D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)

[Derren]

I don't dispute that the player characters are assumed to be heroes in 4e, I am disputing that this is something different from what came before, namely 3e.

And yet 3E did have evil deities in the PHB, did have evil spells like necromancy usable by the players right from the beginning and had many good aligned monsters in the MM to fight if you desired. WotC did not restrict the ability to play evil characters like in 4E because of their "Vision" and that is a big difference.

 

[herrozerro]

4E starting characters were supposed to be already experienced adventurers according to marketing. I think 1st level in 4E was meant to represent something like 3rd level in older editions, but I am not sure about that one.

The imo main difference between 4E and previous editions where this "in 4E you play a Hero" was most noticeable was the absolute lack of anything evil usable by players in the first few releases and only having monsters which were fightable by good/unaligned PCs. I think there were only 1 or 2 good monsters in the MM1 and many good monsters like metallic dragons were turned unaligned so that players would have reasons to fight them (I think WotC did even directly confirm that this was the reason).

As for the starting level. That might have been a 3e thing, doing a quick google search for name level from AD&D, the 1st level of fighter is called "Veteran," doesn't sound like someone just out of training does it? Can't seem to think that 4e suddenly broke the mold with that one right?

As for the hero thing, I don't deny it, the DMG states that the game assumes that the PCs assume the evil gods and their minions are enemies. But the 3.5 PHB also notes in its alignment description that the evil examples are villains.

 

[herrozerro]

And yet 3E did have evil deities in the PHB, did have evil spells like necromancy usable by the players right from the beginning and had many good aligned monsters in the MM to fight if you desired. WotC did not restrict the ability to play evil characters like in 4E because of their "Vision" and that is a big difference.

I'll give you that 4e did restrict it, but 3e did little to encourage it. Its language actually seems to subtly discourage evil PCs.

But here is another question, besides necromancy (which has issues besides evilness), what evil options were missing for players?

 

[Cadence]

Asdoing a quick google search for name level from AD&D, the 1st level of fighter is called "Veteran," doesn't sound like someone just out of training does it?

I think we always thought that name was kind of ironic though. I was in several 1e games that seemed to natually be bloodbaths at 1st level in ways I never saw for 3/3.5/Pf or 4. For reference, the other classes level 1 title were Acolyte, Aspirant, Gallant, Runner, Prestidigitator, Rogue (Apprentice), Bravo (Apprentice), and Novice.

 

[Hussar]

Can you show your math with some examples of how you are achieving this?

Oh, good grief. Really?

Ok, 1st level fighter. Two Weapon Fighting, Ambidexterity, Weapon Specs Longsword. On the second round, that's 2d8+4+1d6 = 26 points of damage, without a strength bonus. Give him any 18 percentile strength and now that's 35 points of damage vs any medium or smaller opponent. Against a larger than man sized opponent, that's 2d12+4+6+1d8+3=45 points of damage.

No penalties to attack. Only plusses there. Perfectly by the book. Note, on his odd numbered rounds, he loses 13 or 17 points of damage depending on opponent size. He's still whacking 2 HD monsters in the first round. And that's presuming almost maximum HP. An average ogre in 2e has 4d8+1 HP=19 HP. He's killing Mr Ogre in the first round even without strength bonuses. (d12+2+d8=22 damage).

2e characters relative to their opponents start off as very, very high up on the food chain and only get stronger from there.

 

[Hussar]

And yet 3E did have evil deities in the PHB, did have evil spells like necromancy usable by the players right from the beginning and had many good aligned monsters in the MM to fight if you desired. WotC did not restrict the ability to play evil characters like in 4E because of their "Vision" and that is a big difference.

4e moved those to the DMG. What's your point? AD&D lacked evil dieties in the PHB, so were they suddenly more "heroic" and lacking in evil options? After all, 2e didn't even have half orcs or assassins. It certainly didn't have any core options for playing evil characters.

Then again, if "evil" only means that I have a big E on my team shirt and now I fight good monsters instead of evil ones, umm, I'm thinking that's a pretty shallow view of alignment.

Then you would be wrong.
Go back to 4E pre release stuff and even the first set of core rules. It was pretty clear and communicated often that in 4E you start of as a experienced Hero with capital H.
Thats why 1st level 4E characters were so powerful (HP etc.), thats why many evil options like necromancy were not available to players, thats why the evil gods only got a few sentences in the PHB instead of a description like the other deities (the DMG flat out says that PCs are not supposed to worship evil gods) and that was why the first MM had hardly any good monster in it, even going so far as to turn formerly good monsters unaligned, so that the PCs could fight them.

