MuhVerisimilitude
Hero
It is established in the argument that the given warlord IS weaker than the wizard. You don't need to take anything away because of this.
D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy
- Thread starter MuhVerisimilitude
- Start date
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Conversely, I would say that 0, 3, 3 is not balanced. By definition. These three are the "pillars" of the game. They are what the game was made for being. Choosing genuinely 0--literally having nothing to contribute--means rejecting the fundamental premises of play. At that point, you should be playing some other game, because you are openly saying you oppose the things the game is built to do.
That's my serious issue with a lot of this sort of thing...and the idea of spotlight balance. Asymmetrical is good--necessary, even--but "completely opt out of core gameplay patterns" is neither.
Instead of fostering "spotlight balance," where one person gets to be awesome and everyone else gets to hurry up and wait, we should be fostering something more like..."floodlight and flash" balance. Everyone is reasonably competent. Not amazing, not impressive, just basic, ol' reliable performance. But you have flashes of being especially impressive in what you've chosen to be great at. From there, choosing to become great at more things or choosing to be especially great at what you already know should both be valid choices.
"Spotlight balance" just encourages people to keep the spotlight on themselves as long as possible, and to make it so the group gets more benefit when the spotlight shines on them than it does when it shines on anyone else. Game design that encourages and rewards such selfish, even narcissistic behavior should be avoided, not celebrated.
Instead of making 0, 3, 3 work, I say we move toward a system where you have 9 points, max 5 in any category, and you must have a minimum of 1 in everything.
So you can do 1, 3, 5 or 3, 3, 3 or the like. You can't choose to be incompetent at anything, but you also can't choose to be overwhelming at anything (aka 1, 1, 7)--the absolute bottom and top end are disallowed. This permits a spectrum of options; indeed, a pretty significant variety:
1, 3, 5
1, 4, 4
2, 2, 5
2, 3, 4
3, 3, 3
Last edited:
I think we are in agreement, I was calling out the garbage premise that was trotted out earlier that the Fighter having a background makes up for any disparity in out of combat ability.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Yeah. Anyone who argues that anything like an actual 5e translation (not merely a carbon copy, an actual appropriate-to-5e-mechanics translation) of the 4e Warlord would be REMOTELY as powerful as a Wizard has fundamentally misunderstood how powerful the 5e Wizard is.
Being able to heal (say) 2/3s as well as a non-Life Cleric, boosting some saving throws now and then, and granting allies attacks with perks? Nowhere near as powerful as some of the BS spells in the Wizard's arsenal...at 5th level, to say nothing of 20th.
Let's also not forget like every edition beforehand the Wizard will keep getting spells added to its list as the edition progresses.
Really? Your claim is that, out of combat, a fighter is not much better than:
Commoner
Club. Melee Weapon Attack: [rollable]+2;{'diceNotation':'1d20+2','rollType':'to hit','rollAction':'Club'}[/rollable] to hit, reach 5 ft.,...www.dndbeyond.com
Hmmm.
Well, leaving hyperbole land behind, fighters are the most customizable class, by design, leaving the choice of how to tailor them to your specific desire in the hands of the player. You want a dex-based, super stealthy fighter, you can make it. You can make a fighter who is pretty good at exploration, or, as you point out yourself, roll an Echo Knight and be among the best in the game at it. And so on.
Can they be among the best at every pillar? No. Nor should they be. You can roll a fighter that will be a good face, but if you want to be a great one, roll a bard, just like you can be a bard that is good in melee combat, but if you want to be great at it, roll a fighter.
But ... but ... they can't compete against the quantum wizard that has exactly the right spell or the quantum rogue that has expertise in the specific skill needed! They aren't better than other classes at non-combat skills so they're a total failure!
I've been playing 5E for nearly a decade now with a wide variety of players and DMs. While certain individuals tend to dominate out-of-combat play, no specific class consistently dominates out-of-combat play. There are specialties like the trap-monkey rogues if there is one in the group or the (rarely seen in my experience) persuasive bard. This idea that fighters not only must be the best at combat but also have options non-fighters don't have for out of combat combat is dragged out every time we have this discussion.
I just played BG3 and, knowing that my main PC was going to be doing a lot of talking/persuasion I made the obvious choice. A fighter with a 14 charisma and a proficiency in persuasion, of course! It worked just fine, just like it has worked just fine in standard games when I wanted a PC that was good at something other than their class default niche.
Just because other classes can also emphasize abilities outside of their standard target of expertise does not mean fighters cannot also do it. This is not a zero sum game. If a player wants some strengths outside of combat in a class that doesn't normally do that (e.g. other than bards and rogues) it's an option. The backgrounds granting this kind of flexibility is one of the things I like about 5E.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
The quantum wizard is a lovely white-room argument, but it falls down in practice, because you don't need "exactly the right spell" for every situation. You just need to pick up the really goddamn good spells.But ... but ... they can't compete against the quantum wizard that has exactly the right spell or the quantum rogue that has expertise in the specific skill needed! They aren't better than other classes at non-combat skills so they're a total failure!
I've been playing 5E for nearly a decade now with a wide variety of players and DMs. While certain individuals tend to dominate out-of-combat play, no specific class consistently dominates out-of-combat play. There are specialties like the trap-monkey rogues if there is one in the group or the (rarely seen in my experience) persuasive bard. This idea that fighters not only must be the best at combat but also have options non-fighters don't have for out of combat combat is dragged out every time we have this discussion.
I just played BG3 and, knowing that my main PC was going to be doing a lot of talking/persuasion I made the obvious choice. A fighter with a 14 charisma and a proficiency in persuasion, of course! It worked just fine, just like it has worked just fine in standard games when I wanted a PC that was good at something other than their class default niche.
Invisibility, fly, shield, misty step, alter self, haste, polymorph, greater invisibility...
There's maybe 20-25 ultra-strong and versatile spells that are almost always worth preparing, unless you're confident they won't be useful.
Plus, don't forget ritual spells. Ritual spells mean you can usually get a ton of utility without even spending a spell slot--because ten minutes to get a useful utility effect is a no-brainer thing nine times out of ten. In effect, every ritual spell you know is permanently prepared, you just need a long time to cast it.
"Quantum wizard" or "batman wizard" as an argument is simply bunk. You don't need to prepare the theoretical perfect spell for incredibly narrow, ultra-specific situations. A handful of really solid spells, plus one or two reliable offense options, is all you need to ensure you punch well above your weight.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Then you've missed the point of what @Eubani said.
People respond to statements like, "The Fighter gets effectively nothing to support non-combat activity" with statements like "Sure they do, it's called 'race' and 'background.'"
Those things are irrelevant. Because absolutely everyone gets them. They are the zero point, the necessary and inherent baseline to not be completely incompetent. You cannot use the zero point features to argue against the point that Fighters don't get nice things. It's not a "nice thing" to get a complementary sandwich when the Wizard gets the exact same complementary sandwich AND free dessert.
Add scrolls, wands and staves into the mix and you can even more afford to carry a selection of niche spells, which to a degree is not too hard to figure out what the coming adventuring day may need.
Similar Threads
