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

[Crimson Longinus]

It was previous balance issues that cause that hyper focus.

Which is my point. WOTC and D&D lack the competition to be beaten by anyone but itself. D&D can make tons of money as a C rated product. There is no Pepsi to D&D's Coke. D&D can put out a New Coke and still make money and be popular. They can only fail to meet their own goalposts.

This allows them to never tackle the warrior/rogue/caster issue as a schedule for the whole edition.

Sure, it kinda is that, but I feel 4e and Pathfinder shows that they're not unbeatable, That was kinda their 'New Coke' moment. So it is not that they can just produce anything and people keep lapping it up. And of course there were times in the past when White Wolf was serious competition.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Acceptable to whom? It seems acceptable to the large number of people who play champions.

Given the number of complains I have seen--even from people who have never touched a game forum in their lives--you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than "the large number of people."

Even if (say) 60% of Champion fans don't mind things being the way they are, is it really good for 2 in 5 Champion players to be dissatisfied, even if only a little? This is a thing that COULD have been easily fixed. That's part of what makes it so frustrating.

So about the recommended number of fights... Seems that they did balance it!

Only in a white room! So many people get so frustrated about that when it (allegedly) happened in 4e, so it should be a huge problem here, right?

...right?

Because 6-8 encounters per day of any kind is pretty rare in 5e games, and Crawford himself in a Youtube video explicitly said that this (coupled with taking fewer short rests than intended) is a design shortfall that they're trying to address (which is where a lot, though far from all, of those "Feature Variants" came from that got published in Tasha's). 6-8 encounters that are specifically combat is even rarer. Particularly when almost everyone will INSIST that the 6-8 encounters do NOT all have to be combat. (Combats also tend to almost never last more than 3-4 rounds. If there were more rounds of combat it wouldn't be so bad, as # of combat rounds could be more variable and thus soak up more of the difference between the two subclasses. Unfortunately, at least for this part of it, 5e was specifically designed to make combats significantly faster than they were in 3e/4e, which makes it a lot harder to balance "passive-only" options.)

Also, one thing in balancing, that at least used to be a thing in WoW (haven't played it in ages) was that the passive options were slightly worse than the active ones at their best. And I think this is a good principle. Idea being that if the person having the active option uses it consistently optimally, they'll do slightly better than the passive option, but if they fail to use it properly, they'll do slightly worse. I think this is something that would apply to Battlemaster/Champion comparison.

But I wasn't considering active options at their best. I was considering active options on average, vs passive options on average. If a Battlemaster is actually using their options ultra-optimally (which usually means going for accuracy rather than damage, but that's a separate conversation), they will completely blow the Champion out of the water. I had assumed that the designers would have intended such a thing, and thus didn't consider it. I looked exclusively at long-run (e.g., full-adventuring-day, which is actually a LOT

Then it arguably is balanced. It is balanced well enough that most people have fun playing it and it is massively popular.

[Citation needed.] Seriously. If you're going to say that "most people have fun playing it and it is massively popular," you have to demonstrate it. Otherwise, you're just making baseless assertions. Show me the surveys where the Champion is "massively popular." Show me the response reports that indicate most people who play it are having fun.

Since I know you can't do either of those things, we're back to the theoretical side of things, which we at least can discuss. And I'm totally willing to do so! But throwing out these appeals to popularity when you don't actually know what is popular isn't useful to the discussion.

And sure it could be improved, (I certainly have some ideas about that!) but it is rather questionable how much that's worth of WotC''s time. Would improving the balance by 5% significantly increase the player satisfaction and the sales? Would that be worth all the effort it would require? I doubt it.

I absolutely argue that it would significantly increase player satisfaction. I also would argue that this "improve balance by 5%" (whatever that even means) is almost certainly under-selling the situation. Just as, for example, I think the complete lack of a spellcasting class of comparable simplicity to the Champion is a serious waste. Y'know what fandom would love a spellcasting class that just points and shoots a few core spells over and over again? Harry Potter fans. They're legion, WAY bigger than D&D. Even if you only get 1% of all Harry Potter fans that don't currently play D&D to start playing D&D, you'd be making a HUGE positive impact on play.

