I find it annoying that 5e is set up where if you want to play a class that has a wide variety of interesting options you have to play a spellcaster. I recognize that there are people who want simple and straightforward, even if I'm not one of them, but it shouldn't be tied to your character type -- there should be high and low complexity options for all character types. There's okay-ish simple blaster type spellcasters, but nothing for support other than the pretty questionable celestial warlock, and the most complex martial builds are still nothing compared to the range of options for a cleric or wizard.
Honestly this is my biggest gripe....
Once 4th level spells become a thing its a game about casters with martials having a side seat to the action.
Big bad! oh yeah gonna hit him with my sword and.....oh the wizard polymorphed him into a trout and dropped him off a cliff. I guess that's over.
The only real way to combat this is to have the 6-8 medium encounters a day and that just doesn't happen in most games.
You aren't necessarily the idiocy I'm referring to, BL. Though I sharply, severely disagree with the idea that the game should have a tiny number of classes, each strictly pigeonholed into a single narrow niche with absolutely no possibility of overlap or crossover. That's far too restrictive for a game of imagination and storytelling.
Imagination and storytelling comes from the player, not the game design. Restricted classes allows for sharper delineation, where the a player's imagination must shine. Of course, if a player is weak, I could see how they would need the crutch of a huge amount of species, classes, backgrounds, all muddied together.
You aren't necessarily the idiocy I'm referring to, BL. Though I sharply, severely disagree with the idea that the game should have a tiny number of classes, each strictly pigeonholed into a single narrow niche with absolutely no possibility of overlap or crossover. That's far too restrictive for a game of imagination and storytelling.
Imagination and storytelling comes from the player, not the game design. Restricted classes allows for sharper delineation, where the a player's imagination must shine. Of course, if a player is weak, I could see how they would need the crutch of a huge amount of species, classes, backgrounds, all muddied together.
I think the problem with that mindset is that D&D has, for some time now, focused on encouraging players to create their own worlds and stories and not stick strictly to one setting. I think that's one of the biggest differences between D&D and, say... a licensed TTRPG set in the Star Wars setting. If a player wants to play in Faerun and exclusively use Faerun classes and species, that's an option to them. But I think it's just sour grapes to insist that a player is "weak" for enjoying a variety of options.
I find it annoying that 5e is set up where if you want to play a class that has a wide variety of interesting options you have to play a spellcaster. I recognize that there are people who want simple and straightforward, even if I'm not one of them, but it shouldn't be tied to your character type -- there should be high and low complexity options for all character types. There's okay-ish simple blaster type spellcasters, but nothing for support other than the pretty questionable celestial warlock, and the most complex martial builds are still nothing compared to the range of options for a cleric or wizard.
Honestly this is my biggest gripe....
Once 4th level spells become a thing its a game about casters with martials having a side seat to the action.
Big bad! oh yeah gonna hit him with my sword and.....oh the wizard polymorphed him into a trout and dropped him off a cliff. I guess that's over.
The only real way to combat this is to have the 6-8 medium encounters a day and that just doesn't happen in most games.
That has been the problem since the beginning. Early games were turned into "protect the wizard until it is his turn". But the power-curve was way different. Wizards rolled a d4 for HP, and were tissue paper. But once they hit double-digits in levels, oh man, lights out. But most just did not get there. Playing a Wizard in a low level campaign was a very dangerous thing. Frankly, I don't know of a way around that unless it is a complete re-ordering of the levels of various spells, including your Polymorph spell.
I find it annoying that 5e is set up where if you want to play a class that has a wide variety of interesting options you have to play a spellcaster. I recognize that there are people who want simple and straightforward, even if I'm not one of them, but it shouldn't be tied to your character type -- there should be high and low complexity options for all character types. There's okay-ish simple blaster type spellcasters, but nothing for support other than the pretty questionable celestial warlock, and the most complex martial builds are still nothing compared to the range of options for a cleric or wizard.
Honestly this is my biggest gripe....
Once 4th level spells become a thing its a game about casters with martials having a side seat to the action.
Big bad! oh yeah gonna hit him with my sword and.....oh the wizard polymorphed him into a trout and dropped him off a cliff. I guess that's over.
