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

[FrogReaver]

I should also clear up that its not that I don't think there isn't design space for a Warlord. I just don't think there's design space for 4e's Warlord.

The Warlord could make use of mechanics that rarely get used in play, but I'm still looking for that oomph. Hmmm...if I were to go about it, I would have Warlords have 3 main mechanics: allowing immediate rests, letting a player's action ability (casting/attacking/etc) cost only a bonus action, and making a monster temporarily lose resistance/immunity or gain vulnerability from a damage type (including nonmagical damage types).

So maybe the key level 1 feature would be some forms of shouts that the warlord can choose that makes a single creature do their action as a bonus action and the number of creatures they can shout at increases as they level.

Level 2 feature allows them let allies immediately rest and that scales on Charisma.

Level 3 feature is a DC 8+prof+cha save spell that causes the enemy to have vulnerability to certain elemental damage or lose resistance/immunity to BPS damage.

I'm just throwing stuff out there, though.

I think you have to focus on abilities that evoke the theme.

One might focus on the planning and execution qualities of leadership since there’s already a lot of inspiration themed stuff in 5e.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

If you translate something like Intuitive Strike, it would kinda mess up the whole point of bounded accuracy with such a large bonus and also mess up the whole "no finnicky bonuses" tactic that 5e employed.

And yet Bards are handing out inspiration dice right and left, and the game moves on. Paladins break the saving throw equivalent of bounded accuracy just by being present.

Stop looking for excuses to shoot down a class you don't want to play. Gamers can use a real crash course in "Don't yuck others yum"

 

[Neonchameleon]

You have to understand that when it comes to actual play, I'm very very intimidated by myriad of moving parts. I'd rather avoid features that require remembering what I did last turn because my memory dissolves before my next turn.

So don't play one then. There are plenty of people very intimidated by too many options and who find casters a short stop to analysis paralysis especially as spells are fiddly. And plenty of people who, like me, find fighters and barbarians dull.

Me? I favour fewer options but meatier ones; the warlock, monk, and artificer are my three favourite 5e classes because they are near that sweet spot for me, with the Tasha’s Ranger in fourth. Not the simple "I hit it" of the fighter or barbarian or the only slightly more complex "I get advantage then hit it" of the rogue. But not the "15 spells at level 6" of the full casters and the complexity comes from interactions and using the narrative.

Does this mean I want the primary casters or simple martials to vanish? No. And one of my critiques of 4e was the lack of complexity range until near the end. One thing I want from the warlord is a more complex martial who should be trying to track the whole battle - complex in a different way from the plethora of spells of a caster. I also want a genuinely simple blasty caster (and have proposed the Arsonist Warlock) despite the fact I don't want to play one because l know people who would.

So why, because you are intimidated, do you think no one should get the warlord? Should every class be made just for you?

 

[Asisreo]

Stop looking for excuses to shoot down a class you don't want to play. Gamers can use a real crash course in "Don't yuck others yum"

I've said numerous times that I am okay with the Warlord class existing and I've also provided my share of mechanical suggestions for the class.

There is no reason to make the assumption that I don't want a warlord. In all honesty, I would have preferred the Bard not making the cut more than the Warlord. Or if Wizards had FoM and Sorcerer dropped I would have been okay with that as well.

What I want is an interesting class that justifies its own existence. There's so much mechanical design space that the Warlord can occupy but if the theme is "Martial but complex" it still doesn't have any guiding identity.

Trying to make a class without knowing its identity makes it obvious and eventually the class becomes more frustrating to play. The player might think "If I'm supposed to be a repositioner, why is my repositioning
ability so much less useful than my healing ability?" Or "if I'm supposed to be a damage dealer, why is the rogue better at it than I am?"

So why, because you are intimidated, do you think no one should get the warlord? Should every class be made just for you?

Absolutely not. You're missing my point. I prsonally dislike playing several classes in 5e yet I welcome them in the edition.

What every class should have is appeal to new players. If I'm a new player that has no clue what a "warlord" even means, I'm not going to care if it uses magic or not. I don't really care if its supposed to be the "complex martial." I probably won't care what the flavor is after the first couple of sessions. What I will care about is how it plays and whether I like it.

If we designed a Warlord that looks good to 4e or 3.x players but nobody actually wants to play them, we've not only wasted time and money but we've caused even more bloat and alienated the newer fanbase.