And that's why this sort of thing is so complicated, like the video that was linked earlier. (Thanks for that video by the way @Don Durito ! It was very informative.) Something can be unbalanced despite (for example) having a low win rate and reasonable pick rate, if it's something where low-skill players almost always lose and high-skill players almost always win. These are, of course, metrics of analysis for League of Legends (using the Akali example from that video), but there are other metrics that can, quite easily, be deceptive. What if Champion is popular despite not being particularly good, because it's the only game in town? It could quite easily be that there's a huge chunk of the D&D audience that desperately wants a better Champion, but because there is no such thing, they settle for what they're offered.

I mean, by this logic, Comcast must be an excellent internet service provider, because they have millions of customers, and people almost never drop their internet service! ...except that that completely ignores the fact that most ISPs are local monopolies. Never underestimate the possibility of a Hobson's Choice.

Sure, it kinda is that, but I feel 4e and Pathfinder shows that they're not unbeatable, That was kinda their 'New Coke' moment. So it is not that they can just produce anything and people keep lapping it up. And of course there were times in the past when White Wolf was serious competition.

The PF example would be more of a meaningful argument if PF weren't "the previous product with the serial numbers filed off." As much as I appreciate some of the actually-new things PF1e did, 90% or more of the actual game (not the adventures or setting) is "take 3.5e exactly as written and tweak two things." Which is why Pathfinder 2e came into existence, because even the PF devs openly admitted, "This system is too broken for us to keep trying to fix it."

Which, uh, yeah. Pretty much an open-and-shut example of "balanced =/= popular," among other things. Popularity can be a useful metric for testing balance. It's far from universally useful, let alone the only metric. In fact, in many games, unbalanced options ARE popular, BECAUSE they're unbalanced--the term in game design theory is "dominant strategy." People will use exploitative strategies if they exist; not everyone, but most people. Because...why wouldn't you try to succeed more, if you were permitted to? Even if there isn't a hard win condition, there are success conditions (succeeding on rolls in D&D, for example), and unbalanced options may make people hyperfocus on them because they generically do better with those success conditions.

 

[Minigiant]

Sure, it kinda is that, but I feel 4e and Pathfinder shows that they're not unbeatable, That was kinda their 'New Coke' moment. So it is not that they can just produce anything and people keep lapping it up. And of course there were times in the past when White Wolf was serious competition.

But that proves the point.

WoTC has to severely misjudge their customers to get beat. They have huge leeway. 5e could have Royalty screwed up 3 classes and it would still sell a whole lot.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

As a base class they get lots of ASIs, which if feats are being used, means that they can in addition to ASIs and combat feats, also take multiple non-combat feats. That's something the classes other than Rogues who are skill monkeys, can't do.

I did mention that at the end, although admittedly I didn't go into much detail. However, let's look at what other classes can do in this regard.

5 ASIs: All classes except Rogue and Fighter
6 ASIs: Rogue
7 ASIs: Fighter

So the fighter has 2 more opportunities for feats than an equivalent character, unless they are a rogue. We'll ignore the rogue though since they are skill focused anyway. The big opportunity cost for feats is giving up combat advantages for the non-combat options. I bring this up because in damage comparisons, the fighter gets their most impressive showings thanks to said combat feats. So to maintain that, you're giving up 3-4 feat slots(+2 Str/Dex, +2 Str/Dex, Sharpshooter/GWM, and maybe Polearm Expert). That leaves the remaining 3-4 for your non-combat stuff.

Other classes are bit harder to look at as a whole. Paladins might want the same combat boosts as the fighter, and charisma boosts, which will eat up all their ASIs. A wizard wants to max Int, but after that doesn't have much investment, leaving them with generally 3 ASIs that they can use for whatever they want.

