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

[Flamestrike]

If there was no before that then either (a) the fighter didn't knock the ogre off balance or (b) it had no meaningful effect.

To all in game world observers, the Fighter killed the Ogre with a single thrust to the heart, without being struck in return, in a matter of seconds.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To all in game world observers, the Fighter killed the Ogre with a single thrust to the heart, without being struck in return, in a matter of seconds.

Then there's a vast difference between the mechanics where someone has hit three times (once for the off balance and two on their turn) and what you claim the in-world fiction is.

This has always been an issue with hit points - but it's particularly one where people want to mix real world fighters plus high level, rather than fighters being action movie characters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In 5e, that balance is upended because of that prior thought.

That balance concept was already upended though. "Spotlight balance" sounds nice--everyone takes turns, everyone gets a slice of the pie. But it has two big holes:
1. The feeling of "doing nothing" when it isn't "your turn." There's a reason we make jokes about early-edition low-level Wizards throwing darts. It sucks to have to wait around to get some spotlight time.
2. The way D&D does magic, it's inherently opposed to letting the spotlight rotate from one person to another. Because it's the (literally) magic "I win" button, which will always steal the spotlight.

Spotlight balance works best in a game where the spotlight actually gets shared equally (contra 2), and where it gets shared quickly, so you're never "waiting" for your turn. D&D hasn't been that game in a long, long time--if it ever was that game. There's a reason high-level Fighters became landed nobility in ye olden dayse.

What should a fighter be, other than a character who is superior at fighting (it's almost a truism)?

So, a Cleric should be someone who primarily copies manuscripts? (There's a reason we call "written typos" clerical errors.) And a Ranger should range? And, of course, suddenly everyone is a Barbarian, because none of us speak Greek. And Bards should be historians.

The word is a title. Letting it limit your design is asking for trouble. It should, instead, inspire your design, provide a starting point rather than an inviolable boundary.

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 ...

Right. You've seen how D&D magic--and this is something that goes all the way back, this isn't new--becomes the end-all, be-all because it's literally the "do anything" mechanic. There is nothing that magic cannot achieve, at least conceivably. Hell, magic is the only character option that literally allows you to invent your own new mechanics. Fighters never had that option.

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?

Taking a moment to get the snark off my chest: Congratulations, you have discovered the caster/martial disparity, and the fact that, while it's better than it was in other editions, it's still alive and well!

Okay. Snark over. More seriously: Yes. This is an extremely serious and thorny design problem. D&D fans, or at least a very significant population thereof, have come to expect a certain minimum amount of power, versatility, and comprehensiveness from the mechanical space called "magic." Put too many limits on that space, and people get EXTREMELY upset. Worse, there's at least an extremely vocal, strident minority that get almost as upset if you give Fighters (and other "non-caster" classes) nice things. 4e tried to solve these problems, and got actively smear-campaigned as a result (often on completely false grounds, like "Fighters shoot lightning bolts out of their arses" or "there's no difference between a Fighter and a Wizard now.") 5e took the safe option of, more or less, rebuilding 3e with a few more power limiters (Concentration, fewer spells) and the most egregious offenders nerfed.

But it's still, as you've noted, an unsolved problem.

Important note, though: don't interpret it as "I must be the bestest EVAR!!" That's usually not what's going through people's minds. Usually, the problem is either:
A) Believing that magic simply IS better than not-magic, and thus magic-using classes SHOULD be better than non-magic using classes (uncommon in its explicit form, but often the result of what many fans expect magic to be capable of)
B) Not really grokking how limited they're forcing non-magic-using classes by restricting what "mundane" characters can do (most people don't realize just how capable an actual Olympic-level athlete or highly-trained archer truly is, and fantasy characters are supposed to go beyond those limits, at least a little)
C) Having dealt with the boredom of spotlight balance when you have few resources, and thus wanting to be sure they always have a meaningful contribution they can make, no matter what the party happens to be doing right now.

This, incidentally, is why I was so upset during the playtest when they said something to the effect of, "If Fighter is 100% combat, Rogue is 80% combat and 60% utility, and Wizard is 50% combat 50% utility." The problem with this design concept is that, in practice, EVERYONE needs to be able to branch out and embrace EVERY pillar of play, otherwise you're going to end up with one-trick-ponies who can (potentially) even get shown up at their one and only trick.

