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

[Jester David]

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?

The logic is the numbers don't go up for the sake of just having bigger numbers.
3e and 4e both had the fighter's AC go up and up while monster accuracy went up and up to match. So the fighter was still getting hit just as often in a fight at level 20 as at level 1.

The disadvantage was if you wanted to, say, have the 10th level party fight a dragon with a dozen kobold servitors, you couldn't as the kobolds would be hitting with a huge penalty and couldn't contribute to the fight. You had to create some variant kobolds that were mooks for a L10 but likely had better numbers than every other kobold. A small group of level 7 or 8 kobolds that were basically super kobolds but didn't run off and become kings of their own kingdom and instead served the dragon.

This is known in the game industry as "bounded accuracy". The DCs and target numbers don't increase.
Which is very similar to AD&D 1 and 2 in regards to ability checks. The numbers didn't really change at higher levels.

At higher levels you might find a lock that has the same DC to pick as at level 1, or a secret passage that is just as hidden, or a door that is just as solid when you batter it down. The difference is that your bonuses increase so your odds of success increase. The rogue is better at picking locks and the fighter can effortlessly kick in a door.

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!

Yes, a wizard can potentially kill the entire party with one spell. Good thing they're targeting the enemies instead.

Burning hands is a powerful spell because it's something a low level wizard can maybe do once or twice each day. It should change the entire flow of battle. Whereas in 1e, they might be better off using a dagger still.
5e has tried to level the power curve of wizards. In 1e they were terrible and weak at low levels and gods at high levels. Which seems fine on paper: you're overall balanced and rewarded for sticking with the character. In practice, it means the wizard player spends weeks or months not being very effective or contributing. Assuming the campaign runs long enough for them to reach high levels.

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.

This complaints go hand-in-hand with the above.
Lots of years of play have shown that 19 hp monsters don't last long in combat. Maybe two or three good hits. Potentially not even a full round. Very often the low hp of creatures like ogres had to be "balanced" with high AC. Like in 3e where they have 26 hit points but a 16 AC despite being the broad side of the barn and typically portrayed as wearing rags around their junk. Missing in combat isn't fun and just makes you feel like you wasted your turn. It's much more fun to drop the AC of the ogre way down and ramp up its hit points.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

This is probably the core contention where you'll find yourself in the minority. Numerous rounds of playtesting and surveys across multiple editions have found that players, overall, like hitting more often rather than hitting rarely but for greater effect.

I'm not saying YOU have to like it, of course, but you'll need to do a lot of houseruling to get 5e into the mode you seem to prefer.

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?

Nope, you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

 

[abirdcall]

5e is a new game and plays differently than it reads to people who have played previous editions.

Play it first.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

This is probably the core contention where you'll find yourself in the minority.

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!

 

[dave2008]

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 by the core books, LOL!

FYI, you don't have to track hit points if it is not your thing.

 

[5ekyu]

FYI, you don't have to track hit points if it is not your thing.

As an aside, even if not going the fuzzy hp mode, i just have the players track the damage done to enemies. They seem to like it, tracking their own results, and it avoids me having to track so much. i can concentrate on the NPCs actions and so forth and only worry when a creature's total damage exceeds various thresholds i use for description.

 

[S'mon]

Thanks for all the feedback. I know I have to try it before I'll be certain about things as far as balance goes.

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.

I think you'll find this is overpowered at higher levels. You might get away with having the style give a +2 to AC, but adding Prof will break bounded accuracy. I can already make an Eldritch Knight who is almost impossible to hit, this would make it completely impossible except on a double 20 (assuming I have Blur up).

When I first started GMing 5e I did a bunch of house rules, but I found the game worked better without them. Give it a try.

 

[Shiroiken]

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.

First of all, welcome back! One of the best things about 5E is that it's taken the "best" aspects of prior editions (as determined in the public playtest), making it workable for most returning players. Some concepts are new, as we'll discuss below.

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?

First of all, I remember playing AD&D (both 1E and 2E), and have no memory of any characters getting an AC bonus from anything other than spells or items. Not sure where this is coming from, but I could be wrong.

5E has designed PCs and monsters differently in style. PCs in general have fewer HPs than monsters, but much better AC. Monsters have lower AC, but a ton more HP. This means that players hit more often (which feels good), and while they don't get hit very often, it really hurts (creating tension, which is fun).

