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

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

UPDATE:

Well, my group play tested some combat and guess what, the Warlock used his staff to attack LOL. Granted, he used Eldrich Blast (?) several times as well, but not once engaged in melee. Anyway, I didn't even bring up the point, one of my players did: why do you get better at attacking but never at defending?

So, I took some time to explain the Bounded Accuracy concept. They sort of got it so I'll have to see how it goes when we play on Sunday.

Turns out they handle a single ogre with only slight problems (the Half-Orc Thief has to use his Resilient thing to recover to 1 hp), but then tried combat against seven goblins and three of the five characters DIED, and the fourth was at 0 HP but stable. Granted, there was a lot of bad luck: two characters went just negative enough on critical hits for massive damage death and the third rolled a 1 on a death save to go from a single failure to three on the same round she was about to get stabilized from a healer's kit.

I have to keep reading on the CR stuff to find out if these encounters are too much for 5 1st-level characters or not...

OP:

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.

 

[robus]

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.

I’m not going to dive into much of this as I don’t have the context to compare, but as far as HP is concerned the general consensus is that there is at least the right amount if not too little. This is probably due to bounded accuracy allowing the PCs to hit more reliably.

As far as whether 5e is balanced I’ll just grab some popcorn and wait for the fun to begin...

 

[FreezerBurnedDM]

Fighters definitely don't suck in 5e. I've run and played several fighters and haven't found them to be weak. One of the key things to remember about 5e fighters is that they are a short rest based class. So if a DM isn't letting the party take short rests they'll lag behind, but a well rested fighter can bring a lot of pain. And the problem with bounded accuracy effects all classes, not just fighters and fighter's have the easiest path to a high AC. It also applies to enemies, so a high level fighter is going to hit often and hard, so while you may be taking damage, the enemies will be as well.

I also haven't found burning hands to be to overpowered. First, it requires the caster to be fairly close to the enemies and second, Dex is one of the more common saves in the game, so full damage is not a guarantee. Usually, a cantrip like Firebolt is the more cost effective and reliable option.

As for enemies, I just adjust on the fly if they're carving through PC's to fast or lasting to long. CR is a tricky business at the best of times. But, the bring up my earlier point, bounded accuracy makes hitting a lot easier. So that ogre might have 59 hp but it only has an AC of 11. A level 3 fighter with decent stats (we'll say strength of 16) has a +5 to hit and will hit more then half the time.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Welcome back! Besides the long break, your road sounds like my route, starting with AD&D for a long time (even when 3rd came out), then a stint with 3rd/Pathfinder (wherein we had complaints), and into 5th (which addressed several of those complaints).

1. Fighters suck.

Not at all! Fighters seriously rock, and out of all the classes, they get a crapload of ability score improvements (or Feats if allowed). As to AC, it's not about AC. Bounded Accuracy fixed the math. In other words, whether you're 20th level or 1st level, a dagger in the heart kills you. Hit Points represent more than they ever have before your ability to avoid the fatal blow. Higher levels = less likely to die = better defense. This concept remedies an innumerable amount of issues, including but not limited to: 10 town guards have crossbows trained upon your 10th level fighter. In 3rd edition, your 10th level fighter shrugs, avoids the hits, and slaughters then. In 5th, there's a good chance the town guards hit, and suddenly numbers matter. If you play fighters into high levels, they can be killing machines, and much much more than any other prior edition (beyond the role play of the game!

2. Burning Hands: way too powerful!

Nah, Burning Hands actually continues to be a weaker option. You have to be on the front lines to cast and (unless you take Evocation school) in a position to avoid killing comrades. The damage isn't impressive given the save (if a 1st level monster casts, let's say DC10-12), and to take full advantage, enemies have to be lined up idiotically. Remember, monster casters are weaker than player casters because monsters don't get proficiency bonuses (unless otherwise stated).

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.

Refer above. Hit Points are a form of armor class for some monsters and classes, like Barbarian. Ogres are exactly as they should be. If you want to face them on their battlefield, trading blows, they'll lay out the pain. If you have a spell that attacks Wisdom and so on, the Ogre is screwed. So it depends on whether the players are playing smart or not as to whether a particular monster is deadly or not.

