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

[squibbles]

[...]
In 5e, that balance is upended because of that prior thought. What should a fighter be, other than a character who is superior at fighting (it's almost a truism)? And yet, it would seem that spellcasters should have:
A. The ability to use cantrips every round that gives them roughly the equivalent of the martial character's attacks; and
B. The ability to use combat spells that aren't cantrips- from damage, to control, to buffs, to whatever, because that gives them variety in combat ... you know, meaningful choice; and
C. The ability to have numerous out-of-combat spells because spellcasting isn't just about combat, man, and that's what they have cantrips for anyway; and
D. The ability to use their numerous spells to affect the game in all of the pillars in a supernatural way, because ...

Which I totally understand. I, too, want my characters to be the awesome-est at everything! And yet, if spellcasters are required to be just as good as the martial characters at, um, martial stuff (combat), and spellcasters also get all the other goodies that spellcasters will get outside of combat, and if martials don't have that ... then, that kind of sucks for the martial, doesn't it?

And you're left with either giving martial spells (spell inflation), or not.

And maybe I'm missing something on this, but the specific thoughts (that spellcasters had to be just as good as martials at combat) surprised me somewhat. Is it because everyone is playing 5e as a tactical combat game (I didn't think so)?

Yeah, it's a bit of a conundrum.

To feel awesome, fighter-types need to be awesome at fighting, and, to feel awesome, magic-types need to feel awesome at magic.

BUT magic is a bigger tent than fighting. And, really, the big tent that is magic contains the small tent that is fighting... So you can't really feel awesome at magic if you are heinously suckass at fighting.

AND if everyone is awesome at fighting, but magic-types are awesome at other things, magic-types are just better.

There aren't any great fixes to this that make intuitive sense. You get pushback like "how can a warlord shout somebody's arm back on?" if you give fighter-types the ability to do things too far outside the fighting tent, and you undermine their fighter-type-ness if you give them spells.

Tentatively, I think the best way out of this is for fighter-types to get better magic items than magic-types do, which also allow them to do things that are normally in the magic tent. For example: that +1 greatsword for the barbarian might also detect lies and provide an at will 30' jump--now the barbarian is good at the social and exploration pillars--where, by comparison, the wizard just gets a +1 wand of meh, or a headband of 'doing that thing which wizards do already but now slightly more of it'. Obviously, this is something that needs a conscientious DM to make it work correctly (and/or publications that are written by someone with sense). Maybe magic items could, in general, offer more versatility than power, since magic-types have versatility for days and fighter-types do not.

 

[Shiroiken]

We have a sorcerer in our 8th level group. His go-to is to cast a twinned haste on the two paladins in the group and then support with non consentration spells. It's a massive increase over unhasted Martials. And that's just one example.

Support is an often underutilized role in D&D. Haste on a barbarian or paladin (going nova against the BBEG) is amazing, so long as you can hold your concentration. Giving the fighter or rogue stoneskin allows them to stand strong for a really long time in melee. Even a simple Protection from Good & Evil on a front liner can be amazing to prevent charms and grant disadvantage. Not to mention the ever awesome bless, which is the prime example of buffing PCs.

I think the reason not a lot of players like this is because it's not flashy. Someone else gets the glory for being a bad***, even though they couldn't have done it without it. It feels better to many to drop flaming death instead.

More seriously: I love Cantrips. I think Cantrips should be the baseline competence of all Spellcasters in Combat.

I like cantrips, but I feel combat cantrips were a mistake. Instead of scaling them, they should have continued to give more lower level spell slots out, making those low level damage spells relevant into the higher tiers. As it is now, most casters stop bothering with level 1 damage spells at level 5, and level 2 damage non-bonus action spells at level 11. The damage from the free cantrips is comparable, so why spend a spell slot?

Knock, for example, if it can be cast as a ritual (so little to no resource cost) infringes the rogues territory big time. Granted, 5e nerfed knock in other ways - but still.

More than you think. Knock isn't a ritual, so it costs a slot and sounds the dinner bell.

 

[Stormonu]

So many times I've heard players of martial characters chanting the refrain "wake me up when we get to a fight."

