D&D 5E What is balance to you, and why do you care (or don't)?

[Maxperson]

That minimum is, I think, for casters and foes being generated at levels higher than 1st.

In any case, it's a rule I've ignored forever. If a mage's spellbook gets shredded they're gonna have access to way fewer than 8 spells per level for a while.

If I recall correctly, we only used it at first level. We made the Int minimum the number of 1st level spells you started with, one of which was read magic and the other detect magic. So a Wizard with a 17 Int would get those two plus 6 more that had to be rolled to be learned. At second level you got 9th 1st level spell, and at third level you got your 1st 2nd level spell and that was it.

 

[Lanefan]

If I recall correctly, we only used it at first level. We made the Int minimum the number of 1st level spells you started with, one of which was read magic and the other detect magic. So a Wizard with a 17 Int would get those two plus 6 more that had to be rolled to be learned. At second level you got 9th 1st level spell, and at third level you got your 1st 2nd level spell and that was it.

I've always gone by the DMG - Read Magic plus one from each of three lists, plus one more if you're lucky.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Cool. The people who have been speaking up on this divide make me wonder though. How many people on this thread who strongly disagree with the current balance between casters and martials are also 4e enthusiasts? I suspect there's a correlation...

I could imagine most people who play casters today BUT played Martials in 4e (and most likely to start in an older edition or two as well) are unhappy with current martials and are playing casters of some kind WANTING to play a more complex/powerful fighter (martial I don't care the name)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It can take some time to build up a freehold, but the long term benefits are significant. When this game began, you weren't meant to adventure forever. Removing that option from the rules was a tragedy, and I'm glad several 3rd party developers have filled in this vital gap.

I believe that this is a hold over from wizards with side kicks game that Gary ran. He envisioned a game that would morph, you start out as powerful characters (hero's in wargaming terms) and become a warlord/leader of men.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's not theoretical. There is a chart that specifically says that legendary items have a max bonus of +4. Since artifacts can be better, that means that you can get even higher than +4 theoretically

I meant theoretically in the fact that we have no examples stated...

 

[Helldritch]

Cool. The people who have been speaking up on this divide make me wonder though. How many people on this thread who strongly disagree with the current balance between casters and martials are also 4e enthusiasts? I suspect there's a correlation...

Not really. I much prefer 5ed but I do admit that the balance is a bit weird as I have explained in an earlier post.
Main problem is that casters were boosted in HP and lost in spell casting slots but gained with the at will cantrip. A fair trade off IMHO.
Martials in general need magical items and feats to keep up but strangely, those two are optional... hence the appearance of imbalance.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Er...that's exactly how it worked in 0e-1e-2e, and still does. Random availability for the win! Or not-so-random availability should a DM want to keep a spell rare or write it out of the setting.

Further, being able to learn a new spell you'd run across wasn't automatic - you had to roll for success, with usually-reasonably-good odds based on your Intelligence; and if you blew it you had to wait until either you gained a level or your Int score improved before you could try learning that spell again.

Edit - thoroughly ninja'ed by @billd91 above.

in 2e there were rules for getting spells at level up (I think 2 but maybe it was one). I do know OTHER than that you needed treasure...

one way we had house ruled casters in 2e and early 3e (I don't remember why we want back to RAW in 3e...I thnk it had to do with sorcerers choosing) and the DM drew up spellbooks (normally 2-3) and let PCs pick from the books but not spells (sometimes the books would say +1 first level spell of choice) and no spells at level up but treasure (but you could if had down time research any spell in the PHB

 

[GMforPowergamers]

People keep trotting this out and never acknowledge or accept that fighter is used as the 'starter' class, meaning most people start with it, and then that in turn is used to justify keeping fighters 'simple' (actually: option poor).

not only that but even if it WAS the most popular it would mean they would want to simplfy OTHER classes... the fact that every book (or atleast most) comes with new more and more complex spells means they know that is the power level of the game

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Watch out for cats though! Claw/claw/bit/rake... fearsome beasts that left many a 1st level adventurer in their grave.

even 3e had that problem for the first 3 levels

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not to nitpick, but they said "any given level". At level 1, the Fighter doesn't have much over other classes. : )

Personally, I think the Fighter should get Extra Attacks at a faster rate than other classes, and maybe even get Extra Attack 4 in there somewhere...

yeah I am sure that by level 11 (with 3 attacks) they are at that point the damage dealers past special builds and high level spell novas... but they still are not THAT FAR ahead. And they fall behind in every OTHER way. I like to use 9/10 as the question levels... they have 2 attacks but so too do clerics, paladins, rangers, monks, some artificers, some bards, blade singer wizards... and getting past level 11 is rare according to what I hear (we regularly go to 15 or 16 and have a few times gotten to 20 and once in this edition beyond 20) so I try not to focus TOO hard on levels past 17, and again keep most my theory crafting at levels 1-9.