Do ASIs / Feats factor into class balance?

[Easy_Lee]

From another thread, do you think that ASIs and feats matter for class balance?

My opinion is that they do. Rogues and fighters get one and two more than other classes, meaning that they can select additional feats or non-primary stats, such as wisdom for the rogue. The fact that neither class is MAD, as opposed to a monk or valor bard, also enables fighters and rogues to specialize further than most are able. Even in a featless game, I don't think that these bonuses should be discounted.

[MrStabby]

oh yes, especially at high levels when you have all the stats you want.

[CNagy]

Definitely agreed; bonus ASIs are definitely part of class balancing. So if someone were homebrewing original classes, the use of an extra ASI is a valid feature to try and balance it against core--though I would probably keep the limit to no more than the Fighter's 7 ASIs, and the distribution in such a way that you can't obtain more than 7 through multiclassing. Not coincidentally, they are also the only two classes with 1/3 progression spellcasting archetypes, where the bonus ASIs really help considering the otherwise questionable value of Intelligence for a non-Wizard.

[ChubbyRain]

Yes and No.

The classes seem to be balanced as if feats are not optional and some classes are penalized for that (fighter specifically).

But when you ask "are these two classes balanced" then no, you shouldn't add in feats. Since anyone can take the feats they become a wash.

Feats don't benefit martial classes more than magical classes. They benefit martial fighting styles (melee or ranged damage) more so than spell casting. A caster becoming a Gish can use these same feats to keep up with the fighter with the same feat, but have a lot more options in their back pocket.

Spell casting just doesn't NEED feats. Spells can get the job done without feats.

[Easy_Lee]

oh yes, especially at high levels when you have all the stats you want.

When I first started 5e, I was agitated by monks and barbarians, two of then madder classes, not getting any bonus attributes while rogues and fighters, two of the least, did. If you play standard array or point buy, then the earliest a monk can max his WIS and DEX is 16. A rogue could max two stats by level 12, and a fighter could max three by 16 (point buy 3 15s, choose race with valid stat boosts). I don't that that's an inconsequential bonus.

[JNAProductions]

Yes and No.

The classes seem to be balanced as if feats are not optional and some classes are penalized for that (fighter specifically).

But when you ask "are these two classes balanced" then no, you shouldn't add in feats. Since anyone can take the feats they become a wash.

Feats don't benefit martial classes more than magical classes. They benefit martial fighting styles (melee or ranged damage) more so than spell casting. A caster becoming a Gish can use these same feats to keep up with the fighter with the same feat, but have a lot more options in their back pocket.

Spell casting just doesn't NEED feats. Spells can get the job done without feats.

Some feats benefit people more than others. GWM, for instance, benefits a Fighter far more than anyone else since they have 4 attacks to use it with rather than 1 or 2. Crossbow Master, for another instance, gives a Rogue two ranged attacks without requiring a 5 level dip in something else, and extra attacks benefit Rogues more than most due to increasing reliability on landing sneak attack.

[ChubbyRain]

Some feats benefit people more than others. GWM, for instance, benefits a Fighter far more than anyone else since they have 4 attacks to use it with rather than 1 or 2. Crossbow Master, for another instance, gives a Rogue two ranged attacks without requiring a 5 level dip in something else, and extra attacks benefit Rogues more than most due to increasing reliability on landing sneak attack.

Cleric with GWM + spiritual weapon, to an me one caster build that can pick up GWM.

Abjuration Wizard + Weapon Master + Crossbow Mastery is a potent combo, really fricken scary at mid (level 4-7) and higher levels.

Also, not sure if people know this, very rarely will a game go level 1-20. I play in a lot of high level one shots but that is not typical.

Fighters rarely see their third attack and much less their 4th.

But this is also what I've talked about before. This lazy class feature (more attacks) hurt the fighter mechanically. Because they are an outlier they have to be a special case all the time. If they were built in line with every other class, things would go better.

[CNagy]

Cleric with GWM + spiritual weapon, to an me one caster build that can pick up GWM.

