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

[Sithlord]

Sure. But D&D is kind of supposed to handle generic fantasy. That’s part of the problem IMO.

I think that’s a failure for d&d trying to model other authors. I think (my opinion) that it needs to be its own thing. It’s madness trying to imitate how many diverse authors and stories through the ages did things. Imho. However I do like it when a good setting book decides to do it for that setting. I loved wheel of time in the 3rd era. So more options can be cool. To this day the main thing I hate about 5E is that for wizards that each spell slot isn’t prepared separately. I like a system where each spell is specifically crafted for each use. I think I am alone in that. Lol.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

Not "good" compared to other classes. Useful yes, servicable or below average is how I would rate ability unless you really focuse on combat with feats and expertise.

The Rogue is like the kid on the playground picked last to play BBall. You would rather have him than no one, but he isn't the equal of the others.

 

[Maxperson]

Behold! The entirety of the rules for playing half dragons in 3e!

Edit : image removed for hugeness. Basically the 'rules' are that Half dragons with a 12+ CHA are sorcerers usually.

So... no. They aren't actually playable.

That's why there was a lot of outcry for playable dragons/half dragons, which was followed by a series of 'now shut up' 'options' including LA and Races of Dragon - seemingly purposefully inferior options made seemingly to be an answer to preclude the question.

That's partial. It's missing the portion before that page. And on that page is the portion referencing half-dragon characters.

 

[Minigiant]

Having divine connection a deity that grants you power does something; it does that irrespective whether you're ordained priest of some religious organisation or not. Being noble doesn't really do much by itself. What do you imagine it doing? I mean perhaps you could use it to impress some people or get out of legal trouble in some countries, but those seem far too situational and setting dependent to be codified rules.

That's your issue right there. Nobility could get you access to a lot. All those expensive tutors and fancy upper class learning.

Skill training
Weapons training
Magic training
Languages
Connections
Secret techniques

Really it D&D were sensible, their would be 3 skills classes: the noble, the scholar, and the rogue. In fantasy, the skill monkeys are street rats, aristocrats, and library nerds.

D&D just attempts to kldge it by forcing every primary skill user to be a rogue and aceept Thieves Cant and Sneak Attack.

Very well, thank you for asking!

Can't see it. There is littleary no Wisdom in fighter nor its subclasses.

D&D 5e has no morale rules, but battle master can use their rally manoeuvre to bolster their allies or commanding presence to inspire NPCs via a skill check. I probably wouldn't make such a thing part of the base class, as many people might want their fighters to be gruff slayers to whom such a feature wouldn't fit.

Dind ding ding
That's my point.

D&D fans have contradictory desires

1) "I want fighters to be big gruff slayers who have no out of combat skills"
2) "I want fighter to represent knights, nobles, mechants, generals, gladiators, and merchanaries that have training in exploration, social, war, and downtime settings"

If Fighters are supposed to be knights, they shouldn't have to spend their background on to get Presuassion. Clerics and Arcan can get Religion and Arcana from just class.
If fighters are supposed to include warriors of brain, they should have features of mind.

But D&D fans are two faced about it. They really want fighters to be Da Big Stupid. And if fighters optimally can only FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT, caster have to be nerfed in combat.

Thats the weird part. Wizardfans insisting fighters have no brainpower end up nerfing their wizards 2 editions in a row.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's partial. It's missing the portion before that page. And on that page is the portion referencing half-dragon characters.

IT's not there. This is the 3e MM, not the 3.5

 

[Don Durito]

That's your issue right there. Nobility could get you access to a lot. All those expensive tutors and fancy upper class learning.

Skill training
Weapons training
Magic training
Languages
Connections
Secret techniques

Really it D&D were sensible, their would be 3 skills classes: the noble, the scholar, and the rogue. In fantasy, the skill monkeys are street rats, aristocrats, and library nerds.

D&D just attempts to kldge it by forcing every primary skill user to be a rogue and aceept Thieves Cant and Sneak Attack.

Can't see it. There is littleary no Wisdom in fighter nor its subclasses.


Dind ding ding
That's my point.

D&D fans have contradictory desires

1) "I want fighters to be big gruff slayers who have no out of combat skills"
2) "I want fighter to represent knights, nobles, mechants, generals, gladiators, and merchanaries that have training in exploration, social, war, and downtime settings"

If Fighters are supposed to be knights, they shouldn't have to spend their background on to get Presuassion. Clerics and Arcan can get Religion and Arcana from just class.
If fighters are supposed to include warriors of brain, they should have features of mind.

But D&D fans are two faced about it. They really want fighters to be Da Big Stupid. And if fighters optimally can only FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT, caster have to be nerfed in combat.

Thats the weird part. Wizardfans insisting fighters have no brainpower end up nerfing their wizards 2 editions in a row.

Acolyte: Cleric the background.
Outlander: Ranger or Barbarian
Urchin: Rogue.

At the very least if the Fighter class is meant to be independent of any background, then it ought to get an extra background to make up for the absence of background in it's class.

 

[Don Durito]

5e really was an exercise in moving goal posts in a lot of ways.

They finally gave Fighters access to more skills, but then they made skills far less impactful and gave the traditional skill monkey classes expertise to compensate.

 

[Sithlord]

That's your issue right there. Nobility could get you access to a lot. All those expensive tutors and fancy upper class learning.

Skill training
Weapons training
Magic training
Languages
Connections
Secret techniques

Really it D&D were sensible, their would be 3 skills classes: the noble, the scholar, and the rogue. In fantasy, the skill monkeys are street rats, aristocrats, and library nerds.

D&D just attempts to kldge it by forcing every primary skill user to be a rogue and aceept Thieves Cant and Sneak Attack.

Can't see it. There is littleary no Wisdom in fighter nor its subclasses.


Dind ding ding
That's my point.

D&D fans have contradictory desires

1) "I want fighters to be big gruff slayers who have no out of combat skills"
2) "I want fighter to represent knights, nobles, mechants, generals, gladiators, and merchanaries that have training in exploration, social, war, and downtime settings"

If Fighters are supposed to be knights, they shouldn't have to spend their background on to get Presuassion. Clerics and Arcan can get Religion and Arcana from just class.
If fighters are supposed to include warriors of brain, they should have features of mind.

But D&D fans are two faced about it. They really want fighters to be Da Big Stupid. And if fighters optimally can only FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT, caster have to be nerfed in combat.

Thats the weird part. Wizardfans insisting fighters have no brainpower end up nerfing their wizards 2 editions in a row.

Maybe the skills should be there for however they want to develop their character. If a fighter wants to be persuasive then take the persuasion skill. It’s not that the fighter can’t do things out of combat. He has the option to decide what he wants to be good at outside combat.

 

[Undrave]

Sure. But D&D is kind of supposed to handle generic fantasy. That’s part of the problem IMO.

It’s certainly marketed that way…

 

[Maxperson]

Not "good" compared to other classes. Useful yes, servicable or below average is how I would rate ability unless you really focuse on combat with feats and expertise.

Next to the other classes it's sufficient. When you compare it to the game, which is what the damage is being done against, they are good in combat. Rogues aren't fighting the other classes.