So Warlords should have a gameplay loop that satisfies an itch that no other class satisfies. And I'm thinking that "frontline support with myriad options" has already been taken by paladin. "Midline support that commands/bolsters other characters" is taken by bard. "Backline support with contingencies and creative action economy" is taken by the sorcerer.

Because that's what newer, less familiar players want, a good-feeling class.

Otherwise, Warlords will end up like the Ranger, right?

 

[Neonchameleon]

I've said numerous times that I am okay with the Warlord class existing and I've also provided my share of mechanical suggestions for the class.

Such as a paladin, a bard, and a sorcerer. Real helpful there.

There is no reason to make the assumption that I don't want a warlord.

It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion based on everything you have written.

What I want is an interesting class that justifies its own existence.

The 4e warlord was - even with more similar competition.

There's so much mechanical design space that the Warlord can occupy but if the theme is "Martial but complex" it still doesn't have any guiding identity

Its guiding identity is the Warlord. The thoroughly explored 4e martial class that does not cast spells but is focused on allowing its allies to shine by helping them attack, giving them extra attacks, and picking them up when they go down. It makes the plays rather than scoring the goals. And it is no more a spellcaster than the fighter is.

The question is not "what is its identity?" but "what is the best way to translate that identity to 5e?"

If you do not understand its identity that's not because it doesn't have one. It's because you are both ignorant of what it is and either unwilling or unable to understand when it is explained. Caused at least in part by your exceptionally ideosyncratic understanding of spells as being other than spells.

Trying to make a class without knowing its identity makes it obvious and eventually the class becomes more frustrating to play.

Good job no one is asking you to make it then.

What every class should have is appeal to new players. If I'm a new player that has no clue what a "warlord" even means,

But you aren't. You are a veteran player who refuses to see spells as spells. You are not like a newbie. Or like anyone else I am aware of. It took me about two minutes of reading if that to understand the warlord in 4e and that edition required a lot more understanding.

Newbies will have no problem. The fluff is obvious.

If we designed a Warlord that looks good to 4e or 3.x players but nobody actually wants to play them, we've not only wasted time and money but we've caused even more bloat and alienated the newer fanbase.

In short if we do a naughty word job the job done will be naughty word. This is obvious. And what's 3.X got to do with the warlord

So Warlords should have a gameplay loop that satisfies an itch that no other class satisfies. And I'm thinking that "frontline support with myriad options" has already been taken by paladin.

Yay! The highest damage striker around as opposed to someone who gives other people attacks. Your thought is simply wrong.

"Midline support that commands/bolsters other characters" is taken by bard.

The bard is a full caster. The position might be related but the implementation is more different than fighter and barbarian. Fighter and melee cleric difference would be closer.

Do you think the fighter is redundant because the melee cleric exists? Because that is the level of difference in implementation we are talking.

"Backline support with contingencies and creative action economy" is taken by the sorcerer.

Again full caster.

Because that's what newer, less familiar players want, a good-feeling class.

Otherwise, Warlords will end up like the Ranger, right?

The post-Tasha’s Ranger is good. If by "like the Ranger" you mean "late to the party" better late than never.

I really should stop bothering.

 

[Minigiant]

As a buff player, this was both a detriment but also a great relief. Not just for me as a llayer, but for the DM as well. In 5e, there's already quite a few times the DM has to remember which buff/debuff is in effect and to be quite honest, they mostly slip my mind. Now, if I'm playing 5e, I keep my concentration token on top of the spellcard that I'm concentrating on and I can easily keep track of who's being buffed because either the buff affects everyone (AoE/3 creatures) or it affects one player. I don't have to worry about if my attack buff was on the Barbarian or if I'm thinking about my AC buff.

You have to understand that when it comes to actual play, I'm very very intimidated by myriad of moving parts. I'd rather avoid features that require remembering what I did last turn because my memory dissolves before my next turn.

That's understandable.
But that's what some people like. Just like healers in MMOs, they are rare but some (like me) like managing the heals.

Some people like management of many moving parts. Strategy gaming is a big part of both tabletop and video games.

The problem is clerics and druids broke that in 3e and D&D is terrified of letting single spellcasters stacking buffs or debuffs again.

 

[Minigiant]

And again, I'm not really much advocating for the Warlord.

I, Minigiant, am advocating for the discontinuation of D&D pigeonholing every skill user into th elite warrior that is the Fighter and the sneaky underworlder that is the Rogue.

If you take every skill in D&D, there should be a class or 2 that is tied to their expert use.