Abjuration Wizard + Weapon Master + Crossbow Mastery is a potent combo, really fricken scary at mid (level 4-7) and higher levels.

Also, not sure if people know this, very rarely will a game go level 1-20. I play in a lot of high level one shots but that is not typical.

Fighters rarely see their third attack and much less their 4th.

But this is also what I've talked about before. This lazy class feature (more attacks) hurt the fighter mechanically. Because they are an outlier they have to be a special case all the time. If they were built in line with every other class, things would go better.

I would stare in horror at a sheet that had that feat listed, sure. It's in the running for "clearly the worst feat available." With the highest Abjurer class feature being 14th level and the best Wizard ability being 18th level, there's zero reason to grab that feat when 1 level of Fighter gives you the proficiency and access to the Archery fighting style.

[ChubbyRain]

I would stare in horror at a sheet that had that feat listed, sure. It's in the running for "clearly the worst feat available." With the highest Abjurer class feature being 14th level and the best Wizard ability being 18th level, there's zero reason to grab that feat when 1 level of Fighter gives you the proficiency and access to the Archery fighting style.

Straight class, no multiclass.

Bad feat, but it works perfectly for this build. You get your proficiencies at level 1. Cast AoE spells mostly or attack roll spells, your DC will be one point off but in real play that won't matter.

At level 4 you start dealing 2d6+6 damage each round at range. Now you have at-will damage that isn't magic, at-will damage that is magic, and a bunch of spells to drop on an enemy. At level 8 and 12 you boost your Int.

You have a ton of effective HP, abjuration wizards can have quite a bit. Between having 16 AC (mage armor), saying range, can shoot mix up damage types, and has spells? Yeah fun times.

You simply don't need the fighter to do this.

Besides, most builds need to be workable by level 8 and this is. Oh, grab acrobatics.

John Woo Wizard.

[Easy_Lee]

As far as fighters having lazy or weak features, I've seen enough theoretical models and real game stories of fighters doing fine that I'm convinced that they are.

There is one feature I would change, which is indomitable: the reroll really ought to allow the fighter to use CON in place of the original save, as indomitable is unlikely to mean much as is. Beyond that, my complaints are of a more general nature, such as the lack of support for use of versatile weapons.

[ChubbyRain]

As far as fighters having lazy or weak features, I've seen enough theoretical models and real game stories of fighters doing fine that I'm convinced that they are.

There is one feature I would change, which is indomitable: the reroll really ought to allow the fighter to use CON in place of the original save, as indomitable is unlikely to mean much as is. Beyond that, my complaints are of a more general nature, such as the lack of support for use of versatile weapons.

The fighter can damage, big deal, everyone can damage.

The issue is HOW the fighter damages, not IF they can damage.

Everyone else is set to a specific style, 2 attacks max + bonus damage.

The fighter is an outlier, given more attacks without the bonus damage makes the entire system need to be modified to make sure the fighter isn't uoer powerful. So what ends up happening is the fighter as a whole gets weakened so their abilities don't cause more issues.

Give the fighter an ability, call it Power Attack if you wish, that works on the same basis as everyone else. 2 attacks + bonus damage.

The issue isn't magic or the rogue or the barbarian, the issue is Outlier Fighter.

Also, yeah Indomitable should be a Con Save but also usable per short rest. This way it syncs up with the rest of the fighter.

Action Surge is another outlier issue. Instead of giving specific at-will actions like the rogur amd some spells (and Quicken spell). You are given a very powerful ability that doesn't fit into the game. Action surge *generally* breaks the action economy while everyone else *specifically* breaks action economy.

Bonus Action Maneuvers would have been fantastic.

[Troacctid]

But when you ask "are these two classes balanced" then no, you shouldn't add in feats. Since anyone can take the feats they become a wash.

I disagree. Just because anyone can take feats doesn't mean extra feats are worthless. By that logic variant humans would be one of the weakest races in the book.

[Easy_Lee]

The fighter can damage, big deal, everyone can damage.

