The "casters can fill every role" argument ignores that casters are working off of some limited resource pools. Every utility spell you learn/prep is one less combat spell you have available, same for casting anything that's not a ritual (and even ritual ones are dependent on having the free time). A Rogue is going to be much better at making skill checks than a Wizard, and regardless of how much everyone moans about damage differentials, a Wizard is gonna have a much harder time in combat if they don't have any 18+ AC Martials standing up front to keep them from being swarmed. Casters are good at blasting and producing fantastic effects in strictly limited quantities. They are not good at making skill rolls, and they're not good at staying alive in combat when they become the center of attention.
The problem has always been the leveled spells. Yes they are a limited resource but as GrayroseJay points out a typical day is no more than 4 encounters of 5 rounds each - 20 spells to cast with those leveled spells. At tier 1 the mage is essentially reliant on their cantrips which (as I showed earlier) leaves them in line with the martials more or less. But as you level up and get more and higher level slots they start to outstrip anything a martial can do - in both combat and utility. Granted some utility spells are, in fact, wastes of a slot (find traps I’m looking at you) and sometimes you can boost the utility of martials and gishes with no attunement needed wands (detect magic, magic missile, secrets, Swiss army) but this is limited. The 1D&D bard is now the king of utility as they are a full caster as well as gaining not only 4 expertises but also 1/2 proficiency in every skill. The rogue gets 4 expertises as well but can’t compete ( even the arcane trickster) in spell use. The ranger always got a fairly useful set of spells as well as enough slots to make them effective as both a martial and a caster. The UA ranger improves on this with getting prepared instead of known spells so they can finally select what the think might be useful - except that they can’t take evocation spells ruling out the two most useful spells ( booming blade and green flame blade) if they include them in the final version of primal spells. By L13 all the full casters have 17 slots and 4-6 cantrips which is plenty to last the day between blasting and utility. By comparison the PHB ranger has 11 slots and no cantrips and the UA ranger has 11 Slots and 3 cantrips better but … so it’s better, but still unbalanced in favor of the full casters - especially the wizards. So what could be done to balance the martials to the casters? Returning a true two weapon fighting might be one thing but is probably tow hard to make back compatible.making it an upper level feat might do the trick tho. For ranger taking the multi attack and hunter’s defense features from the hunter and giving them to the ranger class - with a choice of which to use each round then completely redoing the hunter might work. Giving the rogue back its potential to do more than sneak attack a round would certainly help it. Giving the fighter an extra attack every 4 levels instead of 5 would help it. Short of giving fighters some way to do AOEs giving them ways to do more attacks (especially at higher levels) is really the only way to keep them even vaguely competitive. That and adding proficiency in will saves at higher levels so they are less susceptible t mind control spells probably wouldn’t hurt either.
I feel like people really overstate the utility of spells. They tend to have very narrow applications, and are often pretty obvious as well. A "face" wizard is relying on spells like Charm Person or Friends, which are obvious to observers and leave the target aware of what happened once the spell wears off; Suggestion doesn't make the target aware but it only works on something the DM agrees is "reasonable", so it's arguably worse than just rolling persuasion. In terms of general skill rolls you can add minor modifiers with spells like Bless or Guidance or use something like Enhance Abilities or Skill Empowerment, but none of those really take the place of having someone with the skills in the first place. There's some general terrain manipulation, but that's typically higher level and again relatively narrow in application: if you're trying to get through a locked door it's at lot more efficient to let the rogue work the lock or the martial batter it down than spend a 4th or higher spell to bypass the wall. Finally, yes casters are better at burst damage, but there's also a ton of creatures with things like Magic Resistance and a bunch of good saves at high levels, whereas AC generally doesn't rise above high teens, so casters can have somewhat spottier turn to turn damage in the big fights. Really, "balancing" them is never going to work unless they just want to completely throw out the idea of distinct classes and just gamify it into an MMO simulator.
When I think of spells, especially leveled spells, I tend to split them into the following categories: A) Blasting spells - these do direct damage to foes either individually or as an AoE. They are the equivalent of a martial’s weapon damage. B) Control spells - command, charm/hold etc . The closest martials come to these are grapples and things like the battlemaster’s maneuvers. C) protection spells - things like stoneskin and mage armor - the equivalent of a martial’s armor. D) area denial spells - from entangle and web to darkness, spiked growth or the various summoning spells, these put roadblocks in the way foes forcing them to take the paths you want not the ones they want. Martials have caltrops and reach weapons as well as companion beasts for this. E) detection spells - whether various scrying or straight detection spells, martials can handle things, do searches, and have (expensive) tools like spyglasses for this. F) Healing spells - cures, revivify, etc - the healer’s kit and maybe healing potions are the martial’s equivalents. G) Buff/Debuff spells - bless, haste, fly, etc - martials have no real equivalents as I dump all the potions in with the spells here. At best some of the feat riders give martials occasional examples H) true utility spells - from find traps to Mord.’s Mansion, these duplicate the skills of the martials - often only better. Which would you rather do- go into a mord’s mansion for the night or sleep on the ground in a camp the ranger your party doesn’t have set up?
In each case the caster’s abilities rapidly outstrip the marital’s in most cases as you level up. to balance you have to provide ways to allow martials to do something similar to the lower level versions of many of these. It could be as simple as changing disengage to a bonus action so you could both disengage and dash in the same round allowing martials to have a nonmagical equivalent to misty step. It could be giving the ranger a horizontal version of rope trick so they can create a hidden safe camping space with the magic available to them not relying on the Wizard for Leo’s hut etc. ( not to mention giving UA rangers access to primal evocation spells - what was their reasoning for not allowing that anyway?).
