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

[Manbearcat]

Ive literally started a thread challenging people to prove this 'busted' nature of the caster v martial aspect of the game to me.

I can’t imagine how someone would think this sort of exercise is informative.

The asymmetric power relationships and capacity for Calvinballing is the actual signal in these exercises…not how balance or unbalance is systemitized.

The GM has complete control over both macro and micro framing.

The GM has complete control over frequency of encounters.

The GM has complete control over sequencing of encounters.

The GM has complete control over the battlefield, Team Monster, and general obstacle dynamics (anti-swording or anti-Wizarding?).

The GM has exclusive access and complete control to leverage secret backstory or unintroduced offscreen elements to block player moves (or enable them) at their discretion.

And this backstory and unintroduced offscreen elements are wholly unconstrained (unlike in an actual game with that features the continuity of a collective shared imagined space that has accreted over the course of considerable play…which, by the way, is still profoundly unconstrained in a game of 5e D&D).

Like above (and unlike a game like Torchbearer where you’re assessing codified factors to generate Obstacle difficulty or 4e where you’re using DC by level chart or PBtA where you’re using the basic outcome spread like 4e), the GM can effectively initiate “numbers-based blocks/enabling” because they control the DCs (without any procedure that guides or encodes them!)!


The list is endless as to why exercises like this are just an expression of the asymmetric power relationships of 5e D&D GMs and their players.

The only way to effectively do something like this is to get data from 100s of tables/instantiations of play of level 12 (or whatever) and try to tease out the Calvinball/Force by GMs so you can extract the signal of play from that noise (and good luck with that!).

What you’re likely to find is:

* Calvinballing and GM Force is much more rampant than folks would like to admit.

* GM expression of their control over all of the mentioned above profoundly affects the trajectory of the gamestate and who makes what impact (or not) and when/how.

* If you’re not routinely running the truly ridiculous # of 6-8 resource ablating encounters, the signal of player wresting control over the trajectory of the gamestate will lean massively in the favor of the Wizard (particularly if they’re a Diviner…which is what I have experience GMing at these levels!).

* Even if you are running that ridiculous encounter # model that 5e designers embedded in their game, the gas tank and problem solving capabilities of a Diviner overwhelms the other characters (subject to veto by GM Calvinballing and Force of course)…and for a certain number of encounters, they’ll be able to throw out a decisive, powerful spell early on (using Portent to ensure a failed save by the big threat of the random encounter if they feel inclined) and then “CLEAN UP ON AISLE 4” and take 5 for the rest of the encounter (because their early spell deployment has rendered the rest of the fight a fate accompli so their pals can clean up relatively stress free…subject to Calvinballing and GM Force of course)! And those same Diviners should be able to surveil/magic their way into controlling the workday dynamics (therefore refilling their gas tank and/or changing loadout) at least SOME of the time (subject to Calvinballing and GM Force of course!).


TLDR - I don’t know who would be convinced by your exercise…but it would not be me.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The designers have even explicitly said that, through their own examination of how people play, people are doing neither the expected number of combats per day (much closer to 3-5 rather than 6-8), and that short rests are happening far less frequently than intended (0-1 most days, as opposed to 2-3 most days). It's part of why you're seeing movement in the design away from short-rest-based mechanics and toward "uses equal to your proficiency bonus" that refresh on a long rest instead. People just aren't playing the game the way they thought people would, and it's specifically in the direction of 5MWD stuff. It may not ACTUALLY be 5MWD, but it's definitely "people are consistently taking long rests more often than intended, and it's shortchanging classes that were balanced around longer gaps between long rests and getting multiple recharges from short rests."

Sure. We've been playing with 'gritty realism' rests recently, and I really helps with this issue. Still, I feel that six to eight fights between long rests is just way too much. I don't know how fast and how long sessions people play, but there is no bloody way I could fit that much in one session. Four fights is pushing it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No one is just 'kinda fit' which is probably the most common state of an adventurer in most fiction.

The problem is, and always has been in D&D, that generalists are either so good there's no point in being a specialist, or worthless because specialization is the only way to achieve success.

And there are absolutely comparisons you can make to real-world stuff here. Consider post-secondary education. I had a Latin professor who was an excellent teacher, knew her stuff really well, super friendly and engaging, etc. Except she would never be allowed to hold her post longer than the year she had it (and she only got the job because the previous professor literally died a few weeks before term started, so they had to take whomever they could get). She didn't have a doctorate in Latin and wasn't interested in getting one (though she did have a Master's)....but literally the only way for her to teach Latin at the college level would be to get that doctorate. And, in general, that's how a lot of academic careers work; there's little point in having three complete Bachelor's degrees in unrelated fields, because being "kinda good" at three things is worth far, far less than being really great (Masters/PhD-equivalent) at a single thing.

