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

[Maxperson]

So...is this then admitting that, in D&D, it is simply impossible to balance casters with non-casters?

No, but you'd have to have the non-casters use supernatural effects to boost their martial ability. Once "magic" enters the mix, you can have the martial PCs split mountains with a sword if you want.

 

[Undrave]

No. But a D&D where martials and casters have similar mechanics will be rejected. We already know this. Having differnt mechanics doesn't inherently mean that the classes cannot be balanced, unless if you consider the page count dedicated to the various mechanics to be the measure of balance.

But would martial "bespoke, tightly defined and very specific packages" (as you put it) be enough to be counted as 'similar mechanic' even if they don't use the same resource system as spells?! Would they be derided as 'martial cantrips' or would people complain they 'limit imagination" or something because now that those particular application exist you can't convince the DM to let you do it with some random skill check?

You could just have 'Fire Magic' skill or some such and you could do various ad-hoc fire-based effects with it. And that sort of system can be a lot of fun, White Wolf's Mage the Ascension worked kinda like that. But this definitely is something that cannot happen in D&D, it simply is a far too big of a change.

What if we took that principle and applied it to skills? Have three codified level of skills (untrained, proficient, expert) and have certain 'sphere' of effect (so to speak) gated behind Expertise, and just have the Martial types be the ones who get free Expertise(s) as part of their class package (with the Wizard types getting a more restrictive Expertise to Arcana with no customizability options). A sort of halfway point between the free form vagueness of 5e and bespoke package of 4e. I'm sure there's some level of definition that would work.

If we address the fact that non-casters don't have special game options unique to them, fans will reject it for being "unrealistic" or for "fighters shooting lightning bolts out of their hindquarters" or the like.

Not "fans", just "Wizard Fans"

 

[TwoSix]

So...is this then admitting that, in D&D, it is simply impossible to balance casters with non-casters?

It's not impossible. But, IMO, it requires a system where martial damage and toughness greatly surpasses those of casters, and bespoke magic is there to provide utility and support. (Which is why I voted for 3 in the poll.) You can have "magic-users" that are comparable to martial damage, but they should function like a martial (like the pyromancer idea I floated a few posts back).

If you want the utility and narrative control that bespoke spells provide, you need to have a corresponding decrease in your combat utility.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But would martial "bespoke, tightly defined and very specific packages" (as you put it) be enough to be counted as 'similar mechanic' even if they don't use the same resource system as spells?! Would they be derided as 'martial cantrips' or would people complain they 'limit imagination" or something because now that those particular application exist you can't convince the DM to let you do it with some random skill check?

Yes.

What if we took that principle and applied it to skills? Have three codified level of skills (untrained, proficient, expert) and have certain 'sphere' of effect (so to speak) gated behind Expertise, and just have the Martial types be the ones who get free Expertise(s) as part of their class package (with the Wizard types getting a more restrictive Expertise to Arcana with no customizability options). A sort of halfway point between the free form vagueness of 5e and bespoke package of 4e. I'm sure there's some level of definition that would work.

Yah, you might be able to do something like that. And come think of it, is one big part of the issue is the skill system being so vague. Personally It doesn't bother me much, I'm pretty fine with winging it, but I feel it might be an issue for many people. And skill section is pretty sparse. Even without any drastic alteration of mechanics, you could easily add more defined uses for skills.

Ideally I feel the things would work so that the spells are good at doing very specific things well (limited number of times) but mundane means would be more flexible and always available. And that's kinda how it is, but in practice, at least in combat, the martial options are often pretty much limited to "I hit it with my sword". One thing I'd like to see is better rule support for trying all sort of cool cinematic stunts etc, and yeah, I'd like them to be freeform rather than fixed 'powers.'

Sly Flourish had a cool article about 'cinematic advantage'. This is a very basic form of the sort of thing I'd like to see more of.

