Brand new DM to 5E and many concerns...

[Paul Farquhar]

I am not talking about damage or AC (of the character) or anything other than the chance to hit in combat. Sure, I get it, Fighter's get more attacks, etc. so they get better at fighting, but at lower levels they aren't any more likely to hit than non-warrior classes. I know this is a fantasy game, but that is illogical.

It reminds me, if I recall correctly, the combat mod used in D20 Star Wars. Warrior-types got the best combat bonuses, moderate combat types had a middle modifier, and weak combat classes had a poor one. I suppose it might be better to weaken the combat ability of non-warriors than boosting warriors...

The thing is, in 5e a wizard isn't intended to attack with weapons, they are expected to use cantrips. Now, in 3rd edition we had the nonsense that single class wizards where lousy shots with the things they where supposed to be good at - spells (Wizards being rotten shots being inherited from 1st edition, where there where few spells that required a to-hit roll).

Now 5e could have gone down the path of giving wizards worse attack bonuses with weapons than with spells (beyond what they get anyway by putting points into different attributes) but there really wouldn't be any point - they are already nerfing themselves by using a weapon rather than a cantrip! 5e has taken the path of avoiding pointless rules in the name of simulation.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Then how did he learn how to use the weapons, armor, Fighting Style, etc.? I am not saying he had decades, but given the starting ages for many 1st-level characters, he likely had 4-6 years or more of training somewhere (parent, army, city watch, etc.).

That's what 5e has backgrounds for, and in 5e a wizard can have the "Soldier" background, and a fighter can be a "cloistered scholar". It's up to the player to decide how their character acquired their skills, not all wizards need to have grown up in a tall tower with a dodgy old man.

 

[Older Beholder]

May I ask what it was that inspired you to pick up 5E and give D&D another try?

In my case I'd played a lot of 2e, but gave up 3e not long into 3.5, eventually though I started having ideas for a home brew world, when I looked online I saw 5E was in play testing so I was pretty excited when the starter set came out and have been playing pretty much ever since.


So I was just curious to find out where you're coming from, maybe it will help others when giving you feedback and advice.


Did a group of friends want to get back into RPGing or did WotC marketing dept. win you over?


Also what setting are u planning to run, from memory you said u only got the 3 core books, so homebrew, FR, other?


I guess my point is to try and get excited about your campaign and planning your adventures rather than worrying if everything in the rules balances perfectly under a microscope.

 

[Azzy]

Your best bet is just to throw out your preconceived notions, and just play the game for at least 5 levels (really, I suggest 10).

 

[TallIan]

You obviously aren't getting the point. I know a Fighter will usually beat a Wizard in a toe-to-toe fight, that was never my issue. My point was they each have the same chance to hit! They both have +5 (Dex and PB) Attack bonus against AC 13 or a 65% chance to hit. That makes no sense whatsoever. A Fighter has spent years training in weapons and combat, but the Wizard is just as likely to hit. Do you see my point? I am not talking about damage (sure, the Fighter will use better weapons and has better combat abilities, never argued that...), but is just as likely to deal some level of damage as the Wizard.

None of that withstanding, your simulations also used every benefit the Fighter gets (Fighting Style and Second Wind) and none of the Wizard's. Not they it would make a huge difference, but toss in a couple Shield spells as reactions to getting hit (turning one or more into misses) or a Burning Hands and the Fighter's success isn't as close to a guarantee.

I think you might be getting stuck on the idea that an attack roll simulates a swing of the sword and a hit simulates an actual hit. The attack roll and damage roll are very abstract representations of a combat. Each round is 6 seconds and each parties turn represents a lots of feints, parries and maneuvers combining attack roll, damage roll, hit points and some other abilities (action surge being a good example) all represent a combatants ability to wear down his opponent enough to land the final, fatal blow.

It doesn't matter that the wizard hits as often because the fighter will cause more damage and can absorb more damage than the wizard.

I also think you may be failing to account for the fact that 5e uses ability score increases to represent progression. So the fighter, whose primary stat in this particular example is DEX, is going to be free to up his DEX at level 4, 6, etc. Whereas the Wizard is going to want to up his INT first. The fighter is also much more likely to have a higher DEX to begin with. So if you use the standard array and a normal human your fighter is more likely to look like this:

STR 11 DEX 16 CON 15 WIS 14 INT 9 CHA 13 (DEX being the primary and CON the secondary ability, the rest don't really matter for this)
To hit: +5 for 1d8+3 damage (rapier)
AC (Studded leather and defensive style): 16
and he still has a hand free for TWF or a shield

While the wizard will more likely look like this:
STR 9 DEX 14 CON 15 WIS 11 INT 16 CHA 13 (INT being primary, CON required for concentration and DEX for AC both as secondary abilities)
To hit with weapons: +4 for 1d4+2 damage (dagger)
To hit with spells: +5 for 1d10 damage (fire bolt - no use once they engage in melee)
AC (Mage armour): 14 - once it can be 19 with Shield spell

So the wizard is actually hitting with weapons slightly less often than the fighter, but just as well with magic as the fighter is with weapons. The slight, possible anomaly where a wizard could get +5 to his dagger attack isn't really worth the extra complication in rules IMO.

