Challenge success...both control the gamestate and open up the subsequent move-space for Team PC...but very different fiction.

---

And this isn't even getting into how Theme + Paragon Path + Epic Destiny and each of their Quests will differentiate them (mechanically and within the fiction).

 

[pemerton]

The idea that the actual play of 4e produced homogeneity of archetypes is so estranged from the games I GMed I can't even fathom what was happening at these reported play experiences (that produced said homogeneity).

Well as best I can tell it's what I said in my posts: the RPGer who experienced this phenomenon of "4e homogeneity" come to RPGing in terms of the experience of manipuating the rules rather than the experience of the shared fiction. So their RPGing orientation is much closer to boardgaming or videogaming.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And this isn't even getting into how Theme + Paragon Path + Epic Destiny and each of their Quests will differentiate them (mechanically and within the fiction).

I guess, for some people, if you perform the same rule-required action (e.g. "make an attack roll"), then "ultimately" whatever you're doing MUST be the same, no matter how different the details may be. Having a unified mechanic = having only one action, or something.