There's no question that it's possible to balance a con-based caster. It just means they have to be not as good at spellcasting as a class that's more MAD.
There's no question that it's possible to balance a con-based caster. It just means they have to be not as good at spellcasting as a class that's more MAD.
thats not really how 5e works.
MADness of characters has nothing to with any type of effectiveness.
The theoretical design of dnd, is that characters are supposed to all work well regardless of their SAD/MADness, and all be fairly effective, just living out different fantasies.
wizard is one of the most SAD, and also many people would say the best class. Monk is MAD and pretty much behind in everything, PLD is mad waa strong in support offense and defense.
there is no correlation to how many stats your character can use and its effectiveness.
effectiveness is basically just how well the class is designed. They are all supposed to be effective.
by your suggestion, barbarian should be weaker than pld? its totally illogical
There's no question that it's possible to balance a con-based caster. It just means they have to be not as good at spellcasting as a class that's more MAD.
thats not really how 5e works.
MADness of characters has nothing to with any type of effectiveness.
Well, D&D is frequently somewhat indifferent to game balance. The reality remains, being SAD is an advantage and should be compensated for with a corresponding weakness.
What are the corresponding weaknesses of the currently SAD Classes that already exist in 5e?
I think you'd need to compare both strength and weaknesses of all classes, if I had a stab at it, not expecting everybody will agree with all of this but it's roughly where I'd say strengths/weaknesses are.
Barbarian
+ Extremely tanky/high survivability (High HP and Rage), good initiative
~ Some offensive and defensive subclass choices
- Bad range, series of bad features, poor damage, rage dependent (Long Rest, Bane needs his venom)
Bard
+ Strong support, full caster, magical secrets (access to all spells in the game), skill monkey (has a minimum of half-proficiency in every skill)
~ Survivability (AC and Health), mixture of offensive and support subclass choices
- Poor damage / limited spell list (partially mitigated later on by magical secrets)
Cleric
+ Strong support, good damage, full caster, prepared caster, many good subclass choices
~ Survivability
- none? some bad subclass choices? grasping at straws here!
Druid
+ full caster, prepared caster, support and conjurers/summons
~ survivability
- Generally concentration dependent, lacking features
Fighter
+ multiple build options, choice of STR or DEX as primary ability modifier, good damage, great survivability, some of the most broken subclasses (more so battlemaster), extra feats/asi
~ some subpar subclasses?
- no out of combat benefits?
Monk
+ Stunning Strike
~ fair early game damage, sub class choices
- Ki/Discipline dependent (short rest), poor late game damage, survivability
Paladin
+ great survivability, great damage (Nova/divine smite), half caster, prepared caster, healing, support (auras)
~ Nova and spells share resource (spell slots), subclass choices
- spell slot dependent (long rest), lay on hands dependent (long rest), terrible range, terrible stealth, terrible initiative, Most ability score dependent class in the game
+ full caster, utility, all rounder, good damage, rituals (on non-prepared spells)
~ prepared spells (from spells known), sub class choices
- survivability
---
If people wonder why classes like Paladin and Warlock are down as spell slot dependent and Monk ki dependent while full casters aren't, it isn't that I am saying these classes do not need them, it is that Paladin, Warlock and Monk burn their resources quickly. Warlock can sustain a consistent DPR with hex but Paladin and Monk drop performance fast once out of resources.