Personally, I'd love to see fighters be able to do interesting and cool things outside of combat that make the wizard, cleric and rogue have to pick their jaw up off the floor. But from a lot of what I've seen, those martial players aren't interested in those options, they just want to want to be lopping off limbs and taking heads.

And they'd never play a spellcaster - "It's just too complex and gives me a headache. I wanna just bust some heads."

 

[Mort]

More than you think. Knock isn't a ritual, so it costs a slot and sounds the dinner bell.

I was responding to a poster's proposal to make most /all out of combat spells rituals, not saying knock IS currently a ritual.

 

[CubicsRube]

It seems like Rob Schwalb (Shadow of the Demon Lord) went with the intention to put combat balance more in the martial favour and in the campaign I'm running I think it works quite well.

Warriors and martial paths get bonuses on their hit and damage rolls, where that is much rarer for magical paths.

In addition, quite a few monsters have spell resistance, and not many have resistance to non magical attacks.

The result? If you want to be a combat powerhouse, go martial. If you want versatility, particularly out of combat, spellcasters are a great (but not the only) choice

 

[CubicsRube]

So many times I've heard players of martial characters chanting the refrain "wake me up when we get to a fight."

Personally, I'd love to see fighters be able to do interesting and cool things outside of combat that make the wizard, cleric and rogue have to pick their jaw up off the floor. But from a lot of what I've seen, those martial players aren't interested in those options, they just want to want to be lopping off limbs and taking heads.

And they'd never play a spellcaster - "It's just too complex and gives me a headache. I wanna just bust some heads."

I'm a big fan of this as well, but I figure it would require a bit of balance to get right.

I think it'd be class abilities at certain levels, for example a fighter at 6th maybe gets authority in social settings and gets a bonus from it.

 

[Mort]

I'm a big fan of this as well, but I figure it would require a bit of balance to get right.

I think it'd be class abilities at certain levels, for example a fighter at 6th maybe gets authority in social settings and gets a bonus from it.

Tasha's took some baby steps in this direction by introducing maneuvers that increase out of combat skills like persuasion, performance or intimidation (commanding presence, by allowing one to add a superiority die to those skills).

Big downside is that it draws from the same pool as for combat - so it's a pretty big choice for the fighter. Might be better to establish a separate, out of combat superiority die pool.

 

[NaturalZero]

This is why I always play magical fighters.

 

[Shiroiken]

I was responding to a poster's proposal to make most /all out of combat spells rituals, not saying knock IS currently a ritual.

Ah! It's a common mistake for people to think it is. My bad

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, it's a bit of a conundrum.

To feel awesome, fighter-types need to be awesome at fighting, and, to feel awesome, magic-types need to feel awesome at magic.

BUT magic is a bigger tent than fighting. And, really, the big tent that is magic contains the small tent that is fighting... So you can't really feel awesome at magic if you are heinously suckass at fighting.

AND if everyone is awesome at fighting, but magic-types are awesome at other things, magic-types are just better.

There aren't any great fixes to this that make intuitive sense. You get pushback like "how can a warlord shout somebody's arm back on?" if you give fighter-types the ability to do things too far outside the fighting tent, and you undermine their fighter-type-ness if you give them spells.

Tentatively, I think the best way out of this is for fighter-types to get better magic items than magic-types do, which also allow them to do things that are normally in the magic tent. For example: that +1 greatsword for the barbarian might also detect lies and provide an at will 30' jump--now the barbarian is good at the social and exploration pillars--where, by comparison, the wizard just gets a +1 wand of meh, or a headband of 'doing that thing which wizards do already but now slightly more of it'. Obviously, this is something that needs a conscientious DM to make it work correctly (and/or publications that are written by someone with sense). Maybe magic items could, in general, offer more versatility than power, since magic-types have versatility for days and fighter-types do not.

You are ignoring the pretty large elephant of spell slot consumption and how 5e pegs spells at the idea that fighters & other martiala will never have the magic weapons you suggest. Once martials have those magic weapons once meant to bridge a gap that no longer exists it creates one with no easy way to fix it.