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

Well, there are really four options:
1. Nerf spellcasters until they're on the level of martials. This would piss off a lot of people and is thus not tenable.
2. Actually make everyone spellcasters, so no one is left out. This would generate a worse backlash than 4e got, and is thus not tenable.
3. Try (again) to nerf magic, the "I can violate the laws of reality" mechanic, while keeping martials bound by those rules. This has, demonstrably, not worked despite repeated efforts, and is thus not particularly tenable.
4. Give martials something else. Something that isn't magic--something that magic can't do--but that doesn't nerf magic in the process.

You see examples of #4 in both 4e (where Martial characters got their own Powers, different from caster classes), and in the Pathfinder "Spheres of Might" alternate rules. SoM is a pretty much straight buff to martial characters, with all sorts of potent and unique talents mostly available only to non-casters; it also came after the Spheres of Power alternate rules, which HEAVILY nerf the versatility of casters while actually increasing their baseline potency. (All Vancian spells are gone; spellcasters get a fixed, limited number of magic talents, which can each do one specific thing; talents are organized by the thematic/mechanical "sphere" they fit into, and require spell points to activate; spell points are overall MUCH more precious than spell slots are even in 5e.) You also see an example of #4 in early-edition D&D, where Fighters transcended their individual limits by becoming lords and ladies, holding land, having retainers, collecting taxes, etc.: the Fighter "growing beyond" mere mundane fighting.

More or less, we can't go back to spotlight balance the way things are now. We either have to fundamentally change what "magic" means in D&D, and risk stoking caster fans' ire; or power up martials one way or another, with exactly the same risk; or accept that martials will never quite keep up with casters, but we can put some bandaids on it and otherwise stem the bleeding so that, with enough DM elbow grease, we can hope nobody will notice. (Open secret: people still notice. A lot. Hence this thread.)

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)?

Nope. It's because combat is a "pillar" of the game, and people get bored when forced to endure stuff they don't contribute meaningfully to. But if you open that door even a smidgen, magic blows it wide open, because that's literally how it's designed to behave: it breaks rules by making up its own new rules whenever it feels like.

 

[LoganRan]

I often feel decision paralysis when given too many options.

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

Besides, for me, combat is something that I don't mind participating in but it isn't the end-all-be-all of my gaming experience so I don't need to feel like I am "winning" the who can be the biggest bada## race in combat that seems to have become a very real phenomenon these days.

My preferred "pillar" of the game is exploration by which I am not referring to mapping a dungeon/tapping everything with a 10' pole but dealing with non-combat environmental challenges such as solving riddles or puzzles.

Sadly, the game has largely dropped those kinds of exploration situations in favor of (mostly) combat with some social encounters mixed in.

 

[Steampunkette]

Where "the same sort" means that the fighter has a choice between e.g. hitting you with a sword while driving you back and an attack that trades power for accuracy and a wizard may have a choice between a mini-fireball thrown at a distance and a close range and hasty blast of thunder.

If area fireballs are the exact same sort of thing as sword strokes we may as well go pure abstract.

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.

You're looking for a game that isn't D&D then. Certainly one without D&D's attempt to make different types of caster by giving them different spell lists.

I'm certain that you think so. I'm not certain -how- you came to that conclusion when I'm referring to unique mechanics making up the majority of a class's features and everyone having a similar baseline ability... But you clearly do. You've jumped to a strange conclusion where different types of casters cannot have different kinds of spell lists in such a system, but allow me to assure you that there is nothing stopping them from having separate Divine, Primal, Occult, and Arcane spell lists! Or even specifically class-based spell lists that are separate.

We could at least start by raising the bar of martials up to real world. A solid hit from a sword should kill. And this applies to just about any flesh and blood monster. I don't care what you are, a sword through the skull will kill you in a single hit unless you are very lucky. There's no reason that magic needs to insta-kill. It just needs to do other things - it doesn't need to be better at everything.

Now -that- isn't D&D. D&D is heroic fantasy where people take multiple sword strikes and limp away to either recover in the arms of their lover or vow vengeance for the next time they meet the Hero. Where the Big Bad Evil Guy falls 200ft off a cliffside into the ocean which would -certainly- kill him, only to pop up two months down the road fully recovered and leading his evil band of villainous villainy, again.

