D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: 01/24/2014

[Lokiare]

I don't care when classes get abilities, as much as I care about discouraging frequent level-dipping. If they can deal with that issue, then I am good with however they deal with the rest.

They could deal with it properly by simply having a "If this is your 1st level starting class you gain these benefits..." and "If this is not your 1st level starting class you instead gain these benefits..."

Of course we don't see that. Instead they need to make some players lose 3 levels...

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

I've had players that have rage quit because of things like this. One of them rage quit because he couldn't reach the nearest enemy before another character had defeated it in the first round.

At mid to high levels in editions before 4E casters could end an encounter with a spell or two before the melee classes could even close to attack range. This is the problem because while some are completely altruistic like yourself, others come to the game and want to have as much fun as the other players, and we can't really fault them for that. 5E is making the same mistakes instead of trying to solve them in a different way than 4E did...

The fact of the matter is that all encounters did not end this way. It's funny how in these arguments, the spellcasters always dominate the day because all the creatures somehow stand together in clumps and always fail their saves.

4th edition solved nothing to be honest. It did it's own thing which apparently wasn't what the majority of people wanted and now we have 5th edition.

How about describe to us round by round these encounters where the spellcaster defeated everything before the melee guys could do anything? Also funny how the spellcaster always seems to win initiative.

 

[Lokiare]

The fact of the matter is that all encounters did not end this way. It's funny how in these arguments, the spellcasters always dominate the day because all the creatures somehow stand together in clumps and always fail their saves.

4th edition solved nothing to be honest. It did it's own thing which apparently wasn't what the majority of people wanted and now we have 5th edition.

How about describe to us round by round these encounters where the spellcaster defeated everything before the melee guys could do anything? Also funny how the spellcaster always seems to win initiative.

Spell casters (especially Wizards) pumped up dexterity which boosted their initiative which allowed them to go first in combats. However that's not the point. Say the Fighter went first and charged in dropped a couple of creatures (assuming they hit and did maximum damage every time). When the Wizard went they would drop a fireball (if the creatures had low hp) or a save or die or save or suck spell (if the creatures had high hp) and the combat was over. It was just up to clean up.

Standing in clumps is not needed. Most caster spells have quite a large size. Fireball in 3E had an area of 20ft. radius spread In other words pick a spot and move 20ft away from it in all directions. You can easily fit 30 or more creatures in that area. Other spells had similar areas...

 

[Falling Icicle]

How else are they going to keep up with caster's throwing around 2-3 big spells per encounter (fireball, burning hands, stinking cloud, then magic missile the rest of the time)?

They are trying to balance the Fighters against the god-wizard's of editions before 4E...

Look at the damage those spells are doing. Even in a 9th level spell slot, a fireball or meteor swarm only does 12d6 damage (avg. 42). A 9th level magic missile does 11d4 +11 (avg. 38.5) That's only about as much damage as a fighter can do at-will, and that's using the one and only 9th level spell slot a wizard gets per day! It's pretty sad when a 9th level spell can only rival the at-will damage of another class. Yes, I know this can hit an area, but still. This is the best a wizard can ever do, and he can only do it once per day. 15 out of the 19 total spells a wizard gets per day are 1st-5th level; only 4 spells per day are 6th-9th level. All of those lower level spell slots will do even less damage. So right now, high level wizards can't even compete with a fighter's at-will DPR, let alone a fighter's damage with action surge!

DnDN has 3e-like hit point scaling but has cut the damage of spells at higher levels by up to half or more. Meteor Swarm, for example, used to do 24d6 damage; now it does 12d6. People complained about how much blasting spells sucked in 3e, since they did the same damage they used to do in 2e but hp had greatly inflated. Well, this problem is far worse in Next. Plus, fighters now get 4 attacks per round but their attack bonus is no longer reduced by -5, -10 and -15. So those attacks are all far more likely to hit, giving the fighter an enormous DPR boost in this edition. So, no, I'm not at all worried that a nerfed action surge would make fighters weak compared to casters.

 

[Lokiare]

Look at the damage those spells are doing. Even in a 9th level spell slot, a fireball or meteor swarm only does 12d6 damage (avg. 42). A 9th level magic missile does 11d4 +11 (avg. 38.5) That's only about as much damage as a fighter can do at-will, and that's using the one and only 9th level spell slot a wizard gets per day! It's pretty sad when a 9th level spell can only rival the at-will damage of another class. Yes, I know this can hit an area, but still. This is the best a wizard can ever do, and he can only do it once per day. 15 out of the 19 total spells a wizard gets per day are 1st-5th level; only 4 spells per day are 6th-9th level. All of those lower level spell slots will do even less damage. So right now, high level wizards can't even compete with a fighter's at-will DPR, let alone a fighter's damage with action surge!

DnDN has 3e-like hit point scaling but has cut the damage of spells at higher levels by up to half or more. Meteor Swarm, for example, used to do 24d6 damage; now it does 12d6. People complained about how much blasting spells sucked in 3e, since they did the same damage they used to do in 2e but hp had greatly inflated. Well, this problem is far worse in Next. Plus, fighters now get 4 attacks per round but their attack bonus is no longer reduced by -5, -10 and -15. So those attacks are all far more likely to hit, giving the fighter an enormous DPR boost in this edition. So, no, I'm not at all worried that a nerfed action surge would make fighters weak compared to casters.

Are you talking about previous editions or 5E?