 

[Undrave]

ah, you might be able to do something like that. And come think of it, is one big part of the issue is the skill system being so vague. Personally It doesn't bother me much, I'm pretty fine with winging it, but I feel it might be an issue for many people. And skill section is pretty sparse. Even without any drastic alteration of mechanics, you could easily add more defined uses for skills.

If nothing else, I REALLY wish they had more examples. It feels like a pretty deep pool to just throw people if they don't have much experience with TTRPG.

Skill stuff in 5e, on paper, sounds cool. I LIKE customizing my proficiencies in skills and tools and add flavor to my character that way... But very few of them feel all that exciting when put to use. Roll a dice, did you get the right number? And that's about it...

There's no way to combine skills, for exemple, it's not so much about 'using' your skill as much as 'find an excuse to use the biggest bonus possible and let the DM figure the rest out.

Cartoon Action Hour, as a random exemple, has a mechanic that lets you combine ability by picking a secondary on that help (or having someone use a complimentary ability to help) and that ability grants a bonus base on its 'tier' of power (things are basically scaled on a 1 to 12 or something like that, with the specific campaign giving you a cap to your ability). The first tier gives a +1, the second a +3 and the Epic Godly tier a +5.

Might result in more interesting consideration of skills and proficiencies if this kind of thing was possible and not just 'get Advantage' all the time...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If nothing else, I REALLY wish they had more examples. It feels like a pretty deep pool to just throw people if they don't have much experience with TTRPG.

Yes, definitely!

 

[Minigiant]

That's the artefact of D&D doinf spells as bespoke, tightly defined and very specific packages. As each spell can do just one very specific thing, you need a ton of them. Of course this could be done differently, many games do. You could just have 'Fire Magic' skill or some such and you could do various ad-hoc fire-based effects with it. And that sort of system can be a lot of fun, White Wolf's Mage the Ascension worked kinda like that. But this definitely is something that cannot happen in D&D, it simply is a far too big of a change. And yes, you could in theory have a similar exhaustive list of very specific mundane things you could do, but I have to say, I'd find that super jarring and I doubt I would be in alone in this. 4e kinda did this and many people didn't like it, and those powers weren't even as specific than 5e spells are. With magic it is far easier to justify why the things are siloed into bizarrely specific independent packages as none of it is real anyway, but with mundane abilities that people are far more familiar with it's not gonna fly.

You gotta remember what caused that.

WOTC's inability to restrain themselves in creation of magic spells and magic items in 3e caused many fans to desire the same treatment for martials and experts.

Ultimatly there wouldn't be a problem if WOTC wasn't undisciplined and supported by biased people.

 

[FrogReaver]

So...is this then admitting that, in D&D, it is simply impossible to balance casters with non-casters?

If we address the fact that casters have access to more of the game (and, at least in theory, the ability to write more game), fans will reject it because it's "not D&D anymore."

If we address the fact that non-casters don't have special game options unique to them, fans will reject it for being "unrealistic" or for "fighters shooting lightning bolts out of their hindquarters" or the like.

It very much seems to be that you are saying that the fanbase simultaneously wants a game where Fighters are supposed to be of more-or-less equal "value to the team," but rejects every possible means of actually supporting this result with the rules.

Sounds about right to me. My personal solution would be to tone back magic but we all know that’s not going to happen.

So I’ll be happy for the fighters to be able to contribute single target DPR, hopefully get a few out of combat abilities and have the DM structure the narrative and setting such that Fighters shine despite the lack of system level mechanical support for everything but single target damage.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So...is this then admitting that, in D&D, it is simply impossible to balance casters with non-casters?

Not in the next decade. The legacy fandom will not allow it.

 

[Minigiant]

No. But a D&D where martials and casters have similar mechanics will be rejected. We already know this. Having different mechanics doesn't inherently mean that the classes cannot be balanced, unless if you consider the page count dedicated to the various mechanics to be the measure of balance.

It counts as a measure if WOTC. constantly creates new spells whenever they can stick one in.

I guess there is a benefit of their slow release of books and downloadables: fewer spells.