D&D 5E Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll

[Yaarel]

I probably would have preferred a different art direction for the Wilden and Shardminds. Having Shardminds more as living silicates rather than chunks of jagged crystals might have helped.

In 4e, I made the Shardmind appear as a living crystal human statue.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Beast companion are either completely broken or really bad, it seems really hard to find the middle ground. If they were just straight up treated as an extra PC and balanced like so for the purpose of encounter building, it would at least make it so the 'Beastmaster' doesn't have class features reliant on that one specific beast being around. The would still be a proper full character without the Beast Around (if maybe a little less optimal?) instead of trying to make a Ranger PC basically be 2/3 Human Ranger character 1/3 animal character.

Also, having a proper progression would give them better scaling than just piggybacking off the Ranger.

Heck, I bet some people would like to play the Beast itself! It wouldn't be hard to have an optional rule to grant them languages either.

Like I said, I think that solution would work great for some groups, but would be a showstopper for others.

Although having someone play the beast might be a fun colab, I definitely don't want to need another player's buy in to run a beastmaster.

Think of it like this. Let's imagine that someone made a playable dragon. And because dragons are powerful, they made it as powerful as two full characters (maybe it gets two turns, or legendary actions; the implemention isn't particularly relevant). Some groups would be perfectly fine with someone playing a dragon and getting a double share of XP. For other groups though, it would be a no go. Not everyone is okay with sharing half the spotlight time that another player gets.

I think that for many groups, a playable dragon that is only equivalent to a single character can be more appealing, despite that it doesn't have that overwhelming true dragon feel that the double character implemention has. Granted, some groups would rather the true dragon, so it wouldn't be an issue for them.

In fairness though, neither option precludes the other. You can simply make both and let the group decide which they prefer.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Hmm... On thinking about it the Battlemaster is really missing one needed aspect of the Warlord, which is to yell at someone and tell them to stop lying down on the job and bring them from 0hp to back onto their feet. (The Banneret can actually do this part but has to wait so long for anything else).

But more warlord can be integrated as options into both fighter and battlemaster without substantial changes.

For the fighter (and paladin) I'd add:

Fighting Style: Teamwork: The fighter can use their attacks to distract enemies near them, creating openings for their allies. Instead of attacking this fighter may spend an attack as a set-up on an adjacent enemy. One other ally adjacent to that enemy may then use their reaction to make an attack.

Battlemaster Maneuvers:

• The Battlemaster needs more maneuvers anyway; the obvious design flaw in the class is that at seventh, tenth, and 15th level you are picking maneuvers which did not, for you, make the grade at third level.
• Maneuver: Stop lying down on the job! (Normally with more profanity). When you have an ally with 0hp who you can see and can hear you you may spend a superiority die as a bonus action. The ally regains that many hit points [or even just 1hp]
• Maneuver: Duck! When an ally you can see and who can hear you is hit you may spend your reaction to add the roll of your superiority dice to their AC. If the attack now misses the next attack against the foe has advantage.

I think that combination of fighting for others as a combat style and battlefield awareness and changing would be what it would take for me to feel that we had something that actually felt like a warlord.

Edited a full action to one attack for one attack in teamwork. It still only gives rogues an extra one sneak attack.

We still need to give the battlemaster a reasonable number of superiority dies instead of the infinite sadness they have now.

 

[Yaarel]

I think that for many groups, a playable dragon that is only equivalent to a single character can be more appealing, despite that it doesn't have that overwhelming true dragon feel that the double character implemention has. Granted, some groups would rather the true dragon, so it wouldn't be an issue for them.

In my Norse regional setting, a dragon is a playable lineage. The Drekar is born as a snake, looking like an adder. Soon they sprout horns and grow rapidly. As adolescent, when playable, they molt and develop arms, but still slither on belly to locomote. Later they can grow in size and-or develop wings depending on level. Their breath deals both cold and psychic damage.

 

[Aldarc]

We still need to give the battlemaster a reasonable number of superiority dies instead of the infinite sadness they have now.

I would like level-tiered Maneuvers. If all your best and ideal choices are made at lower levels, what is there to look forward to about being a high level Battlemaster? More of the same but with slightly bigger dice?

 

[Fanaelialae]

We still need to give the battlemaster a reasonable number of superiority dies instead of the infinite sadness they have now.

I disagree. Battlemasters are fully fledged fighters. I've seen quite a few in the campaigns I've played in and run, and IMO they're quite good (I've seen them all the way to 19th level).

Don't get me wrong, I understand why you would want more, I'm just not convinced that the subclass needs more.

