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

[Don Durito]

If a character has 16 Strength, 8 Con, and 16 Charisma as a Fighter, I would definitely question them.

• What do they see as their role in the party? At it's heart D&D is a tactical combat game so what do they intend to do in this situation? Are they sure D&D is the game they want to be playing? If this is a signal that they don't like combat, maybe they should play a less combat heavy game.
• Are they aiming for a gimmick build of some sort, perhaps taking Handaxes and throwing things them from a distance using sharpshooter? - if so I'd sit them down and ask them how long they mean to play this character, what they intend to do when they get bored of the gimmick, or when situations mean it doesn't work. (Also technically Sharpshooter may not work with hand-axes, but that's irrelevant).
• Do they realise that a 16 Charisma is not going to accomplish them being as effective at social skills as they might thnk? It makes you moderately competent, not good. Are they planning to invest more in Charisma or Expertise?
• Have they understood the trade offs. Do they realise that by dropping their Charisma to 14, they only reduce their contributions in the social sphere by 5% (i.e. it makes a difference roughly 1 in 20 rolls) but can get their Con to 12?
• And, most importantly, what is their character concept and is the Fighter class the best way to realise it?

 

[Maxperson]

well, it was once that way till it stopped being that way, I hear there were complaints when they finally cut it, plus why not take the six stats back to the drawing board to get a better system as to why does wisdom have anything to do with perception, senses have to do with perception.

It was never that way. THAC0 was never, ever central to D&D the way the 6 stats are. If you heard people saying that, they were being overly dramatic, because they liked it.

 

[FrogReaver]

If a character has 16 Strength, 8 Con, and 16 Charisma as a Fighter, I would definitely question them.

• What do they see as their role in the party? At it's heart D&D is a tactical combat game so what do they intend to do in this situation? Are they sure D&D is the game they want to be playing? If this is a signal that they don't like combat, maybe they should play a less combat heavy game.
• Are they aiming for a gimmick build of some sort, perhaps taking Handaxes and throwing things them from a distance using sharpshooter? - if so I'd sit them down and ask them how long they mean to play this character, what they intend to do when they get bored of the gimmick, or when situations mean it doesn't work. (Also technically Sharpshooter may not work with hand-axes, but that's irrelevant).
• Do they realise that a 16 Charisma is not going to accomplish them being as effective at social skills as they might thnk? It makes you moderately competent, not good. Are they planning to invest more in Charisma or Expertise?
• Have they understood the trade offs. Do they realise that by dropping their Charisma to 14, they only reduce their contributions in the social sphere by 5% (i.e. it makes a difference roughly 1 in 20 rolls) but can get their Con to 12?
• And, most importantly, what is their character concept and is the Fighter class the best way to realise it?

You don’t have to have 8 con to start with 16 str and 16 cha. You can have 12-14 con.

 

[Minigiant]

25 DC check. Let's actually look at where some of the other classes stand in heroic on very hard checks.

Unless you have proficiency and some stat or expertise in a skill everyone at level 5 always fails very hard checks.

A fighter at level 5 could easily have +5 or +6 to any chosen non-str or non-dex skill. He gets a 5% to 10% chance to pass very hard checks for those skills.

A wizard at level 5 typically needs all 3 dex, con and int. He can get a +5 or +6 to dex skills. He probably will have a +7 to some int skills. Leaving him a 5-10% chance for very hard dex checks and a 15% chance for selected int skills.

A rogue at level 5 typically will have dex and con and then much like the fighter can pick any other stat. In dex skills with expertise he can have a +10, putting him at 25% on very hard checks. In a stat he put 14-16 into he can get +9 with expertise, placing him at 15% to 20% success. Expertise in any skill without much stat bonus comes out to 0% to 10% chance of success.

No class is particularly good at very hard checks (and why is that the benchmark you chose, I have no idea). I don't think that a very hard check has ever come up in my games.

I said hard or very hard.

The wizard has spells and could defeat an obstacle directly with a spell should they have it prepared and the appropriate slot.

Either way, the fighter is the least able to handle hard and very hard checks.

That would actually make it harder for fighters to get proficiency in mental skills while still getting the athletic skills. It's like the opposite of an improvement IMO.

Why do fighters need to get all the athletics skills? If fighters are suppsed to be good at all strength skills, they should get that as a class feature.

I have no problem with that proposed improvement. But again, it's such a minor thing that something like that surely doesn't make it a bungle.

Bungle just means done clumsily or incompetently. There is plenty of clumsy design in 5e.

 

[Don Durito]

You don’t have to have 8 con to start with 16 str and 16 cha. You can have 12-14 con.

Yes I know. But that was the example given.

 

[Maxperson]

I said hard or very hard.

The wizard has spells and could defeat an obstacle directly with a spell should they have it prepared and the appropriate slot.