The only real way to combat this is to have the 6-8 medium encounters a day and that just doesn't happen in most games.
That has been the problem since the beginning. Early games were turned into "protect the wizard until it is his turn". But the power-curve was way different. Wizards rolled a d4 for HP, and were tissue paper. But once they hit double-digits in levels, oh man, lights out. But most just did not get there. Playing a Wizard in a low level campaign was a very dangerous thing. Frankly, I don't know of a way around that unless it is a complete re-ordering of the levels of various spells, including your Polymorph spell.
I think the main reason for this disparity is that the martial classes (besides monk) get most of their flavor from their subclasses. While a wizard of any subclass could be a blaster, support, or a battlefield controller, if you want a support fighter you probably want to go Battle Master, if you want a straight DPR fighter you might go Champion, and if you want a magicky fighter you have to go Eldritch Knight.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
I find it annoying that 5e is set up where if you want to play a class that has a wide variety of interesting options you have to play a spellcaster. I recognize that there are people who want simple and straightforward, even if I'm not one of them, but it shouldn't be tied to your character type -- there should be high and low complexity options for all character types. There's okay-ish simple blaster type spellcasters, but nothing for support other than the pretty questionable celestial warlock, and the most complex martial builds are still nothing compared to the range of options for a cleric or wizard.
Honestly this is my biggest gripe....
Once 4th level spells become a thing its a game about casters with martials having a side seat to the action.
Big bad! oh yeah gonna hit him with my sword and.....oh the wizard polymorphed him into a trout and dropped him off a cliff. I guess that's over.
The only real way to combat this is to have the 6-8 medium encounters a day and that just doesn't happen in most games.
I agree. This however is a phenomenon that really started very early in D&D and has been progressively becoming worst over the years and I don't really fully understand why it has to be so that in order to make a class interesting you have to give it a spell list.
Even if you are going to give a class a spell list, place some limits on it so that its usefulness isn't a machine gun and its power scaled to the variations of the class.
In Old School Essentials for example you have 12 out of 22 classes that can cast spells. However when you look closer you realize that most of these classes have some pretty severe caps on that access. Some classes like Elves, Half-Elves and Bard gain spells really slowly, its always a precious resource to them. Others like Rangers and Paladins don't get any spells until later levels and then its low level spells. If you go through the classes, the only true casters are Magic-User, Illusionists and Druids. Everyone else is capped in some way and has to ration this resource, relying on their other martial skills to make up the difference. This does two things for the game. First it makes magic very precious, limited and coveted resource, but it also gives Martial classes a chance to shine while keeping pure mages like Magic-Users and Druids feeling really special. Its just a better method. Its not as flashy, but it has an earthy tone that gives the fantasy adventure a sense of itself.
I wonder if a simplistic fix to 5e would be to cut the amount of spell slots gained down substantially. I get why a 3rd level full caster needs 7 spell slots, since the spells are only 1st and 2nd level. But how often does a 9th level caster burn through seven 1st and 2nd level spell slots, when they have another seven between 3rd and 5th (let alone the daily regeneration allowed). If someone is playing a full caster, spell slot management on a daily basis is a joke. (I can't remember the spell slots available for a Wizard in 2e, but I think it was even more available).
I think what Optimus Grimus mentioned is the biggest problem with spellcasters vs. martial classes... the game is very much balanced under the assumption of players dealing with 5+ encounters every day... not necessarily combat, but challenges that would require use of class features and spells to survive. However, in almost every game I've played or watched online, there's usually just one or two encounters a day. A Wizard can comfortably sling devastating spells casually, the Berserker Barbarian can Frenzy without fear of reprisal, and many Fighter players might forget entirely that they have Second Wind, because they never once needed it throughout their adventures. When players are pushed to their limits with every adventuring day, those spell slots become a lot more precious and valuable.
mainly just sorcerer. as currently, there not really much different than wizards. the have metamagic and sorcerery points, but those don't seem "sorcerer-y" to me, just a different possible wizard ability.
most people would hate this (probably), but I feel like it fit's the theme of sorcerers to not be able to control which spells they cast. that would be really weak, but also they could get a buff of some sort, maybe a higher hit die and unlimited quickened spells or something.
