D&D 5E 5e's stumbles

[Avalongod]

...over the previous two editions, I would be hard pressed to find a design element, with the possible exception of spells, that turned out to be more prone to abuse, bloat, and outright "breaking" the game than feats.

Thanks for the reply Gadget. Yeah I do agree feats sometimes got out of hand. I think it got worse in 4e which seemed particular ripe for abuse of feat/item/ability combos that were nuts.

But overall they felt "nice" particularly as a way of customization and that fixed the cookie-cutter feel of classes in 1e and 2e. I know 5e kind of went back to a 2e model in many respects, but I think that harkens back to some of those old problems of 2e that 3e tried to fix (and, yes, I rather like Pathfinder.) For me, the use of feats in 5e doesn't really feel elegant at all. I don't think they should have been lumped with the ability score increases. I think it would have been find to make them an optional system (options are always good), and it would have been good to remove the "feat tax" issue and 5e overall seems dedicated to reducing bloat. But offering one every 4 levels say...I think that would have felt about "right" for the current system.

 

[Cody C. Lewis]

I don't know if anyone said this before...

Flanking. Dear lord flanking. Absolutely zero advantage against fighting someone one on one or with your army.

FYI for homebrew rules, I think +1 to attack if you have 'flanking' is much more balanced than just advantage. Since advantage > +1 ; and advantage while casual moving around someone since they changed AoO rules is >>>>>>> than just a +1. Just my two cents.

 

[Flamestrike]

Flanking. Dear lord flanking. Absolutely zero advantage against fighting someone one on one or with your army.

Aside from the fact that you get smashed in the action economy, and even low level mooks are a credible threat in numbers now thanks to bounded accuracy.

No advantage at all.

 

[hejtmane]

I don't know if anyone said this before...

Flanking. Dear lord flanking. Absolutely zero advantage against fighting someone one on one or with your army.

FYI for homebrew rules, I think +1 to attack if you have 'flanking' is much more balanced than just advantage. Since advantage > +1 ; and advantage while casual moving around someone since they changed AoO rules is >>>>>>> than just a +1. Just my two cents.

One question how do you rule on sneak attack with Rogues is it equivalent to advantage for them ?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Heh, these types of replies don't feel "helpful" to me...

Yeah, I guess they don't come off that too much that way. It's just that 5e really is very DM-oriented, so a lot of 'system issues' really are operator (DM) issues. I tried to explain some of the rationale before I got to the dismissive part, though, FWIW.

Otherwise, Tony, you do raise some fair points. However, for me at least, it still feels off. I totally get what you're saying about the wasted slots issue/spontaneous casting, but at the higher level, things still feel off and stretched.

Off like "non-contributing?" Or off like "not exactly like I remember?"

Granted I kind of liked the old Vancian system, and if you were good at it, you could keep wasted slots to a minimum. The addition of the at-will magic abilities/cantrips by 4e was a great addition (one of the real positive innovations of 4e IMO), I agree.

4e can't really take credit for it, either. The 3.5 Warlock, War-Mage, and Reserve Feats got there first.

But as you yourself later note, if 5e is assuming 6-8 encounters a day, that's going to stretch spellcasters tight in 5e given the limited slots.

Yes, that is exactly the intention of having such a long day. Casters don't just have to 'pay' for the sheer power of their daily spell resources, but for their tremendous versatility, as well. And, the currency they pay in is the gap between their effectiveness when using a Cantrip and the ordinary round-to-round effectiveness of the few non-casters in the game. That gap isn't huge, so casters have to be resource-pressured into using more than a few rounds of cantrips a day to even come close to theoretically balancing. The 5e spell progression is a compromise between that necessity (which really calls for casters getting only a few slots/day, but higher level slots, all of them) and the more traditional progressions.

By the way, in which edition did spellcasters get fewer spells per day than they do in 5e at low levels?

4e & Essentials, fewer daily spell slots at all levels - 1 at 1st, up to 4 at 20th. Far less flexibility in what you could do with those slots, too. But, they had at-wills for backup a comparable number of encounter slots, as well as rituals, and you traded out lower-level slots for higher-level ones over time.

I think that's kind of the trick though...this kind of pacing is seeming (from my experience at least) to be difficult to pace properly. In part that seems to be because the short rests are so long...an hour now. It's tough, I think, to rationalize how often you'd expect to be left alone for such lengths of time if you're on some kind of "dungeon crawl" (which would fit the 6-8 encounter thing.) And, of course, not all campaigns work on that kind of encounter schedule at all. So, for me, it feels like a clunker.

On the bright side, for you, it seems to be the case (based on anecdotes and unscientific polls here, for instance) that few campaigns really gravitate towards the 6-8 encounter day, and even the 5MWD (1-encounter) is alive and well, that should leave casters' slots more than adequate to meet your expectations in those campaigns.

