D&D 5E Truly Understanding the Martials & Casters discussion (+)

[Maxperson]

Feats must be high on the list of ‘most used’ optional rules. Important enough that they take up several pages in the books. If the exercise doesn’t include feats then it just leaves open the argument that ‘well none of this would apply if you included feats’ better to include them and run it without if you think it would provide a better result.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, because if you use feats, it destroys any sort of comparison of design balance between the classes. The design balance does not include feats, magic items or multiclassing. Period. Therefore any inclusion of any of those voids any design balance comparisons.

 

[Undrave]

I don't know if I'd go that far. I play with several people who consider it obvious that casters should be stronger than martials, and they're all very good players. It really does come down to an aesthetic difference.

If D&D wants to be that unbalanced it should come out and say it and not pretend that all classes are equal. If all classes are meant to be equivalent choices then they should commit to it. You quite literally can't be both.

When I think about class balance I fall back to SW and the Jedi. Pretty much most players want to be a Jedi because they are (or were at least) a large focus of the media/stories. Also, with their Force powers they are more powerful in many ways.

Now, it has been decades since I played WEG d6 SW, so honestly I don't remember much about it as far as balance goes, but I do remember about d20 SW and in many ways it was more balanced in power because the Force abilities of Jedi were not nearly as powerful as magic can be in D&D. So, IME balance was easier in d20 SW than it is in D&D when it comes to comparing difference classes. Of course, different classes had features which more emphasize different foci/ niches in d20 SW.

I've played a couple of Star Wars SAGA games and the balance was way better in those games between Jedi and non-Jedi (though, Dex was still the god stat ). Jedi were pretty strong, but the characters are all squishier than in D&D as a basis so you only need a good hit or two to disable a force user, and when you start at level 1, you're not a Jedi Master, so your power is actually limited in uses. Also, any role a Jedi can have during a fight and anything they can do in an action scene can usually be replicated using technology. A Force-powered leap? Get a Jetpack! Block a blaster bolt? Get some armor! Kill a fool in melee? Vibro Axe got you covered! The Force is at its most unique when dealing with the more psionic-like ability like pre-cognition and sensing motives type stuff.

Also, one of the Scoundrel class's talent tree is essentially an aura of bad luck and one ability you can get is a minor action penalty to a Skill to a creature within a specific range... and 'Use Force' in that game is a Skill so a mundane character can totally gum up the Force user's abilities by just being there. It's a pretty fun ability.

 

[Maxperson]

Yep. And I would also assume that overwhelming majority of people who actually play high level games and care about this sort of balance in the first place use feats.

Not if WotC is to be believed about the numbers of tables that don't use feats and Crawford's statement that a majority of PCs don't use feats at all.

Edit: The D&D beyond data shows that only 9% of level 1-3(variant humans)PCs use feats, 32% of 4-11th level PCs use feats, and 42% of PCs of 12th or higher use feats.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Is there any optional player-enhancing rule in the phb that isn't considered popular and often-used

What about the optional rule that the proficiency bonus from a particular skill is uncoupled from the associated ability score?

 

[DND_Reborn]

What about the optional rule that the proficiency bonus from a particular skill is uncoupled from the associated ability score?

Yeah, I thought of that one as well, but I don't see how that would have any impact on the analysis they are planning to do.

 

[Minigiant]

Not if feats provide greater benefit to fighter than they do to wizards (I firmly believe this is the case).

Don’t forget Elemental Adept is only going to affect one energy type.

My point is that at level 11, both fighters and wizards would only have 1 feat.

After level 12, it changes but depending on build.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not if WotC is to be believed about the numbers of tables that don't use feats and Crawford's statement that a majority of PCs don't use feats at all.

Edit: The D&D beyond data shows that only 9% of level 1-3(variant humans)PCs use feats, 32% of 4-11th level PCs use feats, and 42% of PCs of 12th or higher use feats.

Notice how the feat use drastically increases higher the level goes. I’d wager most of characters are in campaigns that allow feats but many of them simply choose to take ASIs instead. Feats only become attractive once you’ve maxed your main stat, and that tends to indicate high level.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Notice how the feat use drastically increases higher the level goes. I’d wager most of characters are in campaigns that allow feats but many of them simply choose to take ASIs instead. Feats only become attractive once you’ve maxed your main stat, and that tends to indicate high level.

FWIW my experience is very different. Once you have a 16, increasing scores fall to the wayside compared to the features you can get from most feats. Many feats players take are half-feats, allowing them to increase an ability score over two half-feats and gain other cool features to go with it.

 

[Mort]

So is the current "challenge" with @FrogReaver and @EzekielRaiden to see if the Fighter can out damage the Wizard over the typical adventuring day?

It's a long thread!

If so, I would hope the fighter does (out damage the wizard) and does so decisively! It's the fighters main and mostly only schtick (outside of a few small other tricks).

For a wizard, damage is but one of multiple options, and often - especially when part of a group, far from the best one. And that's only talking about combat.

 

[FrogReaver]

My point is that at level 11, both fighters and wizards would only have 1 feat.

After level 12, it changes but depending on build.

Okay. But if that’s the complaint there is a simple solution.

A level 12 pc gets the same number of feats as a variant human pc at level 11. All else stays pretty similar for damage purposes. So still should be a useful comparison for non-variant humans.