I also agree with a 1/2 caster bard whose more of a jack of all trades.
I think possibly a V fighter who classically has spells and works like a full caster, but the spell aren't "magic", there martial. they could be called "skill maneuvers" or something. an example of one could be heavy blow, 1st level one. using time 1 action.
"make a melee attack. on a hit, you deal an additional 1d4 bludgeoning damage, and the target must make a strength saving throw, being knocked prone on a failure."
anther could be sweeping blow. 2nd level, 1 bonus action action.
"the next time you would make a melee attack this turn, instead all creatures with 10 feet of you must make dexterity saving throw, taking damage equal to the damage dice of the weapon + your strength or dexterity modifier, whatever you would have used for the melee attack on a failed save, ot half on a success."
With some classes given limited resources based on a short rrest, some on a long rest and some with no limited resources at all, there is going ot be big differences in class power when the encounters per short rest / long rest are different than expected. Balancing things arounf 3 encounters per day with a short rest between each one would be a better middle of the road option but the rogues would really stand out on a dungeon crawl and the wizard would really excel in the one encounter per day.
Other than that I think they have done a very good job (which is why 7 years after it came out there are no plans for 6e).
A lot of people are complaining about the classes not being defined rolls, but I am of the camp that believes this enables to create a wider variety of characters, want to be a healer but not be religious, you can be a bard (after all laughter in the best medicine) or an artificer who can make healing remedies or any class can take the first aid course aka the healer feat. It does make creating a balanced party requires more detail than the classes of the other players (Is the rogue melee or ranged? Is the artificer an tanky armorer or a fragile alchemist? ...) but that is not a problem.
I think there are a couple of sub-classes where they made major mistakes (e.g. a beast master should have been able to commant their pet to act with a bonus action) but that is out of the scope of this thread.
I find it annoying that 5e is set up where if you want to play a class that has a wide variety of interesting options you have to play a spellcaster. I recognize that there are people who want simple and straightforward, even if I'm not one of them, but it shouldn't be tied to your character type -- there should be high and low complexity options for all character types. There's okay-ish simple blaster type spellcasters, but nothing for support other than the pretty questionable celestial warlock, and the most complex martial builds are still nothing compared to the range of options for a cleric or wizard.
Honestly this is my biggest gripe....
Once 4th level spells become a thing its a game about casters with martials having a side seat to the action.
Big bad! oh yeah gonna hit him with my sword and.....oh the wizard polymorphed him into a trout and dropped him off a cliff. I guess that's over.
The only real way to combat this is to have the 6-8 medium encounters a day and that just doesn't happen in most games.
well from what I can tell there is a middle where spell caster become unbalanced because there spells are too powerful for most enemies and they get plenty of breaks. But once you get to levels 15 - 20 you start to fight bosses that can handle your best spells and you start to need a person who can go on with out needing to rest. cause if a wizard got trapped in a room with a dragon or tried to fight something else with a CR above 20 they wouldn't stand a chance.
Magic really does feel overdone in 5e. We only have 4 martial classes, one of which is inherently magical in theme. Meanwhile we have 6 full casters if you include warlock. I've honestly got no idea why bard got turned from a jack of all trades class into a musical wizard. The choice honestly baffles me.
Meanwhile one of the martials which actually got a great reception, the warlord, didn't even make it through to this edition. It's like they just threw the entirety of 4e out without looking at which parts people actually disliked.
As a general rule, I think ability score modifications (max caps, increases above 20) should be part of each class. Enforcing that wizards remain squishy with a CON cap of 18 on the class, but allowing them to naturally reach 22 in INT might be a good trade off and help balance out some of the "rogues can out-arcana the wizard" comments.
Alternately, a universal, but more limited expertise/reliable talent rule set could do the same thing, where only certain skills are reliable or granted expertise for each class.
