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

[Crimson Longinus]

In my opinion, there are basically two options: either every class should be viable in every pillar, but contribute to it in different ways, or every class should specialize in a pillar and be weaker in others. The direction 5e seems to want to go in is the latter, and that’s a valid choice, but in that case non-casters should have more tools to contribute outside of combat in different ways than the casters do.

I don't think it is a problem is some characters are weaker in some pillars and stronger in others, as long as they're not completely useless on any of them. Everyone don't need to contribute exactly equally for every pillar, but everyone needs to be able to contribute something to all of them; doing nothing is boring and this is a team game. And this doesn't need to go by the class. You should be able to build a wizard who focuses mostly on blasty spells and has less utility, or skill monkey rogue with a lot of connections that, whilst not being useless in combat, is not a super assassin etc. One subclass that exemplifies to me what not to do is the berserker barbarian. It has no out of combat utility beyond skills, and in combat they use frenzy to make them super killy in exchange of exhaustion, which gives them disadvantage on all ability checks rendering them pretty much completely useless outside the combat. Terrible design.

 

[Steampunkette]

But then you have casters stepping on other toes again as was a big problem in 3e.

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.

Plenty of other examples of where this would be a dangerous move - unless you want casters to dominate, then it will work great.

Edit: unless you take into account the ritual caster feat. With this upgrade it goes from an OK feat to amazing. You could actually sideline traditional caster s with this upgrade. That's actually worth a thought for the right campaign.

Doesn't step on the Rogue's Toes at all. Knock would be a great spell to cast, but as a ritual it takes WAY longer than a Rogue just unlocking the door. Of course a Wizard with the Criminal Background can do the exact same thing so long as their dexterity is competent. "But the Rogue could have Expertise!" Sure, making it easier for a Rogue to accomplish the same task, but the Wizard could still pick up Thieves Tools and roll a Nat 20 plus bonuses and beat the lock DC.

So all in all it's a pretty moot point. Especially if Ritual Caster is a thing and the Rogue can (For some reason) spend ten minutes casting Knock.

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?


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

I feel like more low-level spell slots is a mistake. We should just have fewer spell slots and march their level up the grade. You're level 10? You get no more 1st or 2nd level spell slots. And instead get a small number of 3rd, 4th, and 5th level slots. Your cantrips scale to keep your baseline damage up, and all your combat-casting is much more bombastic!

And no. Knock as a 10 minute Ritual Spell would be a far larger bell ringing. Particularly in areas with, I dunno... Wandering Monsters or Patrolling guards where time is of the essence.

One big problem is that the martial classes aren’t any better at hitting with weapons than the caster classes. Both use d20 + PB + stat mod. All classes can use Simple weapons. I’m not sure how to solve that.

Saving Throws.

Make Magical Attacks target Saving Throws rather than AC. Give players the option of taking a few "Attack Spells" like Greenflame Blade and Eldritch Blast where they get to be "Magical Warriors" and make the rest into Saving Throws that thus ignore things like Cover (Except Total Cover). That could make a pretty epic narrative difference between them.

 

[Mort]

Doesn't step on the Rogue's Toes at all. Knock would be a great spell to cast, but as a ritual it takes WAY longer than a Rogue just unlocking the door. Of course a Wizard with the Criminal Background can do the exact same thing so long as their dexterity is competent. "But the Rogue could have Expertise!" Sure, making it easier for a Rogue to accomplish the same task, but the Wizard could still pick up Thieves Tools and roll a Nat 20 plus bonuses and beat the lock DC.

So all in all it's a pretty moot point. Especially if Ritual Caster is a thing and the Rogue can (For some reason) spend ten minutes casting Knock.

It's not completely moot though.

At 3rd level a rogue will have about a 65% chance to pick a standard lock (DC 15 and assuming 16 Dex and the rogue having expertise and thieves tools). A knock spell gives you a 100% chance. That's not insignificant when you REALLY need to get past a lock.

But that's also not the whole story. If the rogue doesn't have tools and has to improvise then he's picking the lock at disadvantage - that's only a 42% chance of success. The Wizard remains at 100% (without needing access to anything since knock is a V only spell).