Of course if a number things like these were done to bring the martials into better balance with the (full) casters it would mean you would need to revamp all the monsters to match the new power levels that the martials would have and that means what would really be a whole new edition not just a backward compatible revision of the present edition.
Bringing mundane equipment up to par would also help by providing martials with items at reasonable costs that make wizard’s using spells redundant - why waste a spellslot on clairvoyance to see what is happening clearly on a ridge a couple of miles away if the fighter can see it effectively with his version of Galileo’s telescope? The spyglass in the PHB has a 2x magnification, Galileo’s 1610 telescope had a 30x magnification. Now the martial has a tool worth the 1000GP price that limits when the Wizard should use that clairvoyance/scrying spell. The magnifying glass is somewhat better as it doesn’t state the magnification just giving the user advantage on observations made with it.
all non-bard are stronger in battle than monks and rogues(including arcane trickster), since the casters have magic and 8+xd8 hp, monks ki(weak magic variant) and 8+xd8 hp, and rogues have surprise attack, 8+xd8 and some subclasses have magic.since magic is superior the monks and rogues are too weak. in one to one battle the martials win, but the fighter(including eldritch knight)falls out in fighting against big groups of monsters or op ones, the barbarian has more hitpoints but just can’t reduce damage and keep rage enough to make an eternal stand.that leaves the half-caster martials, paladins are strong in groups but lose when on their own eventually, the ranger is strong but can’t hold every enemy alike the fighter, even when shooting or joining melee with magic, one exception: good old hunter ranger, hunter ranger can beat every caster in battling hordes, with deadly feature combos every turn instead of until out of spell slots. that is major weakness1 of the casters, they need spellslots for everything and 2. they will fall down when losing in iniative and without martial friends.
this whole thing with martials losing is when they strike first, but as everyone knows: caster don’t have many hp
1. When you improve a class, you often have to remove certain features to make way for new ones and ensure the power level doesn't become too unbalanced.
2. Sometimes only adding features can actually harm a class and push away those who already enjoy it. For instance, adding a super complex feature to a simple class will likely alienate the audience that uses that class.
3. Another example of adding a class feature that would harm the people who play the class would involve adding a non-optional feature that changes the theme of the class and doesn't fit into many campaigns that use the class.
4. Some people were talking about removing class options to make way for other ones unless I am remembering incorrectly.
People can talk till they are blue in the face here and anywhere else on the internet, if the chatter doesn't match the survey results then it doesn't carry a lot of weight.
It may not carry weight, but it should. Wotc is missing out on valuable input available on this and other forums if they are only getting input from people that like to take surveys. Those surveys can only generate skewed models of the player base. It assumes only people that participate have valuable input to the game. Some that may fill out a survey may not even be aware there are survey's to fill out, there is a whole industry dedicated to getting people to fill out surveys. Surveys are a tool not the answer.
I actually mostly disagree with this take. My point was that certain people who aren't active in surveys, forums, Reddit, or other parts of the community are still important players and customers to the game. While forums like this one provide an excellent source of ideas, there are too few people here to make a judgement about what most D&D players think. Additionally, sock puppets and users with multiple accounts can create chaos and make it seem like more people think something here, while there are presumably more safeguards on the survey against this.
BUT, that wasn't the point of my original comment. I was commenting on the idea that people saying "I don't go saying other classes need to be changed to be what I would like." are in fact telling WotC to do just that every time they fill out a survey. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that, in reality I encourage it, but don't claim that you aren't trying to influence changes in the game towards what you want it to be.
Um... No. That's not how it works.
When I fill out the survey, I am saying that I personally would have a more enjoyable time playing the game if the parts I like stay and the parts I don't like go. I am not saying that these changes should be made, merely that I would have the most fun playing the game if they were. When you fill the survey, you give Wizards data so they can make their decision about what should and shouldn't be changed.
You aren't saying what needs to be changed or even what you want to be changed. For instance, if I personally won't have as much fun if X 1DD ability to be changed but everyone I know likes it, it's still my job to check the box and say I am dissatisfied with the feature. That doesn't mean I want the feature to be changed and the majority of players who like it to suffer; It just means that I want to provide Wizards of the Coast with enough information to make an informed decision.
BUT, that wasn't the point of my original comment. I was commenting on the idea that people saying "I don't go saying other classes need to be changed to be what I would like." are in fact telling WotC to do just that every time they fill out a survey. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that, in reality I encourage it, but don't claim that you aren't trying to influence changes in the game towards what you want it to be.
Um... No. That's not how it works.
When I fill out the survey, I am saying that I personally would have a more enjoyable time playing the game if the parts I like stay and the parts I don't like go. I am not saying that these changes should be made, merely that I would have the most fun playing the game if they were. When you fill the survey, you give Wizards data so they can make their decision about what should and shouldn't be changed.
You aren't saying what needs to be changed or even what you want to be changed. For instance, if I personally won't have as much fun if X 1DD ability to be changed but everyone I know likes it, it's still my job to check the box and say I am dissatisfied with the feature. That doesn't mean I want the feature to be changed and the majority of players who like it to suffer; It just means that I want to provide Wizards of the Coast with enough information to make an informed decision.
There is absolutely 0 difference.
Marking the survey is in fact attempting to influences the outcome in a way favorable to your own desires.