I also think the spellcasting classes should have their primary skills switched up. I'm not sure how you balance it, but what if the Bard's spell attack bonuses and save DCs were based on a combo of DEX and CHA, rather than just CHA (indicating skill at playing their instrument), or artificers split between DEX and INT. Sorcerers could be CHA and WIS(or CON), Warlocks mainly CHA and a second based on patron, Wizards mainly INT, Clerics mainly WIS, Paladins CHA and STR, so on and so forth. It might allow for more interesting stat distributions and a more accurate portrayal of how their classes access and use magic (rather than there being like 4+ CHA casters, 2+ INT casters, and 2+ WIS casters)
I find it annoying that 5e is set up where if you want to play a class that has a wide variety of interesting options you have to play a spellcaster. I recognize that there are people who want simple and straightforward, even if I'm not one of them, but it shouldn't be tied to your character type -- there should be high and low complexity options for all character types. There's okay-ish simple blaster type spellcasters, but nothing for support other than the pretty questionable celestial warlock, and the most complex martial builds are still nothing compared to the range of options for a cleric or wizard.
Honestly this is my biggest gripe....
Once 4th level spells become a thing its a game about casters with martials having a side seat to the action.
Big bad! oh yeah gonna hit him with my sword and.....oh the wizard polymorphed him into a trout and dropped him off a cliff. I guess that's over.
The only real way to combat this is to have the 6-8 medium encounters a day and that just doesn't happen in most games.
That's misunderstanding my point, though the power curve is also problematic. My point is:
As a spellcaster of any class that prepares spells (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) I have a big box of toys to rummage through to figure out just which I'm going to pull out to solve a problem (Artificer is also up there in complexity, though it gets at it in a slightly different way). There's limits to how many I can have prepared at once so I might not prepare the right one, but it's a huge list. This makes figuring out the right thing to do both tactically and strategically complex. Classes that don't prepare spells have lower complexity and only have strategic decisions at level-up, but it's still at least a half dozen spells by tier 2.
No martial class has anywhere close to that range of options. The closest is a battlemaster fighter with 9 maneuvers by 15th level, but there's a lot less variance in what maneuvers do than in what spells do.
I recognize that some people want simple builds (one of the complaints about 4e was that fighters had the same daily/encounter/at will structure as spellcasters), but simple vs complex should be a choice that doesn't force you to play a particular style of character.
As a general rule, I think ability score modifications (max caps, increases above 20) should be part of each class. Enforcing that wizards remain squishy with a CON cap of 18 on the class, but allowing them to naturally reach 22 in INT might be a good trade off and help balance out some of the "rogues can out-arcana the wizard" comments.
Alternately, a universal, but more limited expertise/reliable talent rule set could do the same thing, where only certain skills are reliable or granted expertise for each class.
I also think the spellcasting classes should have their primary skills switched up. I'm not sure how you balance it, but what if the Bard's spell attack bonuses and save DCs were based on a combo of DEX and CHA, rather than just CHA (indicating skill at playing their instrument), or artificers split between DEX and INT. Sorcerers could be CHA and WIS(or CON), Warlocks mainly CHA and a second based on patron, Wizards mainly INT, Clerics mainly WIS, Paladins CHA and STR, so on and so forth. It might allow for more interesting stat distributions and a more accurate portrayal of how their classes access and use magic (rather than there being like 4+ CHA casters, 2+ INT casters, and 2+ WIS casters)
What happens with the caps if someone multiclasses?
Also what if a player wants to play a dexadin or stranger? Are they unable to cast properly just because they wanted to imitate an Aragorn ranger and use a bastard sword?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize we had to completely solve all the problems associated with our change suggestions. I was trying to think of ways to make classes more distinct in abilities. Every suggestion on this thread would require some sort of rebalancing, possibly of the entire game. That said, I will try to give a vague idea of how to address your concerns with my entirely hypothetical idea.
1) Ability score mods would be like skill proficiencies, you only get those associated with your original class. The rule could be written not as a bonus, but as limits that could be reached by ASIs/feats/etc.
2) expertise/reliable talent would need to be set as a higher class ability, like it currently is.
3) on spellcasting, I didn't mention a split for Rangers, but I would say WIS/CON or just WIS. your sword-wielding ranger would be fine. For dexadins, they are already playing outside their "normal" box, and not everything has to be optimized for every possible combination. I would say however, that if split it wouldn't be an equal split. A primary and secondary casting ability would make sense for a lot of these types.
