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

[Maxperson]

A Rogue can be good at two pillars and ok at combat but he is not usually going to actually be good at all of them.

A Rogue will never be real good at combat unless he really focuses on that and the other areas will suffer, most of all stealth because it will usually necessitate medium armor. Without medium armor or multiclassing the combat ceiling for Rogue is pretty limited.

A rogue is good at combat with nothing more than Sneak Attack, Cunning Action, Evasion and Uncanny Dodge. He's just not fantastic at combat unless he really focuses.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I agree. Though Sherlock Holmes in D&D could be envisioned as a Wizard or Artificer just as easily. Indiana Jones could be envisioned as a fighter with a subclass focused on the rest. It's not so much that similar concepts can't be done, they just need attached to a class with combat oriented abilities, because 5e is much more combat than archeologist/detective.

Yeah. A part of the issue is that people try to shove non-D&D characters in D&D exactly as they are. This is not gonna work. D&D is very particular game with specific expectations. It's not a generic game for everything. Seriously, pick a game system that suits the thing you want to do.

Now, you can make D&D character that is inspired by these characters, but it's probably gonna involve significant changes. My main FFXIV character is Holmes-inspired, and she would work as a D&D character with minor changes, but in D&D she would probably be a necromancer or possibly a diviner. It is her personality and attitude that is Holmes inspired, not the exact things she does (she's a magical researcher and problem solver who's a borderline psychopath and a genius with a superiority complex, using questionable and unorthodox methods.) Though as I noted earlier, you could do more direct Holmes in D&D as an inquisitive rogue. Sure, it would probably bump combat power a bit (though Holmes was no slough in combat) but that's just because in D&D every character is weirdly competent in combat.

 

[Maxperson]

The Battlemaster was intended to allow you to play something like a 4e Warlord yes.

A lot of people don't seem happy with it. I think I would personally be a bit more happy with it if the combat mechanics didn't have to do all the work.

If there actually was a simple mass battle system and a war and domain 'pillar' for the Battlemaster to plug into it would work better conceptually (although still not be fun for those who really want the 4e mechanics, obviously).

I disagree. A few minor abilities don't mean that it was intended to be the Warlord of like a Warlord. More likely they just grabbed some inspiration from the Warlord class to fill out the maneuver list.

 

[Maxperson]

Except for spells. Spells can be shared between classes.

But that's magic I guess, so it can overcome the laws of game design.

And extra attack. And expertise. And Fast Movement. Ability Score Improvement. And Fighting style. Plenty of non-magical abilities are shared between classes.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Leaving aside the other things because, being honest, I just don't care enough to keep arguing on them...

But all classes need to survive. Why are those fighter specific?

Because, with the exception of the (non-caster) Fighter and Rogue, you have ready-to-hand explanations for the survival. Paladin/Cleric and (as much as it bothers me) Druid/Ranger? Divine power preserving your life. Wizard/Sorcerer/Bard/Warlock/EK/AT/Artificer? You have literal reality hax. Barbarian? Your anger is literally so incandescent, you brush off burns and lightning.

Why is the Fighter or Rogue surviving these things? They demonstrably ARE surviving them, we know this because they're reaching high level. But there's no explanation for it--other than that they're Just That Awesome. For Fighters, it's preternatural durability or might. For Rogues, it's incredible agility or sleight of hand.

Give them other Extraordinary abilities in the same vein, because they're already Extraordinary simply by being high level.

 

[Maxperson]

When you tone it down, that leader who can warrior starts to look more and more like the warrior that can leader.

There's some overlap, but they aren't the same. A warrior than can be a leader can apply to anything from a squad leader on up. They are warriors first and leaders second. You don't put Warlords in charge of a squad. A leader who can warrior, though, is a leader first and is often a high ranking officer or government leader who can also warrior. You don't put one of those in charge of a squad, either.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I disagree. A few minor abilities don't mean that it was intended to be the Warlord of like a Warlord. More likely they just grabbed some inspiration from the Warlord class to fill out the maneuver list.

Eh, I fully believe that some of those choices were made as a 'now shut up' statement that D&D sometimes does when an option is in high demand but they don't actually want it in the game. Like the Raptorians in 3.5 as a response to a desire for a flying race or all the weird not-half dragons in Races of Dragon.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There's some overlap, but they aren't the same. A warrior than can be a leader can apply to anything from a squad leader on up. They are warriors first and leaders second. You don't put Warlords in charge of a squad. A leader who can warrior, though, is a leader first and is often a high ranking officer or government leader who can also warrior. You don't put one of those in charge of a squad, either.

And that's why it doesn't make sense as a D&D character! D&D party is a squad at most. Yes, some sort of master strategist or tactician organising things behind the scenes or coordinating grand manoeuvres of armies is a concept. But it is not a concept for a character that would be running around in dungeons with three or four other people.

 

[Maxperson]

Leaving aside the other things because, being honest, I just don't care enough to keep arguing on them...


Because, with the exception of the (non-caster) Fighter and Rogue, you have ready-to-hand explanations for the survival. Paladin/Cleric and (as much as it bothers me) Druid/Ranger? Divine power preserving your life. Wizard/Sorcerer/Bard/Warlock/EK/AT/Artificer? You have literal reality hax. Barbarian? Your anger is literally so incandescent, you brush off burns and lightning.

Why is the Fighter or Rogue surviving these things? They demonstrably ARE surviving them, we know this because they're reaching high level. But there's no explanation for it--other than that they're Just That Awesome. For Fighters, it's preternatural durability or might. For Rogues, it's incredible agility or sleight of hand.

Give them other Extraordinary abilities in the same vein, because they're already Extraordinary simply by being high level.

You're describing combat ability, though, not exploration and social ability.

 

[Garthanos]

There's some overlap, but they aren't the same. A warrior than can be a leader can apply to anything from a squad leader on up. They are warriors first and leaders second. You don't put Warlords in charge of a squad. A leader who can warrior, though, is a leader first and is often a high ranking officer or government leader who can also warrior. You don't put one of those in charge of a squad, either.

William le Marshal - started out as an incredible Squad Leader (open melee small team tourneys) and Warrior and Became the highest ranking champion and Marshal for several kings. Also lived an incredibly long but dangerous life. (actively fighting into his 60s)