BUT, that wasn't the point of my original comment. I was commenting on the idea that people saying "I don't go saying other classes need to be changed to be what I would like." are in fact telling WotC to do just that every time they fill out a survey. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that, in reality I encourage it, but don't claim that you aren't trying to influence changes in the game towards what you want it to be.
Um... No. That's not how it works.
When I fill out the survey, I am saying that I personally would have a more enjoyable time playing the game if the parts I like stay and the parts I don't like go. I am not saying that these changes should be made, merely that I would have the most fun playing the game if they were. When you fill the survey, you give Wizards data so they can make their decision about what should and shouldn't be changed.
You aren't saying what needs to be changed or even what you want to be changed. For instance, if I personally won't have as much fun if X 1DD ability to be changed but everyone I know likes it, it's still my job to check the box and say I am dissatisfied with the feature. That doesn't mean I want the feature to be changed and the majority of players who like it to suffer; It just means that I want to provide Wizards of the Coast with enough information to make an informed decision.
There is absolutely 0 difference.
Marking the survey is in fact attempting to influences the outcome in a way favorable to your own desires.
However, that is not the point of this thread.
No, saying what would make things more enjoyable for you is different than saying other things need to be changed to meet your whims. One is saying whether or not you like something and letting someone else make the decision based off your thoughts and the thoughts of 40,000 other players, while the other method is saying that something must be changed because you think it should, regardless of what anyone else in the world thinks.
When you complete the survey you are supposed to say what you think about various features. You are not discussing how you would change it or whether or not you would put that mechanic into D&D if you knew almost everyone else opposed it. These things are completely different and some ideas that you may care about in the play-test could also be something you're glad to see in the game for those who do care about it.
Yes, people complete the survey in an attempt to influence the game. I never denied that. However, if you really can't see the difference between someone saying what they like and letting Wizards make a decision and someone saying that they like something and everything needs to or should change merely because of their own view, regardless of what others think, then I honestly am at a loss for words.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
BUT, that wasn't the point of my original comment. I was commenting on the idea that people saying "I don't go saying other classes need to be changed to be what I would like." are in fact telling WotC to do just that every time they fill out a survey. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that, in reality I encourage it, but don't claim that you aren't trying to influence changes in the game towards what you want it to be.
Um... No. That's not how it works.
When I fill out the survey, I am saying that I personally would have a more enjoyable time playing the game if the parts I like stay and the parts I don't like go. I am not saying that these changes should be made, merely that I would have the most fun playing the game if they were. When you fill the survey, you give Wizards data so they can make their decision about what should and shouldn't be changed.
You aren't saying what needs to be changed or even what you want to be changed. For instance, if I personally won't have as much fun if X 1DD ability to be changed but everyone I know likes it, it's still my job to check the box and say I am dissatisfied with the feature. That doesn't mean I want the feature to be changed and the majority of players who like it to suffer; It just means that I want to provide Wizards of the Coast with enough information to make an informed decision.
There is absolutely 0 difference.
Marking the survey is in fact attempting to influences the outcome in a way favorable to your own desires.
However, that is not the point of this thread.
No, saying what would make things more enjoyable for you is different than saying other things need to be changed to meet your whims. One is saying whether or not you like something and letting someone else make the decision based off your thoughts and the thoughts of 40,000 other players, while the other method is saying that something must be changed because you think it should, regardless of what anyone else in the world thinks.
When you complete the survey you are supposed to say what you think about various features. You are not discussing how you would change it or whether or not you would put that mechanic into D&D if you knew almost everyone else opposed it. These things are completely different and some ideas that you may care about in the play-test could also be something you're glad to see in the game for those who do care about it.
Yes, people complete the survey in an attempt to influence the game. I never denied that. However, if you really can't see the difference between someone saying what they like and letting Wizards make a decision and someone saying that they like something and everything needs to or should change merely because of their own view, regardless of what others think, then I honestly am at a loss for words.
Ok. Let me make this simple for you. Tell me the difference between these two survey responses.
Person number 1 marks Dissatisfied with the UA Fighter.
Person number 2 marks Dissatisfied with the UA Fighter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
all non-bard are stronger in battle than monks and rogues(including arcane trickster), since the casters have magic and 8+xd8 hp, monks ki(weak magic variant) and 8+xd8 hp, and rogues have surprise attack, 8+xd8 and some subclasses have magic.since magic is superior the monks and rogues are too weak. in one to one battle the martials win, but the fighter(including eldritch knight)falls out in fighting against big groups of monsters or op ones, the barbarian has more hitpoints but just can’t reduce damage and keep rage enough to make an eternal stand.that leaves the half-caster martials, paladins are strong in groups but lose when on their own eventually, the ranger is strong but can’t hold every enemy alike the fighter, even when shooting or joining melee with magic, one exception: good old hunter ranger, hunter ranger can beat every caster in battling hordes, with deadly feature combos every turn instead of until out of spell slots. that is major weakness1 of the casters, they need spellslots for everything and 2. they will fall down when losing in iniative and without martial friends.