I find it annoying that 5e is set up where if you want to play a class that has a wide variety of interesting options you have to play a spellcaster. I recognize that there are people who want simple and straightforward, even if I'm not one of them, but it shouldn't be tied to your character type -- there should be high and low complexity options for all character types. There's okay-ish simple blaster type spellcasters, but nothing for support other than the pretty questionable celestial warlock, and the most complex martial builds are still nothing compared to the range of options for a cleric or wizard.
Honestly this is my biggest gripe....
Once 4th level spells become a thing its a game about casters with martials having a side seat to the action.
Big bad! oh yeah gonna hit him with my sword and.....oh the wizard polymorphed him into a trout and dropped him off a cliff. I guess that's over.
The only real way to combat this is to have the 6-8 medium encounters a day and that just doesn't happen in most games.
That's misunderstanding my point, though the power curve is also problematic. My point is:
As a spellcaster of any class that prepares spells (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) I have a big box of toys to rummage through to figure out just which I'm going to pull out to solve a problem (Artificer is also up there in complexity, though it gets at it in a slightly different way). There's limits to how many I can have prepared at once so I might not prepare the right one, but it's a huge list. This makes figuring out the right thing to do both tactically and strategically complex. Classes that don't prepare spells have lower complexity and only have strategic decisions at level-up, but it's still at least a half dozen spells by tier 2.
No martial class has anywhere close to that range of options. The closest is a battlemaster fighter with 9 maneuvers by 15th level, but there's a lot less variance in what maneuvers do than in what spells do.
I recognize that some people want simple builds (one of the complaints about 4e was that fighters had the same daily/encounter/at will structure as spellcasters), but simple vs complex should be a choice that doesn't force you to play a particular style of character.
Ah apologies I better understand your points now.
Yeah I agree with this as well.....prepared casters have it the best overall. Its why Clerics are so damn good IMO.
Why remove multiclassing? I get that in 5e it's awfully implemented, but it's a super useful tool for people who's characters don't slot into a pre-set archtype.
I basically rely on it to make my ideal class which is a half caster elemental based swordmage. Mixing fighter and wizard.
Fixing 5e does require some core changes if the classes are to be used as they are, but if you address class balance a bit more holistically perhaps the changes to the core game can be limited.
I would at least start with the following.
1. Remove spell casting ability from all Martial classes & Sub-Classes that includes Bard, Fighter (Eldritch Knight), Paladin, Ranger, Rogue (Arcane Trickster). This would require some adjustments to these martial classes to compensate, and in some cases new sub-classes entirely, for example swap the Eldritch Knight for Warlord.
2. Remove bonus spells for Ability scores for all spell casting classes that remain.
3. Change the XP tables to reflect of the strength of the class and race. Aka stronger classes level up slower, weaker classes level up faster.
4. Create class based bonuses for specific skills based on the classes, example Wizard - Arcana.
5. Remove multiclassing entirely.
6. Remove ability score progression and only allow it through the selection of select feats that can only be taken once.
That would be a start.
I like the class based bonus for skills. Like a rogue should not even get to roll to figure out a spell with out at least some spellcasting ability. I hate to keep citing PF2e but they do this well with the skills:
These examples use History or Religion. Untrained name of a ruler, key noble, or major deity Trained line of succession for a major noble family, core doctrines of a major deity Expert genealogy of a minor noble, teachings of an ancient priest Master hierarchy of a genie noble court, major extraplanar temples of a deity Legendary existence of a long-lost noble heir, secret doctrines of a religion
Like if the rogue as a +15 to Arcana but is untrained in spellcasting they can identify that magic is being used pretty easily but would need to invest in some wizard levels or train in the area to identify specific spells.
The ability score and number of spells known/prepared is also weird yeah...especially for those who say the difference between a 16 INT and 20 INT isn't a big deal for a wizard....
However I do think its good to have in the game as it makes your primary stat important to keep leveling. Where I think it needs to change is that you get feats on top of ASI and there are more of them.
Fixing 5e does require some core changes if the classes are to be used as they are, but if you address class balance a bit more holistically perhaps the changes to the core game can be limited.
I would at least start with the following.
