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

[Don Durito]

Well until you get proficiency +4 at level 9.

Which is the problem: WOTC screwed up the Math.

And instead of admitting that they screwed up the math, they patched it as a feat. But

The other problem: WOTC screwed up the Feats.

And you don't get a feat until level 4 and it is very harmful to combat prowess to not take an ASI at level 4. And a fighter needs 2 feats to expand AND get expertise.

Yeah the scaling is an issue. Proficiency becomes more significant as you level up - which of course means not having proficiency becomes more significant too - which is why Saves tank at higher levels. (And expertise becomes doubly more significant - why on earth wasn't it a flat bonus?).

And yeah. I said earlier in the thread that spending a feat somewhere along the line for Expertise was worth it for a high level Fighter. But Fighters don't get any extra ASIs until level 6. That's the earliest that they could conceivably be spending a specific class resource to improve their non combat capability.

 

[ECMO3]

No. A Rogue only needs Dex. There is no expection of needing anthing else as they are not designed to stay in melee, use heavy armor, or roll ability checks outside of Dex.

Then he will be lacking in combat because he will be limited to inferior light armor. A Rogue who wants to excel in combat anywhere close to other martials is going to need both strength and dexterity and will also need medium armor proficiency and the last comes with stealth penalties unless he further uses a feat.

This is to bring him close to what the fighter starts with. A fighter comes with heavy armor and better hit dice and does not need to invest in dexterity at all.

Fighters are combat machines and are intended to have their prmary and secondary be a combination of STR/DEX/CON unless they are EKs or AA then your prmary and secondary is INT.

If you want to confine your player to that stereotype do it, but don't act like this is the only way to play the class.

I said that background and class are both expressions of the same concept and if you think noble is good enough, then the acolyte is good enough as well.

No they are not the same concept. A fighter is not a noble and a cleric is not an accolyte. Background and class are entirely different things.

If holywarrior can be 10% or 50% of your character concept, then aristocratic adventurer should be as well.

A holy warrior is only part of your character concept if you make it your character concept. If you want to be that then be that, if you want to be an aristocratice adventurer be that. It is totally and completely irrelevant to the class.

Only 1 class carries that kind of baggage with this class itself, that is the Warlock which as a Patron and necessarily affects the kind of character you are.

Easy Checks?
That's you problem right there.
Medium DC is 15.
Major game changing checks are not supposed to be easy.

You falsely claimed such a character would fail over half his checks, that is not true and a character with no bonus and no proficiency would fail half of the easy checks.

Your DM is running Easy Mode. That's why you think noble fighters are fine.

I have played with numerous DMs and I have DMd official modules. A medium check is a medium check and it or easy are the most normal check made.

Make an easy acrobatics check to walk across the homemade makeshift bridge or fall off. This type of easy and medium check are by far the most common.

Moreover when it comes to those hard checks, such a character will succeed a substantial amount of the time, 5 times as much as someone with no bonus. With proficiency and +1 at 5th level he will suceed 25% of the time at a difficult check as compared with 5% vs a character wit no bonus and no proficiency. By the way that Wizard who dumped everythign else to get a 16 Charisma and proficiency will still FAIL over half of the difficult checks.

If difficult checks are your benchmark NO character can pass over half of them at 5th level unless they have an 18 in the ability AND have expertise in the skill. Even a Rogue with an 16 Charisma and expertise is still not above 50% for difficult checks at 5th level. So if this is your benchmark your original statement is meaningless - they are all failing "most" of their difficult checks.

DC 10 as the most common DC? WHAT? I must have miss something in the book.
If you are mostly rolling Easy check, your game is easy.

Example DC 5 checks:
Navigate in grassland, meadow or farmland, repair something

Examples of DC10 checks:
Net, Ballbearings, stabilizing a creature, forced march for 8 hours, chart a course, check to avoid exhaustion after 10 hours in extreme heat with no water, check to avoid exhaustion after 1 hour in extreme cold, navigate in most types of terrain, tracking on a soft surface, foraging with plentiful food and water

Example of DC12 check:
Average contest

DC13 checks:
Hunting Trap, hide against the average CR5 foe, find an average hidden monster in the monster manual (I am guessing this is about 13)

DC15 "medium" checks:
caltrops, lock, not becoming exhausted from going without water, forced march for 13 hours, spot a disguise being used by someone else, catch a player cheating, forge someone's handwriting, determine your location on a nautical chart, repair an item in half the normal time, navigate in forrest, jungle, swamp or open sea with overcast skies and no land in sight, tracking in dirt or grass, foraging with limited food and water

Now there are all specific examples of checks that are medium and below, most of them are explicitly called out in the PHB or DMG. Why don't you provide examples of all these "difficult" checks your party is doing regularly. Ones from the PHB or DMG would be extremely useful (I know of only 4 in the PHB and DMG combined).

 

[ECMO3]

Now there are always issues with this when rolling a D20, but 5e compounds this by having bonuses overwhelmed by the range of the die. If you want to be able to say "It's ok I've got this" you really do need expertise.