Yes, it does cause unrealistic representation issues, both in the game and in the real world. But even some of the ways to fix this (in the game, anyway) will get accused of unrealism themselves! Remember how salty people got about the half-level bonus in 4e....even though the very thing that represents is becoming generically somewhat more skilled at all the little things of adventuring?

Sure. We've been playing with 'gritty realism' rests recently, and I really helps with this issue. Still, I feel that six to eight fights between long rests is just way too much. I don't know how fast and how long sessions people play, but there is no bloody way I could fit that much in one session. Four fights is pushing it.

Oh, for sure, I hear you on this. I was a skeptic of the 6-8 encounter day back when it was first floated as an idea, and continue to be now. I still maintain that the 5e designers simply did not consider the effects that this, and the fact that a short rest is a full bloody hour, would have on actual play. People really love throwing around the phrase "white room" these days, but in all honesty, the resource and recovery math of 5e actually was designed in a "white room" that flatly ignores the way real people play. And we're now seeing how the designers are gently tiptoeing around the issue due to their (sadly, probably justified) fears of backlash if they issue any "major" errata.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There is a difference between "I would like the official designers to create this additional class," and "You can hotfix this class that exists by adding in an unofficial rule."

But that's not a fair comparison. It could just as well be "I would like the official designers hotfix this class that exists by adding in an official rule." and "You can fix this issue by homebrewing an unofficial additional class." Fixing an existing class and crating a new class are both creating rules and those rules can be in either case be created officially or unofficially.

There's also a major difference between "the existing class doesn't do this one little thing I want" and "I feel the Fighter is significantly shortchanged compared to most spellcasters to a degree that it is not easily addressed." The former is a single small tweak. The latter is heavily modifying or even completely rewriting a class. Think of it as the difference between issuing errata on a single class feature, such as "Warlock invocations with level prerequisites refer to your Warlock class level, not your character level," and completely rewriting the whole class, e.g. the numerous Ranger rewrites that have come out of UA. They're fundamentally different, and conflating the two is unfair to the people asking for the latter.

Well, yes. There definitely is a disagreement about the scope of the issue. I acknowledge that the issue exist in certain degree, but not in extent that it couldn't be addressed with small fixes. Furthermore, I often feel that these new class suggestions are often not so much about fixing some issue or being able to create a certain type of character. Usually it turns out that you can already create the sort of character you want and there are already ways to address the issue you're having: it's just that people have their pet solutions and exact mechanical methods they want to see, and aren't satisfied with anything else. This is just something that leads to constant disappointment unless you write your own game; the WotC designers will never just happen to share your exact vision on everything.

 

[Aldarc]

Oh, for sure, I hear you on this. I was a skeptic of the 6-8 encounter day back when it was first floated as an idea, and continue to be now. I still maintain that the 5e designers simply did not consider the effects that this, and the fact that a short rest is a full bloody hour, would have on actual play. People really love throwing around the phrase "white room" these days, but in all honesty, the resource and recovery math of 5e actually was designed in a "white room" that flatly ignores the way real people play. And we're now seeing how the designers are gently tiptoeing around the issue due to their (sadly, probably justified) fears of backlash if they issue any "major" errata.

An even pacing for the adventuring day can't exist between classes or subclasses if the per long rest C/SBs dictate the actual pacing rather than the per short rest C/SCs (or vice versa). Although it's out-of-vogue to say it, 4e's scene/encounter-based design mostly had solved this issue for the pacing of adventures.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh, for sure, I hear you on this. I was a skeptic of the 6-8 encounter day back when it was first floated as an idea, and continue to be now. I still maintain that the 5e designers simply did not consider the effects that this, and the fact that a short rest is a full bloody hour, would have on actual play. People really love throwing around the phrase "white room" these days, but in all honesty, the resource and recovery math of 5e actually was designed in a "white room" that flatly ignores the way real people play. And we're now seeing how the designers are gently tiptoeing around the issue due to their (sadly, probably justified) fears of backlash if they issue any "major" errata.

Yeah. Though I really don't see how a short rest being an full hour is a long time. Like we play with an eight hour one... Is it so often that you would have the time to take a twenty minute breather but not an hour long one? Or is is it perhaps that if the situation is secure enough that you can take an hour long rest, you might as well take an eight hour one? In any case, I feel the gritty rests really make it clear that these rests are radically different things. With that the long rest is basically "We're done with this location, lets go home."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I acknowledge that the issue exist in certain degree, but not in extent that it couldn't be addressed with small fixes.