If you are talking about previous editions even in 3E a level 5 fireball dealt enough damage to take out lower hit point creatures. Extra damage doesn't matter, only the damage used to defeat the creature counts and casters did that well. When that wouldn't work they would resort to a save or die spell or a save or suck spell. A level 1 grease spell could disable anything that didn't fly. An Evard's Tentacles could disable an entire battlefield of enemies and make them easy to hit with ranged attacks. There were tons of spells that could be used to defeat encounters and casters had plenty to sling around by that level.

You aren't taking into account hit points of monsters though. If they keep the numbers the same a 12d6 meteor swarm that can be used from a mile away is all that's needed to take out most creatures in the bestiary based on their hit points. This is also how 2E and 1E did it. A single fireball usually cleared a field of humanoid creatures unless they were leveled class humanoids.

Sure a Fighter can run up and hit 4 creatures dropping them each in turn, but that doesn't compare to the casters ability to do the same every single battle to the entire battlefield in most cases.

I won't migrate from 4E to 5E for the simple reason that there really isn't balance in that regard. I like 4E's balance where Fighters and Wizards are on equal footing. I like that a striker Fighter and a striker Sorcerer are about equal in terms of how they can take enemies out. You won't see that in 5E unless you get some kind of weird monk that can get 6-8 multiple attacks each round and move around the battlefield killing things...

 

[Teataine]

I don't want to be snarky, but maybe the problem isn't in the rules but in the players that are apparently competing with each other as to who gets "first blood" or "most kills" despite the fact that not one aspect of the game or its mechanics cares about that.

You're a party. You're supposed to act together as a unit. Maybe the fighter and (implied) wizard players should have communicated, so the wizard would drop the enemy further away while the fighter would engage the closer one? Maybe you're supposed to work together, and not rage quit over the fact that one of your party members defeated an enemy.

And yes I know it sucks when you're playing an ineffective character and you don't get to do anything. It's boring. Nobody wants to do that. But maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities and group dynamics if stuff like that makes you rage quit instead of talk it over or maybe change your system.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Unless of course we want to play an RPG where you advance levels and gain abilities as your character progresses and don't like losing 13 levels (4E goes from 1-30, -10, -3). Then apprentice levels are like a second slap in the face (the first being losing 10 levels)...

I swear I'm still totally clueless about this line of reasoning, and I'd really like it if someone could explain it to me.

In D&D, leveling is a mechanic to track the evolution of a PC's ability to survive and overall power. You didn't lose levels 1-2, they correspond to an stage in the life of an adventurer you're not interested to role-play. You don't lose levels 21-30 either, simply because a PC of 20th level in 5E will probably be more powerful than epic 4E anyway (at least they'll have rings of invisibility that they can actually use to, you know, become invisible...).

If one edition of D&D has fewer levels than the others, that is 4E, where the math and power of characters is developed in order to emulate the so called "sweet spot". Basically, your 30 levels of 4E adventuring are 10 levels of 3E stretched over 20 more "level-ups". If power level in 5E ends up similar to 3E, all you have to do is start at 4th level, make every character level up three times before gaining a level and there you have it: 30 levels of "sweet spot", your game will end before Wish has the chance to appear.

Obviously, you could still say: I don't care about all that stuff you're talking about, I'm focused in numbers, I want my character leveling often and I want to see that 27 in the sheet under "character level". If that's your case, you should be playing RC, where you have 6 more levels for your enjoyment. Even better, you could be playing 3E with the Epic Level Handbook, and suddenly you don't even have level caps anymore. What about a level 84 barbarian smashing puny 30 level 4E characters? Sounds like a lot of fun to me.

Cheers,

 

[Teataine]

I won't migrate from 4E to 5E for the simple reason that there really isn't balance in that regard. I like 4E's balance where Fighters and Wizards are on equal footing. I like that a striker Fighter and a striker Sorcerer are about equal in terms of how they can take enemies out. You won't see that in 5E unless you get some kind of weird monk that can get 6-8 multiple attacks each round and move around the battlefield killing things...

Uh...in my experience, even the most basic 5E Fighter outdamages the spellcasters in every instance. Spellcasters may have damage peaks that are on par with the Fighter's damage output but it requires burning significant daily resources of them.

And that's without including the fact that the 5E is not a dedicated Striker but also a basically immortal meatshield, decent defender (with a few feat and path choices) and overall more competent member of the party than in 3E in every way.

 

[Mistwell]

Unless of course we want to play an RPG where you advance levels and gain abilities as your character progresses and don't like losing 13 levels (4E goes from 1-30, -10, -3). Then apprentice levels are like a second slap in the face (the first being losing 10 levels)...

What's it going to take to get people to stop making the 'slap to the face' claim in D&D discussions?

Seriously...I am not beyond a bribe.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Are you talking about previous editions or 5E?

5e.

You aren't taking into account hit points of monsters though. If they keep the numbers the same a 12d6 meteor swarm that can be used from a mile away is all that's needed to take out most creatures in the bestiary based on their hit points.

12d6 is 42 damage on average. That's only enough to take very low level creatures.

I won't migrate from 4E to 5E for the simple reason that there really isn't balance in that regard. I like 4E's balance where Fighters and Wizards are on equal footing. I like that a striker Fighter and a striker Sorcerer are about equal in terms of how they can take enemies out. You won't see that in 5E unless you get some kind of weird monk that can get 6-8 multiple attacks each round and move around the battlefield killing things...

Then keep playing 4e. There's nothing wrong with that if you like it better.