CLERIC: Required Stats (1): WIS + (minor) STR + (minor) CON Required Stats (2): WIS + (minor) DEX Strengths: Support, Utility Weaknesses: Social, Battlefield Control, Exploration
DRUID: Required Stats: WIS + (minor) DEX Strengths: Exploration, Utility, Battlefield Control, AoE Weaknesses: Offense, Defense, Social
FIGHTER: Required Stats: STR or DEX + (minor) CON Strengths: Offense Weaknesses: Utility, Support, Exploration (if STR), Social (if take WIS as secondary stat), AoE
MONK: Required Stats: DEX + WIS + (minor) CON Strengths: Mobility, Battlefield Control, Exploration (if Shadow) Weaknesses: Social, Defense, Support (unless Mercy), AoE
PALADIN: Required Stats: STR + (minor) CHA + (minor) CON Strengths: Offense, Defense, Social Weaknesses: Exploration, Battlefield Control, Utility, AoE
RANGER: Required Stats (1): STR + (minor) DEX + (minor) CON + (minor) WIS Required Stats (2): DEX + (minor) WIS Strengths: Offense, Exploration Weaknesses: Social, AoE, Support
ROGUE: Required Stats: DEX (all) + (minor) CON (if melee) Strengths: Infiltration, (optional) Exploration, (optional) Social Weaknesses: AoE, Utility, Support, reliant on getting Sneak Attack
SORCERER: Required Stats: CHA + (minor) DEX Strengths: Social, AoE, either: Offense or Battlefield Control (depending on subclass/spell choice) Weaknesses: Support (unless Divine Soul), Exploration, Utility (depending on spell choice)
WARLOCK: Required Stats: CHA + (minor) DEX + (minor) CON Strengths: Social, Offense Weaknesses: Support, Defense, AoE (depending on spell choice), Exploration/Utility (depending on Pact Boon choice)
WIZARD: Required Stats: INT + (minor) DEX Strengths: Utility, Battlefield Control, Offense, AoE Weaknesses: Support, Social
=There is only one SAD classes in 5e: Rogue, all others are MAD to varying degrees:
Disagree that it's SAD, though it's about as SAD as a con caster would be (a con caster would want dex).
The vast majority of classes have one prime stat and want modest investments in Dex and Con, with other stats being 'nice to have, but skippable'. The major exceptions to this are
Dex fighters, rangers, and rogues (it's pretty safe to ignore wisdom on a ranger; what spells that you actually use have saves or attack rolls?)
Strength fighters (other martials lack heavy armor)
Heavy armor clerics can replace their modest dex investment with a modest str investment.
Classes that have two stats they want to max out (monk, paladin; most gishes also want this, which is why most gishes are bad).
D&D does not particularly balance against these needs... but D&D is not well balanced.
uhh, not sure how you guys are getting these weaknesses.
also agile, when people say SAD they generally didnt literally mean they had no benefit for any other stat. Basically if you only need 2 other stats(outside main) 14 or lower you are SAD. because, that means no further investment outside of character creation. every character gets 2 14 stats for free if they want it, while bumping one stat to 17.
my definition:
SAD = doesnt need to invest in more than one stat after character creation to be effective.
Note, I put a weakness as being below average, not simply their weakest thing, because some peoples weakest aspect is above baseline. So things that are average or OK, won't be mentioned in strength or weaknesse
Artificer SAD only has 4 subs, I wouldn't say BS or ARM are weak offensively. Infusions matter a bit, unless other players get any item they want. And flash of genius is a huge deal social/explorer, not to mention the possible infusions. They are extremely good at social/exploration. Artificer weakness is requires planning. Their offense is their weakest thing, but its still competitive.
strength:social, exploration, defense, support weakness: nothing
Bard SAD pure caster MAD martial/magic. weakness in 5e is offense, but not really with magical secrets lvl 10+. the last playtest bard had no real weakness because they don't have to wait until 10. defensively, they have access to spells, which have a ton of defense. Weakness, depends on your build, nothing specific. This is a hard call because we have no idea how new bard works with class spell lists. If it keeps the primal/arcane/divine just for itself, it has no issues.
strength:social defense support weakness: nothing UA, offense low level 5e
Barbarian MAD because defense is reliant on con/hp. but really only needs two, best type of mad. Strong offense OK survivability, As of UA. Weakness is lack of versatility I mean, they have great intimidation socially now, exploration, great perception, stealth survival.
Fighter SADstrong offense, and defense, and combat utility. tactical mind makes them pretty good outside combat but limited uses.
Strength:Combat Weakness nothing
cleric SAD strong defense and support, decent offense. weak exploration and social.
strength defense support. weakness social exploration
monk MADweakest class in the game, below baseline on almost everything. ok exploration, mostly due to required wisdom and good movement/step even though, not actually good at it.