Then, yes, that's a pretty fundamental disagreement, and I'm not sure what could work to address it.

Furthermore, I often feel that these new class suggestions are often not so much about fixing some issue or being able to create a certain type of character. Usually it turns out that you can already create the sort of character you want and there are already ways to address the issue you're having:

Yes, well, I have the converse issue, where I find that a lot of people are incredibly keen on class reductionism über alles, even when that means shoehorning together things that would really, really benefit from being separated. E.g., the people who say we don't NEED Paladins and Rangers, because they can just be divine and nature-y versions of Eldritch Knight; and we don't NEED Barbarians, because they can just be a rage-centric version of Fighter; and we don't NEED Clerics and Druids and Warlocks, because those can be just divine/nature-y/patron-linked Wizards with a stat swap; and we don't NEED Monks because they can just be a pugilist Fighter type; etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Parsimony is not the only virtue in game design. Sometimes, giving a concept or an idea the space to stretch out can make the difference between "functional" and "bad," or at least dull/ineffectual/etc.; consider the Purple Dragon Knight/Banneret subclass, which has been generally panned as a pretty ineffectual attempt to kludge a "Warlord Fighter" that isn't based around maneuvers. The big problem being that the Fighter is so hard-coded to do a lot of damage by itself, have a lot of personal bonuses, and take a lot of actions personally, that it's really hard to build into it much in the way of ally support. Giving "martial combatant who exploits training and teamwork to act as a force-multiplier for her party" the space to stretch out and do that, without being nailed down to the design of the Fighter we already have, would permit things you could never reasonably achieve otherwise.

Now, of course, this gets into thorny, aesthetically-driven arguments. But parsimony is already an aesthetic argument. "Less is more" is only true when, y'know, you actually DO get more out of it. Sometimes, surprisingly enough, less is less.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If your DMs have no control over the 5MWD, that DM probably shouldn't be running games at all.

I can deal with broken toilets, the next door neighbours setting off the fire alarm at 5am last night, and various other things that make my day worse. This doesn't mean that I want to deal with them or that dealing with them is something other than a chore that makes my day worse.

The 5MWD is something I can deal with as a GM but also makes my day shittier. Just because I can deal with it doesn't make it anything other than a bloody nuisance that's a consequence of 5e's game design.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah. Though I really don't see how a short rest being an full hour is a long time. Like we play with an eight hour one... Is it so often that you would have the time to take a twenty minute breather but not an hour long one? Or is is it perhaps that if the situation is secure enough that you can take an hour long rest, you might as well take an eight hour one? In any case, I feel the gritty rests really make it clear that these rests are radically different things. With that the long rest is basically "We're done with this location, lets go home."

In general, the response I hear is the second there: that if you're secure enough that you can wait for a full hour and not have a problem, you can probably wait for a much larger portion of a day. Or, alternatively, if you're subject to time pressure such that a single night's rest would become a Serious Problem, enough to overcome the "but if I rest I'll have all my spells to throw at them" argument casters usually (and justifiably!) use, then taking even a full hour break is too great a risk.

Most adventuring days are, at most, 16 hours long--and at least a few hours of that time will need to be spent travelling, which isn't compatible with taking a short rest. If you assume (say) 4 hours of travel time, and needing (say) an hour to dismantle camp in the morning and set it back up in the evening (during which time casters can prepare spells and such), then you're already looking at only (at most) 10 hours to work with for whatever activity is so time-sensitive. Spending (at least) 30% of that time resting? Starts to sound like a serious issue if taking even one extra day is enough to spell disaster. (Heh. Spell.)

And while I'm genuinely glad that the "gritty realism" rests make things better for you....they would make things worse for me. Because, as I said, I already have issues with it taking multiple sessions just to get out of the "tutorial" levels.* The "gritty" resting rules would simply exacerbate this.

*which all but two 5e DMs have adamantly insisted on using, no matter how much I pleaded with them to consider alternatives. Multiple near-TPKs have resulted, which has a rather serious negative effect on player morale.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And while I'm genuinely glad that the "gritty realism" rests make things better for you....they would make things worse for me. Because, as I said, I already have issues with it taking multiple sessions just to get out of the "tutorial" levels.* The "gritty" resting rules would simply exacerbate this.

*which all but two 5e DMs have adamantly insisted on using, no matter how much I pleaded with them to consider alternatives. Multiple near-TPKs have resulted, which has a rather serious negative effect on player morale.

I don't quite understand how it would result either of those. It just means that instead of having four fights in one day, you can have an adventure which has those four fights over several days. You still have the same number of fights.