If the rogue can't improvise tools (say he's locked in a dungeon cell and the DM is being overly strict) he can't pick the lock. The wizard - still at 100%.

Now how many wizard players memorize knock as their sole 2nd level spell? Not many, unless they know it will almost certainly come up - then yes they would - at a significant resource cost.

But allowing it as a ritual? That obliterates locks as an obstacle completely, which is a bit much - especially for 3rd level. I'm comfortable giving that to a rogue at 11th (reliable talent and a high skill check) they've more than earned it - but not to a wizard at 3rd.

 

[Asisreo]

It's not completely moot though.

At 3rd level a rogue will have about a 65% chance to pick a standard lock (DC 15 and assuming 16 Dex and the rogue having expertise and thieves tools). A knock spell gives you a 100% chance. That's not insignificant when you REALLY need to get past a lock.

But that's also not the whole story. If the rogue doesn't have tools and has to improvise then he's picking the lock at disadvantage - that's only a 42% chance of success. The Wizard remains at 100% (without needing access to anything since knock is a V only spell).

If the rogue can't improvise tools (say he's locked in a dungeon cell and the DM is being overly strict) he can't pick the lock. The wizard - still at 100%.

Now how many wizard players memorize knock as their sole 2nd level spell? Not many, unless they know it will almost certainly come up - then yes they would - at a significant resource cost.

But allowing it as a ritual? That obliterates locks as an obstacle completely, which is a bit much - especially for 3rd level. I'm comfortable giving that to a rogue at 11th (reliable talent and a high skill check) they've more than earned it - but not to a wizard at 3rd.

Don't forget Knock is basically a legitimate knock at whatever you're trying to open's door.

Like, its like banging on the door "The police is here!" Then using a battering ram. Its completely useless for stealth operations as opposed to rogue's lockpicking which can be done silently.

Also, I would absolutely hate being in a situation where we need to get a door open:

"Crap, the rogue failed his lockpicking check and we TPK if we don't open the door! Good thing our wizard has Knock prepared, right?"

"Oh, I never took knock...uhm...well...uh-oh."

 

[Mort]

Don't forget Knock is basically a legitimate knock at whatever you're trying to open's door.

Like, its like banging on the door "The police is here!" Then using a battering ram. Its completely useless for stealth operations as opposed to rogue's lockpicking which can be done silently.

If your in the right campaign (say an intrigue heavy city campaign) :
A sorcerer with subtle spell can overcome that. Of course, it takes 2 second level spells (silence and knock) to pull off, which is a lot.

Also, I would absolutely hate being in a situation where we need to get a door open:

"Crap, the rogue failed his lockpicking check and we TPK if we don't open the door! Good thing our wizard has Knock prepared, right?"

"Oh, I never took knock...uhm...well...uh-oh."

That'll teach the DM to gatekeep important stuff behind a locked door! Or it will teach a group to assume he wouldn't!

 

[Steampunkette]

It's not completely moot though.

At 3rd level a rogue will have about a 65% chance to pick a standard lock (DC 15 and assuming 16 Dex and the rogue having expertise and thieves tools). A knock spell gives you a 100% chance. That's not insignificant when you REALLY need to get past a lock.

But that's also not the whole story. If the rogue doesn't have tools and has to improvise then he's picking the lock at disadvantage - that's only a 42% chance of success. The Wizard remains at 100% (without needing access to anything since knock is a V only spell).

If the rogue can't improvise tools (say he's locked in a dungeon cell and the DM is being overly strict) he can't pick the lock. The wizard - still at 100%.

Now how many wizard players memorize knock as their sole 2nd level spell? Not many, unless they know it will almost certainly come up - then yes they would - at a significant resource cost.

But allowing it as a ritual? That obliterates locks as an obstacle completely, which is a bit much - especially for 3rd level. I'm comfortable giving that to a rogue at 11th (reliable talent and a high skill check) they've more than earned it - but not to a wizard at 3rd.

Still have to get it into your Ritual book. Which takes time, money, and opportunity.

Also, what's stopping the Rogue from trying again during that 10 minute casting time? Failing a skill check with no specific consequences just costs you time.

Hopefully not 10 freaking minutes or 60 rounds. Even at a 42% chance of success that's an average of about 3-4 rounds before the lock pops.

