For just one second, let's pretend that this change is justified (even though we've spent 6 pages explaining why it's not). If removing crits makes a change, then first off it's only negligible as Linklite said. But second off, there are so many other ways to balance this that make a bigger difference and don't involve getting rid of crits.
Here are the two main ways to fix the balance issues between martials and casters, and here are various ways to accomplish those changes:
1. Make martials more powerful.
1a. By boosting their average HP or AC.
1b: By giving them more special effects or limited resources that they can expend to do more cool things.
1c: By boosting weapon damage or giving them more attacks.
2. Make spellcasters less powerful (I'd rather not use this option but I included it just because it's technically viable):
2a: Give casters less spell slots.
2b: Limit AC and HP boosts via spells.
2c: Remove double-damage on crits from them.
In short, if you want to balance these two classes by bringing down spellcasters, as opposed to boosting up martials which I think is much better, then 2c does not make nearly as much difference as 2a and 2b. And everything for 1 is a much better, and easier option.
Double damage happens on 5% percent of rolls, which is not common at all. And for the vast majority of spells it can happen on, it does not make close to the massive difference some people on this thread have said it would make.
Yeah, this is not the best option. Just do anything in number 1 and you've taken a much bigger stepper to solve that difference, and given martials more fun as opposed to taking more fun away from spellcasters. So yeah, why take this option?
It does irk me that not even cantrips can crit. Part of the fun of fights is the risk and gamble and nerfing the 'big payout' of the nat 20 really lowers the tension and enjoyment. I can understand it's removal for the more powerful spells, but for the cantrips... it really feels like a fun reduction.
I have been reading through this entire thread intently, and I absolutely see both sides of this argument. I already know I won't be implementing some of these changes in any campaign I run.
I think removing double damage instead of removing critting from spells can be fine if a situationally relevant secondary effect is triggered. For example, you crit on a guiding bolt, instead of it doing double damage, it hits could dispel a magical effect (or generate a roll to dispel), it could grant advantage on all attacks until the end of the casters next turn instead of just next attack, splash damage to nearby enemies, etc. Basically, treat spell crits like positive only wild magic surges that is in some way materially beneficial to what the player is trying to do. The key here would be that it would be on the DM, and that can be tricky to balance.
Alternatively though, I really think the option I would go with is, I would provide a few small buffs to martial classes. For one thing, it makes no sense that a highly physically capable barbarian in light or no armor moves the same distance as a decrepit book worm. Either casting classes should have a reduced movement speed or martial ones should have increased movement. Additionally, spells are all or nothing, defensively speaking, IMO AC from worn armor, not spells or evasiveness, should also provide a small flat damage reduction on physical attacks. What I would do is make it so Heavy armor provides half rounded of AC to damage reduction, Medium would provided 1/4 (which would be half rounded down twice), and light would just provide the AC bonus. So if you have an AC of say 17 in heavy plate, you get 8, which is half rounded down of AC (4 if medium armor) reduced off the damage roll of the attack. IMO, martial attacks do not need to crit as high as spells since most spells can't crit and MOST of the time, only one spell can be used per round vs multiple attacks anyway. Basically, the rarity of spell crits compared to the consistency of martial crits makes it okay that the damage is not aligned.
Alternatively, I could totally see actually buffing crits from fighters and barbarians specifically. Give them some sort of passive ability where weapon attack crits are rolled differently. Many have pointed out in this thread that spell crits do disproportionately high damage, I think I may have found a method that brings melee crits more in line with spells consistently. When a fighter or barbarian crits, they roll the damage with advantage, taking the higher number, add whatever combat modifiers, then multiply it by 2. So, lets say you wield a weapon that deals 1d10, with advantage, lets say it averagely deals 7 and you add...4? for combat modifier (I just picked a number for stand in damage modifier). You would deal 11 doubled to 22. A guiding bolt crit is a 1st level spell slot (but also, it is a spell slot, meaning an expendable resource) that deals 8d6, which averages 28 damage. I feel it's fair that the guiding bolt will crit, slightly harder on average than the reworked martial crit considering fighters don't run out of sword like clerics do spell slots.
The part where this crit idea falls apart is... When do they get it? If it's low level, you could multiclass and take advantage of that same buff for martial classes as a caster. My natural inclination would be to put it at around level 10 or 12, but that is after most campaigns end by level. Maybe it's fair if this applies to all melee attacks since casters tend to be more inept at martial combat anyway, it feels as though this would still massively benefit martial classes over casters. The drawback to that is, I feel this nerf was more targeted at Paladins and Rogues than anyone else and they would benefit the most from this change...