Yeah I do agree feats sometimes got out of hand. I think it got worse in 4e which seemed particular ripe for abuse of feat/item/ability combos that were nuts.

Not abuse so much, but bloat and confusion/annoyance, certainly. The power combos that existed in 4e really didn't hold a candle to those in 3e, nor even what you can do with the relatively few 'broken' feats in 5e. But 4e is a perfect example of how much 'chaff' you can build up with a bloated feet list. 'Chaff' as opposed to 'traps.' Trap feats look good but penalize you relative to what you could pick out with sufficient system mastery, chaff is just obviously crap, it takes up space but no one really gets sucked in by it.

But overall they felt "nice" particularly as a way of customization and that fixed the cookie-cutter feel of classes in 1e and 2e. I know 5e kind of went back to a 2e model in many respects, but I think that harkens back to some of those old problems of 2e that 3e tried to fix. For me, the use of feats in 5e doesn't really feel elegant at all. I don't think they should have been lumped with the ability score increases.

It was a workable - maybe not quite 'elegant,' but not exactly 'clumsy' either - way of making them optional, without making them too disruptive to encounter balance when turned on.

 

[Avalongod]

4e & Essentials, fewer daily spell slots at all levels - 1 at 1st, up to 4 at 20th. Far less flexibility in what you could do with those slots, too. But, they had at-wills for backup a comparable number of encounter slots, as well as rituals, and you traded out lower-level slots for higher-level ones over time.

Oh, god, I'd forgotten 4e. And for good reason...I'm not sure I count that thing they called a wizard among the examples from past editions. I'm not saying that some people didn't enjoy that thing, or that it wasn't worth playing...just that they pigeonholed wizards into "controllers" when they could fill flexible roles (such as artillery blasters) in previous editions...and I think some of that 4e "role" system still causes problems with some folks' perception of wizards to present. But to me, aside from the at-will cantrip, the 4e wizard was the worst. Just MHO.

I agree with you on the balance of the at-will cantrip vis a vis other casters (like warlock) that makes a lot of sense. Although in practice, given how few spells are rituals, I think the "versatility" of the wizard in practice is maybe a bit overstated. Unless you can plan for encounters in advance, the spontaneous system means that, on a typical day, you'll probably have a standard list of spells memorized, making wizards more similar to sorcs in some respects. Granted I think sorcs are screwed in the same way as wizard...I'm not saying we need to return to 4 slots per day at the top eschelon of spells (or was it even 6 for sorcs in 3e?)...just that 1 per day at levels 8 and 9, and 2 per day for 6 and 7 are too few. One more at each of these levels would have been helpful (well really boosting all spells per day from 4th on by 1) and I think gotten the balance a bit more right than current.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Oh, god, I'd forgotten 4e. And for good reason...I'm not sure I count that thing they called a wizard among the examples from past editions.

You don't have a choice. It was a past edition of D&D. Your prejudice against it does not remove it from it from the record. And, the record shows that casters, even a nominally 'Vancian' wizard (it did prep it's dailies & utilities) can be robustly balanced, effective, and playable with /very few/ daily spell slots. Far fewer than 5e.

I agree with you on the balance of the at-will cantrip vis a vis other casters (like warlock) that makes a lot of sense. Although in practice, given how few spells are rituals, I think the "versatility" of the wizard in practice is maybe a bit overstated.

It's hard to overstate the versatility of neo-Vancian. You can prep a completely different slate of spells each day. You use slots to cast from that list spontaneously. That's far more versatile than a caster that has to choose 'known' spells at chargen & level up, even though such casters are, in turn, far more versatile than non-casters.

Unless you can plan for encounters in advance, the spontaneous system means that, on a typical day, you'll probably have a standard list of spells memorized, making wizards more similar to sorcs in some respects.

That was a strong argument for Sorcerers being 'not that bad' in 3.x, yes - I recall making it many times when defending 3.5 from unwarranted criticism. Of course, it didn't save the Sorcerer from Tier 2 status in the end. It's less valid, now that Sorcerers & Wizards have the same number of slots and cast spontaneously. The 5e wizard's superiority of over the 5e sorcerer is very nearly strict, sorcery points may let the sorcerer save face, but it seems to me the wizard comes out further and more clearly ahead than in 3.5e. (Never mind 4e where both classes were, of course, balanced.)

Granted I think sorcs are screwed in the same way as wizard...I'm not saying we need to return to 4 slots per day at the top eschelon of spells (or was it even 6 for sorcs in 3e?)

At least 6 for sorcerers and 4 for wizards (though it'd take a crazy INT to get bonus spells of very high level). But, because save DCs were based on slot level and damage/level capped by it, it was your top few spell levels that really counted for rocket tag. So, terrible as it was, it's not quite as terrible as a it might sound.

...just that 1 per day at levels 8 and 9, and 2 per day for 6 and 7 are too few.