And on the flip side of the coin... it makes it that much impactful when magic -does- swiftly kill someone. (Though in the future I'll make lots of use of the Doomed state for killing magics both to give players time to cast Regen or Say their Goodbyes)

But hey, you go ahead and write up a game where 1 Crit kills a player instantly but magic cannot and I'll still probably play it.

 

[Steampunkette]

That balance concept was already upended though. "Spotlight balance" sounds nice--everyone takes turns, everyone gets a slice of the pie. But it has two big holes:
1. The feeling of "doing nothing" when it isn't "your turn." There's a reason we make jokes about early-edition low-level Wizards throwing darts. It sucks to have to wait around to get some spotlight time.
2. The way D&D does magic, it's inherently opposed to letting the spotlight rotate from one person to another. Because it's the (literally) magic "I win" button, which will always steal the spotlight.

Spotlight balance works best in a game where the spotlight actually gets shared equally (contra 2), and where it gets shared quickly, so you're never "waiting" for your turn. D&D hasn't been that game in a long, long time--if it ever was that game. There's a reason high-level Fighters became landed nobility in ye olden dayse.

I would -love- to see a Shared Spotlight method at the gaming table.

I'm not sure HOW the DM is supposed to understand what each character is doing as they all try and express what their character is doing at the same time rather than focusing in on one player at a time. But that would be pretty neat!

'Cause the other alternative that has been tried in the past was the players make a plan, together, of what they're going to do, and then the Party Leader/Main Character conveys everyone's actions to the DM... While the rest of the players twiddle their thumbs waiting for that conversation to end and their action's success or failure to get described, then the monsters's turns, then their turn to talk with the others about what they're going to do before the Party Leader again steps into the spotlight.

Which resulted in the Party Leader being the only one in the spotlight.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Er...only "samey" in the sense that they had the same structure, which was Neonchameleon's point. There are no--zero, none, zip, nada--Fighter powers that have the fire, cold, acid, thunder, lightning, psychic, necrotic, radiant, or poison keyword. (I did the search back before the digital tools died, because of people making this exact type of argument no less.) There were some multiple-target Fighter powers, but exactly zero of them function like Fireball (which is an area power--something that can hit an area distant from you). Effectively all Fighter powers that hit more than one target...are literally just "you make a melee attack against target A, and then a different melee attack against target B," or "you swing your sword in an arc, so it hits every target adjacent to you."

If that's the point at which Fighter attacks become "samey," then 3e and 5e are both just as bad, because they both have options for melee characters to hit multiple different targets in melee range, and zero options for hitting an area of effect at a distance.

 

[pemerton]

I got tired of most of my powers being useless in most fights as DM didn't include multiple foes.

I just noticed this and thought it was really odd.

The 4e MM has lots of suggested encounter groups. The 4e DMG has five suggested encounter templates, and only one is of a creature on its own ("Dragon's Den"), though one suggested variant of this encounter is a solo together with an elite.

There's no particular tradition in D&D (that I'm aware of, at least) of having most encounters be with a single NPC/monster.

Hence why this struck me as surprising.

 

[Steampunkette]

Er...only "samey" in the sense that they had the same structure, which was Neonchameleon's point. There are no--zero, none, zip, nada--Fighter powers that have the fire, cold, acid, thunder, lightning, psychic, necrotic, radiant, or poison keyword. (I did the search back before the digital tools died, because of people making this exact type of argument no less.) There were some multiple-target Fighter powers, but exactly zero of them function like Fireball (which is an area power--something that can hit an area distant from you). Effectively all Fighter powers that hit more than one target...are literally just "you make a melee attack against target A, and then a different melee attack against target B," or "you swing your sword in an arc, so it hits every target adjacent to you."

If that's the point at which Fighter attacks become "samey," then 3e and 5e are both just as bad, because they both have options for melee characters to hit multiple different targets in melee range, and zero options for hitting an area of effect at a distance.

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. 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. 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.

 

[nevin]

Everything I see of these I think of the incredible, if everyone is special then no one is special. Every class should have something they are best at. If you went back to 1e spell interrupts. I.e. if you take damage you lose the spell all these arguments would go away. Ironically attunement of magic items makes the magic user more powerful. In past editions I'd balance things out by making sure other classes had magic items that brought them up to par. Balance is like salt everyone wants a different amount but they think thier amount is balanced.