Regardless, there are better solutions than taking away the joy that comes with a critical roll in DND. Might as well just convert all spells to saving throws.
The major point I didn't address is the idea that they could be making this change to reduce the "random swinginess" that can occur with high powered crits in fights and against bosses. Fundamentally, I am just opposed to this ideology, you are telling a story together, potentially wild moments are a large part of the fun and make for the most memorable moments in storytelling.
Given how casters can obliterate entire battlefields, control enemies, support allies, and have the keys to most situations, while martials have to exist in a realistic universe, there's no way to balance it but nerf spellcasters.
I don't see why. They have the one attack roll a turn so they won't crit as often as a martial class. The more powerful spells already use spell saves so it is not like those powerful spells can crit. So why nerf them further?
Because martials need at least something to call their own. At least martials have a realistic description of their crits - a hit to the eye, throat, or another vulnerable spot. But how really does a ray of frost crit?
At the end of the day, it's all about averages anyways, right? Whether you can crit or not only matters with how the character and classes are being built and how they work. If they want to restructure classes to make them different but in the end they all average about the same in power, utility and abilities, then great. Before you get your undies in a wad, we need to see the bigger picture and vision of how they plan to accomplish what they want. Problem we have right now, is some of that vision and bigger picture is obscured or fuzzy. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To know the light, you must sometimes experience the dark.
Given how casters can obliterate entire battlefields, control enemies, support allies, and have the keys to most situations, while martials have to exist in a realistic universe, there's no way to balance it but nerf spellcasters.
I don't see why. They have the one attack roll a turn so they won't crit as often as a martial class. The more powerful spells already use spell saves so it is not like those powerful spells can crit. So why nerf them further?
Because martials need at least something to call their own. At least martials have a realistic description of their crits - a hit to the eye, throat, or another vulnerable spot. But how really does a ray of frost crit?
Why would getting hit in the face hurt more with a mace but not more with a bolt of fire or ray of frost.
Given how casters can obliterate entire battlefields, control enemies, support allies, and have the keys to most situations, while martials have to exist in a realistic universe, there's no way to balance it but nerf spellcasters.
I don't see why. They have the one attack roll a turn so they won't crit as often as a martial class. The more powerful spells already use spell saves so it is not like those powerful spells can crit. So why nerf them further?
Because martials need at least something to call their own. At least martials have a realistic description of their crits - a hit to the eye, throat, or another vulnerable spot. But how really does a ray of frost crit?
... The same way the circumstances align and allow that excellent physical strike, so too do the forces of magic converge in just the right way to allow a spectacular explosion of force. If you are a wizard, maybe you have a flash of brilliant insight about the EXACT location, coordinates, leylines, etc of the specific place you are standing in and the specific time to empower your spell. If you are a warlock, maybe your patron had a vested interest in amping your spell at that moment, or it could be funny, unrelated things, like a fey patron arguing with a lover and the resulting anger overloading a spell. A bard can hit heartfelt notes and achieve a sound that would be extremely hard to replicate (the advantages of live performance for you music heads)....
The list goes on and on. Anything a person does that can involve both skill and luck can have moments where skill and luck align and allow moments of extraordinary performance. Doesn't matter if the skill is physical, mental, magical, mundane, etc.
Because martials need at least something to call their own.
Martials have "I do ridiculous amounts of damage to single targets" to call their own. What martials need is a broader role, not being better at the role they're already really good at.
One problem I see (of many) is that JC said they're looking at moving away from spell attack rolls, and instead using primarily saving throws. If this is the case, then spellcasters will not benefit from inspiration to anywhere near the same degree that martials do.
It also feels like they're doing this to make the DEV'S lives easier, not to benefit the players. JC said he gets hundreds of questions about "is this affected by a crit? Is that affected by a crit?" So they just scrapped it all and said, no, only the weapon die is affected by a crit. Just so they don't have to answer those questions anymore. Simplified is not necessarily better.
Because martials need at least something to call their own.
Martials have "I do ridiculous amounts of damage to single targets" to call their own. What martials need is a broader role, not being better at the role they're already really good at.
not really, level 5 Barbarian with a great axe, rage and a +4 modifier does what, an average of 16.9 damage per round (@65% chance)? or 23.2 with advantage. Fireball does an average 23.1 at a 65% failed save rate.
so yeah, some martials like Paladin or some Fighter subclasses can hit high single target damage but not all.
not really, level 5 Barbarian with a great axe, rage and a +4 modifier does what, an average of 16.9 damage per round (@65% chance)? or 23.2 with advantage. Fireball does an average 23.1 at a 65% failed save rate.