this whole thing with martials losing is when they strike first, but as everyone knows: caster don’t have many hp
Yes every class and subclass has a weakness somewhere that sort of balances out in 1 on 1 comparisons. We also have the problem of ego - “ I want to be the hero of the story and everyone else is a supporting actor” it is much easier for the high level mage to do this because of the disconnect between having about 20 slots and only around 20 rounds of combat in the day leaving enough slots free for spells that overshadow other player’s skills. We have all been “that” player occasionally. It’s more difficult at lower levels since you don’t have the slots and the spells aren’t as powerful. It can be hard to step back and let everyone else in the party shine before you do ( or don’t). ( my present group actually tends to have the opposite problem - everyone is experienced enough that they tend to step back - “ no , you first, no you first” ntil someone gets fed up and actually does something.) Every class has its strengths and weaknesses, when the party plays a team it’s amazing what they can do, when they all play as the star it can be amazing just how bad they can be too. But for all of that full casters (Bards, Clerics, Druids and Wizards) simply have too many options without enough daily uses (typically) so they can store up options to replace something that everyone else does without magic at least once overshadowing the other classes. Some of the things I’ve considered in home brew to bring about some balance ( none actually made it in my game)include moving jack of all trades from bard to rogue so the rogue becomes the true skill monkey - the bard (PHB) is a known caster however so their actual spell selection is limited. This is solved in the UA so I may have to look at it again. Straight fighters probably need to have more than the 2 skills/tool sets they presently have - maybe up to 4/5 skills/tools but no expertise. The UA ranger with 4 skills + expertise is a good balance although I wouldn’t mind the Druid and ranger getting the herbalism kit automatically in addition. I think one of the reasons for the lack of evocation cantrips in the primal spells is that with something like Eldritch blast/chill touch/firebolt being available there is no reason for rangers to take up the bow and archery. Maybe what would work would be to reduce the range of the cantrips to 90’ for everyone so that archery actually outranges the cantrips making archery useful. There are probably a lot of little tweaks like that that could go a long way to giving some balance between casters and martials.
No, saying what would make things more enjoyable for you is different than saying other things need to be changed to meet your whims. One is saying whether or not you like something and letting someone else make the decision based off your thoughts and the thoughts of 40,000 other players, while the other method is saying that something must be changed because you think it should, regardless of what anyone else in the world thinks.
When you complete the survey you are supposed to say what you think about various features. You are not discussing how you would change it or whether or not you would put that mechanic into D&D if you knew almost everyone else opposed it. These things are completely different and some ideas that you may care about in the play-test could also be something you're glad to see in the game for those who do care about it.
Yes, people complete the survey in an attempt to influence the game. I never denied that. However, if you really can't see the difference between someone saying what they like and letting Wizards make a decision and someone saying that they like something and everything needs to or should change merely because of their own view, regardless of what others think, then I honestly am at a loss for words.
Ok. Let me make this simple for you. Tell me the difference between these two survey responses.
Person number 1 marks Dissatisfied with the UA Fighter.
Person number 2 marks Dissatisfied with the UA Fighter.
My whole point was that filling out the survey and saying you like something doesn't mean you think your opinion overrules everyone else and it should be changed regardless of what other people think. I said that just because you say that you individually like a certain mechanic, updated class, or change to something in a survey doesn't mean that you think that change should automatically be made if numerous other people put in something different and don't feel the same as you do.
This question really feels like a strawman that doesn't relate to anything I've said.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
No, saying what would make things more enjoyable for you is different than saying other things need to be changed to meet your whims. One is saying whether or not you like something and letting someone else make the decision based off your thoughts and the thoughts of 40,000 other players, while the other method is saying that something must be changed because you think it should, regardless of what anyone else in the world thinks.
When you complete the survey you are supposed to say what you think about various features. You are not discussing how you would change it or whether or not you would put that mechanic into D&D if you knew almost everyone else opposed it. These things are completely different and some ideas that you may care about in the play-test could also be something you're glad to see in the game for those who do care about it.
Yes, people complete the survey in an attempt to influence the game. I never denied that. However, if you really can't see the difference between someone saying what they like and letting Wizards make a decision and someone saying that they like something and everything needs to or should change merely because of their own view, regardless of what others think, then I honestly am at a loss for words.
Ok. Let me make this simple for you. Tell me the difference between these two survey responses.
Person number 1 marks Dissatisfied with the UA Fighter.
Person number 2 marks Dissatisfied with the UA Fighter.
My whole point was that filling out the survey and saying you like something doesn't mean you think your opinion overrules everyone else and it should be changed regardless of what other people think. I said that just because you say that you individually like a certain mechanic, updated class, or change to something in a survey doesn't mean that you think that change should automatically be made if numerous other people put in something different and don't feel the same as you do.
This question really feels like a strawman that doesn't relate to anything I've said.
That is because I never said that one opinion over rules anyone else's. Why would I try to defend a point of view that I don't have?
If you fill out the survey all the opinions are equal and carry the same weight. I just said that everyone filling out the survey is seeking the same results, which is to influence the design of the game. Nothing more, nothing less.
Everything else you made up on your own when you responded to me to start this whole argument.
No, saying what would make things more enjoyable for you is different than saying other things need to be changed to meet your whims. One is saying whether or not you like something and letting someone else make the decision based off your thoughts and the thoughts of 40,000 other players, while the other method is saying that something must be changed because you think it should, regardless of what anyone else in the world thinks.
When you complete the survey you are supposed to say what you think about various features. You are not discussing how you would change it or whether or not you would put that mechanic into D&D if you knew almost everyone else opposed it. These things are completely different and some ideas that you may care about in the play-test could also be something you're glad to see in the game for those who do care about it.
Yes, people complete the survey in an attempt to influence the game. I never denied that. However, if you really can't see the difference between someone saying what they like and letting Wizards make a decision and someone saying that they like something and everything needs to or should change merely because of their own view, regardless of what others think, then I honestly am at a loss for words.