There is also the question of what is worth using an ASI to get. Off the top of my head, Skill Expert can get expertise for a skill, and Humans* can get Prodigy for a second with some additional benefits. Skilled can get you quantity, but the quality is kinda meh. Maybe for a Dex archer to train all the Dex skills. Ritual Caster can get some wizardry on to your fighter, although a wizard doesn't really need to grab it. Lucky is just good in general. After that, we again hit the point of having sparse choices that are questionable if they are worth the opportunity cost. Maybe some of the spell granting ones (Magic Initiate, Fey Touched, Shadow Touched), especially if you went Eldritch Knight.

 

[Minigiant]

The PF example would be more of a meaningful argument if PF weren't "the previous product with the serial numbers filed off." As much as I appreciate some of the actually-new things PF1e did, 90% or more of the actual game (not the adventures or setting) is "take 3.5e exactly as written and tweak two things." Which is why Pathfinder 2e came into existence, because even the PF devs openly admitted, "This system is too broken for us to keep trying to fix it.

WOTC was pretty much competing with itself.

 

[Undrave]

I feel like this is way too much discussion that can be cut short with 'I'm not going to let you completely obviate this enemy because TSR decided wizards as a class have to be annoying with a wide variety of pointless minutia'.

Which makes it all moot anyway because there is no way I'm ever going to run an actual wizard with a component pouch as an opponent. Way too much homework

Yeah so much this... bleh.

You are not going to let a 3rd+ level Rogue steal a component when it is an ability of his class? Would you let a wizard hold person him, or let a cleric silence him? Both of those are doable by a 3-rd level character and they are both more debilitating to the wizard.

Nah man, all my Evil Wizards are gonna be using a wand, or a rod, or a scepter or a staff, or even just holding a magical tome, like respectable Wizards. None of this BS about slinging bat guano like a savage!

You REALLY think I'm gonna take a look at every stupid NPC with their stupid spells and take notes for what component they need for each spell and somehow keep track of them?! Just so your lone character might Magic away a bit of sulfur and disable one spell?! Heck, the component pouch exist SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRACK INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS! Heck, if I had anything to say about it, spells wouldn't NEED any of that. Just words and somatic component. Material components are for rituals only.

It's actually SIMPLER to let you steal the whole pouch, but it's also ridiculously overpowered.... So no. I'm not gonna let that happen. The Wizard uses a magical focus that they keep in their hands.

For Pete's sake, take the pickpocket discussion to another thread. The dead horse is still dead, go beat it somewhere else.

This too.

Then it arguably is balanced. It is balanced well enough that most people have fun playing it and it is massively popular. And sure it could be improved, (I certainly have some ideas about that!) but it is rather questionable how much that's worth of WotC''s time. Would improving the balance by 5% significantly increase the player satisfaction and the sales? Would that be worth all the effort it would require? I doubt it.

My biggest gripe is that a lot of balance issue are just the result of misguided traditionalism, like Max insisting the Fighter doesn't 'deserve' more skills. Just change the fluff so it makes sense, then!

Even if there isn't a hard win condition, there are success conditions (succeeding on rolls in D&D, for example), and unbalanced options may make people hyperfocus on them because they generically do better with those success conditions.

Which is why most people don't take bad feats, like Skilled.

 

[Manbearcat]

I did mention that at the end, although admittedly I didn't go into much detail. However, let's look at what other classes can do in this regard.

5 ASIs: All classes except Rogue and Fighter
6 ASIs: Rogue
7 ASIs: Fighter

So the fighter has 2 more opportunities for feats than an equivalent character, unless they are a rogue. We'll ignore the rogue though since they are skill focused anyway. The big opportunity cost for feats is giving up combat advantages for the non-combat options. I bring this up because in damage comparisons, the fighter gets their most impressive showings thanks to said combat feats. So to maintain that, you're giving up 3-4 feat slots(+2 Str/Dex, +2 Str/Dex, Sharpshooter/GWM, and maybe Polearm Expert). That leaves the remaining 3-4 for your non-combat stuff.

