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

[Asisreo]

And on preview @Asisreo 's claim that the warlord has no design space mechanically is utterly risible. The handing over your attacks, the getting people to recover by using their own energy, and the synergy is its own combination of things.

Those features not only kinda already exist, they also aren't very good.

If a fundemental feature of yours is to let other people attack for you, you would have been better off being the other class and attacking yourself that way there's 2 people attacking and not just 1 person attacking twice.

Recovering "from their own energy." I assume this means using their own Hit Dice. Its possible but the only thing it really does is make short rests even less important for classes that don't need them and more rare.

 

[FrogReaver]

Most likely because we can't agree on what the good parts were...

I think that's true.

My concerns about class design are really not just about what I like to play, I think the game as a whole and I am unreasonably neurotic about class design. For example my dislike of sorcerer goes far beyond me not liking to play them, I feel their existence makes the game worse as they limit warlocks conceptually and mechanically and are generally a badly designed class. It bugs me to no end that warlock mechanics (rapidly recovering magic, always-on magical effects) would make far more sense for the sorcerer, who's thing is that they're an innately magical being.

Anyway...

What I don't understand is why you feel the Warlock's Mechanics don't make sense for a Warlock? Pact Bonuses + Invocations + Strong Cantrips + 'Lesser Spellcasting' seems to mechanically fit that concept just fine to me.

What I don't understand is why you feel Sorcerer Mechanics don't make sense for a Sorcerer? Full Spellcasting + Metamagic seems to mechanically fit the concept of innately magical caster to me.

I think the problem is that we are dealing with magical fantasy concepts that can be justified any way we want to justify them. Which is to say - I can see the sorcerer mechanically functioning differently or the warlock or the wizard, etc. But I wouldn't say any particular implementation makes more sense. I think there might be some implementations that make no sense - like forcing innately magical casters into a class that requires a spell book to cast.

Perhaps you dislike these things for a different reason than you are expressing you do - that's pretty common for people actually.

That's battle master. Give it more powerful high level manoeuvres and we're good.



I really like this! Doing this as an subclass is the way to go! And the theme is pretty solid too.


The sort of warlord I'd be cool with would be doable as a fighter subclass.


Battle master can already hand over their attacks with commander's strike. But if there was a dedicate warlord fighter subclass, they probably should be able to do so more freely. They should also be able to expend their action surge and second wind to give the effects to a party member. So that's the things you mentioned covered, add some more tricks and synergies and we're done.

What I find is that most of what people liked about Warlords seems to me to require a 4e style very balanced and tactical mechanical system to implement.

The other thing I find people liked about warlords was that they tended to be more powerful than many classes. When built properly they could cause more damage than other attack based classes on an attack - As they could always do the highest party members basic attack + int mod in damage. I think some of what some people liked about them was that OPness.

I personally liked the martial healer/inspiring take on warlords in 4e. But it seems that view of Warlords isn't a very popular one - and it's a pity as it's one I think there could be some room to further develop for 5e as there's an actual theme there. Leadery Martial. But Warlords always get burdened with specific 4e implementations as there's no specific concept involved around the mechanics people liked and so its just an emerging playstyle based solely on 4e mechanics that people fell in love with.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nah.

It's having a class with

• Light armor and shields
• simple and martial weapons
• Expertise with 2 skills
• All the INT, WIS, CHA skills as class skills
• Bonus languages
• Extra Attack at level 5 or 6
• Ability to add one of their mental score modifiers to common combat rolls or defenses
• Can reroll skill checks
• Advanced skill checks.
• Subclass to get heavy armor and fighting style.
• Subclass to get Inspiration.
• Subclass to magic if must

Wait, scholars should get extra attack, light armor, shields, martial weapons, inspiration, magic?

What you described sounds rather like a valor or swords bard. Is it just the music thing that is the problem?

And maybe the bigger problem is you are starting with mechanics instead of a fairly clear conception of what the class 'is'.

 

[FrogReaver]

If a fundemental feature of yours is to let other people attack for you, you would have been better off being the other class and attacking yourself that way there's 2 people attacking and not just 1 person attacking twice.

It's the combination that you can let them attack for you, while also getting to focus on healing/mental skills/buffing them/battlefield positioning.

Warlord was really a bit OP as it could often do what the 'striker' did in damage (or more) and also offer all those other benefits.

 

[Aldarc]

My concerns about class design are really not just about what I like to play, I think the game as a whole and I am unreasonably neurotic about class design. For example my dislike of sorcerer goes far beyond me not liking to play them, I feel their existence makes the game worse as they limit warlocks conceptually and mechanically and are generally a badly designed class. It bugs me to no end that warlock mechanics (rapidly recovering magic, always-on magical effects) would make far more sense for the sorcerer, who's thing is that they're an innately magical being.

Maybe, but you will also find plenty of 5e fans who will find perfectly acceptable post hoc explanations and rationales for these decisions and defend them voraciously.

 

[Manbearcat]

Maybe, but you will also find plenty of 5e fans who will find perfectly acceptable post hoc explanations and rationales for these decisions and defend them voraciously.

It seems like so much of class design warfare (let’s call it) turns out to be a gatekeeping proxy war for something other than what the person is explicitly saying (the meaning of HP for example…or caster supremacy…or the identity/trajectory of a beloved class/archetype that is affected…or genre tropes vs process sim…or MY CHARACTER MY STUFF OK).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What I don't understand is why you feel the Warlock's Mechanics don't make sense for a Warlock? Pact Bonuses + Invocations + Strong Cantrips + 'Lesser Spellcasting' seems to mechanically fit that concept just fine to me.