1. Remove spell casting ability from all Martial classes & Sub-Classes that includes Bard, Fighter (Eldritch Knight), Paladin, Ranger, Rogue (Arcane Trickster). This would require some adjustments to these martial classes to compensate, and in some cases new sub-classes entirely, for example swap the Eldritch Knight for Warlord.
2. Remove bonus spells for Ability scores for all spell casting classes that remain.
3. Change the XP tables to reflect of the strength of the class and race. Aka stronger classes level up slower, weaker classes level up faster.
4. Create class based bonuses for specific skills based on the classes, example Wizard - Arcana.
5. Remove multiclassing entirely.
6. Remove ability score progression and only allow it through the selection of select feats that can only be taken once.
That would be a start.
Not totally onboard with point 1, as I would suggest that Bards are actually a casting class as opposed to a martial class (yeah, College of Swords does not fit), but I totally agree with the overall intent.
Point 3 is a bit dicey, unless you plan on wiping out Milestones as a method of level advancement. The DM would have to say "OK, Mr. Rogue, you move from level 4 to 5 in 5 sessions, but Mr Wizard, you are looking at 6 or 7 sessions to hit level 5."
Everything else I can get behind. Characters and species must be streamlined, and the overlaps in classes and sub-classes eliminated. Seriously, don't play an Arcana Cleric if you want wizard spells. Just play a wizard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Honestly this is my biggest gripe....
Once 4th level spells become a thing its a game about casters with martials having a side seat to the action.
Big bad! oh yeah gonna hit him with my sword and.....oh the wizard polymorphed him into a trout and dropped him off a cliff. I guess that's over.
The only real way to combat this is to have the 6-8 medium encounters a day and that just doesn't happen in most games.
Imagination and storytelling comes from the player, not the game design. Restricted classes allows for sharper delineation, where the a player's imagination must shine. Of course, if a player is weak, I could see how they would need the crutch of a huge amount of species, classes, backgrounds, all muddied together.
I think the problem with that mindset is that D&D has, for some time now, focused on encouraging players to create their own worlds and stories and not stick strictly to one setting. I think that's one of the biggest differences between D&D and, say... a licensed TTRPG set in the Star Wars setting. If a player wants to play in Faerun and exclusively use Faerun classes and species, that's an option to them. But I think it's just sour grapes to insist that a player is "weak" for enjoying a variety of options.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
That has been the problem since the beginning. Early games were turned into "protect the wizard until it is his turn". But the power-curve was way different. Wizards rolled a d4 for HP, and were tissue paper. But once they hit double-digits in levels, oh man, lights out. But most just did not get there. Playing a Wizard in a low level campaign was a very dangerous thing. Frankly, I don't know of a way around that unless it is a complete re-ordering of the levels of various spells, including your Polymorph spell.
I think the main reason for this disparity is that the martial classes (besides monk) get most of their flavor from their subclasses. While a wizard of any subclass could be a blaster, support, or a battlefield controller, if you want a support fighter you probably want to go Battle Master, if you want a straight DPR fighter you might go Champion, and if you want a magicky fighter you have to go Eldritch Knight.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
I wonder if a simplistic fix to 5e would be to cut the amount of spell slots gained down substantially. I get why a 3rd level full caster needs 7 spell slots, since the spells are only 1st and 2nd level. But how often does a 9th level caster burn through seven 1st and 2nd level spell slots, when they have another seven between 3rd and 5th (let alone the daily regeneration allowed). If someone is playing a full caster, spell slot management on a daily basis is a joke. (I can't remember the spell slots available for a Wizard in 2e, but I think it was even more available).
Yeah PF2e does this very well with fewer spells known and slots.
They also give martials things to do with their actions/attacks other than just swing twice.
I think what Optimus Grimus mentioned is the biggest problem with spellcasters vs. martial classes... the game is very much balanced under the assumption of players dealing with 5+ encounters every day... not necessarily combat, but challenges that would require use of class features and spells to survive. However, in almost every game I've played or watched online, there's usually just one or two encounters a day. A Wizard can comfortably sling devastating spells casually, the Berserker Barbarian can Frenzy without fear of reprisal, and many Fighter players might forget entirely that they have Second Wind, because they never once needed it throughout their adventures. When players are pushed to their limits with every adventuring day, those spell slots become a lot more precious and valuable.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
mainly just sorcerer. as currently, there not really much different than wizards. the have metamagic and sorcerery points, but those don't seem "sorcerer-y" to me, just a different possible wizard ability.
most people would hate this (probably), but I feel like it fit's the theme of sorcerers to not be able to control which spells they cast. that would be really weak, but also they could get a buff of some sort, maybe a higher hit die and unlimited quickened spells or something.