Ok. Let me make this simple for you. Tell me the difference between these two survey responses.
Person number 1 marks Dissatisfied with the UA Fighter.
Person number 2 marks Dissatisfied with the UA Fighter.
My whole point was that filling out the survey and saying you like something doesn't mean you think your opinion overrules everyone else and it should be changed regardless of what other people think. I said that just because you say that you individually like a certain mechanic, updated class, or change to something in a survey doesn't mean that you think that change should automatically be made if numerous other people put in something different and don't feel the same as you do.
This question really feels like a strawman that doesn't relate to anything I've said.
That is because I never said that one opinion over rules anyone else's. Why would I try to defend a point of view that I don't have?
If you fill out the survey all the opinions are equal and carry the same weight. I just said that everyone filling out the survey is seeking the same results, which is to influence the design of the game. Nothing more, nothing less.
Everything else you made up on your own when you responded to me to start this whole argument.
Earlier, you argued that filling out the survey was equivalent to saying that whatever you want changed has to be modified. Quote: "People saying 'I don't go saying other classes need to be changed to be what I would like.' are in fact telling WotC to do just that every time they fill out a survey".
On the survey, you say what you like and don't like; what you want to see in the core rulebooks for One D&D and what you want to see discarded. The only way you individually liking and disliking something would mandate a need for that class or mechanic to change would be if your opinion overruled everyone else's. As such, my point was that no individual's opinion is more important than the beliefs of numerous others, and that filling out the survey doesn't mean that you are telling Wizard what "needs" to be changed, instead of what you would be happy with seeing improving.
I never invented anything or shoved words down your mouth. You made a statement earlier in this thread, defended it, and now are attempting to claim that it was something I "made up on... [my] own... to start this argument."
Earlier, you argued that filling out the survey was equivalent to saying that whatever you want changed has to be modified. Quote: "People saying 'I don't go saying other classes need to be changed to be what I would like.' are in fact telling WotC to do just that every time they fill out a survey".
On the survey, you say what you like and don't like; what you want to see in the core rulebooks for One D&D and what you want to see discarded. The only way you individually liking and disliking something would mandate a need for that class or mechanic to change would be if your opinion overruled everyone else's. As such, my point was that no individual's opinion is more important than the beliefs of numerous others, and that filling out the survey doesn't mean that you are telling Wizard what "needs" to be changed, instead of what you would be happy with seeing improving.
I never invented anything or shoved words down your mouth. You made a statement earlier in this thread, defended it, and now are attempting to claim that it was something I "made up on... [my] own... to start this argument."
Person: X needs to be changed to Y
Person: I like Y better than X
Person: X is ok, but I think Y does the job in a more creative way.
All three of these responses carry the same weight.
All three of these responses want Y not X
All three response want to see the associated class changed to match what they want from the game.
Anything beyond that does not matter. The words may be different, but the meaning and results are the same.
Person: X is ok, but I think Y does the job in a more creative way.
<Snip>
The words may be different, but the meaning and results are the same.
This doesn't relate to anything I have said, because I was talking about how completing the survey and saying you would prefer a certain modification to a class doesn't mean you think that class needs to be changed to be exactly how you want it. I wasn't really discussing differences between people who completed the survey, but saying that completing the survey involves you saying what you would like to happen, not what needs to happen.
As a sidenote, these survey results do actually have large differences. Person 2 says what they like better, while person 1 says that something "needs" to be changed. One person is voicing their opinion while another is saying how the game has to change.
But anyways, I feel like we are going in circles and that you really don't understand what you're trying to say. It is possible that I have somehow misinterpreted everything you've said, but I would strongly encourage you to reread some of my earlier posts in which I repeatedly explained myself and got asked questions that related only tangentially at best to my point. I mean it with no offense when I say that I will be unsubscribing and will not respond to any further posts on this because I feel that this line of discussion has frustrated me and gone nowhere. :)
I wish you the best of luck and I am sorry that we could not communicate clearly enough with one another to get our points across. For what it is worth, I think you and I are simply hung up on different aspects of the topic.
For me, the words used to provide the feedback on the survey are less important than the actionable content of the response. For example; of the people that marked "Dissatisfied with X" 53% want Y, 34% wanted Z, and 13% just wanted to scream about pickles. Everyone that's providing feedback via Survey are telling WotC how they want each of the classes to play. That is the point of the Survey. The words they use to convey that information to WotC just doesn't matter as much to me as it seems that it does to you.
Anyway, see you around the forums.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
For me, the words used to provide the feedback on the survey are less important than the actionable content of the response. For example; of the people that marked "Dissatisfied with X" 53% want Y, 34% wanted Z, and 13% just wanted to scream about pickles. Everyone that's providing feedback via Survey are telling WotC how they want each of the classes to play. That is the point of the Survey. The words they use to convey that information to WotC just doesn't matter as much to me as it seems that it does to you.
It appears that Wizards is in fact reading the text feedback on the surveys, not just grabbing a raw score.
For me, the words used to provide the feedback on the survey are less important than the actionable content of the response. For example; of the people that marked "Dissatisfied with X" 53% want Y, 34% wanted Z, and 13% just wanted to scream about pickles. Everyone that's providing feedback via Survey are telling WotC how they want each of the classes to play. That is the point of the Survey. The words they use to convey that information to WotC just doesn't matter as much to me as it seems that it does to you.