You actually need reliable talent to automatically pass a medium check. Even with expertise you are going to have a significant chance of failure on a medium check.

The things that are hard checks, should be (and are) hard.

 

[Don Durito]

Rogues don't need Medium Armour.

They will get their Dex to 20 and so be one worse than Full Plate. They also get Uncanny Dodge, and of course can get themselves out of combat with Cunning Action.

A Rogue with medium Armour will have inferior AC unless they take Disadvantage on Stealth (Why are you a Rogue?). To get rid of that disadvantage and have a better AC than they can get with studded leather you need Medium Armour Master. So two feats to get to the same position you would have been at with 2 ASIs. There's a window of a few levels where spending a feat on Medium Amour may net you 1 better AC than you would have otherwise if you start as Variant human.

 

[Minigiant]

Then he will be lacking in combat because he will be limited to inferior light armor. A Rogue who wants to excel in combat anywhere close to other martials is going to need both strength and dexterity and will also need medium armor proficiency and the last comes with stealth penalties unless he further uses a feat.

This is to bring him close to what the fighter starts with. A fighter comes with heavy armor and better hit dice and does not need to invest in dexterity at all.

Rogues only need DEX. That's all they need. They can Move, Attack, and Disengage/Dash every turn. And All the iconic Rogue skills run off DEX.

Fighters are STR/DEX, STR/CON, DEX/CON, STR/INT, or DEX/INT.They are almost all reliant* on 2 ability scores.

*unless you run an EK and don't care that everyone beats you spell DC.

If you want to confine your player to that stereotype do it, but don't act like this is the only way to play the class.

It's is not the only way to play the class.
It's is the only way to play the class well if you DM isn't babying you.

A holy warrior is only part of your character concept if you make it your character concept. If you want to be that then be that, if you want to be an aristocratice adventurer be that. It is totally and completely irrelevant to the class.

Only 1 class carries that kind of baggage with this class itself, that is the Warlock which as a Patron and necessarily affects the kind of character you are.

Yes and I want my character who spent half their life training to be a noble or knight to be good at noble or knight stuff.
They cannot do that as a fighter until level 8, when the campaign is close to ending.

You falsely claimed such a character would fail over half his checks, that is not true and a character with no bonus and no proficiency would fail half of the easy checks.

I'm using Medium Checks.

I have played with numerous DMs and I have DMd official modules. A medium check is a medium check and it or easy are the most normal check made.

Make an easy acrobatics check to walk across the homemade makeshift bridge or fall off. This type of easy and medium check are by far the most common.

Moreover when it comes to those hard checks, such a character will succeed a substantial amount of the time, 5 times as much as someone with no bonus. With proficiency and +1 at 5th level he will suceed 25% of the time at a difficult check as compared with 5% vs a character wit no bonus and no proficiency. By the way that Wizard who dumped everythign else to get a 16 Charisma and proficiency will still FAIL over half of the difficult checks.

If difficult checks are your benchmark NO character can pass over half of them at 5th level unless they have an 18 in the ability AND have expertise in the skill. Even a Rogue with an 16 Charisma and expertise is still not above 50% for difficult checks at 5th level. So if this is your benchmark your original statement is meaningless - they are all failing "most" of their difficult checks.

16 ability score + proficiency lets you beat a DC 15 half the time.
Expertise lets you do it with a 12.

It's not my fault, many DMs are bad and let their players beat anything if they roll double digits and think 2 goblins is a challenge then run to D&D sites, forums, and subreddits and complain "5e is too easy. My players never fail."

Examples of DC10 checks in the PHB:
Net, Ballbearings, stabilizing a creature

DC13 checks in the PHB:
Hunting Trap

DC15 "medium" checks in the PHB:
caltrops, lock

DC to find an average hidden monster in the monster manual: I am guesing this is about 13.

DC to hide against the average CR5 foe with proficiency in perception: 13

Now there are 8 specific examples of checks that are medium and below, most of them are explicitly called out in the PHB. Why don't you provide examples of all these difficult checks your party is doing regularly.

Why are you still using hunting traps past level 2?

Also notice most of those DC are above 10. As a DM, you're really not supposed to call for such easy checks often.

 

[Don Durito]

You actually need reliable talent to automatically pass a medium check. Even with expertise you are going to have a significant chance of failure on a medium check.

The things that are hard checks, should be (and are) hard.

Well yes, but if you look to the whole post rather than just the bit that was quoted this was addressed.

 

[ECMO3]

The Intelligence-based skills at which the Wizard excels generally do not have spells that are easily capable of replicating or enabling.
The physical skills such as Athletics cover many tasks that can be enabled by spells.

I get the first part, I disagree with this completely though. Identify, detect magic, druidcraft, speak with animals and create water cover a lot of the same ground as Arcana and Nature, commune can cover for Religion and to a lessor extent History. Investigation is a bit more difficult to replicate with a spell.