I also agree with a 1/2 caster bard whose more of a jack of all trades.
I think possibly a V fighter who classically has spells and works like a full caster, but the spell aren't "magic", there martial. they could be called "skill maneuvers" or something. an example of one could be heavy blow, 1st level one. using time 1 action.
"make a melee attack. on a hit, you deal an additional 1d4 bludgeoning damage, and the target must make a strength saving throw, being knocked prone on a failure."
anther could be sweeping blow. 2nd level, 1 bonus action action.
"the next time you would make a melee attack this turn, instead all creatures with 10 feet of you must make dexterity saving throw, taking damage equal to the damage dice of the weapon + your strength or dexterity modifier, whatever you would have used for the melee attack on a failed save, ot half on a success."
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
With some classes given limited resources based on a short rrest, some on a long rest and some with no limited resources at all, there is going ot be big differences in class power when the encounters per short rest / long rest are different than expected. Balancing things arounf 3 encounters per day with a short rest between each one would be a better middle of the road option but the rogues would really stand out on a dungeon crawl and the wizard would really excel in the one encounter per day.
Other than that I think they have done a very good job (which is why 7 years after it came out there are no plans for 6e).
A lot of people are complaining about the classes not being defined rolls, but I am of the camp that believes this enables to create a wider variety of characters, want to be a healer but not be religious, you can be a bard (after all laughter in the best medicine) or an artificer who can make healing remedies or any class can take the first aid course aka the healer feat. It does make creating a balanced party requires more detail than the classes of the other players (Is the rogue melee or ranged? Is the artificer an tanky armorer or a fragile alchemist? ...) but that is not a problem.
I think there are a couple of sub-classes where they made major mistakes (e.g. a beast master should have been able to commant their pet to act with a bonus action) but that is out of the scope of this thread.
well from what I can tell there is a middle where spell caster become unbalanced because there spells are too powerful for most enemies and they get plenty of breaks. But once you get to levels 15 - 20 you start to fight bosses that can handle your best spells and you start to need a person who can go on with out needing to rest. cause if a wizard got trapped in a room with a dragon or tried to fight something else with a CR above 20 they wouldn't stand a chance.
Black Lives Matter
Count as high as you can before Nikoli_Goodfellow Posts!
Extended Signature, The Best Paradox, We all knew it.
I participate in the Level 20 Gladiator Arena with several champions they are all in my extended signature Win Streak: 0 Total Wins: 19 Total Loses: 6
Magic really does feel overdone in 5e. We only have 4 martial classes, one of which is inherently magical in theme. Meanwhile we have 6 full casters if you include warlock. I've honestly got no idea why bard got turned from a jack of all trades class into a musical wizard. The choice honestly baffles me.
Meanwhile one of the martials which actually got a great reception, the warlord, didn't even make it through to this edition. It's like they just threw the entirety of 4e out without looking at which parts people actually disliked.
As a general rule, I think ability score modifications (max caps, increases above 20) should be part of each class. Enforcing that wizards remain squishy with a CON cap of 18 on the class, but allowing them to naturally reach 22 in INT might be a good trade off and help balance out some of the "rogues can out-arcana the wizard" comments.
Alternately, a universal, but more limited expertise/reliable talent rule set could do the same thing, where only certain skills are reliable or granted expertise for each class.