=There is only one SAD classes in 5e: Rogue, all others are MAD to varying degrees:
Disagree that it's SAD, though it's about as SAD as a con caster would be (a con caster would want dex).
The vast majority of classes have one prime stat and want modest investments in Dex and Con, with other stats being 'nice to have, but skippable'. The major exceptions to this are
Dex fighters, rangers, and rogues (it's pretty safe to ignore wisdom on a ranger; what spells that you actually use have saves or attack rolls?)
Strength fighters (other martials lack heavy armor)
Heavy armor clerics can replace their modest dex investment with a modest str investment.
Classes that have two stats they want to max out (monk, paladin; most gishes also want this, which is why most gishes are bad).
D&D does not particularly balance against these needs... but D&D is not well balanced.
the goal of balance, with mad classes, is not that sad classes should be less effective, but rather that even though they may be mad, they are as effective. PLD/RNG is a good example, they can be effective as other classes while being mad.
Also, I agree dnd has balance issues, but I don't think it needs to be balanced by the metric of strong in this means weak somewhere else . I prefer the design that all classes should be effective within their fantasy. And all classes probably need to be effective at offense and surviving, though it can manifest in different ways.
the goal of balance, with mad classes, is not that sad classes should be less effective, but rather that even though they may be mad, they are as effective.
The goal is to have equal effectiveness at comparably achievable attribute levels. This generally means lower theoretical potential for a MAD build.
the goal of balance, with mad classes, is not that sad classes should be less effective, but rather that even though they may be mad, they are as effective.
The goal is to have equal effectiveness at comparably achievable attribute levels. This generally means lower theoretical potential for a MAD build.
not sure what you are trying to get across here.
lets say all two different class have stat spread of 20 16 14 10 10 8 (placed however they want it)
In your opinion, What are you saying should be the SAD classes effectiveness?
lets say all two different class have stat spread of 20 16 14 10 10 8 (placed however they want it)
In your opinion, What are you saying should be the SAD classes effectiveness?
What is the mad classes effectiveness?
Why would a SAD class have a 16? On a 27 point build, the SAD class should be about equal in power at any level. At higher attribute levels, the MAD class is expected to be superior, at lower attribute levels the SAD would be superior.
lets say all two different class have stat spread of 20 16 14 10 10 8 (placed however they want it)
In your opinion, What are you saying should be the SAD classes effectiveness?
What is the mad classes effectiveness?
Why would a SAD class have a 16? On a 27 point build, the SAD class should be about equal in power at any level. At higher attribute levels, the MAD class is expected to be superior, at lower attribute levels the SAD would be superior.
officially, you can start the game with 16 and 17 in a stat if you are willing to go low, though it might be two 8s. so you can have a 16 without ever investing after creation.
i dont really understand what you mean by higher attribute levels, are you talking about the leveling curve?
I dont think you really want any class to be stronger at high levels, and others stronger at low levels, by design. (no design is going to be perfect, but that shouldnt be a feature of your game design or leveling systems)
The goal would be to be generally similar power levels throughout leveling. Maybe one gets a bump at 4 and another at 7, but generally it should be similar.
i can see how one might think its always going to be the case, since their effectiveness uses 2 stats, rather than 1.
But ranger and Paladin basically are fine like that, they get more versatility with the other stats, but their power isnt really relatively low if they dont.
there are a number of ways to avoid the 2 stat problem, but those are going to come down to class design. The way in which they benefit from multi stats is very important.
officially, you can start the game with 16 and 17 in a stat if you are willing to go low, though it might be two 8s. so you can have a 16 without ever investing after creation.
Yes, but why would a SAD class bother to do that? The defining feature of SAD is that you don't particularly care about other attributes, so you'd probably get something like 17/14/13/12/12/8 as your starting array.
officially, you can start the game with 16 and 17 in a stat if you are willing to go low, though it might be two 8s. so you can have a 16 without ever investing after creation.