That's 6 dramatic high-level spells for a 6-8 encounter day, plus all those 5th-and-lower slots, plus at-wills. You can cast 3 spells per encounter, one of them a high (6+) level spell in most (6/8) to all (6/6) of them - some combats probably won't last long enough for you to cast all three. You'll rarely need to resort to a cantrip. How is that not enough? Seems like too much, if anything.

One more at each of these levels would have been helpful (well really boosting all spells per day from 4th on by 1) and I think gotten the balance a bit more right than current.

Balance isn't too high-priority nor precise in 5e, but I doubt it disfavors casters in the least. Either way, it's up to the DM to find the balance the works for his campaign. An easy way to do that without re-writing classes is to vary the number of encounters. More than 6-8 if daily casters tend to dominate (possibly forcing more slots to go towards healing, as well as stretching slots over more encounters), fewer (reversing those effects) if they need a boost.

Now, if we want to talk variants that might be more 'interesting,' I think fewer, but higher level slots could be it. Makes magic more limited, but more dramatic/less commodity-feeling, and, actually, more literally Vancian. (In the Dying Earth, spells didn't have levels, but were merely divided into 'greater' or 'lesser' spells, and capable magicians could memorize about 1.5x as many of the lesser than the greater - personally, I've always thought there was a pretty clear divide between 5th & lower and 6th & higher and would like to see that reflected in the system). It'd be like the current progression, but with your lower level slots 'expiring,' but in return for an extra top level slot. So, instead of 4 slots of each level 5th and lower, and 2 of each 6th & higher, you might have at 6 or 8 level 5 slots and 3 or 4 level 9, only. Fewer spells overall, but more bang per spell.

If you're going to play a 'Vancian' caster, might as well go all the way...

 

[Avalongod]

You don't have a choice. It was a past edition of D&D. Your prejudice against it does not remove it from it from the record. And, the record shows that casters, even a nominally 'Vancian' wizard (it did prep it's dailies & utilities) can be robustly balanced, effective, and playable with /very few/ daily spell slots. Far fewer than 5e.

Yeah it's sort of like taxes, mosquitoes or the impending death that awaits us all in that respect isn't it? The Vancian aspect was definitely "nominal" to say the least. It was a totally different animal which is why I'd forgotten it was my point. They called it a wizard, but calling 2 things by the same name doesn't necessarily mean they are all that similar.

Sorc got screwed in 3e because they got spell levels later than wizard and who wanted to wait 1 more level to get fireball? I'd say sorcs and wizards actually feel pretty balanced against each other in 5e...just they both feel a little screwed at the higher levels. I maintain my position on how it could be fixed for better balancing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah it's sort of like taxes, mosquitoes or the impending death that awaits us all in that respect isn't it?

A fact that demolishes a hopeful theory often feels that way.

The Vancian aspect was definitely "nominal" to say the least.

'Vancian' has never been a perfect description of D&D magic, but, the 4e Wizard did prepare 1-10 single-use spells on a daily basis, depending on level and choice of utilities. That's actually closer to the number of spells Dying Earth magicians could memorize at once than high level wizards in other editions (who prepared a lot more). Not that fidelity to the Dying Earth is or ever was a goal of D&D. The mechanics were also closer to traditional D&D Vancian than 5e - in the sense that spell choice was not spontaneous.

It was a totally different animal which is why I'd forgotten it was my point. They called it a wizard, but calling 2 things by the same name doesn't necessarily mean they are all that similar.

That's a pretty weak excuse for 'forgetting' a past example that stands in stark contrast to the idea of 5e wizards somehow having 'fewer' spells.

In any case, the fact stands: 5e wizards have more spells than they did in the last edition - a lot more.

Sorc got screwed in 3e because they got spell levels later than wizard and who wanted to wait 1 more level to get fireball?

Not the only strike against them, but neither was Spontaneous casting the only thing they had over the Wizard. The two biggest things the Sorcerer had going for it relative to the Wizard, though, were Spontaneous casting and more slots/day.

I'd say sorcs and wizards actually feel pretty balanced against each other in 5e...just they both feel a little screwed at the higher levels.

Relative to 3.5, given that the Wizard picked up the Sorcerer's Spontaneous Casting, the Sorcerer didn't pick up the Wizard's prepped casting, and that the Sorcerer lost it's greater number of slots/day, it's hard to see how they'd be /better/ balanced, at least, not for values of 'better' that include the two being closer to equal, rather than the wizard widening his putative lead.

I maintain my position on how it could be fixed for better balancing.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I maintain that 'better balancing' is that which brings high-level casters closer to the level of power & versatility of other high-level characters, not pushes them further beyond the pale. ;P

 

[ChrisCarlson]

You don't have a choice. It was a past edition of D&D. Your prejudice against it does not remove it from it from the record.

And neither do you have a choice. Despite it being a past edition of D&D. Your prejudice for it cannot mandate others to include it when discussing what they enjoy about D&D.