6E Theory Thoughts on the balance of classes across editions (past, present, future)

[Toe Knee Nose]

It is not 2 times it matters it is 8 TIMES it matters. Unless you are rolling tons and tons of checks the Fighter will typically be statistically better and statistically won't run out of 2nd wind.

That's not how math works. Of those 8 checks, the result will only be changed twice. I mean, heck, if the fighter isn't even running out of Second Winds, then it's not adjusting that many results is it? Tier 1 and Tier 2 you've only got 5 second winds per adventuring day at most. 3 to start at level 4 plus two more for short rests. That's true until 9th level.

Which means that the MAXIMUM this could impact is 5 rolls. And, as you say, since you're not going to run out of Second WInds, that means you're only influencing 2-3 results per long rest. And that's presuming that you succeed with the +1d10 bonus. It's entirely possible to still fail after using Tactical Mind. Now, you have no control over which of those checks you change because it's all random, meaning you have to use it every time you fail (and can still potentially succeed of course) or, as you say, you'll wind up with unused Second Winds.

No matter how you slice this, it's only going to change 2 maybe 3 results per long rest. More often than not, it's probably closer to 1-2.

SO, how can it matter 8 times if you only have 5 Second Winds per day?

 

[SableWyvern]

SO, how can it matter 8 times if you only have 5 Second Winds per day?

If your decisions and course of action are influenced by the knowledge that a given ability has tilted the odds further in your favour, then that ability matters (and is impacting the game) even if it isn't triggered. In such a situation, it's changing the results because it's changing your approach.

If these are checks that would all have needed to be made regardless, then the ability doesn't matter until it's triggered, but that is not necessarily the case and, it seems to bme, posters such as @ECMO3 are suggesting that their play does take these type of things into account.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

But, the math doesn't add up.

The most Second Winds a 9th level fighter will have is 5. That's the base 3 plus two short rests. Sometimes, the fighter will likely have less than 5 - a day with only one or no short rests means only 3 or 4 Second Winds. Presume over the course of the adventuring day, the fighter will use Tactical Shift once and regain hit points once (particularly in Tier 1 when HP are a bit more important). So, on the best day, the fighter gets 3 Tactical Minds. That's it. That's the most rolls that Tactical Mind will influence. It can't do any more than that.

Take it a step further. How may adventuring days in a level? 5? Not a bad estimate IMO. That means that the absolute best the fighter can expect over the course of a level is 15 influenced rolls.

Now, compare that to a ranger casting Pass Without A Trace. Hardly a rare spell or one that no one would expect the ranger to have. It's a pretty common spell, I think. Presuming a 5 PC party, that's 5 checks with a maximized Tactical Mind effect. And, since the spell lasts an hour, it's entirely plausible that it might be 10 or even 15 checks.

It's possible that a ranger in one spell can influence more checks than a fighter can influence in an entire level.

IMO, the problem with Tactical Mind is that it's random. If it was simply, "Ok, burn a Second Wind and turn a failed check into a success", it would be far more balanced. Why make it random? Never minding why key it off of Second Wind. But, what's the point in it being random? Just make it a flat +10 bonus. After all, if that +10 bonus is acceptable for Pass Without a Trace, then why isn't it acceptable for a fighter?

 

[SableWyvern]

That's the most rolls that Tactical Mind will influence. It can't do any more than that.

It can influence a theoretically infinite number of decisions to do something, if it it never gets triggered.

Sure, I'll try swimming the raging current, because if I fail my check, I have tactical mind to fall back on and that gives me enough confidence to try.

Sure, I'll try sneaking past the guard, because if I fail my check, I have tactical mind to fall back on and that gives me enough confidence to try.

Sure, we can make our primary plan be entering the building via the balcony -- if I have trouble making the climb, I have tactical mind to fall back on and that gives me enough confidence to try.

In each of those situations, Tactical Mind is impacting the game (potentially quite significantly, even), whether or not second winds are ever expended and whether or not extra d10s are ever rolled.

I could have misunderstood, but I believe that @ECMO3's original analysis is that, on average, you will run out of uses after 8 checks, at which point it ceases to influence future decisions, because it's no longer available.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

Ok, I can see that. That kind of makes sense.

But, I don't think it's quite that clear cut. IME, the players will simply use magic to sneak past the guard. To climb that balcony, you send up someone with a climb speed and a rope. The fighter just never needs to make that check. Sure, if it's clutch and you absolutely must make the check, great. But, that's generally only going to happen when the players have screwed up somehow. It's not something that gets relied on because it's too unreliable.

As I said earlier, IME, players will put their best skill person forward if given the choice. So, trying to sneak past the guard? The fighter in plate armor isn't going to do that, any more than the paladin would. You send the rogue to go do that because he's got the best odds.

Or, if you're my old group (I ❤ my current players) you play groups with five casters (or 4 casters and a half caster) and every problem gets solved with spells. I really, really did not enjoy running for that group. It's so nice playing with people who aren't always trying to "win" everything all the time.

 

[SableWyvern]

Ok, I can see that. That kind of makes sense.

But, I don't think it's quite that clear cut. IME, the players will simply use magic to sneak past the guard. To climb that balcony, you send up someone with a climb speed and a rope. The fighter just never needs to make that check. Sure, if it's clutch and you absolutely must make the check, great. But, that's generally only going to happen when the players have screwed up somehow. It's not something that gets relied on because it's too unreliable.

As I said earlier, IME, players will put their best skill person forward if given the choice. So, trying to sneak past the guard? The fighter in plate armor isn't going to do that, any more than the paladin would. You send the rogue to go do that because he's got the best odds.

Or, if you're my old group (I ❤ my current players) you play groups with five casters (or 4 casters and a half caster) and every problem gets solved with spells. I really, really did not enjoy running for that group. It's so nice playing with people who aren't always trying to "win" everything all the time.

That I'm not really in a position to argue one way or the other, as I've never played nor run 5e. I am just going to assume some tables work out the way yours do, while others (based on the positions being held by other posters) must work differently.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

It can influence a theoretically infinite number of decisions to do something, if it it never gets triggered.

Sure, I'll try swimming the raging current, because if I fail my check, I have tactical mind to fall back on and that gives me enough confidence to try.

Sure, I'll try sneaking past the guard, because if I fail my check, I have tactical mind to fall back on and that gives me enough confidence to try.

Sure, we can make our primary plan be entering the building via the balcony -- if I have trouble making the climb, I have tactical mind to fall back on and that gives me enough confidence to try.

okay, but if it influences such decisions without getting triggered...it's because you just screwed yourself. is...is that really an argument in favour of it being a GOOD feature?

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

Well, the point I've been making all the way along is that these hypothetical situations, or even actual events from games, need to be recognized for what they are - interesting points but not really all that useful. Because we all cherry pick examples. The hypotheticals always support our arguments. The events we remember from games ignore the all the other times that whatever we're talking about didn't happen.

For example, I honestly never saw the whole Angel and BMX Bandit thing in 3e. Because none of my players ever played full casters. None of them were that interested in that level of complexity. Does that mean that the caster/non caster thing is a complete myth? Of course not. It really existed and it was a problem that needed to be addressed and we took two editions addressing the problem.

It's why I tend to really not buy into anecdotes.

 

[SableWyvern]

okay, but if it influences such decisions without getting triggered...it's because you just screwed yourself. is...is that really an argument in favour of it being a GOOD feature?

If you pass the check without assistance from the ability, in which way are you screwed?

 

[W'rkncacnter]

If you pass the check without assistance from the ability, in which way are you screwed?

i thought you meant if you failed but rolling it still didn't help