Often with drawbacks worse than if they hadn't used the spell. Locked door? Sure let's alert everything in the dungeon that we found by using a Knock Spell. Need to persuade someone? Let's use Charm Person which is almost surely illegal mind magic AND isn't very strong AND lets the person know that the spell was used on him. And so on.

Magic is not the fix-all you guys make it out to be. It's very often more problem than it's worth.

 

[Don Durito]

Often with drawbacks worse than if they hadn't used the ability. Locked door? Sure let's alert everything in the dungeon that we found by using a Knock Spell. Need to persuade someone? Let's use Charm Person which is almost surely illegal mind magic AND isn't very strong AND lets the person know that the spell was used on him. And so on.

Magic is not the fix-all you guys make it out to be. It's very often more problem than it's worth.

To my mind it's where they intersect that they're most powerful.

Arcane Trickster with Disguise Self and Invisibilty and expertise in Stealth. Better to be sneaky and invisible than just sneaky. Better to have Misty Step in your pocket for a way out if somehow you mess up. Unseen Servant or illusions to cause distractions. Find familiar to scout out where you need to go to save time.

My experience with the Arcane Trickster is that it is so very much better than the regular rogue.

 

[Minigiant]

Often with drawbacks worse than if they hadn't used the spell. Locked door? Sure let's alert everything in the dungeon that we found by using a Knock Spell. Need to persuade someone? Let's use Charm Person which is almost surely illegal mind magic AND isn't very strong AND lets the person know that the spell was used on him. And so on.

Magic is not the fix-all you guys make it out to be. It's very often more problem than it's worth.

The point it is that it is a option. Ad option that they have in addition to the same ones as nonrogue martials.

 

[Mind of tempest]

What we have now is essentially the same thing as THAC0.

Wisdom makes the most sense out of the 6 stats to associate with perception. PHB: "Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition."


Everything I stated can be done via standard array. Serious question: do you even play 5e?

As to other characters outcompeting your fighter at a particular skill you want to be good at, so what? Even if they are, through levels 10 they are rarely doing so by more than +1 or +2 higher. I mean the only characters that manage much more than that are characters that get expertise and place the expertise in their main stat skill.

yeah, I have met wise people who could not see a ball in front of their face, and perceptive people who are just incapable of thinking whether something is a good idea, it is bad fundamentally and should be corrected in some fashion.

you have not factored in that this is a team game, so my what plus one or two does not matter when the warlock, bard or paladin is in the party as that player will dominate the area they always do, like suggesting the barbarian player does not do well in a fight, you have to factor in those are some of the most like classes by people who love the rp side so they will dominate not out of malice but on class structure and player's agency.

plus the other people will just say why are you not letting the cha caster do it, why are you trying to do someone else job, stop butting in where you are not needed.

also, the whole balance of the points is bad if 10 is average so a plus 0, plus 1 should be what is needed most of the time but it more or less pays to have plus 3 or go home.

 

[FrogReaver]

yeah, I have met wise people who could not see a ball in front of their face, and perceptive people who are just incapable of thinking whether something is a good idea, it is bad fundamentally and should be corrected in some fashion.

Not 5e Wise people you haven't

I get the complaint you are making but the complaint isn't about wisdom and perception really - it's about every stat and skill system ever made, because such edge cases are always going to be a problem no matter what way we group things together to categorize them. It's not a 5e problem it's more of an any game problem.

(*I hear the particular complaint you raised here the most from people that feel perception is one of the strongest skills in the game, but I don't believe it is. It's a skill I'd love for someone in the party to possess, but it's kind of redundant when everyone takes it.)

you have not factored in that this is a team game, so my what plus one or two does not matter when the warlock, bard or paladin is in the party as that player will dominate the area they always do, like suggesting the barbarian player does not do well in a fight, you have to factor in those are some of the most like classes by people who love the rp side so they will dominate not out of malice but on class structure and player's agency.

I think that kind of an issue is more related to DMing style than 5e itself. 'How does one allow every character to legitimately participate in the social game?'

There's lots of things to be done:

• Have NPC's take interest in non-face characters due to their personality/class abilities/etc.
• Don't allow players to call for social checks
• Don't call for many social checks
• Don't make failure of social checks lead to instant hostilities (or other very bad things)
• Etc.

Now all your players can feel free to interact with NPC's and they will shine there all the same. One doesn't need a +17 persuasion and to interact socially in meaningful ways.

plus the other people will just say why are you not letting the cha caster do it, why are you trying to do someone else job, stop butting in where you are not needed.

That hasn't ever happened in our games. Sounds more like a player problem than a 5e problem. IMO.

also, the whole balance of the points is bad if 10 is average so a plus 0, plus 1 should be what is needed most of the time but it more or less pays to have plus 3 or go home.

I don't think I understand this point?