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

Mercurius · May 4, 2022

Balance for me is everyone at the table is having fun. That's pretty much it.

There's no way that the rules can equal out every single possible character and player - and if they try too hard, then homogenization occurs. Some players are just more tactical and/or into optimization, while others just want to hang out, roll dice, and drink their beverage of choice.

Problems only arise--in terms of balance--when a player or two dominates the table and the other player(s) aren't happy about it. But generally speaking, I find that most people I've played with have found a role in the group that they like. Meaning, the type A personalities are more pro-active and lead the party, and the more introverted/mellow types are happy to take backstage. I still try to find ways for the latter to have their "moment in the sun," even if they don't care all that much.

billd91 · May 4, 2022

GMforPowergamers said:
could yo imagine... being a full castr means you CAN learn spells butt you have to find them as treasure form the DM

Welcome to 1e (for wizards and illusionists, anyway).

GMforPowergamers · May 4, 2022

billd91 said:
Welcome to 1e.

did they not get 2 per level?

billd91 · May 4, 2022

GMforPowergamers said:
did they not get 2 per level?

They did not. And if they encountered one (via a scroll, recovered spell book, whatever), they might not even be able to learn it depending on their Intelligence and whether they botched the roll to understand the spell.
2e specialists wizards did get one spell each time they leveled up, but it had to be in their specialty.

James Gasik · May 4, 2022

GMforPowergamers said:
could yo imagine... being a full castr means you CAN learn spells butt you have to find them as treasure form the DM

Strange, I thought I played a game like that once...what was it called, I know it was really popular...

Medic · May 4, 2022

James Gasik said:
And look at what WotC has done since. They've still made barely any Feats, but make tons of spells,

Well, they have to get people to play Bards somehow, don't they?

Despite the frequent complaints levelled at the system on forums and the like, players seemed content with how martials operated at the time that this data was pulled from D&DBeyond. Perhaps WotC saw this and somehow felt Fighters were in a good place while Sorcerers and Druids needed some juice?

Jefe Bergenstein · May 4, 2022

Willie the Duck said:
I think you are overselling this a bit. Valor bards, in actual game play, do not fight as well as fighters regardless of the medium armor and 2 attacks (honestly they are fairly lackluster). Fighters, If-And-Only-If the 5 minute workday* is policed, are genuinely better than most others at the one task they've been allowed -- fighting really well. The extra feats, fighitng styles, 3+ attacks at higher level, native proficiency in all weapons and armor, action surge, and of course the archetype choices people so oft leave out when doing these comparisons, really do have an effect. Is a fighter a lot better at fighting with a dagger? No, and that is an interesting design decision on 5e's part; however they may very well be quite a bit better at fighting with two daggers (2wf), or surviving while fighting with a dagger (because they are in armor), or more likely just better at fighting with the greatswords or halberds or longbows that play better to their strengths.
*Which I will again the oft-unread DMG has advice and optional rules and a clear rundown on the consequences of decisions regarding this issue.

I'm not saying fighters don't suck, they do. However, it is when combat stops which is where they start sucking.

Feat. They get one extra in most campaigns. Two tops. Assuming this optional rule is used. Even then, they need to take one of the three "git gud" options: Sharpshooter, Polearm Mastery, Great Weapon Mastery. They get ONE style. Incredibly few fighters see that third attack. Meanwhile the paladin is all "lol saves" for basically the entire party. Second Wind is an insulting joke that doesn't scale properly. Heavy armor only benefits Strength fighters with full plate. Medium armor and 14+ Dex keeps pace just fine. Action surge is ok-ish, now make it a full extra round of actions and refresh when initiative is rolled and maybe we can talk.

The poor fighter traded away spellcasting for chump change. You could add the champion in full to the fighter chassis and I'd still favor the paladin/valor bard/hexblade. Whatever trivia bit of damage output lost is made up for by in-combat versatility, to say nothing of combat class-based options.

It's telling that we haven't even dogged on the poor monk. We're all in agreement on this, right?

Micah Sweet · May 4, 2022

GMforPowergamers said:
if enough people complain wizards are too battle ready maybe WotC will bring them back to d4hp and less + prof to hit then fighters

They won't though. Magic is cool, and most people playing now want to use magic. WotC clearly cares only about what most people like. I don't see WotC making any of the changes people on this thread seem to apply to want really.

Micah Sweet · May 4, 2022

ehren37 said:
Feat. They get one extra in most campaigns. Two tops. Assuming this optional rule is used. Even then, they need to take one of the three "git gud" options: Sharpshooter, Polearm Mastery, Great Weapon Mastery. They get ONE style. Incredibly few fighters see that third attack. Meanwhile the paladin is all "lol saves" for basically the entire party. Second Wind is an insulting joke that doesn't scale properly. Heavy armor only benefits Strength fighters with full plate. Medium armor and 14+ Dex keeps pace just fine. Action surge is ok-ish, now make it a full extra round of actions and refresh when initiative is rolled and maybe we can talk.

The poor fighter traded away spellcasting for chump change. You could add the champion in full to the fighter chassis and I'd still favor the paladin/valor bard/hexblade. Whatever trivia bit of damage output lost is made up for by in-combat versatility, to say nothing of combat class-based options.

It's telling that we haven't even dogged on the poor monk. We're all in agreement on this, right?

View attachment 156709

I have to ask: what type of characters do you play in 5e? Do you play fighters and endure the pain, or do you play casters and wish WotC gave you a good fighter so you could play what you want?

Jefe Bergenstein · May 4, 2022

Medic said:
Well, they have to get people to play Bards somehow, don't they?

Despite the frequent complaints levelled at the system on forums and the like, players seemed content with how martials operated at the time that this data was pulled from D&DBeyond. Perhaps WotC saw this and somehow felt Fighters were in a good place while Sorcerers and Druids needed some juice?

It just means more fighters were created. Fighter is a good choice to test the system, as there's little decision making. Its also the chump class foisted on new players. I really wish barbarian was the designated noob button masher class for martial leaning players and sorcerer was the caster equivalent. Then the fighter might actual get some tactical depth.

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

Mercurius

Legend

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️

GMforPowergamers

Legend

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun

Medic

Neutral Evil

Jefe Bergenstein

Legend

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Jefe Bergenstein

Legend

Similar Threads