The fighter can also take damage well, soaking most effects, and can use the vast majority of equipment that the party encounters. People always seem to forget that when considering the fighter, particularly strength builds.

[ChubbyRain]

The fighter can also take damage well, soaking most effects, and can use the vast majority of equipment that the party encounters. People always seem to forget that when considering the fighter, particularly strength builds.

No, I didn't forget, however this is only a big g issue at levels 1 to 3 or so. After that everyone has an ability to have 16+ AC quite easily with little investment. Also almost every class has defensive abilities that make up for not having as much HP.

Shield, mage armor, misty step, armor profs, temp HP, healing... The list goes on.

The fighter isn't that much ahead. Plus their "simple" style puts them in harms way more so than many other classes. Because of this their AC and HP will take more hits.

So it isn't that I forget, it just doesn't matter.

[Vogonjeltz]

From another thread, do you think that ASIs and feats matter for class balance?

My opinion is that they do. Rogues and fighters get one and two more than other classes, meaning that they can select additional feats or non-primary stats, such as wisdom for the rogue. The fact that neither class is MAD, as opposed to a monk or valor bard, also enables fighters and rogues to specialize further than most are able. Even in a featless game, I don't think that these bonuses should be discounted.

Higher stats > Lower stats. It should be self-evident that More ASI > Less ASI (unless of course you want to advance the theory that stats do not matter in terms of game outcomes).

If your DM is sufficiently narrativist (i.e. events and roll outcomes are modified to reach the desired outcome, ala Paranoia), then that might actually be a convincing position to take.

[Easy_Lee]

So it isn't that I forget, it just doesn't matter.

The models I've seen and stories I've heard suggest otherwise. Everything I've seen suggests that for combat, damage > tankiness > everything else. This agrees with my own experiences, where a mountain dwarf life cleric has proven to be the most useful member of any party I've seen specifically due to his ability to never die and deal consistent damage. A barbarian or defensive fighter would be no different, aside from doing more damage, absorbing more hits, and not needing to worry about limited spell slots (a huge concern at low levels).

[ChubbyRain]

Higher stats > Lower stats. It should be self-evident that More ASI > Less ASI (unless of course you want to advance the theory that stats do not matter in terms of game outcomes).

If your DM is sufficiently narrativist (i.e. events and roll outcomes are modified to reach the desired outcome, ala Paranoia), then that might actually be a convincing position to take.

Only at certain level ranges though.

Having a 14 in your main stat at level 1-6 hasn't been a big deal in the games I've played in. For myself or for others.

Generally what I've found is...

Level 1-8: 14
Level 8-16: 16
Level 16-20: 18

Anything above is nice, no question, but not really needed. 5% is not that noticeable in real life.

[Easy_Lee]

Anything above is nice, no question, but not really needed. 5% is not that noticeable in real life.

Due to bounded accuracy and mob AC / saves, +1 is more than 5%; 5% is the minimum.

The levels where it matters the least, again due to bounded accuracy, are 17+. That's when you're attacking AC 18-20, but might have up to a +13 attack bonus as an archer. Even in that extreme case, you still need a 5+ to hit. At level 1, you may be attacking AC 16 with a combined attack bonus of +5 (2 prof, 16 stat). In that case, you need 11+ to hit.

If you hit on 5+, you hit 80% of the time. +1 raises this to 85%, yeidling a 6.25% increase in hits.
If you hit on 11+, you hit 50% of the time. Raising that to 55% means a 10% increase in hits.

Notice I say hits. The actual damage increase is greater since weapon attacks and many spell attacks add one's attribute modifier to damage. Plus attributes apply to skills and saves, as well as AC and initiative for dexterity or carrying capacity and shove / grapple checks for strength.

So it's pretty clear that stats are the shiz. And even if they weren't, many feats are.

[Gwendol]

They totally factor into class balance. The fighter, rogue, and barbarian are the three classes most likely to engage in improvised actions and contests (due to them relying more on passive abilities than do casters and monks), with the fighter and rogue getting more ASI's, and the barbarian gaining other advantages to physical prowess.