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

[FrogReaver]

Sure. But a sorcerer being imbued by the power of a great magical being because their parentage and warlock being imbued by the power of a great magical being because of a pact are basically the same thing.

I don’t think they are basically the same thing. it’s not like the fighter and barbarian where we can simply describe the fighter as angry and have conceptually a barbarian.

the concepts of its in your blood and you made a pact are different. Though there is an argument the same mechanics could be used for both. I don’t have a problem with that. Except the reason they weren’t is because these classes are based on previous editions and in those editions they were mechanically separated. Also they wanted something they could call a simple caster.

sometimes the answer is that something is the way it is because that’s how it started.

If you combine warlock and sorcerer, the distinction becomes thematically clear: wizard is a learned spellcaster who uses skill and knowledge, warlock is a caster imbued with innate magical power that uses intuitive understanding of sorcery. And in this paradigm a creepy occultists that studies maleficent spells from forbidden books is still a wizard.

The distinction is already thematically clear:

learned magic
Made a pact
Innate to your being

 

[FrogReaver]

I have no doubt you could build a Fighter class that could do Warlord stuff well... I just don't think the CURRENT Fighter we got can. If we were to talk about a new edition, I wouldn't be opposed to folding the Fighter and Warlord together, provided you got enough customization to make it work... but if we want to add more Warlords 5e, I think a new class is more likely to work out. The Battlemaster and Banneret are just multi-class subclass in my mind.

I don’t think you are following. By adding in a warlord the fighter fulfills the leader role even worse than he already does. He’s not a particularly great martial leader in that we can conceive of greater mechanics for that concept. But he’s the best we’ve got. So adding in the warlord diminishes what the fighter is capable of representing as he goes from the best we’ve got to completely terrible once the warlord is added.

I’m not saying that’s good or bad, just that it is.

 

[Undrave]

I don’t think you are following. By adding in a warlord the fighter fulfills the leader role even worse than he already does. He’s not a particularly great martial leader in that we can conceive of greater mechanics for that concept. But he’s the best we’ve got. So adding in the warlord diminishes what the fighter is capable of representing as he goes from the best we’ve got to completely terrible once the warlord is added.

I’m not saying that’s good or bad, just that it is.

I'm not sure I see the issue...

 

[Morrus]

This is naughty word. This is just ridiculous and honestly an INSULTING argument.

I've taken piss longer than that for pete's sake! You're only a Battlemaster for less than 2 minutes a day and somehow you don't think that' a problem?! You think I should just be satisfied with that?

Oh wow, every four level! That is SO dynamic!

What the hell are you even on?!

Calm down, please.

 

[Asisreo]

I don’t think you are following. By adding in a warlord the fighter fulfills the leader role even worse than he already does. He’s not a particularly great martial leader in that we can conceive of greater mechanics for that concept. But he’s the best we’ve got. So adding in the warlord diminishes what the fighter is capable of representing as he goes from the best we’ve got to completely terrible once the warlord is added.

I’m not saying that’s good or bad, just that it is.

Rogues are better pure martial leaders and Paladins are better martial leaders in general.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not sure I see the issue...

The space of what the fighter can represent shrinks as you add more classes that do things he could do better than he does.

 

[FrogReaver]

Rogues are better pure martial leaders and Paladins are better martial leaders in general.

Paladins are tainted with that magic and so are in a different conceptual box.

I would say a Battlemaster makes a better martial leader than a rogue. Slightly at least.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

Its not dealing with it dude. Its managing it.

This can be as simple as telling your players No, or simply having a 6 encounter minimum before long rests work.

You're making it out to be a chore.

 

[Flamestrike]

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

Of course. Now its 'calvinballing'.

RAW, RAI and actual demonstrations wont persuade you, so you just do you mkay?

 

[Manbearcat]

Of course. Now its 'calvinballing'.

RAW, RAI and actual demonstrations wont persuade you, so you just do you mkay?

Correct. It is Calvinballing.

I will do me, permission accepted and thank you!