The only issue I've had thus far is that monsters in the MM are too simplistic, and this has been cured by a DM Guild supplement created by DMs that provides features for each monster. Otherwise, play D&D a bit. We ran a Test campaign on the basic rules and the D&D Starter set. It rocks, and if there's something that's not working (e.g. monsters too simple), default to Rule 0 and make the game as you need it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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?

It was a conscious design decision that characters (both PCs and monsters) scale by damage output and HP, rather than by hit bonuses and AC bonuses. The idea is that it's really boring if both sides keep missing each other every round, so you should pretty much always be hitting. Missing entirely is something that you do at low levels, when things have so few HP that one good hit will drop them.

I'm not a huge fan of that choice, personally, but it works out alright from a math perspective, given how quickly characters can heal damage. A high-level fighter gets stabbed fifteen times, which sucks, but then they're better after they take a short rest.

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!

Most level 1 characters should have a Con bonus. The average Con score for a level 1 character is around 14, with low-HP classes tending toward a higher bonus.

The other important factor is that you don't die until you go fully negative of your HP total, so a level 1 wizard with Con 12 (which is just about the weakest you'll ever see) can go all the way from +7 to -7 before they die. It can still happen, of course, but there are worse offenders (such as Cause Wounds); and level 1 was intentionally designed as a reference to how frail characters could be in older editions. If you don't want to risk sudden death with every swing, as things were in low-level AD&D, then you just start at level 3 and you never have to worry about it again. Levels 1 and 2 are also designed to go by in about one session each, so you can spend more time on the serious game where you aren't in constant fear of death.

Again, it's not necessarily my preference, but it's an intentional choice by the designers.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's a new edition. It's not going to all make sense just reading the books. Play a few games. It all works out pretty well.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The only issue I've had thus far is that monsters in the MM are too simplistic, and this has been cured by a DM Guild supplement created by DMs that provides features for each monster.

What is this product?

 

[Dualazi]

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?

You're pretty much correct unless you picked the only fighter worth playing, i.e. the battlemaster. Any other time you'll be outperformed by other options prior to 11th level, since that's the only point at which the fighter is actually better at attacking things. However, your concerns about defenses will never be addressed due to how the game focuses on the concept of bounded accuracy, which others have touched upon.

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!

If your group is bunched up and somehow didn't kill the caster before he moved in for an obvious attack, maybe? The thing is that the mortality of the players only really exists at those very low levels. By level 3 you'll see that burning hands isn't even that good at all, with the durability and healing the players swiftly accrue.

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.

Well... it gets significantly less dangerous, though I don't think I'd ever call the game balanced, but it seems that people that want it to be are in the stark minority, both from designing and playing the game. I'd recommend just getting your feet wet, the first few levels fly by and you'll start to get a better sense of where the game stands.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I’m not gonna get into the flame war about fighters sucking or not (do a forum search on that thread title and read it there). But I will say this. 5e, more than any other edition, cannot give you a good idea about how it plays by doing white room analysis. I’ve been playing for over 35 years, and this edition really needs to be played to get a good idea. More than any other. Making judgements by white room analysis will be at your peril.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Compare a fighter to the wizard casting birning hands.

The wizard casts the spell and does 10 damage. The average fighter with some dex and some con bonus has a 50% chance to save for half. Even if he does not, he will usually survive except on an exceptional roll for the wizard. Lets say a 20% chance to kill.
The fighter has a good attack bonus, probably +5 to hit, doing 1d8+5 damage. Against 8 hp, that is again mire than 50%chance to kill. Lets say, the fighter also has about a 20% chance to kill the wizard.
Now I assumed the wizard had cast mage armor before. 1 spell down. The wizard could cast shield to increase his chance not to be hit. 2 spells down. So no spell left to actually cast burning hands except when he had the chance to take a short rest before.
Meanwhile if the fighter survives he can use second wind and recover 1d10+1 hp.
The fighter can do this all day long if he gets a short rest. The wizard has to use cantrips now that deal 1d10 damage most with no bonus added and usually cast vs AC.
Of course this is comparing apples vs oranges, but it at least shows that a fighter has a lot more to bring to the table than you might expect.

If I really want to kill the fighter if he is alone I would use sleep. That would be the most reliable spell. I just have to make sure that my follow up is deadly enough. (Best an attack roll first level spell that deals damage.)