Yes, but why would a SAD class bother to do that? The defining feature of SAD is that you don't particularly care about other attributes, so you'd probably get something like 17/14/13/12/12/8 as your starting array.
yeah, im just saying, given the same attribute budget, how would SAD or MAD compare, using the MAD charachters case because it doesnt matter much for the SAD charachter, and to make the comparison simpler.
question was just to understand what you were implying
So in the end a Con spellcaster would still want Dex, because not getting hit is so much better than having higher hp, especially as enemies start hitting harder and having riders attached to their hits. So far no one has convinced me Con casting is broken. I do see a problem with things stacking, but that’s already a problem. So Con casting Dragon Sorcerer is really strong because you boost Con for casting, get some free AC and get free extra HP. It reminds me of Eloquence Bard who uses Cha for cast, gets expertise and then gets a feature to never roll below 10. So Con Dragon Sorc is to combat what Elo Bard is to Social. That might need an adjustment, but the Elo Bard is actually the more “broken” of the two in this comparison.
So in the end a Con spellcaster would still want Dex, because not getting hit is so much better than having higher hp, especially as enemies start hitting harder and having riders attached to their hits. So far no one has convinced me Con casting is broken. I do see a problem with things stacking, but that’s already a problem. So Con casting Dragon Sorcerer is really strong because you boost Con for casting, get some free AC and get free extra HP. It reminds me of Eloquence Bard who uses Cha for cast, gets expertise and then gets a feature to never roll below 10. So Con Dragon Sorc is to combat what Elo Bard is to Social. That might need an adjustment, but the Elo Bard is actually the more “broken” of the two in this comparison.
i believe the draconic sorcerer is cha and dex for unarmored defense as of playtest 7, so that actually works better for the CHA main draconic sorcerer. if you meant dragonborn, in cleric UA, they dont get a con benefit for AC.
i dont remember every dragon born iteration, but i dont know which would give AC.
I'd be fine with Artificer, Druid, Ranger and Warlocks getting CON casting. Primal spell casters using magical strength and durability feels right. Artificers literally hammering their magic into shape feels right. Warlocks channeling their patron's magic through their bodies as a conduit also feels like it could be appropriate for the right patron (especially Hexblades).
As for balance, I'd balance Con by using the concept of Biotics from Mass Effect. In ME biotics are the equivalent of magical powers. They involve channeling raw energy through lymph nodes infused with a special substance called Element Zero to increase or decrease the physical mass or energy reactivity of nearby objects (including enemies). The problem for Biotics is that since all the energy is from internal energy stores users must consume _insane_ levels of nutrients (5000+ calories per day are common) and they _auto-cannibalize_ when their bodies don't have enough to cast a spell.
I'd balance by having players get some early spellcasting levels like a Warlock. But higher level spells begin costing health, and you can substitute health damage by instead taking a level of exhaustion. Want to cast Wish? It's going to be a big sacrifice for that 9th level spell.
So in the end a Con spellcaster would still want Dex, because not getting hit is so much better than having higher hp, especially as enemies start hitting harder and having riders attached to their hits. So far no one has convinced me Con casting is broken. I do see a problem with things stacking, but that’s already a problem. So Con casting Dragon Sorcerer is really strong because you boost Con for casting, get some free AC and get free extra HP. It reminds me of Eloquence Bard who uses Cha for cast, gets expertise and then gets a feature to never roll below 10. So Con Dragon Sorc is to combat what Elo Bard is to Social. That might need an adjustment, but the Elo Bard is actually the more “broken” of the two in this comparison.
i believe the draconic sorcerer is cha and dex for unarmored defense as of playtest 7, so that actually works better for the CHA main draconic sorcerer. if you meant dragonborn, in cleric UA, they dont get a con benefit for AC.
i dont remember every dragon born iteration, but i dont know which would give AC.