In addition, 5E incorporates a concept called bounded accuracy that makes it so that you don't treadmill (get bonuses as you level, but the difficulty rises by an equal amount). An untrained, average ability character has a chance to succeed at just about anything, but the probability gets lower for harder things.

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.

This is where CR comes into play. Very few spellcasters are CR 1 or less, because of the damage potential of area of effect spells. So, while one or two characters might drop to 0 from an unlucky AoE, they aren't actually dead (unless they have very low HP and the spell rolls near maximum damage), allowing the party to stabilize/revive them with spells or Healer's Kits. Now, you could argue in PvP that spells like Burning Hands are very strong, but 5E doesn't really take that into consideration.

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.

I've noticed a lot of people tend to bring baggage from prior editions into their initial view of 5E. While there are a few things considered "unbalanced" in 5E, it's pretty well designed. I'd say give it a go for a while and see for yourself. If something just doesn't work for your group, 5E is designed to be customizable, so you can just house-rule it.

 

[eamon]

I think you'll find this is overpowered at higher levels. You might get away with having the style give a +2 to AC, but adding Prof will break bounded accuracy. I can already make an Eldritch Knight who is almost impossible to hit, this would make it completely impossible except on a double 20 (assuming I have Blur up).

When I first started GMing 5e I did a bunch of house rules, but I found the game worked better without them. Give it a try.

Ooff; I DM a fairly high-power party, and ACs can definitely creep well into too unhittable to matter range for many (even high CR) mooks. And bounded accuracy is definitely a laudable aim, but it's certainly not the case that 5e low-level critters reliably or even usually can remain relevant to high level adventurers - at least not automatically, without some effort on the part of the DM.

A major part of the issue for me is that I'm playing a high magic campaign but even with houserules to avoid item stacking and similar bonuses on monsters+NPC it's clear that even a very few +1s can significantly impact bounded accuracy. But even using DMG tables +1/+2 shields aren't unheard of, and that makes a *huge* difference to likely already high-AC character.

All in all - I'd stay away from flat AC bonuses unless you're willing to compensate by taking other stuff (like magic items) away. Much depends on party composition, of course - but I'd try it out as is before house-ruling.

That +1 really matters; it's probably one of the better ones out there (to the right character!), even though it looks weak.

It's not so great as a way to shore up an otherwise poor AC. It only works as a way to make an already formidable AC even higher.

 

[Charlaquin]

Thanks for all the feedback. I know I have to try it before I'll be certain about things as far as balance goes.

For now, I've been playing with adjusting the Fighter Styles.

As others have said, try the game as-written first before you start making house rules. You may find that things aren’t as much of a problem as they seem from just reading, and you’ll definitely get a better feel for how best to change things to get the feel you’re looking for.

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.

I would strongly recommend against this change. The math behind AC and attack bonuses is very tight in 5e. If you give Fighters +Proficiency Bonus to AC, you will find that they are nearly impossible to hit at high levels, and this will be on top of a very large pool of hit points that can be healed very very easily.

To illustrate why this might be a problem: Proficiency bonus caps out at +6. If you use this house rule, Fighters (and Paladins) who take this fighting style will be able to get up to 26 AC with full plate and a shield . For reference, the highest AC in the monster manual is the Tarrasque with 25. So you’d be handing every fighter and Paladin the ability to achieve higher AC than creature best known for its invulnerability, with no magic whatsoever. If you’re crazy enough to give out magic armor with this house rule in play, they could reach a hypothetical maximum of 32. This is possible by 17th level, at which point a fighter with a conservative 12 constitution has an average of 114 HP, if he rolls for HP instead of taking the fixed value each level. With second wind, he can heal an average of 11 HP, and that recovers on a short rest, and with hit dice, can heal around 55 additional HP per day, before taking into account any healing he might be able to get from potions and/or his allies’ spells.

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

This would be less overpowered than the former, but do keep in mind, a fighter gets 2 attacks per turn at 5th level and 3 per turn at 11th. He can double that once per day with an action surge (twice per day at 17th level), so this bonus damage is going to be multiplied at higher levels.

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.

The thing is, you don’t need to house rule to make Fighters get better at what they do as their level increases. This is already built into the system, just in a different way that what you’re used to. Try it before you try to fix it, you might be surprised.

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

It won’t break the game, but it will break CR math big time at higher levels. That’s not exactly a new thing for D&D, and if you’ve been DMing for a while you’re probably pretty used to CR math not working very well at high levels anyway. But you are trying to fix something that isn’t broken here, and breaking it yourself in the process.