I would like level-tiered Maneuvers. If all your best and ideal choices are made at lower levels, what is there to look forward to about being a high level Battlemaster? More of the same but with slightly bigger dice?

I could see tiered maneuvers being the warlord's thing. Maybe 4 levels of maneuvers that the warlord gains access to over time.

The battlemaster would arguably have primarily first tier maneuvers, but could gain access to some second tier maneuvers at higher levels.

Or something along those lines.

 

[Manbearcat]

I would like level-tiered Maneuvers. If all your best and ideal choices are made at lower levels, what is there to look forward to about being a high level Battlemaster? More of the same but with slightly bigger dice?

Is truly an incomprehebsible design oversight that they didn’t tier the maneuvers from the outset.

* It’s a trivial inference that folks are going to pick the best maneuvers early, inverting the paradigm of “advanced moves” as you level up, therefore leaving you nothing to look forward to.

* As a knock-on effect, it should wonkify the power curve and balance of play (leaving you overpowered early and tapering off as you level).

* D&D specifically, but TTRPGs generally, has tiered abilities by level forever (specifically because these issues have been known about forever).

* If the idea was “the x axis is the primary axis where power is expressed in this game”, then the abilities you get later have to actually express that x-axis power (meaning, they have to actually consequentially open up the move-space with considerable frequency for the class) rather than being so deeply niche and underpowered that the conceptual move-space is opened up pretty much not at all.


It’s really mind-boggling that this got past the final internal playtest.

 

[ECMO3]

Should they be made into a class?
Yeah, lots of people seem to enjoy playing wizards.

I am not sure this is true. Wizards are my second favorite class (after Rogues) and my favorite spell casting class by far. However I think that is uncommon. Sorcerers, Warlocks and Clerics are all played far more often at my table. Based on polls done last year this is consistent with the community at large.

In addition to the full casters ahead of Wizards; Rogues and Fighters are ahead of them too. Here is the full list based on a D&D Beyond survey in 2020:

• Warlock (13%)
• Fighter (12%)
• Cleric (11%)
• Sorcerer (10%)
• Rogue (9%)
• Wizard (8%)
• Barbarian (6%)
• Bard (6%)
• Paladin (6%)
• Monk (6%)
• Druid (5%)
• Ranger(5%)

The really undercuts the central arguement of this thread. Suggesting that a fighter is useless or needs to be buffed to make it equal to a wizard is a is a difficult one to support when the Fighter is 2nd most common class played (and in many polls it is 1st).

 

[Fanaelialae]

I am not sure this is true. Wizards are my second favorite class (after Rogues) and my favorite spell casting class by far. However I think that is uncommon. Sorcerers, Warlocks and Clerics are all played far more often at my table. Based on polls done last year this is consistent with the community at large.

In addition to the full casters ahead of Wizards; Rogues and Fighters are ahead of them too. Here is the full list based on a D&D Beyond survey in 2020:

• Warlock (13%)
• Fighter (12%)
• Cleric (11%)
• Sorcerer (10%)
• Rogue (9%)
• Wizard (8%)
• Barbarian (6%)
• Bard (6%)
• Paladin (6%)
• Monk (6%)
• Druid (5%)
• Ranger(5%)

The really undercuts the central arguement of this thread. Suggesting that a fighter is useless or needs to be buffed to make it equal to a wizard is a is a difficult one to support when the Fighter is 2nd most common class played (and in many polls it is 1st).

That's actually a fairly even distribution.

Let's put this into perspective. Out of 100 people, this data is saying that 12 will play fighters and 8 will play wizards. 80 people will play neither. That's not a huge difference between the fighter and wizard.

 

[FrogReaver]

Speaking of beastmaster, I love the concept but the issue is that it is kinda hard to bake 'has a sidekick' into the class' rules. Now some subclasses have done it better but they still are a bit weird, but others tending to be some sort of magical summons makes their odd behaviour a bit more tolerable. But like can't my druid just awaken a bear and befriend them and have them adventure with them? Can't my paladin have a squire or can't any class just hire a sidekick or buy a trained animal? And obviously they can and those sidekicks tend to be better than the beastmaster's companion, so why shouldn't the ranger just play some other subclass and get a sidekick by other means?

That's actually a fairly even distribution.

Let's put this into perspective. Out of 100 people, this data is saying that 12 will play fighters and 8 will play wizards. 80 people will play neither. That's not a huge difference between the fighter and wizard.

Yep. And that’s before getting into all the multiclassing combos - benefiting some classes like warlocks much more.