What I don't understand is why you feel Sorcerer Mechanics don't make sense for a Sorcerer? Full Spellcasting + Metamagic seems to mechanically fit the concept of innately magical caster to me.

I think the problem is that we are dealing with magical fantasy concepts that can be justified any way we want to justify them. Which is to say - I can see the sorcerer mechanically functioning differently or the warlock or the wizard, etc. But I wouldn't say any particular implementation makes more sense. I think there might be some implementations that make no sense - like forcing innately magical casters into a class that requires a spell book to cast.

Perhaps you dislike these things for a different reason than you are expressing you do - that's pretty common for people actually.

This is again about comparing things. Warlock mechanic sorta make sense for warlock and sorcerer mechanics would make some sense for sorcerer if warlock wouldn't exist as a comparison. I definitely feel warlock mechanics would make more sense for sorcerer than the sorcerer mechanics do. Furthermore, sorcerer mechanics are pretty damn meh and sorcery points are awkward. It really has no purpose now that all casters work more or less like sorcerers originally used to. Furthermore, I feel warlock themes eat design space from other classes. Why is a Cthulhu cultist not a cleric of Cthulhu, why is an arcane caster who studies creepy books not a wizard? I just feel that warlock exists conceptually as generic creepy caster, and I don't think that should be a thing. So sorcerer has solid and district enough fluff and warlock has decent mechanics that will fit the sorcerer themes better than the actual sorcerer mechanics. I feel that combining these two would make a more solid class that would have its own clear thematic space without stepping on the toes of other classes either mechanically or thematically. And you don't need to agree, I'm sure many people don't. But that's how I see it.

What I find is that most of what people liked about Warlords seems to me to require a 4e style very balanced and tactical mechanical system to implement.

The other thing I find people liked about warlords was that they tended to be more powerful than many classes. When built properly they could cause more damage than other attack based classes on an attack - As they could always do the highest party members basic attack + int mod in damage. I think some of what some people liked about them was that OPness.

True.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Maybe, but you will also find plenty of 5e fans who will find perfectly acceptable post hoc explanations and rationales for these decisions and defend them voraciously.

Sure. This is not exact science, this is about nebulous things like feels and themes and archetypes. I'm sure other people see things differently.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Most likely because we can't agree on what the good parts were...


My concerns about class design are really not just about what I like to play, I think the game as a whole and I am unreasonably neurotic about class design.

I think this comes under the heading of us not agreeing what the game as a whole means

For example my dislike of sorcerer goes far beyond me not liking to play them, I feel their existence makes the game worse as they limit warlocks conceptually and mechanically and are generally a badly designed class. It bugs me to no end that warlock mechanics (rapidly recovering magic, always-on magical effects) would make far more sense for the sorcerer, who's thing is that they're an innately magical being.

I mostly agree with this. They are far too tied to their 3.X mechanics. Which is weird because no one liked them in 3.X and their niche as a spontaneous caster is much much smaller with the rework of spell prep in 5e.

Whilst I think 4e monster design went a bit too far in the gamey direction and I greatly dislike the minion rules, I agree that there were certain things that were done better in 4e. I liked having several different versions of certain monsters, so that it was easier to make a themed but still varied groups. Also monsters had more interesting abilities, though I feel that only more elite monsters really need to have more complexity than what 5e offers.

The big ones you miss are the two DM side things. How easy monster creation was mechanically (rather than doing something like averaging offensive and defensive CR) and how easy encounter balance was

That's battle master. Give it more powerful high level manoeuvres and we're good.

The battle master is an attack spammer who needs to worry about pacing themselves (and has the silly "pick the maneuvers that weren't good enough at third level at seventh" where I think we're on the same page). What I want are fighters that interact more with the game state and are only effective at certain things at certain times. The reason Tide of Iron was a superb fighter power was that it (and any other push power) brought hazardous parts of the environment into play by e.g. pushing monsters into their own pit traps and dock thugs off the wharf.

The reason Sweeping Blow and Rain of Steel were superb was that they did damage to everyone around you, taking a normally pretty terrible state (being surrounded) and turning it into one where you were a badass - but still surrounded so still at serious risk of going down. (And unlike the seemingly similar 3.X Whirlwind Attack they did it without needing to go all-in by burning five feats to get there and with a minimum requirement in two stats that weren't your attack stat - and you couldn't spam them).

Being tactical involves reacting to and responding to the unfolding situation and using it to your advantage. The battlemaster's flowchart is only slightly more complex than the champion's. And yes the battlemaster does have a push; it, perversely (like the Essentials wizard cantrip I can't recall the name of) is made less tactical by being too big. There's less challenge to it.

I really like this! Doing this as an subclass is the way to go! And the theme is pretty solid too.

Thanks

 

[Neonchameleon]

Those features not only kinda already exist, they also aren't very good.

Which is the problem. We've seen them done well in 4e. And now vadly.

If a fundemental feature of yours is to let other people attack for you, you would have been better off being the other class and attacking yourself that way there's 2 people attacking and not just 1 person attacking twice.

And if we're going to remove all the unoptimized options then how many entire classes and subclasses do we ditch?

Recovering "from their own energy." I assume this means using their own Hit Dice. Its possible but the only thing it really does is make short rests even less important for classes that don't need them and more rare.

It would be hit dice in 5e, yes. And also taking them from 0 to 1hp by yelling at them to get back up off the ground.

And the warlord wouldn't be particularly OP in 5e unless they did something utterly ridiculous; they don't get access to 9th level spells.