Even -if- it's a one and done, the party still needs that door open for Narrative Reasons so 10 minutes to knock gives whatever's on the other side 10 minutes to prepare. Or run. Or an ambush to happen. Or whatever else.

Don't forget Knock is basically a legitimate knock at whatever you're trying to open's door.

Like, its like banging on the door "The police is here!" Then using a battering ram. Its completely useless for stealth operations as opposed to rogue's lockpicking which can be done silently.

Also, I would absolutely hate being in a situation where we need to get a door open:

"Crap, the rogue failed his lockpicking check and we TPK if we don't open the door! Good thing our wizard has Knock prepared, right?"

"Oh, I never took knock...uhm...well...uh-oh."

Also this. There's no stealth tied to knocking. Which makes things difficult in situations where a Rogue picking a lock would be just the way to go.

 

[Asisreo]

A sorcerer with subtle spell can overcome that. Of course, it takes 2 second level spells (silence and knock) to pull off, which is a lot.

Sorcerers don't get silence. They'd need either a bard or ranger to cast silence. And it wouldn't be subtle regardless.

That'll teach the DM to gatekeep important stuff behind a locked door! Or it will teach a group to assume he wouldn't!

Generally, good game design tells you not to gatekeep progression based on something the player might or might not have or on luck. Relying on a single spell or skill check is one of the DM "no-no" design flaws that could both kill fun and prematurely end a campaign.

 

[Steampunkette]

Sorcerers don't get silence. They'd need either a bard or ranger to cast silence. And it wouldn't be subtle regardless.

Generally, good game design tells you not to gatekeep progression based on something the player might or might not have or on luck. Relying on a single spell or skill check is one of the DM "no-no" design flaws that could both kill fun and prematurely end a campaign.

100% Agreed.

It's why I'll be using Countdowns from A5e for story-important skill checks in the future. It's not whether you'll succeed. It's about how long it takes.

 

[tetrasodium]

If your in the right campaign (say an intrigue heavy city campaign) :
A sorcerer with subtle spell can overcome that. Of course, it takes 2 second level spells (silence and knock) to pull off, which is a lot.



That'll teach the DM to gatekeep important stuff behind a locked door! Or it will teach a group to assume he wouldn't!

That's not how subtle spell works

Spoiler: Here's a reminder

The knock spell has a verbal component yes, but it also has this effect "When you cast the spell, a loud knock, audible from as far away as 300 feet, emanates from the target object.". Subtle spell would have no impact on it. You mentioned silence later though... Unlike knock, silence is a ritual spell, but the only class that gets both of them is bard. Having both wouldn't help though because the time to ritually cast a spell is the same 10 minutes that silence lasts so you would need to burn at least one spellslot or have two casters working together for ten minutes to do something a rogue with bad luck could be pretty certain to do in under a minute. All of the casters who have silence are spells known casters or prepared casters who can only ritually cast a spell they have prepared making it a pretty big investment even if a wizard or tomelock in the party has knock prepared.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But seriously, the bottom line is, you have to replace magic in combat with something and it can't be 'really bad mundane combat'. Even if they're not casting spells, they should be able to legitimately contribute and have meaningful choice in combat.
(Bold in original)

Here's why this idea (which was repeated by numerous people) surprised me- first, that it focused on combat exclusively. Second, that it contemplates that all classes must be "balanced" (equally effective) in combat at all times. Third, that it implicitly rejects the idea that other pillars (exploration, social interaction) matter at all when it comes to balance.

Hi, original poster of that bit setting the record straight.

Despite what the OP says about the statement, my assertion was from a thread about specifically hurting spellcasting in combat, not about game balance. I've long been a proponent of uplifting non-caster, non-rogue roles in exploration and social interaction. That's just not what the thread was about.

Further, I don't believe the pillars should be balanced against each other. Just because you're good at exploration shouldn't mean you have to sit out the combats.

I think everyone should also be good at multiple modes of combat. Martials should be able to do more interesting things in a fight than deal HP damage. Battlemaster pretends to let you do this, but is too limited to truly commit to it. Every other martial non-damage mode is 'get spells', which does no one any good.