I was giving a “what if” scenario with Sorcerer as a Con caster to show it doesn’t break anything. Even though they would be SAD Con they would still want Dex. I also was pointing out that being a Con caster might make some subclasses a little hyper focused, but that’s technically okay because there is already precedence for hyper focused sub classes that come off a little broken like the Elo bard.
I'd be fine with Artificer, Druid, Ranger and Warlocks getting CON casting. Primal spell casters using magical strength and durability feels right. Artificers literally hammering their magic into shape feels right. Warlocks channeling their patron's magic through their bodies as a conduit also feels like it could be appropriate for the right patron (especially Hexblades).
As for balance, I'd balance Con by using the concept of Biotics from Mass Effect. In ME biotics are the equivalent of magical powers. They involve channeling raw energy through lymph nodes infused with a special substance called Element Zero to increase or decrease the physical mass or energy reactivity of nearby objects (including enemies). The problem for Biotics is that since all the energy is from internal energy stores users must consume _insane_ levels of nutrients (5000+ calories per day are common) and they _auto-cannibalize_ when their bodies don't have enough to cast a spell.
I'd balance by having players get some early spellcasting levels like a Warlock. But higher level spells begin costing health, and you can substitute health damage by instead taking a level of exhaustion. Want to cast Wish? It's going to be a big sacrifice for that 9th level spell.
While those types of sacrifices might be fun narratively they aren’t balanced. Remember by being a Con caster you have already sacrificed skills and have a lower saving throw in what ever mental stat you switched from (even if you still have proficiency with that stat). All you have gained is additional hp. If you now must spend the additional hp to cast spells, how is that balanced? It’s actually just an all around loss.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There's no question that it's possible to balance a con-based caster. It just means they have to be not as good at spellcasting as a class that's more MAD.
thats not really how 5e works.
MADness of characters has nothing to with any type of effectiveness.
The theoretical design of dnd, is that characters are supposed to all work well regardless of their SAD/MADness, and all be fairly effective, just living out different fantasies.
wizard is one of the most SAD, and also many people would say the best class. Monk is MAD and pretty much behind in everything, PLD is mad waa strong in support offense and defense.
there is no correlation to how many stats your character can use and its effectiveness.
effectiveness is basically just how well the class is designed. They are all supposed to be effective.
by your suggestion, barbarian should be weaker than pld? its totally illogical
Well, D&D is frequently somewhat indifferent to game balance. The reality remains, being SAD is an advantage and should be compensated for with a corresponding weakness.
What are the corresponding weaknesses of the currently SAD Classes that already exist in 5e?
I think you'd need to compare both strength and weaknesses of all classes, if I had a stab at it, not expecting everybody will agree with all of this but it's roughly where I'd say strengths/weaknesses are.
Barbarian
+ Extremely tanky/high survivability (High HP and Rage), good initiative
~ Some offensive and defensive subclass choices
- Bad range, series of bad features, poor damage, rage dependent (Long Rest, Bane needs his venom)
Bard
+ Strong support, full caster, magical secrets (access to all spells in the game), skill monkey (has a minimum of half-proficiency in every skill)
~ Survivability (AC and Health), mixture of offensive and support subclass choices
- Poor damage / limited spell list (partially mitigated later on by magical secrets)
Cleric
+ Strong support, good damage, full caster, prepared caster, many good subclass choices
~ Survivability
- none? some bad subclass choices? grasping at straws here!
Druid
+ full caster, prepared caster, support and conjurers/summons
~ survivability
- Generally concentration dependent, lacking features
Fighter
+ multiple build options, choice of STR or DEX as primary ability modifier, good damage, great survivability, some of the most broken subclasses (more so battlemaster), extra feats/asi
~ some subpar subclasses?
- no out of combat benefits?
