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

[Maxperson]

My experience with 5e reflects neither of these. Not even close, in fact. The only games I've been in that reached at least 4th level within the first 10 sessions were the ones that started above 4th level. I've never, ever, seen a game where you reach 2nd level within the first four sessions.

People talk a lot about a lot of supposed "virtues" of 5e that I've literally never seen myself. But of course I'm supposed to be happy about this, since this is the DM being empowered, right? This is the DM deviating from the rules whenever and however they like, because that's axiomatically better for the game no matter what, right?

One adventuring day for a 1st level group is 300xp. That gets him to 2nd level. 600 more is the second adventuring day, which gets him to 3rd level. Those DMs are slowing you down, which is fine, but it's not what the game expects.

I explicitly said 1st and 2nd level for a reason. You're saying subclass is supposed to fix this problem. Subclasses don't exist for Fighters or Rogues prior to 3rd level, meaning you're specifically giving (most) casters a benefit that Fighters and Rogues don't get. It doesn't matter if those levels are supposed to be fast, or skipped over, or whatever. It's still shortchanging the Fighter, yet again.

And I'm saying that it isn't a problem at levels 1 and 2. PC's just aren't very good in general at those levels.

But I have other reasons for absolutely hating the "1st level is actually 3rd level" problem, that would derail the thread if I discussed them here. Suffice it to say, I find this argument not just not compelling, but anti-compelling; it makes me oppose your position more than I did before.

Issue with it or not, it's the design WotC went with. They decided to spread the base 1st level abilities over 3 levels to prevent multi-class level dipping from granting too much.

It's really really not, though, when you compare it to a Battle Master's 2-3 maneuvers per combat (6 combats; start of day plus two short rests gives 3*5=15 superiority dice, 15/6 = 2.5). Unless you're really, really bad at using combat spells, I just flat do not buy that a spell is worth less than 2.5 maneuvers. And if you're spending more spells on the combat, clearly you thought that was more worth you while than the non-combat stuff! It's not like the BM (or any Fighter) can just get to decide "hey, I need a little more combat oomph today, I'll just borrow from my non-combat pool this time." And if you aren't? Then your combat contributions were already good enough as-is, and you get 3 extra goodies to play with which the Fighter cannot even in principle compare to.

That's exactly my point! Spellcasters cannot shine in all three spheres on a daily basis. To gain utility, they give up combat ability and go with cantrips. If they want to shine in combat, they aren't shining anywhere else unless it's dealing with a skill that they have proficiency in.

 

[Maxperson]

Level adjustment didn't exist until savage species.

I didn't remember that, not having played with the 3e rules in a very long time, but it's irrelevant anyway. In the 3e MM, which was available for play on the first day, Half-Dragons were expected to be allowed(at least at some tables) as characters.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

They don't phrase it that way no - but I have seen examples, on this very board, of people who say they like to play fighters but wouldn't if they lost the "realism" (To me it's a silly argument as realism in the D&D universe is absurd already, but I'm not the one making it).

Yep, this is definitely a thing. As I've said before, I think it would help if there was an explicit transition point for 'mythicness'. So for example up to the level ten there was nothing explicitly magical or otherwise blatantly impossible but after that we move into the land of legends and the stuff can get more weird. It would probably bother me if my level five fighter could stop spells with their sword, jump over castle walls or stun demons with their mighty war shout. It wouldn't bother me if my level 15 fighter could do these things.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

They don't phrase it that way no - but I have seen examples, on this very board, of people who say they like to play fighters but wouldn't if they lost the "realism" (To me it's a silly argument as realism in the D&D universe is absurd already, but I'm not the one making it).

Which is why we need a new class that's just flat out better. People can keep playing the fighter if they want to be a second class citizen, rather than chaining the rest of us to weak design because the creatively bereft can't imagine a superhuman character that doesn't cast spells.

Caster supremacists always claim that balance doesn't matter that much. Fine, put the proposed Paragon at the top. After all, they don't get the repick their superpowers after a nap, so it stands that their lack of flexibility should yield greater results.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yep, this is definitely a thing. As I've said before, I think it would help if there was an explicit transition point for 'mythicness'. So for example up to the level ten there was nothing explicitly magical or otherwise blatantly impossible but after that we move into the land of legends and the stuff can get more weird. It would probably bother me if my level five fighter could stop spells with their sword, jump over castle walls or stun demons with their mighty war shout. It wouldn't bother me if my level 15 fighter could do these things.

I would like that part of the game spelled out so I can avoid it entirely!

 

[Sithlord]

That makes it a dumb name.

Anyway, my Scholar would be a non-sneaky rogue

• Hit Points: 1d8 per Scholar level
• Proficiencies:
  • Armor: Light armor and shields
  • Weapons: Simple weapons, hand crossbows, light crossbows, and heavy crossbows
  • Tools: Any one artisan's tool
  • Saving Throws: Intelligence, Wisdom
  • Skills: Choose four from Arcana, Deception, History, Insight, Intimidation, Investigation, Perception, Performance, Persuasion, Medicine, Nature and Religion

It would get 2 expertise and be able to Help as a bonus action. At level 2, a scholar would get "Brain Points" and can spend them to do things like use an object, replace their Str or Dex save with an Int Save, reload their Initiative, deal bonus damage to a "flanked" foe, or add proficiency to an improvised action or weapon attack.

The warlord subclass would get martial weapons, medium weapons, and heavy armor. They could spend "Brain Points" to give allies attack and actions allowing for impromptu volleys and shield walls or give inspiration to add HP.

There would be an occulist, theologian, detective, and aristocrat subclasses that have more uses of "Brain Points"

At level 17, they invent an automatic rifle (arcane, divine,or mundane their choice).

I can’t grasp why this class wouldn’t have 1d6 hp and no armor. Makes no sense. I have the same problem with the artificer.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would like that part of the game spelled out so I can avoid it entirely!

That certainly is one very good reason for explicitly spelling it out! "For more grounded, low magic-campaigns make level ten the maximum level."

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Yep, this is definitely a thing. As I've said before, I think it would help if there was an explicit transition point for 'mythicness'. So for example up to the level ten there was nothing explicitly magical or otherwise blatantly impossible but after that we move into the land of legends and the stuff can get more weird. It would probably bother me if my level five fighter could stop spells with their sword, jump over castle walls or stun demons with their mighty war shout. It wouldn't bother me if my level 15 fighter could do these things.

Stopping spells with magic swords and armor is a pretty bog standard fantasy tropes. That's some level 5 appropriate stuff IMO (expend reaction, gain advantage on save). Far more so than casters flinging spells in a single round, which is a trope of D&D, and... like nothing else. Hell, even D&D novels don't have the heroes casting spells much, probably because the writers realize how lame it is. .

Simply don't level yours up if you want to remain a wand caddy for the real heroes.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

That certainly is one very good reason for explicitly spelling it out! "For more grounded, low magic-campaigns make level ten the maximum level."

You cannot run a low magic campaign with full PC casters. Full stop.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You cannot run a low magic campaign with full PC casters. Full stop.

Relatively. If the max spell level anyone can ever get is five instead of nine it's pretty different.