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

[Crimson Longinus]

This is pretty much the crux of the whole issue isn't it?

It's a martial character. It's not good, it's not what you want to play, but it should be good enough because we gave you a cardboard cutout of the thing you want without any of the functions. It's fine to me, someone who doesn't care, so it should be fine for you, who does. Why couldn't you just want casters like a normal person?

Nah, I like martials. I'd play that character. This is just some people thinking that their own super specific preference for a specific mechanical interpretation of certain concept is somehow objectively the only correct way to do the thing.

 

[Maxperson]

Not really. The basic abilities of a Fighter, Ranger and Paladin were the same. Same attack tables, same save tables, same weapons (initially). Could use the same magic items (except for the subclass-specific holy avenger, which could actually still be used by fighters but not as well).

Subclasses in 1E were a lot closer to the base class with the vast majority of mechanics coming from the base class and only a few add on, mostly minor, abilities from the Paladin or Ranger subclass. The main thing was they all got to use all weapons and all armor. when the Paladin went under the Cavalier, they transitioned to the cavalier abilities and restrictions.

2E did introduce some separation between them.

There were no subclasses in either 1e or 2e. There were only classes. What some of them had were class categories, such as warrior, rogue, and priest, but there were no subclasses.

 

[ECMO3]

Indeed. And those leadership and inspirations would have mechanical effects. And since weapons are Ability based, so should the leadership and inspirations.

The problem

A fighter's Subclass lacks enough mechanical power to untilize a Fighter's Ability score as a reliable bonus to any of the combat eolls in D&D.

You can't add your INT/WIS/CHA bonus to anything in 5e combat over and over. It would be the most OP fighter subclass automatically.

You can use skills related to these abilities every turn in combat if you want to.

I usually play a Rogue and one of them uses Charisma to either intimidate or persuade in the middle of combat regularly. He has expertise in Intimidate and a 14 Charisma and usually it is something like "We have killed half your friends, surrender now or you will die too". Occasionally he appeals to logic using persuasion/bribery and he does it in the middle of combat when it makes sense (i.e. usually after we have actually killed half of their friends).

That can take out 4 or so enemies in 1 turn and is generally a lot more than any martial can do in an equivalent action.

I like playing Rogues, but there is no reason you can't build a fighter to do the same thing, especially given the extra feats and maneuvers a fighter gets allowing him to leverage that better. For that matter there is no reason you can't build a strength-based Rogue "Warlord" and do that too.

 

[Minigiant]

Talk to you DM and tell him you need to build a warlord. They are optional meaning she can use them RAW if she wants.

strike 1

Still optional.

I could talk to my DM and use a homebrew warlord instead.

Strike 1.

Absolutely is a combat ability. Reference actions in combat- improvised actions page 192-193

strike 2

Describe a improvised action that could use those manevuers that would be worth spending the dice.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Indeed. And those leadership and inspirations would have mechanical effects. And since weapons are Ability based, so should the leadership and inspirations.

The problem

A fighter's Subclass lacks enough mechanical power to untilize a Fighter's Ability score as a reliable bonus to any of the combat eolls in D&D.

You can't add your INT/WIS/CHA bonus to anything in 5e combat over and over. It would be the most OP fighter subclass automatically.

Right. So this is you fixating on that one specific mechanical interpretation of a concept. And a boring one at that. You're upset because your warlord can't add int to the damage; because that would totally say 'warlord', getting to add one arbitrary flat bonus to the damage.

 

[ECMO3]

There were no subclasses in either 1e or 2e. There were only classes. What some of them had were class categories, such as warrior, rogue, and priest, but there were no subclasses.

Quote from 1E PHB page 22:

"A paladin character is a fighter sub-class"

Quote from 1E PHB page 24:

"Rangers are a sub-class of fighter"

 

[Vaalingrade]

Nah, I like martials. I'd play that character. This is just some people thinking that their own super specific preference for a specific mechanical interpretation of certain concept is somehow objectively the only correct way to do the thing.

Or they genuinely don't think it's a good implementation and would like something good instead of 'good enough'?

Like no one ever accepts 'good enough' for wizards, but people who want to play non-magical weapon masters just have to suck it up.

 

[Maxperson]

Quote from 1E PHB page 22:

"A paladin character is a fighter sub-class"

Except not. It was just part of the Fighter group. It was a completely different class.

Quote from 1E PHB page 24:

"Rangers are a sub-class of fighter"

Right. Part of the Fighter group, which got made officially a group in 2e in order to reflect how it was used in 1e. Gygax was notoriously unclear about things.

 

[Sithlord]

It's a warlord, it is not the specific mechanical implementation of warlord you want. Give it an inspiring leader feat and perhaps some social skills and it sounds perfectly fine to me.

I agree. I would like to see a few more battle maneuvers for them. They can create new spells left and right. But a battle maneuver until recently was unheard of.

Feats are optional.
Strike 1



Not a combat ability
Swing and a miss. Strike 2.



Not a combat ability.

Strike 3. You're out.

The point of the warlord is that they bring the mental stats into the martial aspects of battle.

no. The point of a warlords is they facilitate group tactics. And experience can be more valuable than mental stats. I would like to see more BM for mental stats. But that is beside the point.

 

[Minigiant]

Right. So this is you fixating on that one specific mechanical interpretation of a concept. And a boring one at that. You're upset because your warlord can't add int to the damage; because that would totally say 'warlord', getting to add one arbitrary flat bonus to the damage.

Nope. I actually don't want Int to damage.

There's AC, Initiative, Speed, attack rolls.. you can't add INT/WIS/CHA to any of those rolls or stats without making the most OP fighter subclass.

My noble princeling spent a decade learning military tactics and training his mind. However you cannot bring his mental stats to the weapons and armor aspect of 5e's battle system via the fighter as the fighter's subclass has a limited amount of power associated to it and Ability Score Modifiers are above that. So his intelligence cannot be translate to the combat. He cannot outsmart his foes with his Intelligence. He can't bolster his allies with his charisma score. He cannot find hidden resources with his Widsom....


...useless you use magic.