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

James Grover said:

Yeah, the more I read through the books, forums, and what not, I get this feeling. As the GM for most of the games I play in, it is pretty disappointing as tracking monster HP before was sometimes tedious, now it is going to be even more so...

Kind of wish I knew all this before I bothered buy the core books, LOL!

Click to expand...

So you're disappointed that D&D is ....still D&D?

As dave2008 said, you don't have to track hps if you don't want. Never did in fact. You're the DM. Just decide how many hits monster x can take.
Example 1: Ogre - will die on the 3rd hit. Exact amount of damage rolled not relevant.

I would highly suggest that if you go this route that you don't tell your players. Just let them roll their damage & make a scratch mark on your notes. This is because since this IS D&D there's a lot of abilities, modifiers, charts, spells, feats, etc based upon affecting how much damage you dish out. Take that away from the PCs & you lose a good chunk of the game mechanics.

James Grover said:

So, am I just missing tons of stuff that will later show "Don't worry, it really is balanced."?

Click to expand...

This pretty much nails what my answer would be. You will find little bits and pieces in the rules that are unbalanced (both too strong and too weak) just like with every other edition, but overall it plays real nicely for me and my table.

(My group has found that the game balances better when we don't roll for ability scores, instead just using the standard array [15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8]. Classes seem to compare better that way, but far more importantly for us, the monster math works better. )

James Grover said:

...
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!

Click to expand...

Fighters really don't suck. I think coming from older editions where fighters are powerful at low levels and wizards are just dead weight until level 5 might make the fighter appear rubbish but 5e has done a mostly good job of balancing all classes across all levels. Others have pointed out hat high level characters have many more hitpoints than lower level character (and monsters too) rather than escalating AC and to hit bonuses. I personally like this because it means that numbers mean something in a fight.

James Grover said:

...
But what it comes down to is basically this:

You hit less often but things have fewer HP (max in AD&D was basically 200 for the toughest monsters), so it takes time since hitting is rare.

OR

You hit more often but since everything has more HP, it still takes time to whittle things down.

To me, it seems like a poor trade off. Now, as DM, I have to track numerous hits and reducing HP over and over until the foe is defeated. With players hitting more often, it looses some of the excitement to the attack roll IMO. I understand hits are far from guaranteed, and for modern times maybe it plays better to the gaming audience.

If I'm wrong and misunderstanding the concept, please let me know. But in a nutshell you hit more but things take more damage or you hit less and they need less to be defeated, right?

Click to expand...

I don't think this is simply a trade off, system with low HP and poor to hit chance have a very different fell to systems with high HP and high to hit chance. The former is much more swingy, as any single hit can take a PC or monster out. It gives the game a much grittier feel and IMX makes PC's less murder hobo as they consider each fight before hand. The later makes for a more resource management game, as you can be much more sure of the numbers of hit you can take before being downed. One bad hit won't knock you out and is statistically unlikely to be followed be another bad hit.

There are ways to deal with the paperwork involved in tracking monsters. Even if that is just to wing it through most fights. It really doesn't matter if the monster falls at 20HPs or 22HPs, so just rough tracking will do.

James Grover said:

...
For now, I've been playing with adjusting the Fighter Styles. For example, instead of Defense simply adding a +1 to AC while wearing armor, I was considering having it add the Fighter's proficiency bonus to AC. It's just an extra +1 at lower levels, but as it represents the Fighter's dedication to defensive combat, it would be a good bonus at higher levels.

Click to expand...

This would be a HUGE, unbalanced boost for the fighter, +2 to AC at tier 1 play is insane, it would still be good at tier 4 play. The +6 bonus to AC would just be stupidly game warping. Seriously don't do this.

A similar argument could be made for Dueling, adding proficiency bonus to damage instead of a straight +2 forever.

I plan to come up with house rules for all the Fighting Styles, basing them on proficiency bonus so as the Fighter's level increases, they will (as one would expect) become better at what they do.

I don't think it would break any balance, but we'll have to see. Thanks again for the feedback.

Click to expand...

Doing this for dueling would be less crazy, but still a pretty powerful boost to fighters.

James Grover said:

If I'm wrong and misunderstanding the concept, please let me know. But in a nutshell you hit more but things take more damage or you hit less and they need less to be defeated, right?

Click to expand...

That is an accurate assessment of the design choice. While it's clear that 5E took the former route, though, I'm struggling to think of a d20-style game that took the latter.

Most games that put advancement into accuracy/evasion, rather than damage/HP, are games that don't even use levels.

TallIan said:

I think coming from older editions where fighters are powerful at low levels and wizards are just dead weight until level 5 might make the fighter appear rubbish...

Click to expand...

Oh, I am sure this is why I feel so wrong with a lot of the stuff I am reading!