Also keep in mind that the fighter has AC 16 all day long without spending an resources. The mage has to spend a spell slot, its not until level 5 that 1st level spells become trivial enough for that not be a big daily investment. So even if the wizard gets a DEX of 16 he can only match, by expending limited resources, what the fighter is able to do just getting dressed in the morning.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

May I ask what it was that inspired you to pick up 5E and give D&D another try?

Also what setting are u planning to run, from memory you said u only got the 3 core books, so homebrew, FR, other?

Well, a guy I work with and I got talking about it a several weeks ago. After asking around, a few others at work had never played but were interested. The guy was already looking into 5E through Beyond, and I checked out some of the OGL material. I found a great deal on the core books online, so decided to get them.

I stopped playing because I moved to Europe about 10 years ago and couldn't find any interest. When I moved back to the States, other things took priority for a while. Now, I find myself in a position to have both the time for gaming again and people I know interested in it.

The world is my own. I have several maps, etc., established kingdoms, blah blah blah.

The players decided to go a different route, very "anti-social" in racial selection I suppose (Half-Orc Thief, Blue Dragonborn Monk, Tiefling Warlock, Drow Elf Ranger, and Duergar Dwarf Fighter), and when making the character the fighter brought up the point about hitting and said he wasn't any better really (other than a slightly improved chance due to high Str) than the others. It reminded me SO much of the other editions and how fighters really never excelled at fighting compared to the abilities other classes got. 3E changed that somewhat, but became so convoluted in min/maxing it made me sick.

Hence, why I am here.

I thought the easiest fix would be modding the Fighting Styles to scale with level. So, the player could focus on archery, defense, damage, protection and naturally get better at those things as the level improved. I see after some of the posts a full Proficiency Bonus to AC would probably be unbalanced, and I would be fine with using 1/2 that, rounded down. Archery and Dueling could both add Prof Bonus to damage instead of straight +2, Protection could be used more than once per round at higher levels or something. I don't know, I'll have to see when we play if I think changes are needed and if the player is happy with the Fighter without them.

We're meeting today to finalize characters and play-test some mock combats, etc. to cut our teeth on the system before we actually start the campaign. I'll discuss most of the feedback, explain the concept of Bounded Accuracy, and play RAW for a while with certain changes in mind. I mean, in glancing through the magic items, I found it odd things seemed capped at +3 given I am used to +5 from earlier versions. That isn't such a big deal, as more powerful magic items have always been pretty rare in my games, but I have to admit times when the party stumbled upon a +5 Long Sword at low levels made for some interesting encounters! Once word got out about the weapon, they had to struggle to keep it around with NPCs and monsters seeking it out for themselves LOL! I also noticed so many things in 5E seem to modify damage instead of attack, but now I get that is due to the whole Bounded Accuracy thing.

I've received several good suggestions, some similar to ideas I was considering anyway. So, thanks again to those who offered suggestions and feedback. Much appreciated!

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I also think you may be failing to account for the fact that 5e uses ability score increases to represent progression. So the fighter, whose primary stat in this particular example is DEX, is going to be free to up his DEX at level 4, 6, etc. Whereas the Wizard is going to want to up his INT first.

That is an excellent point! I only played 3E for about a year or two back in the day and of course ability score increases in 1E and 2E were almost always through magic items only.

That does make some difference at least so thanks!

 

[CydKnight]

Hi, I've been playing D&D since Basic over thirty years ago. Played lots of AD&D and 2nd Ed, a little 3rd, then took a long break. Now, I am getting into 5E and just making characters with my players and having some issues. I am asking for feedback from experienced DMs in 5E because I see LOTS of game balance issues! For now, I'll just focus on a couple.