Monk
+ Stunning Strike
~ fair early game damage, sub class choices
- Ki/Discipline dependent (short rest), poor late game damage, survivability
Paladin
+ great survivability, great damage (Nova/divine smite), half caster, prepared caster, healing, support (auras)
~ Nova and spells share resource (spell slots), subclass choices
- spell slot dependent (long rest), lay on hands dependent (long rest), terrible range, terrible stealth, terrible initiative, Most ability score dependent class in the game
Ranger
+ build options (ranged or melee), half caster, prepared caster, stealth/scouting
~ sub class choices (some good, some terrible), survivability
- poor damage, many situational features
Rogue
+ Skill monkey, good damage (sneak attack), build options (ranged or melee), good subclasses, extra feat/asi
~ average damage, survivability (features instead of HP), high initiative (rogues do not always want to go first)
- most party dependent class in the game
Sorcerer
+ Full caster, Metamagic, high damage/best damage in game, con saves
~ none, subclass choices (one can TPK the party the part at level 1)
- low survivability, limited spell selection, highest (player) knowledge requirement
Warlock
+ Pact Magic, good damage, consistent damage, most customizable class in the game (ranged/melee and physical/spell)
~ survivability, sub class choices (one exceptional, several mediocre)
- spell slots dependent (short rest), limited spell selection, limited spell list
Wizard
+ full caster, utility, all rounder, good damage, rituals (on non-prepared spells)
~ prepared spells (from spells known), sub class choices
- survivability
---
If people wonder why classes like Paladin and Warlock are down as spell slot dependent and Monk ki dependent while full casters aren't, it isn't that I am saying these classes do not need them, it is that Paladin, Warlock and Monk burn their resources quickly. Warlock can sustain a consistent DPR with hex but Paladin and Monk drop performance fast once out of resources.
There is only one SAD classes in 5e: Rogue, all others are MAD to varying degrees:
ARTIFICER:
Required Stats (1) : INT + (minor) CON (Armourer)
Required Stats (2): INT + (minor) DEX
Strengths: Defense (Armourer, Battlesmith), Support (all)
Weaknesses: Offense (all except Battlesmith), AoE (all), Social, Exploration
BARD:
Required Stats: CHA + (minor) DEX
Strengths: Battlefield control, Social, Support
Weaknesses: Offense, Defense
BARBARIAN:
Required Stats: STR + CON + (minor) DEX
Strengths: Offense, Defense, Grappling
Weaknesses: Social, Support, Exploration, Utility, AoE
CLERIC:
Required Stats (1): WIS + (minor) STR + (minor) CON
Required Stats (2): WIS + (minor) DEX
Strengths: Support, Utility
Weaknesses: Social, Battlefield Control, Exploration
DRUID:
Required Stats: WIS + (minor) DEX
Strengths: Exploration, Utility, Battlefield Control, AoE
Weaknesses: Offense, Defense, Social
FIGHTER:
Required Stats: STR or DEX + (minor) CON
Strengths: Offense
Weaknesses: Utility, Support, Exploration (if STR), Social (if take WIS as secondary stat), AoE
MONK:
Required Stats: DEX + WIS + (minor) CON
Strengths: Mobility, Battlefield Control, Exploration (if Shadow)
Weaknesses: Social, Defense, Support (unless Mercy), AoE
PALADIN:
Required Stats: STR + (minor) CHA + (minor) CON
Strengths: Offense, Defense, Social
Weaknesses: Exploration, Battlefield Control, Utility, AoE
RANGER:
Required Stats (1): STR + (minor) DEX + (minor) CON + (minor) WIS
Required Stats (2): DEX + (minor) WIS
Strengths: Offense, Exploration
Weaknesses: Social, AoE, Support
ROGUE:
Required Stats: DEX (all) + (minor) CON (if melee)
Strengths: Infiltration, (optional) Exploration, (optional) Social
Weaknesses: AoE, Utility, Support, reliant on getting Sneak Attack
SORCERER:
Required Stats: CHA + (minor) DEX
Strengths: Social, AoE, either: Offense or Battlefield Control (depending on subclass/spell choice)
Weaknesses: Support (unless Divine Soul), Exploration, Utility (depending on spell choice)
WARLOCK:
Required Stats: CHA + (minor) DEX + (minor) CON
Strengths: Social, Offense
Weaknesses: Support, Defense, AoE (depending on spell choice), Exploration/Utility (depending on Pact Boon choice)
WIZARD:
Required Stats: INT + (minor) DEX
Strengths: Utility, Battlefield Control, Offense, AoE
Weaknesses: Support, Social
Disagree that it's SAD, though it's about as SAD as a con caster would be (a con caster would want dex).