• Atheletics- Fighter/Barbarian
• Acrobatics- Rogue/Monk
• Sleight or Hand- Rogue
• Stealth- Rogue
• Arcana- Wizard
• History- ???
• Investigation- ????
• Nature- Ranger/Druid
• Religion- Cleric/Druid
• Animal Handling- Ranger/Fighter
• Insight- ???
• Medicine- ????
• Perception-Ranger/Druid
• Survival- Ranger
• Deception- Rogue
• Intimidation- Fighter/Barbarian
• Performance- Bard
• Persuasion- Bard

There are many holes in skill expert mastery. And this is with 5e's narrow range of skills and reduction of skills to tools

• Artisan's Tools- Artificer for alchemy
• Disguise kit- Rogue
• Forgery Kit- Rogue
• Gaming set- ????
• Herbalism kit- ???
• Musical instrument- Bard
• Navigator's tools- ????
• Poisoner's kit- Rogue
• Thieves tools- Rogue
• Vehicles- ???
• Language- ???

Then you have skills and tools lots to time like Accounting, Information Gathering/Streetwise, Local lore, Nobility, Dungeoneering, Achitechure and Engineering, rgulary old Biology, Chemistry, and Physics, Deciphering, and Ropes. Or what Warlord players want Military.

 

[FrogReaver]

And yet Bards are handing out inspiration dice right and left, and the game moves on. Paladins break the saving throw equivalent of bounded accuracy just by being present.

IMO. +5 isn't enough to break bounded accuracy. Even max stat and expertise and an inspiration dice isn't enough to. We are getting very close at that point though.

Stop looking for excuses to shoot down a class you don't want to play. Gamers can use a real crash course in "Don't yuck others yum"

If someone wants to say I want a Warlord for my home game - more power to them!

If the discussion is, 'what should 5e have done about the warlord' then giving your opinion on that topic isn't 'yucking in someones yum'.

IMO, 'Yucking in someones yum' is probably the most inappropriately used moniker on the forums today.

 

[Minigiant]

Absolutely not. You're missing my point. I prsonally dislike playing several classes in 5e yet I welcome them in the edition.

What every class should have is appeal to new players. If I'm a new player that has no clue what a "warlord" even means, I'm not going to care if it uses magic or not. I don't really care if its supposed to be the "complex martial." I probably won't care what the flavor is after the first couple of sessions. What I will care about is how it plays and whether I like it.

If we designed a Warlord that looks good to 4e or 3.x players but nobody actually wants to play them, we've not only wasted time and money but we've caused even more bloat and alienated the newer fanbase.

So Warlords should have a gameplay loop that satisfies an itch that no other class satisfies. And I'm thinking that "frontline support with myriad options" has already been taken by paladin. "Midline support that commands/bolsters other characters" is taken by bard. "Backline support with contingencies and creative action economy" is taken by the sorcerer.

Because that's what newer, less familiar players want, a good-feeling class.

Otherwise, Warlords will end up like the Ranger, right?

Overall I think D&D has 8-9 party roles

1. Frontline/Defender (Combat)
2. Beatdown/Striker/Damage (Combat)
3. Utility/Controller/SwissArmyKnife (Combat)
4. Support/Leader/Buffer (Combat)
5. Investigator/Loremaster (Exploration)
6. Negotiator/Face (Social)
7. Sneak/Thief/Explorer (Exploration)
8. Lookout/LieDetector/Survivalist (Social/Explorer)
9. Genre/Campaign specific (Pilot, Hacker, Merchant, Crafter)

The fighter and barbarian are base a strong 1+2. The Rogue is strong Damage + Sneak + any one other of their choice.

The spellcasters are any combination of the roles. However since the fighter and the barbarian can only be Frontline and Damage with a dip in one of Support/Loremaster/Face/Sneak/Lookout, casters can never be allowed to be excellent at Frontline and Damage.

The Warlord is a primary Support and Loremaster or Face or Lookout with some decent Frontline or Damage. They differ fromthe Bard as the Bard is a Face and Support with options to take the others via subclass. Only Charisma Warlords and Damage Bards overlap.

My Scholar would be a primary Loremaster and Damage or Support with options for a dip into the others via subclass.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You have to understand that when it comes to actual play, I'm very very intimidated by myriad of moving parts. I'd rather avoid features that require remembering what I did last turn because my memory dissolves before my next turn.

On the flip side, I yearn for, beg for and for too long have been denied actual choices and customization that 5e brutally ripped away from me.