I also think the spellcasting classes should have their primary skills switched up. I'm not sure how you balance it, but what if the Bard's spell attack bonuses and save DCs were based on a combo of DEX and CHA, rather than just CHA (indicating skill at playing their instrument), or artificers split between DEX and INT. Sorcerers could be CHA and WIS(or CON), Warlocks mainly CHA and a second based on patron, Wizards mainly INT, Clerics mainly WIS, Paladins CHA and STR, so on and so forth. It might allow for more interesting stat distributions and a more accurate portrayal of how their classes access and use magic (rather than there being like 4+ CHA casters, 2+ INT casters, and 2+ WIS casters)
That's misunderstanding my point, though the power curve is also problematic. My point is:
As a spellcaster of any class that prepares spells (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) I have a big box of toys to rummage through to figure out just which I'm going to pull out to solve a problem (Artificer is also up there in complexity, though it gets at it in a slightly different way). There's limits to how many I can have prepared at once so I might not prepare the right one, but it's a huge list. This makes figuring out the right thing to do both tactically and strategically complex. Classes that don't prepare spells have lower complexity and only have strategic decisions at level-up, but it's still at least a half dozen spells by tier 2.
No martial class has anywhere close to that range of options. The closest is a battlemaster fighter with 9 maneuvers by 15th level, but there's a lot less variance in what maneuvers do than in what spells do.
I recognize that some people want simple builds (one of the complaints about 4e was that fighters had the same daily/encounter/at will structure as spellcasters), but simple vs complex should be a choice that doesn't force you to play a particular style of character.
What happens with the caps if someone multiclasses?
Also what if a player wants to play a dexadin or stranger? Are they unable to cast properly just because they wanted to imitate an Aragorn ranger and use a bastard sword?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize we had to completely solve all the problems associated with our change suggestions. I was trying to think of ways to make classes more distinct in abilities. Every suggestion on this thread would require some sort of rebalancing, possibly of the entire game. That said, I will try to give a vague idea of how to address your concerns with my entirely hypothetical idea.
1) Ability score mods would be like skill proficiencies, you only get those associated with your original class. The rule could be written not as a bonus, but as limits that could be reached by ASIs/feats/etc.
2) expertise/reliable talent would need to be set as a higher class ability, like it currently is.
3) on spellcasting, I didn't mention a split for Rangers, but I would say WIS/CON or just WIS. your sword-wielding ranger would be fine. For dexadins, they are already playing outside their "normal" box, and not everything has to be optimized for every possible combination. I would say however, that if split it wouldn't be an equal split. A primary and secondary casting ability would make sense for a lot of these types.
Ah apologies I better understand your points now.
Yeah I agree with this as well.....prepared casters have it the best overall. Its why Clerics are so damn good IMO.
Why remove multiclassing? I get that in 5e it's awfully implemented, but it's a super useful tool for people who's characters don't slot into a pre-set archtype.
I basically rely on it to make my ideal class which is a half caster elemental based swordmage. Mixing fighter and wizard.
I like the class based bonus for skills. Like a rogue should not even get to roll to figure out a spell with out at least some spellcasting ability. I hate to keep citing PF2e but they do this well with the skills:
These examples use History or Religion.
Untrained name of a ruler, key noble, or major deity
Trained line of succession for a major noble family, core doctrines of a major deity
Expert genealogy of a minor noble, teachings of an ancient priest
Master hierarchy of a genie noble court, major extraplanar temples of a deity
Legendary existence of a long-lost noble heir, secret doctrines of a religion
Like if the rogue as a +15 to Arcana but is untrained in spellcasting they can identify that magic is being used pretty easily but would need to invest in some wizard levels or train in the area to identify specific spells.
The ability score and number of spells known/prepared is also weird yeah...especially for those who say the difference between a 16 INT and 20 INT isn't a big deal for a wizard....
However I do think its good to have in the game as it makes your primary stat important to keep leveling. Where I think it needs to change is that you get feats on top of ASI and there are more of them.
Not totally onboard with point 1, as I would suggest that Bards are actually a casting class as opposed to a martial class (yeah, College of Swords does not fit), but I totally agree with the overall intent.
Point 3 is a bit dicey, unless you plan on wiping out Milestones as a method of level advancement. The DM would have to say "OK, Mr. Rogue, you move from level 4 to 5 in 5 sessions, but Mr Wizard, you are looking at 6 or 7 sessions to hit level 5."
Everything else I can get behind. Characters and species must be streamlined, and the overlaps in classes and sub-classes eliminated. Seriously, don't play an Arcana Cleric if you want wizard spells. Just play a wizard.