What can I say, it bothers me that a Fighter with Dex 16 has the same chance of hitting as a Wizard with Dex 16 if they both use Finesse weapons. So, my Fighter, who has spent years training in weapons and armor and everything related to combat, is basically just as likely to hit as your Wizard who has spent most of his years studying spells and reading, etc. How does that make ANY sense???

TallIan said:

This would be a HUGE, unbalanced boost for the fighter, +2 to AC at tier 1 play is insane, it would still be good at tier 4 play. The +6 bonus to AC would just be stupidly game warping. Seriously don't do this.

Click to expand...

I have sworn never to hand out +1 armor or shields for this reason.

Well, maybe +1 leather or chain mail, but never studded or plate.

TallIan said:

This would be a HUGE, unbalanced boost for the fighter, +2 to AC at tier 1 play is insane, it would still be good at tier 4 play. The +6 bonus to AC would just be stupidly game warping. Seriously don't do this.

Click to expand...

Well, giving the way 5E was designed, I will probably change it to 1/2 Proficiency bonus added to AC, rounded down, until I see it in action for a while. That way it is +1 (as written), and at the highest levels would be +3.

IMO, if a +3 bonus breaks the game at high levels, the game is seriously flawed.

James Grover said:

Well, giving the way 5E was designed, I will probably change it to 1/2 Proficiency bonus added to AC, rounded down, until I see it in action for a while. That way it is +1 (as written), and at the highest levels would be +3.

IMO, if a +3 bonus breaks the game at high levels, the game is seriously flawed.

Click to expand...

It won't break the game.

It very well may frustrate you as a DM, though. A character with plate mail and a shield gets missed a lot even without the defense style.

James Grover said:

Well, giving the way 5E was designed, I will probably change it to 1/2 Proficiency bonus added to AC, rounded down, until I see it in action for a while. That way it is +1 (as written), and at the highest levels would be +3.

Click to expand...

You do you, but I would still recommend trying it as written before changing it. It works better in practice than it looks like it would on paper. +1 to AC seems small if you’re not used to 5e, but it really is a significant bonus across all levels in this system.

James Grover said:

IMO, if a +3 bonus breaks the game at high levels, the game is seriously flawed.

Click to expand...

I would argue that it’s actually a sign that the game is well-designed, because it doesn’t need a +3 to fix it. It’s already balanced without the house rule.

In fact, +3 is just about the limit of how much you can push bounded accuracy before breaking it. That’s why magic item bonuses cap out at +3. So, this house rule buffs the fighter by about the equivalent of a Very Rare magic item (The scale being Legendary>Very Rare>Rare>Uncommon>Common). So on its own, this would be strong but not unbalanced. That said, if you give that fighter any magic items with an AC bonus, you’re going to start straining the limits of what the system was built to be able to handle.

James Grover said:

Oh, I am sure this is why I feel so wrong with a lot of the stuff I am reading!

What can I say, it bothers me that a Fighter with Dex 16 has the same chance of hitting as a Wizard with Dex 16 if they both use Finesse weapons. So, my Fighter, who has spent years training in weapons and armor and everything related to combat, is basically just as likely to hit as your Wizard who has spent most of his years studying spells and reading, etc. How does that make ANY sense???

Click to expand...

Because the assumption is the fighter with the 16 DEX and using a finesse weapon is probably dual-wielding said finesse weapon with another weapon, thus getting two attacks during the round rather than the wizard's one. And because the fighter can then take the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, he adds his DEX to the damage to the second weapon attack as well. So the wizard wielding a dagger (the best finesse weapon he has proficiency in) attacks with a +5 bonus to do 1d4+3 damage (avg 6 points). The fighter attacks twice with two shortswords at a +5 doing 1d6+3 and 1d6+3 (avg 14 points). On top of that, the fighter wears studded leather armor for an AC of 15, while the wizard wears nothing for an AC of 13 (unless he chooses to use one of his two spell slots for the day to cast Mage Armor). With the much higher hit points the fighter has (10 + CON mod, probably 12 or 13 HP) versus the wizard's HP (6 + CON mod, probably 6 or 7 HP), the fighter will take at least one more hit than the wizard will. And then of course after the battle the fighter will use his Second Wind to regain most of the HP he lost, while the wizard remains hurt. And then when 2nd level comes around, the combat is the same except the fighter uses his Action Surge to take a second action in the first round of combat, possibly doing 4 attacks in the full round and doing an average of 28 HP of damage versus the wizard's 6 with his dagger.

Yes, if all you are worrying about is the "attack bonus" to determine whether the fighter is good or not, you're right in thinking that its the same as a wizard doing it. But no class is just their "attack bonus"... its eveything together combined which determines why someone is a fighter versus someone who is a wizard. And no wizard in their right INT 16 mind is going to go up and attack creatures with its dagger and receive a whole mess of melee attacks in return, 16 DEX or no. Because they know better than to do that.