Level 5 is about the worst level possible to compare, and you're comparing at-will damage to 2x/day damage.
One problem I see (of many) is that JC said they're looking at moving away from spell attack rolls, and instead using primarily saving throws. If this is the case, then spellcasters will not benefit from inspiration to anywhere near the same degree that martials do.
Then there is no need to mess around with spellcaster crits then. If there are fewer spells with crit potential, then there will naturally be fewer crits.
It also feels like they're doing this to make the DEV'S lives easier, not to benefit the players. JC said he gets hundreds of questions about "is this affected by a crit? Is that affected by a crit?" So they just scrapped it all and said, no, only the weapon die is affected by a crit. Just so they don't have to answer those questions anymore. Simplified is not necessarily better.
This (the position you've posited that the Devs hold, not you) would be very naive. People will still ask those questions regardless. Besides, they've made it more complicated. Before, it was "if you roll a crit, you roll double the damage di(c)e". Now, we're going to have questions about whether Booming Blade counts. Besides, given the confusing language in 5e, I don't have much faith that they'll do any better now, and I bet a lot of the problem comes from JC insisting on responding to questions with non-answers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
... The same way the circumstances align and allow that excellent physical strike, so too do the forces of magic converge in just the right way to allow a spectacular explosion of force. If you are a wizard, maybe you have a flash of brilliant insight about the EXACT location, coordinates, leylines, etc of the specific place you are standing in and the specific time to empower your spell. If you are a warlock, maybe your patron had a vested interest in amping your spell at that moment, or it could be funny, unrelated things, like a fey patron arguing with a lover and the resulting anger overloading a spell. A bard can hit heartfelt notes and achieve a sound that would be extremely hard to replicate (the advantages of live performance for you music heads)....
The list goes on and on. Anything a person does that can involve both skill and luck can have moments where skill and luck align and allow moments of extraordinary performance. Doesn't matter if the skill is physical, mental, magical, mundane, etc.
Then again, it's inconsistent with saving throw spells.
Martials have "I do ridiculous amounts of damage to single targets" to call their own. What martials need is a broader role, not being better at the role they're already really good at.
I agree that they need a broader role and I want that with all my heart (I cheered like a little girl when I first saw battlemaster maneuvres granting bonuses to skill checks), but the ways to do that are very limited without magic.
not really, level 5 Barbarian with a great axe, rage and a +4 modifier does what, an average of 16.9 damage per round (@65% chance)? or 23.2 with advantage. Fireball does an average 23.1 at a 65% failed save rate.
Level 5 is about the worst level possible to compare, and you're comparing at-will damage to 2x/day damage.
Wizard and Sorcerer can cast it 3 times a day at level 2, they only have 2 3rd level slots yes, but they have ways to get 1 back. But yes, I am comparing that at that level because it's the IDEAL level for Barbarian, Barbarian doesn't get much damage increase unless you count a little bit of an increase in rage bonus, or a extra die or two on critical hits.
... The same way the circumstances align and allow that excellent physical strike, so too do the forces of magic converge in just the right way to allow a spectacular explosion of force. If you are a wizard, maybe you have a flash of brilliant insight about the EXACT location, coordinates, leylines, etc of the specific place you are standing in and the specific time to empower your spell. If you are a warlock, maybe your patron had a vested interest in amping your spell at that moment, or it could be funny, unrelated things, like a fey patron arguing with a lover and the resulting anger overloading a spell. A bard can hit heartfelt notes and achieve a sound that would be extremely hard to replicate (the advantages of live performance for you music heads)....
The list goes on and on. Anything a person does that can involve both skill and luck can have moments where skill and luck align and allow moments of extraordinary performance. Doesn't matter if the skill is physical, mental, magical, mundane, etc.
Then again, it's inconsistent with saving throw spells.
Martials have "I do ridiculous amounts of damage to single targets" to call their own. What martials need is a broader role, not being better at the role they're already really good at.
I agree that they need a broader role and I want that with all my heart (I cheered like a little girl when I first saw battlemaster maneuvres granting bonuses to skill checks), but the ways to do that are very limited without magic.