 

[Undrave]

Then he will be lacking in combat because he will be limited to inferior light armor. A Rogue who wants to excel in combat anywhere close to other martials is going to need both strength and dexterity and will also need medium armor proficiency and the last comes with stealth penalties unless he further uses a feat.

This is to bring him close to what the fighter starts with. A fighter comes with heavy armor and better hit dice and does not need to invest in dexterity at all.

At low level, a Rogue with +3 DEX and leather armor has the same AC as if he had hide armor, the basic medium armor.

At max DEX of +5, and at studded leather, a Rogue has 17 AC. The best Medium Armor is the Half-Plate and the best AC you can get with Half-Plate? 17.

Studded leather is 45 gp. That's cheaper than chain mail (16 AC). That's something you can get at like level 2 if you're lucky. Heck, you can problem steal it off an dude you kill in a fight.

Furthermore, only TWO Medium Armor actually give you disadvantage on Stealth check: Scale Mail and the aforementionned Half-Plate. That's it. If you stay in beastplate you still get... 16 AC. For 400 GP.

Rogues only need DEX.

They can pick whatever secondary they want, then leave the rest to CON.

 

[ECMO3]

Rogues only need DEX. That's all they need. They can Move, Attack, and Disengage/Dash every turn. And All the iconic Rogue skills run off DEX.

That is not true. They can move and attack and then disengage and then move and most enemies will be able to close and attack them the following turn. If they take dash then they can get hit by an AOO.

For example: Rogue starts 15 feat away, moves and attacks. Now what? He can take dash and get far enough away that he probably won't be attacked but then he get hit with an AOO. They can take disengage but then they can only move 15 feet and the enemy can walk right up and attack him next turn.

The only character that can do this like you claim is the swashbuckler and only then if the positioning is right and there is enough room to dash. Any other Rogue is not going to be able to do this without other characters blocking or holding enemies down which is a big part of combat.

What a Rogue can do with disengage a fighter can replicate by using a reach weapon against most foes. Walk up, swing from 10 feet away and then back away. This is functionally the same (actually slightly better) against most enemies and the fighter is doing this with more hps, a better AC, he doesn't need to set up a SA and he even still has his bonus action unused.

Fighters are STR/DEX, STR/CON, DEX/CON, STR/INT, or DEX/INT.They are almost all reliant* on 2 ability scores.

Fighters with strength can get heavy armor and ignore both dexterity and constitution, taking a 8 and 10 respectively. Fighters with dexterity can get medium armor and only need limited strength.

It's is not the only way to play the class.
It's is the only way to play the class well if you DM isn't babying you.

Complete BS. The DMs are babying the Rogues that can be right up in the thick of combat wearing a shift and never getting attacked.

Yes and I want my character who spent half their life training to be a noble or knight to be good at noble or knight stuff.
They cannot do that as a fighter until level 8, when the campaign is close to ending.

Your character or your fighter?

I get that you actually believe you need to build your fighter a certain way that minimizes his utility out of combat. It is not true, but you believe it.

However there are 11 other classes. If you want to play a noble and you honestly believe that a fighter can not be a good noble then why not play one of the other 11 classes that can?

What you are saying is: "I want to be a noble and fighters cant be good nobles so I am going to play a fighter"

16 ability score + proficiency lets you beat a DC 15 half the time.
Expertise lets you do it with a 12.

You are changing your argument. Above you said it was the hard checks that mattered. In any case at 5th level and above a character with a 12 and proficiency will beat a DC15 half the time.

It's not my fault, many DMs are bad and let their players beat anything if they roll double digits and think 2 goblins is a challenge then run to D&D sites, forums, and subreddits and complain "5e is too easy. My players never fail."

Most of the examples I gave arfe from the PHB and the DMG. Those are RAW.

Why are you still using hunting traps past level 2?

Why would you ever stop using them? A hunting trap will stop a CR6 medusa 65% of the time.

Also notice most of those DC are above 10. As a DM, you're really not supposed to call for such easy checks often.

Easy checks are called for more often than hard ones and hard ones would need to be called for more often for your previous statement about "failing most of them" to be correct.

 

[Undrave]

That is not true. They can move and attack and then disengage and then move and most enemies will be able to close and attack them the following turn. If they take dash then they can get hit by an AOO.

For example: Rogue starts 15 feat away, moves and attacks. Now what? He can take dash and get far enough away that he probably won't be attacked but then he get hit with an AOO. They can take disengage but then they can only move 15 feet and the enemy can walk right up and attack him next turn.

The only character that can do this like you claim is the swashbuckler and even he can be countered. Any other Rogue is not going to be able to do this without other characters blocking or holding enemies down which is a big part of combat.

What kind of idiot rogue just attacks an isolated dude like that? Of course you'll want to team up with your other party members!

Or you can just bust out a hand crossbow and no bother getting into melee, since that also runs off you DEX and you get no penalty for shooting into melee in 5e and still get your Sneak Attack off.