The vast majority of classes have one prime stat and want modest investments in Dex and Con, with other stats being 'nice to have, but skippable'. The major exceptions to this are
D&D does not particularly balance against these needs... but D&D is not well balanced.
uhh, not sure how you guys are getting these weaknesses.
also agile, when people say SAD they generally didnt literally mean they had no benefit for any other stat. Basically if you only need 2 other stats(outside main) 14 or lower you are SAD. because, that means no further investment outside of character creation. every character gets 2 14 stats for free if they want it, while bumping one stat to 17.
my definition:
SAD = doesnt need to invest in more than one stat after character creation to be effective.
Note, I put a weakness as being below average, not simply their weakest thing, because some peoples weakest aspect is above baseline. So things that are average or OK, won't be mentioned in strength or weaknesse
Artificer SAD only has 4 subs, I wouldn't say BS or ARM are weak offensively. Infusions matter a bit, unless other players get any item they want. And flash of genius is a huge deal social/explorer, not to mention the possible infusions. They are extremely good at social/exploration. Artificer weakness is requires planning. Their offense is their weakest thing, but its still competitive.
strength:social, exploration, defense, support weakness: nothing
Bard SAD pure caster MAD martial/magic. weakness in 5e is offense, but not really with magical secrets lvl 10+. the last playtest bard had no real weakness because they don't have to wait until 10. defensively, they have access to spells, which have a ton of defense. Weakness, depends on your build, nothing specific. This is a hard call because we have no idea how new bard works with class spell lists. If it keeps the primal/arcane/divine just for itself, it has no issues.
strength:social defense support weakness: nothing UA, offense low level 5e
Barbarian MAD because defense is reliant on con/hp. but really only needs two, best type of mad. Strong offense OK survivability, As of UA. Weakness is lack of versatility I mean, they have great intimidation socially now, exploration, great perception, stealth survival.
strength: Offense, defense, exploration. weakness: Versatility
Fighter SAD strong offense, and defense, and combat utility. tactical mind makes them pretty good outside combat but limited uses.
Strength:Combat Weakness nothing
cleric SAD strong defense and support, decent offense. weak exploration and social.
strength defense support. weakness social exploration
monk MAD weakest class in the game, below baseline on almost everything. ok exploration, mostly due to required wisdom and good movement/step even though, not actually good at it.
strength: mobility. weakness, defense, offense, social.
pld MAD mad but still strongly effective even without investing
strength offense defense support weakness exploration
rng MAD but still effective without investing
strength exploration weakness social
rogue SAD defense weakness is an Asterix, because they can avoid being targeted fairly well. But they are very weak if targeted.
strength exploration social. weakness defense offense
Sorcerer SAD they actually have no real weakness and all strengths as class, but they can't do it at once
strengths 2-3 of everything weakness up to the build
wizard SAD same as sorcerer, but they can do more of it at once, and rebuild every day
strength 3-4 of everything weakness depends on the days choices
to the point, there is no correlation to SAD, MAD and strengths/weaknesses
the goal of balance, with mad classes, is not that sad classes should be less effective, but rather that even though they may be mad, they are as effective. PLD/RNG is a good example, they can be effective as other classes while being mad.
Also, I agree dnd has balance issues, but I don't think it needs to be balanced by the metric of strong in this means weak somewhere else . I prefer the design that all classes should be effective within their fantasy. And all classes probably need to be effective at offense and surviving, though it can manifest in different ways.
The goal is to have equal effectiveness at comparably achievable attribute levels. This generally means lower theoretical potential for a MAD build.
not sure what you are trying to get across here.
lets say all two different class have stat spread of 20 16 14 10 10 8 (placed however they want it)
In your opinion, What are you saying should be the SAD classes effectiveness?