There are huge ranges of abilities you can add without spells. Allow them to leap hundreds of feat, move incredible distances on a bonus action, lift/break things with superhuman force, intimidate/persuade beyond what is possible by mortals, attacks that stun, paralyze, knock unconscious, charm people. A charm/sleep/paralyze effect can come from a maneuver just as easily as it can come from a spell.
Because martials need at least something to call their own.
Martials have "I do ridiculous amounts of damage to single targets" to call their own. What martials need is a broader role, not being better at the role they're already really good at.
not really, level 5 Barbarian with a great axe, rage and a +4 modifier does what, an average of 16.9 damage per round (@65% chance)? or 23.2 with advantage. Fireball does an average 23.1 at a 65% failed save rate.
so yeah, some martials like Paladin or some Fighter subclasses can hit high single target damage but not all.
I've almost never seen a barbarian hit that low at level 5. That being said I don't think many people argue the barbarian needs something past level 5 as their perks are pretty crappy after it, a couple sub classes may be worth it, otherwise no. And a lot of that single target damage they excel in will likely be delayed with the advent of scaling feats, some of these level 1 feats are great but they wont be launching the barbarian into their PAM/GWM lifestyle that they excel at thanks to their advantage on demand.
And the main issue they will need to deal with is re balancing classes as their assumption of 6-8 encounters seems to be far far off from actual play so classes based around the long rest recovery and expendable resources were out of whack, not sure if they can fix a daily balance as long as its the players who get to set their rest schedule. They need to balance in each encounter.
Because martials need at least something to call their own.
Martials have "I do ridiculous amounts of damage to single targets" to call their own. What martials need is a broader role, not being better at the role they're already really good at.
Pantagruel said it all. And for barbarians who don't have that as much, (though they still have it some,) they also have a tankload of HP and often resistance to the damage from that single target.
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.
There are huge ranges of abilities you can add without spells. Allow them to leap hundreds of feat, move incredible distances on a bonus action, lift/break things with superhuman force, intimidate/persuade beyond what is possible by mortals, attacks that stun, paralyze, knock unconscious, charm people. A charm/sleep/paralyze effect can come from a maneuver just as easily as it can come from a spell.
What you listed is all supernatural abilities, essentially magic. And as you can see, fighters and rogues, for example, have to be realistic, at least with most subclasses.
There are huge ranges of abilities you can add without spells. Allow them to leap hundreds of feat, move incredible distances on a bonus action, lift/break things with superhuman force, intimidate/persuade beyond what is possible by mortals, attacks that stun, paralyze, knock unconscious, charm people. A charm/sleep/paralyze effect can come from a maneuver just as easily as it can come from a spell.
What you listed is all supernatural abilities, essentially magic. And as you can see, fighters and rogues, for example, have to be realistic, at least with most subclasses.
I mean... are they realistic? Fighter dashing 10 turns in a row while wearing plate armour can move 600 foot or almost 183 meters, where 10 turns is a minute... Usain Bolt would love those speeds.
Sleep is just a knock out blow, paralyze I don't want to get into. But there is an untapped method of getting some effects that is still sort of magical without being spellcasting, and that's poisons/alchemy. I think a rogue or fighter subclass that uses poisons like that could be interesting.
For just one second, let's pretend that this change is justified (even though we've spent 6 pages explaining why it's not). If removing crits makes a change, then first off it's only negligible as Linklite said. But second off, there are so many other ways to balance this that make a bigger difference and don't involve getting rid of crits.
Here are the two main ways to fix the balance issues between martials and casters, and here are various ways to accomplish those changes:
1. Make martials more powerful.
1a. By boosting their average HP or AC.
1b: By giving them more special effects or limited resources that they can expend to do more cool things.
1c: By boosting weapon damage or giving them more attacks.
2. Make spellcasters less powerful (I'd rather not use this option but I included it just because it's technically viable):
2a: Give casters less spell slots.
2b: Limit AC and HP boosts via spells.
2c: Remove double-damage on crits from them.
In short, if you want to balance these two classes by bringing down spellcasters, as opposed to boosting up martials which I think is much better, then 2c does not make nearly as much difference as 2a and 2b. And everything for 1 is a much better, and easier option.
Double damage happens on 5% percent of rolls, which is not common at all. And for the vast majority of spells it can happen on, it does not make close to the massive difference some people on this thread have said it would make.
Yeah, this is not the best option. Just do anything in number 1 and you've taken a much bigger stepper to solve that difference, and given martials more fun as opposed to taking more fun away from spellcasters. So yeah, why take this option?