It appears that Wizards is in fact reading the text feedback on the surveys, not just grabbing a raw score.
I am sure that they are, but that doesn't really change anything that I said. Reading the feedback is how they know that people who marked "dissatisfied" want Y and not X. That is the information that is most useful. Someone using the word "need' vs "want" just doesn't provide any real information that they can do anything with.
I am sure that they are, but that doesn't really change anything that I said. Reading the feedback is how they know that people who marked "dissatisfied" want Y and not X. That is the information that is most useful. Someone using the word "need' vs "want" just doesn't provide any real information that they can do anything with.
That's because it doesn't actually mean anything other than intensity of opinion, which can be adequately determined from the numerical rating.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The "casters can fill every role" argument ignores that casters are working off of some limited resource pools. Every utility spell you learn/prep is one less combat spell you have available, same for casting anything that's not a ritual (and even ritual ones are dependent on having the free time). A Rogue is going to be much better at making skill checks than a Wizard, and regardless of how much everyone moans about damage differentials, a Wizard is gonna have a much harder time in combat if they don't have any 18+ AC Martials standing up front to keep them from being swarmed. Casters are good at blasting and producing fantastic effects in strictly limited quantities. They are not good at making skill rolls, and they're not good at staying alive in combat when they become the center of attention.
The problem has always been the leveled spells. Yes they are a limited resource but as GrayroseJay points out a typical day is no more than 4 encounters of 5 rounds each - 20 spells to cast with those leveled spells. At tier 1 the mage is essentially reliant on their cantrips which (as I showed earlier) leaves them in line with the martials more or less. But as you level up and get more and higher level slots they start to outstrip anything a martial can do - in both combat and utility. Granted some utility spells are, in fact, wastes of a slot (find traps I’m looking at you) and sometimes you can boost the utility of martials and gishes with no attunement needed wands (detect magic, magic missile, secrets, Swiss army) but this is limited. The 1D&D bard is now the king of utility as they are a full caster as well as gaining not only 4 expertises but also 1/2 proficiency in every skill. The rogue gets 4 expertises as well but can’t compete ( even the arcane trickster) in spell use. The ranger always got a fairly useful set of spells as well as enough slots to make them effective as both a martial and a caster. The UA ranger improves on this with getting prepared instead of known spells so they can finally select what the think might be useful - except that they can’t take evocation spells ruling out the two most useful spells ( booming blade and green flame blade) if they include them in the final version of primal spells. By L13 all the full casters have 17 slots and 4-6 cantrips which is plenty to last the day between blasting and utility. By comparison the PHB ranger has 11 slots and no cantrips and the UA ranger has 11 Slots and 3 cantrips better but …
so it’s better, but still unbalanced in favor of the full casters - especially the wizards. So what could be done to balance the martials to the casters? Returning a true two weapon fighting might be one thing but is probably tow hard to make back compatible.making it an upper level feat might do the trick tho. For ranger taking the multi attack and hunter’s defense features from the hunter and giving them to the ranger class - with a choice of which to use each round then completely redoing the hunter might work. Giving the rogue back its potential to do more than sneak attack a round would certainly help it. Giving the fighter an extra attack every 4 levels instead of 5 would help it. Short of giving fighters some way to do AOEs giving them ways to do more attacks (especially at higher levels) is really the only way to keep them even vaguely competitive. That and adding proficiency in will saves at higher levels so they are less susceptible t mind control spells probably wouldn’t hurt either.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I feel like people really overstate the utility of spells. They tend to have very narrow applications, and are often pretty obvious as well. A "face" wizard is relying on spells like Charm Person or Friends, which are obvious to observers and leave the target aware of what happened once the spell wears off; Suggestion doesn't make the target aware but it only works on something the DM agrees is "reasonable", so it's arguably worse than just rolling persuasion. In terms of general skill rolls you can add minor modifiers with spells like Bless or Guidance or use something like Enhance Abilities or Skill Empowerment, but none of those really take the place of having someone with the skills in the first place. There's some general terrain manipulation, but that's typically higher level and again relatively narrow in application: if you're trying to get through a locked door it's at lot more efficient to let the rogue work the lock or the martial batter it down than spend a 4th or higher spell to bypass the wall. Finally, yes casters are better at burst damage, but there's also a ton of creatures with things like Magic Resistance and a bunch of good saves at high levels, whereas AC generally doesn't rise above high teens, so casters can have somewhat spottier turn to turn damage in the big fights. Really, "balancing" them is never going to work unless they just want to completely throw out the idea of distinct classes and just gamify it into an MMO simulator.
When I think of spells, especially leveled spells, I tend to split them into the following categories:
A) Blasting spells - these do direct damage to foes either individually or as an AoE. They are the equivalent of a martial’s weapon damage.
B) Control spells - command, charm/hold etc . The closest martials come to these are grapples and things like the battlemaster’s maneuvers.
C) protection spells - things like stoneskin and mage armor - the equivalent of a martial’s armor.
D) area denial spells - from entangle and web to darkness, spiked growth or the various summoning spells, these put roadblocks in the way foes forcing them to take the paths you want not the ones they want. Martials have caltrops and reach weapons as well as companion beasts for this.
E) detection spells - whether various scrying or straight detection spells, martials can handle things, do searches, and have (expensive) tools like spyglasses for this.
F) Healing spells - cures, revivify, etc - the healer’s kit and maybe healing potions are the martial’s equivalents.