1. Fighters suck. This has pretty much always been the case in earlier editions, so I am not surprised, but in 5E they seem even worse than before. Tell me this, with the same stats and in normal clothing, why is a 20th-level fighter just as easy to hit as a 1st-level fighter??? Sure, the higher level guy might get a point or two of AC from feats, maybe his Dex is a bit better for another point or two, but that is basically it. Why don't the classes add some portion of their proficiency bonus to AC or something? After all, you get better at attacking (proficiency bonus increases) as levels increase, but no better at defending? Where is the logic in that?

2. Burning Hands: way too powerful! Hmm... AD&D Burning Hands: range 5', 1 point per level of the caster, no save. Now, 15' range, and 3d6 to every target (avg 10), save for half (not likely at lower levels). Without Con bonuses, a party of 1st-level characters in tight formation could be toasted by a single level one spell!

Now, I've noticed a lot of monsters have tons more HP than earlier counter-parts. Take Ogres for example: old version about 19 hp, now averages 59. So having a spell do more damage sort of makes sense, but against PCs at lower levels this seems potentially devastating.

So, am I just missing tons of stuff that will later show "Don't worry, it really is balanced."? I am sure others have expressed such concerns, so thanks for any feedback. Much appreciated.

On Fighters, I'm actually playing one right now and having a blast. He is a Battlemaster with Polearm Feat. In later levels I will add Sentinel which will pair nicely with Riposte for some nice defensive Reactions. The PC of course has options for armor selection and ability score improvements to bolster AC. Aside from that, if you are the DM, and lack of AC at higher levels is a concern for you, do something about it. Make some nice magical armor or other defensive items available that the fighter can use.

On Burning Hands, if you are a caster, chances are you really don't want to be close enough to the enemy that you have to touch them since you are likely a bit squishy yourself so there is a trade-off here. Also, if your party is in that tight a formation, they may want to rethink their strategy.

Again, you are the DM, so you have control over how deadly you want to make your encounters. If you don't think your party can handle a 59 HP Ogre, then perhaps you find another creature that is less deadly.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If the attack bonus is truly the thing that bothers you the most, there is the simplest way to fix it which involves little to no re-balancing:

Remove all weapon proficiencies from the Wizard.

If you don't give the Wizard any weapon proficiencies, they will always be at least 2 points behind the fighter and other weapon using classes in attack bonus. And the reason why you don't really have to re-balance anything is because you were probably going to find out soon enough that none of your Wizards were ever going to use their weapons anyway. So the fact that their attack bonuses with weapons will be pretty bad (comparatively) will be a weakness that will almost never actually come into play.

If you tell any of your players that Wizards in your game do not get proficiency in any weapons, what will most likely happen is that they will take their standard ranged cantrip (like Fire Bolt or Chill Touch), and then a melee ranged cantrip too (like Shocking Grasp) in order to have at least one thing to use in melee range that will add their proficiency bonus to the attack. And that's absolutely fine! And in fact is what a lot of PCs do right now anyway.

With cantrips in 5E, the day of Wizards actually using their weapons at some point has passed. So making them less likely to hit with one (so they appear less trained than the fighter or cleric or rogue) is not actually a real penalty to them. And most likely will be a house rule that none of your players will ever really even notice, let alone care.

 

[5ekyu]

If the attack bonus is truly the thing that bothers you the most, there is the simplest way to fix it which involves little to no re-balancing:

Remove all weapon proficiencies from the Wizard.

If you don't give the Wizard any weapon proficiencies, they will always be at least 2 points behind the fighter and other weapon using classes in attack bonus. And the reason why you don't really have to re-balance anything is because you were probably going to find out soon enough that none of your Wizards were ever going to use their weapons anyway. So the fact that their attack bonuses with weapons will be pretty bad (comparatively) will be a weakness that will almost never actually come into play.

If you tell any of your players that Wizards in your game do not get proficiency in any weapons, what will most likely happen is that they will take their standard ranged cantrip (like Fire Bolt or Chill Touch), and then a melee ranged cantrip too (like Shocking Grasp) in order to have at least one thing to use in melee range that will add their proficiency bonus to the attack. And that's absolutely fine! And in fact is what a lot of PCs do right now anyway.

With cantrips in 5E, the day of Wizards actually using their weapons at some point has passed. So making them less likely to hit with one (so they appear less trained than the fighter or cleric or rogue) is not actually a real penalty to them. And most likely will be a house rule that none of your players will ever really even notice, let alone care.

Actually, funny story

In the last 5e game i played the Gm was hung up on my sorcs 1d10 firebolt. not a game went by with him not commenting on how much damage it did just made no sense etc...

also had shocking grasp for those close-in moments. not a peep.

Also had dagger for d4+3 which averages the same as a d10 but without the low or the high - not a peep.

Got to be funny.