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.It does irk me that not even cantrips can crit. Part of the fun of fights is the risk and gamble and nerfing the 'big payout' of the nat 20 really lowers the tension and enjoyment. I can understand it's removal for the more powerful spells, but for the cantrips... it really feels like a fun reduction.
I have been reading through this entire thread intently, and I absolutely see both sides of this argument. I already know I won't be implementing some of these changes in any campaign I run.
I think removing double damage instead of removing critting from spells can be fine if a situationally relevant secondary effect is triggered. For example, you crit on a guiding bolt, instead of it doing double damage, it hits could dispel a magical effect (or generate a roll to dispel), it could grant advantage on all attacks until the end of the casters next turn instead of just next attack, splash damage to nearby enemies, etc. Basically, treat spell crits like positive only wild magic surges that is in some way materially beneficial to what the player is trying to do. The key here would be that it would be on the DM, and that can be tricky to balance.
Alternatively though, I really think the option I would go with is, I would provide a few small buffs to martial classes. For one thing, it makes no sense that a highly physically capable barbarian in light or no armor moves the same distance as a decrepit book worm. Either casting classes should have a reduced movement speed or martial ones should have increased movement. Additionally, spells are all or nothing, defensively speaking, IMO AC from worn armor, not spells or evasiveness, should also provide a small flat damage reduction on physical attacks. What I would do is make it so Heavy armor provides half rounded of AC to damage reduction, Medium would provided 1/4 (which would be half rounded down twice), and light would just provide the AC bonus. So if you have an AC of say 17 in heavy plate, you get 8, which is half rounded down of AC (4 if medium armor) reduced off the damage roll of the attack. IMO, martial attacks do not need to crit as high as spells since most spells can't crit and MOST of the time, only one spell can be used per round vs multiple attacks anyway. Basically, the rarity of spell crits compared to the consistency of martial crits makes it okay that the damage is not aligned.
Alternatively, I could totally see actually buffing crits from fighters and barbarians specifically. Give them some sort of passive ability where weapon attack crits are rolled differently. Many have pointed out in this thread that spell crits do disproportionately high damage, I think I may have found a method that brings melee crits more in line with spells consistently. When a fighter or barbarian crits, they roll the damage with advantage, taking the higher number, add whatever combat modifiers, then multiply it by 2. So, lets say you wield a weapon that deals 1d10, with advantage, lets say it averagely deals 7 and you add...4? for combat modifier (I just picked a number for stand in damage modifier). You would deal 11 doubled to 22. A guiding bolt crit is a 1st level spell slot (but also, it is a spell slot, meaning an expendable resource) that deals 8d6, which averages 28 damage. I feel it's fair that the guiding bolt will crit, slightly harder on average than the reworked martial crit considering fighters don't run out of sword like clerics do spell slots.
The part where this crit idea falls apart is... When do they get it? If it's low level, you could multiclass and take advantage of that same buff for martial classes as a caster. My natural inclination would be to put it at around level 10 or 12, but that is after most campaigns end by level. Maybe it's fair if this applies to all melee attacks since casters tend to be more inept at martial combat anyway, it feels as though this would still massively benefit martial classes over casters. The drawback to that is, I feel this nerf was more targeted at Paladins and Rogues than anyone else and they would benefit the most from this change...
Regardless, there are better solutions than taking away the joy that comes with a critical roll in DND. Might as well just convert all spells to saving throws.
The major point I didn't address is the idea that they could be making this change to reduce the "random swinginess" that can occur with high powered crits in fights and against bosses. Fundamentally, I am just opposed to this ideology, you are telling a story together, potentially wild moments are a large part of the fun and make for the most memorable moments in storytelling.
I started a new thread specifically about letting cantrips crit, since I saw the idea broached on this thread and thought it was interesting.
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.Because martials need at least something to call their own. At least martials have a realistic description of their crits - a hit to the eye, throat, or another vulnerable spot. But how really does a ray of frost crit?
At the end of the day, it's all about averages anyways, right? Whether you can crit or not only matters with how the character and classes are being built and how they work. If they want to restructure classes to make them different but in the end they all average about the same in power, utility and abilities, then great. Before you get your undies in a wad, we need to see the bigger picture and vision of how they plan to accomplish what they want. Problem we have right now, is some of that vision and bigger picture is obscured or fuzzy. :)
To know the light, you must sometimes experience the dark.
Why would getting hit in the face hurt more with a mace but not more with a bolt of fire or ray of frost.