G) Buff/Debuff spells - bless, haste, fly, etc - martials have no real equivalents as I dump all the potions in with the spells here. At best some of the feat riders give martials occasional examples
H) true utility spells - from find traps to Mord.’s Mansion, these duplicate the skills of the martials - often only better. Which would you rather do- go into a mord’s mansion for the night or sleep on the ground in a camp the ranger your party doesn’t have set up?
In each case the caster’s abilities rapidly outstrip the marital’s in most cases as you level up. to balance you have to provide ways to allow martials to do something similar to the lower level versions of many of these. It could be as simple as changing disengage to a bonus action so you could both disengage and dash in the same round allowing martials to have a nonmagical equivalent to misty step. It could be giving the ranger a horizontal version of rope trick so they can create a hidden safe camping space with the magic available to them not relying on the Wizard for Leo’s hut etc. ( not to mention giving UA rangers access to primal evocation spells - what was their reasoning for not allowing that anyway?).
Of course if a number things like these were done to bring the martials into better balance with the (full) casters it would mean you would need to revamp all the monsters to match the new power levels that the martials would have and that means what would really be a whole new edition not just a backward compatible revision of the present edition.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Bringing mundane equipment up to par would also help by providing martials with items at reasonable costs that make wizard’s using spells redundant - why waste a spellslot on clairvoyance to see what is happening clearly on a ridge a couple of miles away if the fighter can see it effectively with his version of Galileo’s telescope? The spyglass in the PHB has a 2x magnification, Galileo’s 1610 telescope had a 30x magnification. Now the martial has a tool worth the 1000GP price that limits when the Wizard should use that clairvoyance/scrying spell. The magnifying glass is somewhat better as it doesn’t state the magnification just giving the user advantage on observations made with it.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
all non-bard are stronger in battle than monks and rogues(including arcane trickster), since the casters have magic and 8+xd8 hp, monks ki(weak magic variant) and 8+xd8 hp, and rogues have surprise attack, 8+xd8 and some subclasses have magic.since magic is superior the monks and rogues are too weak. in one to one battle the martials win, but the fighter(including eldritch knight)falls out in fighting against big groups of monsters or op ones, the barbarian has more hitpoints but just can’t reduce damage and keep rage enough to make an eternal stand.that leaves the half-caster martials, paladins are strong in groups but lose when on their own eventually, the ranger is strong but can’t hold every enemy alike the fighter, even when shooting or joining melee with magic, one exception: good old hunter ranger, hunter ranger can beat every caster in battling hordes, with deadly feature combos every turn instead of until out of spell slots. that is major weakness1 of the casters, they need spellslots for everything and 2. they will fall down when losing in iniative and without martial friends.
this whole thing with martials losing is when they strike first, but as everyone knows: caster don’t have many hp
1. When you improve a class, you often have to remove certain features to make way for new ones and ensure the power level doesn't become too unbalanced.
2. Sometimes only adding features can actually harm a class and push away those who already enjoy it. For instance, adding a super complex feature to a simple class will likely alienate the audience that uses that class.
3. Another example of adding a class feature that would harm the people who play the class would involve adding a non-optional feature that changes the theme of the class and doesn't fit into many campaigns that use the class.
4. Some people were talking about removing class options to make way for other ones unless I am remembering incorrectly.
I actually mostly disagree with this take. My point was that certain people who aren't active in surveys, forums, Reddit, or other parts of the community are still important players and customers to the game. While forums like this one provide an excellent source of ideas, there are too few people here to make a judgement about what most D&D players think. Additionally, sock puppets and users with multiple accounts can create chaos and make it seem like more people think something here, while there are presumably more safeguards on the survey against this.
Um... No. That's not how it works.
When I fill out the survey, I am saying that I personally would have a more enjoyable time playing the game if the parts I like stay and the parts I don't like go. I am not saying that these changes should be made, merely that I would have the most fun playing the game if they were. When you fill the survey, you give Wizards data so they can make their decision about what should and shouldn't be changed.
You aren't saying what needs to be changed or even what you want to be changed. For instance, if I personally won't have as much fun if X 1DD ability to be changed but everyone I know likes it, it's still my job to check the box and say I am dissatisfied with the feature. That doesn't mean I want the feature to be changed and the majority of players who like it to suffer; It just means that I want to provide Wizards of the Coast with enough information to make an informed decision.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.There is absolutely 0 difference.
Marking the survey is in fact attempting to influences the outcome in a way favorable to your own desires.
However, that is not the point of this thread.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
No, saying what would make things more enjoyable for you is different than saying other things need to be changed to meet your whims. One is saying whether or not you like something and letting someone else make the decision based off your thoughts and the thoughts of 40,000 other players, while the other method is saying that something must be changed because you think it should, regardless of what anyone else in the world thinks.
When you complete the survey you are supposed to say what you think about various features. You are not discussing how you would change it or whether or not you would put that mechanic into D&D if you knew almost everyone else opposed it. These things are completely different and some ideas that you may care about in the play-test could also be something you're glad to see in the game for those who do care about it.
Yes, people complete the survey in an attempt to influence the game. I never denied that. However, if you really can't see the difference between someone saying what they like and letting Wizards make a decision and someone saying that they like something and everything needs to or should change merely because of their own view, regardless of what others think, then I honestly am at a loss for words.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Ok. Let me make this simple for you. Tell me the difference between these two survey responses.
Person number 1 marks Dissatisfied with the UA Fighter.