Except that like 3e, the monsters also got a big bump. 1st level 4e characters might be more survivable than 3e ones, but they're hardly more powerful. It's not like they have greater skills or better spells or anything like that. And, if you can't kill 1st level 4e PC's, you're not trying very hard.

The difference here is that WOTC was actually transparent about things. They stopped being coy and trying to pretend that you could do things and then never actually support those things.

Since about 2e, PC's have always been Heroes (with a capital H), capable of feats no normal human could reproduce (AD&D fighters are the only ones who can gain percentile strength forex). The idea that you were some turnip farmer was never true in D&D.

 

[herrozerro]

Lets also take a look at 4e PHB p23:

Evil and Chaotic Evil Deities
Your character can worship an evil or a chaotic evil
deity without being of the same alignment, but that’s
walking a fine line. The commandments of these
deities exhort their followers to pursue evil ends or
commit destructive deeds.

So worship of those deities is not against the rules either.

PHB p62

You must choose a deity compatible with your alignment:
Good clerics serve good deities, lawful good
clerics serve lawful good deities, and so on. If a deity
is unaligned, your alignment doesn’t matter, so a deity
such as Melora has good, lawful good, evil, chaotic evil,
and unaligned clerics in her service. Similarly, if you’re
unaligned, you can serve any god. For example, Pelor is
served by both good clerics and unaligned clerics, but
never by evil, chaotic evil, or lawful good clerics.
For most games, you should choose a good, lawful
good, or unaligned deity for your cleric. Ask your
Dungeon Master before you select an evil or chaotic
evil deity.

Not against the rules for clerics either, just the caveat that you ask your DM first.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Oh, good grief. Really?

i think it is an entirely reasonable request. It is not easy to discuss these issues if it is unclear what your underlying numbers are.

Ok, 1st level fighter. Two Weapon Fighting, Ambidexterity, Weapon Specs Longsword. On the second round, that's 2d8+4+1d6 = 26 points of damage, without a strength bonus. Give him any 18 percentile strength and now that's 35 points of damage vs any medium or smaller opponent. Against a larger than man sized opponent, that's 2d12+4+6+1d8+3=45 points of damage.

fair enough, i think there is likely to be some disagreement over how much ambidexterity gets youh in this case and whether you would be all pluses, but the damage output is certainly possible. I would point out though these are your max damage potential using a super maxed out fighter. Like i said, everyone knw about two weapon figting being an issue and many dms simply didn't allow it for that reason, but even without two weapov fighting, on the second round you can do 2d8+4 and that is still pretty good. I think in general fighters were good at early levels, and i am not ocnvinced that is a bad thing for the game. My only quibble with 2E is two weapon because it allows a 1st level fighter to effectively get therattack routines of a 13th level fighter.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Since about 2e, PC's have always been Heroes (with a capital H), capable of feats no normal human could reproduce (AD&D fighters are the only ones who can gain percentile strength forex). The idea that you were some turnip farmer was never true in D&D.

1E is more brutal, but even in 2E mages and thieves are quite weak at first level. I thini zero to hero applies to second and third edition. Now characters are special, they are a step up from the common man, but they are still quite vulnerable (running the mordenheim mansion adventure in book of crypts witnessed our mage die from a splinter which i think did like 1d2 damage).

 

[Cadence]

Celebrating the 40th anniversary by dusting off my 2e books and cranking some numbers

Ok, 1st level fighter. Two Weapon Fighting, Ambidexterity, Weapon Specs Longsword.

An average ogre in 2e has 4d8+1 HP=19 HP. He's killing Mr Ogre in the first round even without strength bonuses. (d12+2+d8=22 damage).

For an 18/01-50, is that a 40% chance to hit on each attack against an Ogre? So an average damage of "only" 12.2 in the first round. Average in the 2nd round falls to 7.6... so takes you all of two rounds on average to finish the average one off. (18-00 does an average of 19.75 and so would get him first round).

That's pretty freaking awesome and almost makes me feel bad for playing clerics all those times!

With the weapon specialization but without the things from skills and powers the averages fall to 7.65 in the first round and 4.2 in the second which makes it a bit less awe inspiring and might make a good argument for not allowing the ambidexterity and two-weapon prof.

At the other end, it would really suck not to be in that lucky 10% with the 18 strength (say a 16) and to have a DM who didn't even let you use the specialization (its only optional in the PhB). Down to something like an average of 2.8 per round if you try to two-hand it against the Ogre.