... The same way the circumstances align and allow that excellent physical strike, so too do the forces of magic converge in just the right way to allow a spectacular explosion of force. If you are a wizard, maybe you have a flash of brilliant insight about the EXACT location, coordinates, leylines, etc of the specific place you are standing in and the specific time to empower your spell. If you are a warlock, maybe your patron had a vested interest in amping your spell at that moment, or it could be funny, unrelated things, like a fey patron arguing with a lover and the resulting anger overloading a spell. A bard can hit heartfelt notes and achieve a sound that would be extremely hard to replicate (the advantages of live performance for you music heads)....
The list goes on and on. Anything a person does that can involve both skill and luck can have moments where skill and luck align and allow moments of extraordinary performance. Doesn't matter if the skill is physical, mental, magical, mundane, etc.
Martials have "I do ridiculous amounts of damage to single targets" to call their own. What martials need is a broader role, not being better at the role they're already really good at.
One problem I see (of many) is that JC said they're looking at moving away from spell attack rolls, and instead using primarily saving throws. If this is the case, then spellcasters will not benefit from inspiration to anywhere near the same degree that martials do.
It also feels like they're doing this to make the DEV'S lives easier, not to benefit the players. JC said he gets hundreds of questions about "is this affected by a crit? Is that affected by a crit?" So they just scrapped it all and said, no, only the weapon die is affected by a crit. Just so they don't have to answer those questions anymore. Simplified is not necessarily better.
not really, level 5 Barbarian with a great axe, rage and a +4 modifier does what, an average of 16.9 damage per round (@65% chance)? or 23.2 with advantage. Fireball does an average 23.1 at a 65% failed save rate.
so yeah, some martials like Paladin or some Fighter subclasses can hit high single target damage but not all.
Level 5 is about the worst level possible to compare, and you're comparing at-will damage to 2x/day damage.
This (the position you've posited that the Devs hold, not you) would be very naive. People will still ask those questions regardless. Besides, they've made it more complicated. Before, it was "if you roll a crit, you roll double the damage di(c)e". Now, we're going to have questions about whether Booming Blade counts. Besides, given the confusing language in 5e, I don't have much faith that they'll do any better now, and I bet a lot of the problem comes from JC insisting on responding to questions with non-answers.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Then again, it's inconsistent with saving throw spells.
I agree that they need a broader role and I want that with all my heart (I cheered like a little girl when I first saw battlemaster maneuvres granting bonuses to skill checks), but the ways to do that are very limited without magic.
Wizard and Sorcerer can cast it 3 times a day at level 2, they only have 2 3rd level slots yes, but they have ways to get 1 back. But yes, I am comparing that at that level because it's the IDEAL level for Barbarian, Barbarian doesn't get much damage increase unless you count a little bit of an increase in rage bonus, or a extra die or two on critical hits.
There are huge ranges of abilities you can add without spells. Allow them to leap hundreds of feat, move incredible distances on a bonus action, lift/break things with superhuman force, intimidate/persuade beyond what is possible by mortals, attacks that stun, paralyze, knock unconscious, charm people. A charm/sleep/paralyze effect can come from a maneuver just as easily as it can come from a spell.
I've almost never seen a barbarian hit that low at level 5. That being said I don't think many people argue the barbarian needs something past level 5 as their perks are pretty crappy after it, a couple sub classes may be worth it, otherwise no. And a lot of that single target damage they excel in will likely be delayed with the advent of scaling feats, some of these level 1 feats are great but they wont be launching the barbarian into their PAM/GWM lifestyle that they excel at thanks to their advantage on demand.
And the main issue they will need to deal with is re balancing classes as their assumption of 6-8 encounters seems to be far far off from actual play so classes based around the long rest recovery and expendable resources were out of whack, not sure if they can fix a daily balance as long as its the players who get to set their rest schedule. They need to balance in each encounter.
Pantagruel said it all. And for barbarians who don't have that as much, (though they still have it some,) they also have a tankload of HP and often resistance to the damage from that single target.
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.What you listed is all supernatural abilities, essentially magic. And as you can see, fighters and rogues, for example, have to be realistic, at least with most subclasses.
I mean... are they realistic? Fighter dashing 10 turns in a row while wearing plate armour can move 600 foot or almost 183 meters, where 10 turns is a minute... Usain Bolt would love those speeds.
Sleep is just a knock out blow, paralyze I don't want to get into. But there is an untapped method of getting some effects that is still sort of magical without being spellcasting, and that's poisons/alchemy. I think a rogue or fighter subclass that uses poisons like that could be interesting.