Person number 2 marks Dissatisfied with the UA Fighter.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Yes every class and subclass has a weakness somewhere that sort of balances out in 1 on 1 comparisons. We also have the problem of ego - “ I want to be the hero of the story and everyone else is a supporting actor” it is much easier for the high level mage to do this because of the disconnect between having about 20 slots and only around 20 rounds of combat in the day leaving enough slots free for spells that overshadow other player’s skills. We have all been “that” player occasionally. It’s more difficult at lower levels since you don’t have the slots and the spells aren’t as powerful. It can be hard to step back and let everyone else in the party shine before you do ( or don’t). ( my present group actually tends to have the opposite problem - everyone is experienced enough that they tend to step back - “ no , you first, no you first” ntil someone gets fed up and actually does something.) Every class has its strengths and weaknesses, when the party plays a team it’s amazing what they can do, when they all play as the star it can be amazing just how bad they can be too.
But for all of that full casters (Bards, Clerics, Druids and Wizards) simply have too many options without enough daily uses (typically) so they can store up options to replace something that everyone else does without magic at least once overshadowing the other classes. Some of the things I’ve considered in home brew to bring about some balance ( none actually made it in my game)include moving jack of all trades from bard to rogue so the rogue becomes the true skill monkey - the bard (PHB) is a known caster however so their actual spell selection is limited. This is solved in the UA so I may have to look at it again. Straight fighters probably need to have more than the 2 skills/tool sets they presently have - maybe up to 4/5 skills/tools but no expertise. The UA ranger with 4 skills + expertise is a good balance although I wouldn’t mind the Druid and ranger getting the herbalism kit automatically in addition. I think one of the reasons for the lack of evocation cantrips in the primal spells is that with something like Eldritch blast/chill touch/firebolt being available there is no reason for rangers to take up the bow and archery. Maybe what would work would be to reduce the range of the cantrips to 90’ for everyone so that archery actually outranges the cantrips making archery useful. There are probably a lot of little tweaks like that that could go a long way to giving some balance between casters and martials.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
My whole point was that filling out the survey and saying you like something doesn't mean you think your opinion overrules everyone else and it should be changed regardless of what other people think. I said that just because you say that you individually like a certain mechanic, updated class, or change to something in a survey doesn't mean that you think that change should automatically be made if numerous other people put in something different and don't feel the same as you do.
This question really feels like a strawman that doesn't relate to anything I've said.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.That is because I never said that one opinion over rules anyone else's. Why would I try to defend a point of view that I don't have?
If you fill out the survey all the opinions are equal and carry the same weight. I just said that everyone filling out the survey is seeking the same results, which is to influence the design of the game. Nothing more, nothing less.
Everything else you made up on your own when you responded to me to start this whole argument.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Earlier, you argued that filling out the survey was equivalent to saying that whatever you want changed has to be modified. Quote: "People saying 'I don't go saying other classes need to be changed to be what I would like.' are in fact telling WotC to do just that every time they fill out a survey".
On the survey, you say what you like and don't like; what you want to see in the core rulebooks for One D&D and what you want to see discarded. The only way you individually liking and disliking something would mandate a need for that class or mechanic to change would be if your opinion overruled everyone else's. As such, my point was that no individual's opinion is more important than the beliefs of numerous others, and that filling out the survey doesn't mean that you are telling Wizard what "needs" to be changed, instead of what you would be happy with seeing improving.
I never invented anything or shoved words down your mouth. You made a statement earlier in this thread, defended it, and now are attempting to claim that it was something I "made up on... [my] own... to start this argument."
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Anything beyond that does not matter. The words may be different, but the meaning and results are the same.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
This doesn't relate to anything I have said, because I was talking about how completing the survey and saying you would prefer a certain modification to a class doesn't mean you think that class needs to be changed to be exactly how you want it. I wasn't really discussing differences between people who completed the survey, but saying that completing the survey involves you saying what you would like to happen, not what needs to happen.
As a sidenote, these survey results do actually have large differences. Person 2 says what they like better, while person 1 says that something "needs" to be changed. One person is voicing their opinion while another is saying how the game has to change.
But anyways, I feel like we are going in circles and that you really don't understand what you're trying to say. It is possible that I have somehow misinterpreted everything you've said, but I would strongly encourage you to reread some of my earlier posts in which I repeatedly explained myself and got asked questions that related only tangentially at best to my point. I mean it with no offense when I say that I will be unsubscribing and will not respond to any further posts on this because I feel that this line of discussion has frustrated me and gone nowhere. :)
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I wish you the best of luck and I am sorry that we could not communicate clearly enough with one another to get our points across. For what it is worth, I think you and I are simply hung up on different aspects of the topic.
For me, the words used to provide the feedback on the survey are less important than the actionable content of the response. For example; of the people that marked "Dissatisfied with X" 53% want Y, 34% wanted Z, and 13% just wanted to scream about pickles. Everyone that's providing feedback via Survey are telling WotC how they want each of the classes to play. That is the point of the Survey. The words they use to convey that information to WotC just doesn't matter as much to me as it seems that it does to you.
Anyway, see you around the forums.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
It appears that Wizards is in fact reading the text feedback on the surveys, not just grabbing a raw score.
I am sure that they are, but that doesn't really change anything that I said. Reading the feedback is how they know that people who marked "dissatisfied" want Y and not X. That is the information that is most useful. Someone using the word "need' vs "want" just doesn't provide any real information that they can do anything with.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
That's because it doesn't actually mean anything other than intensity of opinion, which can be adequately determined from the numerical rating.