Other classes are bit harder to look at as a whole. Paladins might want the same combat boosts as the fighter, and charisma boosts, which will eat up all their ASIs. A wizard wants to max Int, but after that doesn't have much investment, leaving them with generally 3 ASIs that they can use for whatever they want.

There is also the question of what is worth using an ASI to get. Off the top of my head, Skill Expert can get expertise for a skill, and Humans* can get Prodigy for a second with some additional benefits. Skilled can get you quantity, but the quality is kinda meh. Maybe for a Dex archer to train all the Dex skills. Ritual Caster can get some wizardry on to your fighter, although a wizard doesn't really need to grab it. Lucky is just good in general. After that, we again hit the point of having sparse choices that are questionable if they are worth the opportunity cost. Maybe some of the spell granting ones (Magic Initiate, Fey Touched, Shadow Touched), especially if you went Eldritch Knight.

Wouldn’t it be better to look at the Fighter at consequential breakpoints to compare them to other classes?

Level 3 - Mid/end of Local Heroes Tier. Most games make it this far.

Level 7 - Mid Heroes of the Realm Tier. Probably a bit north of halfsies make it this far.

Level 13 - Mid Masters of the Realm Tier. The very rare game makes it this far.

Level 19 - Mid/end of Masters of the World Tier. Vanishingly few games make it this far.

---

Analysis has to account for the various breakpoints of play and the frequency that those are ever even encountered. Evaluate the "typical course charted" in these Tiers, the "opportunity cost of charting a different course", and "the implications upon play (for both intraparty balance and Team PC : Team Monster balance) of both the typical course charted and the different course."

I mean...its all well and good to evaluate the potential x-axis breadth of the Fighter at endgame...but is that a metric that provides robust information about the actual health (functionality within primary role and the impact of building to versatility upon that functionality and does that versatility open up potent and diverse move-space such that it consistently and consequentially changes the trajectory of play) of the class? Feels more like using GDP to measure a nation's economic health (meaning...worse than meaningless...more like actively misleading).

 

[Shadowedeyes]

That is not a bad point. Although, it also is going to require quite a bit of time and effort to do something like that, depending on how many classes being compared, and I'll admit I probably don't have the time at the moment for something like that.

However, I would be game to use those breakpoints to look at fighter from those breakpoints and see what they could be capable of. It would at least be a start.

And, as a final note, after looking a bit more in depth, I'm actually wondering if fighter is indeed the "worst" class in my original assertion. Barbarian might actually rank lower once you take subclasses and ASIs into account.

 

[Umbran]

ROFL

Mod note:
You are now the most reported person in the thread for your condescension and derision.

Consider your upcoming posts very carefully. Here's a hint for how to not get red text or get yourself removed from the discussion: Be kind.

 

[TwoSix]

Also, one thing in balancing, that at least used to be a thing in WoW (haven't played it in ages) was that the passive options were slightly worse than the active ones at their best. And I think this is a good principle. Idea being that if the person having the active option uses it consistently optimally, they'll do slightly better than the passive option, but if they fail to use it properly, they'll do slightly worse. I think this is something that would apply to Battlemaster/Champion comparison.

I actively agree with this, and argued for it in the playtest. Subclasses that are complex should perform better, overall (around 10-20%) when played well, at the cost of being less effective if played poorly.

My rationale for this is that the subset of the population that both "wants to do the most damage" and "make little to no tactical decisions" is quite small and quite simply doesn't need to be catered to. Whereas the population that both "enjoys complexity" and "sensitive to differences in combat damage" is much larger, and will be somewhat cheesed off at having to choose between the "strongest option" and "the interesting option".