What is the mad classes effectiveness?
Why would a SAD class have a 16? On a 27 point build, the SAD class should be about equal in power at any level. At higher attribute levels, the MAD class is expected to be superior, at lower attribute levels the SAD would be superior.
officially, you can start the game with 16 and 17 in a stat if you are willing to go low, though it might be two 8s. so you can have a 16 without ever investing after creation.
i dont really understand what you mean by higher attribute levels, are you talking about the leveling curve?
I dont think you really want any class to be stronger at high levels, and others stronger at low levels, by design. (no design is going to be perfect, but that shouldnt be a feature of your game design or leveling systems)
The goal would be to be generally similar power levels throughout leveling. Maybe one gets a bump at 4 and another at 7, but generally it should be similar.
i can see how one might think its always going to be the case, since their effectiveness uses 2 stats, rather than 1.
But ranger and Paladin basically are fine like that, they get more versatility with the other stats, but their power isnt really relatively low if they dont.
there are a number of ways to avoid the 2 stat problem, but those are going to come down to class design. The way in which they benefit from multi stats is very important.
Yes, but why would a SAD class bother to do that? The defining feature of SAD is that you don't particularly care about other attributes, so you'd probably get something like 17/14/13/12/12/8 as your starting array.
yeah, im just saying, given the same attribute budget, how would SAD or MAD compare, using the MAD charachters case because it doesnt matter much for the SAD charachter, and to make the comparison simpler.
question was just to understand what you were implying
So in the end a Con spellcaster would still want Dex, because not getting hit is so much better than having higher hp, especially as enemies start hitting harder and having riders attached to their hits. So far no one has convinced me Con casting is broken. I do see a problem with things stacking, but that’s already a problem. So Con casting Dragon Sorcerer is really strong because you boost Con for casting, get some free AC and get free extra HP. It reminds me of Eloquence Bard who uses Cha for cast, gets expertise and then gets a feature to never roll below 10. So Con Dragon Sorc is to combat what Elo Bard is to Social. That might need an adjustment, but the Elo Bard is actually the more “broken” of the two in this comparison.
i believe the draconic sorcerer is cha and dex for unarmored defense as of playtest 7, so that actually works better for the CHA main draconic sorcerer. if you meant dragonborn, in cleric UA, they dont get a con benefit for AC.
i dont remember every dragon born iteration, but i dont know which would give AC.
I'd be fine with Artificer, Druid, Ranger and Warlocks getting CON casting. Primal spell casters using magical strength and durability feels right. Artificers literally hammering their magic into shape feels right. Warlocks channeling their patron's magic through their bodies as a conduit also feels like it could be appropriate for the right patron (especially Hexblades).
As for balance, I'd balance Con by using the concept of Biotics from Mass Effect. In ME biotics are the equivalent of magical powers. They involve channeling raw energy through lymph nodes infused with a special substance called Element Zero to increase or decrease the physical mass or energy reactivity of nearby objects (including enemies). The problem for Biotics is that since all the energy is from internal energy stores users must consume _insane_ levels of nutrients (5000+ calories per day are common) and they _auto-cannibalize_ when their bodies don't have enough to cast a spell.
I'd balance by having players get some early spellcasting levels like a Warlock. But higher level spells begin costing health, and you can substitute health damage by instead taking a level of exhaustion. Want to cast Wish? It's going to be a big sacrifice for that 9th level spell.
I was giving a “what if” scenario with Sorcerer as a Con caster to show it doesn’t break anything. Even though they would be SAD Con they would still want Dex. I also was pointing out that being a Con caster might make some subclasses a little hyper focused, but that’s technically okay because there is already precedence for hyper focused sub classes that come off a little broken like the Elo bard.
While those types of sacrifices might be fun narratively they aren’t balanced. Remember by being a Con caster you have already sacrificed skills and have a lower saving throw in what ever mental stat you switched from (even if you still have proficiency with that stat). All you have gained is additional hp. If you now must spend the additional hp to cast spells, how is that balanced? It’s actually just an all around loss.