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

[UngeheuerLich]

So you're disappointed that D&D is ....still D&D?

As dave2008 said, you don't have to track hps if you don't want. Never did in fact. You're the DM. Just decide how many hits monster x can take.
Example 1: Ogre - will die on the 3rd hit. Exact amount of damage rolled not relevant.

I would highly suggest that if you go this route that you don't tell your players. Just let them roll their damage & make a scratch mark on your notes. This is because since this IS D&D there's a lot of abilities, modifiers, charts, spells, feats, etc based upon affecting how much damage you dish out. Take that away from the PCs & you lose a good chunk of the game mechanics.

I have sworn never to hand out +1 armor or shields for this reason.

Well, maybe +1 leather or chain mail, but never studded or plate.

Be careful. Even if this does not break the game which it won't, you run into the same design flaw as 3e and 4e. Scaling in hp as well as AC makes your advancement quadratically instead of linearly. You have to chise either.
In 2nd edition you dirst scaled with hp and later you only added very little but gained a lot of magic items to enhance your AC and so on.
In 5e they went the route of increasing HP rather than AC.
You could lower hp per level and add some AC equal to prodiciency bonus if you like that mofe than hp.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

1) Fighters do not suck. I think that you should see some in play for a bit then re-evaluate. As far as defense goes, how is this not like D&D has always been? Take a 20th level AD&D or B/X fighter in normal clothing and you have the same thing. D&D defenses have always been static & abstract. That is simply the way AC works. The only defenses that haver ever scaled with level in D&D have been saving throws.
Fighters have a lot more going for them in 5E. Action surge is awesome. The 15th level battle master I am playing now can keep up offensively with anyone in the party which includes a barbarian and a wizard.

2) For your burning hands concern you have only to look to your observation of monster hit points. Doing more damage is offset by the higher hit point totals.

Play a few games and see how things work out. If there are still concerns you see in actual play, then bring them up for discussion. For me PC healing and resilience needs tweaking to fit my campaign style but there are a number of ways to do that. 5E is much friendlier to house ruling than 3E was.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, I am sure this is why I feel so wrong with a lot of the stuff I am reading!

What can I say, it bothers me that a Fighter with Dex 16 has the same chance of hitting as a Wizard with Dex 16 if they both use Finesse weapons. So, my Fighter, who has spent years training in weapons and armor and everything related to combat, is basically just as likely to hit as your Wizard who has spent most of his years studying spells and reading, etc. How does that make ANY sense???

Well first of all, 16 is a very high Dex score for a Wizard. Second of all, the best finesse weapon a wizard can add their proficiency bonus to attacks with is a dagger. The fighter can use a rapier or dual-wield with short swords and/or scimitars, not to mention potential bonus damage from any of several fighter class and subclass features. So while they may have the same bonus to hit, the fighter does much more damage, which is more how 5e expresses aptitude in combat than to-hit bonus. Additionally, depending on level, the fighter might be able make two or three times as many attacks per turn as the wizard, and can double that once or twice per day. So, yeah, the wizard can hit just as easily, but a fighter can hit harder and more often.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I am not talking about damage or AC (of the character) or anything other than the chance to hit in combat. Sure, I get it, Fighter's get more attacks, etc. so they get better at fighting, but at lower levels they aren't any more likely to hit than non-warrior classes. I know this is a fantasy game, but that is illogical.

It reminds me, if I recall correctly, the combat mod used in D20 Star Wars. Warrior-types got the best combat bonuses, moderate combat types had a middle modifier, and weak combat classes had a poor one. I suppose it might be better to weaken the combat ability of non-warriors than boosting warriors...

 

[Satyrn]

Oh, I am sure this is why I feel so wrong with a lot of the stuff I am reading!

What can I say, it bothers me that a Fighter with Dex 16 has the same chance of hitting as a Wizard with Dex 16 if they both use Finesse weapons. So, my Fighter, who has spent years training in weapons and armor and everything related to combat, is basically just as likely to hit as your Wizard who has spent most of his years studying spells and reading, etc. How does that make ANY sense???

On the plus side, you won't actually see this illogical thing in play, as wizards will be using their cantrips instead.

Edit: But you could also readily fix this with a simple houserule stripping wizards of proficiency with weapons.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am not talking about damage or AC (of the character) or anything other than the chance to hit in combat.

Then you’re not getting a complete picture of how much better of a combattant the fighter is.

Sure, I get it, Fighter's get more attacks, etc. so they get better at fighting, but at lower levels they aren't any more likely to hit than non-warrior classes. I know this is a fantasy game, but that is illogical.

Even at low levels, the fighter does much better in combat due to better weapons, meaning higher damage, and class and subclass features which can further improve damage. And really, the fighter is generally more likely to hit, because they’re going to make strength and/or Dexterity the first priority for their Attributes. Using the standard array, you get 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8 before bonuses from race. Using point buy can shift those numbers around a bit, but in general, a character can only count on having one ability at 16 or higher, may two if they dump a couple other abilities. So a 16 Dex Wizard is a much better Melee combatant than most Wizards. A more apt comparison would be a 16 strength fighter with +5 to hit for 2d6+3 with her greatsword compared to a 12 dexterity wizard with a +3 to hit for 1d4+1 with his dagger. That’s a 10% better chance to hit for about triple the expected damage. That’s before taking into account the possibility of Great Weapon Fighting letting the fighter re-roll 1s and 2s on that greatsword hit. And the difference only gets bigger from there.

 

[dave2008]

Oh, I am sure this is why I feel so wrong with a lot of the stuff I am reading!

What can I say, it bothers me that a Fighter with Dex 16 has the same chance of hitting as a Wizard with Dex 16 if they both use Finesse weapons. So, my Fighter, who has spent years training in weapons and armor and everything related to combat, is basically just as likely to hit as your Wizard who has spent most of his years studying spells and reading, etc. How does that make ANY sense???

What you are missing is that in D&D rolling a "hit" doesn't necessarily mean your sword struck the opponent (read the description of hit points by Gygax in the 1e DMG). It simply means you reduced the opponents poll of luck, skill, stamina, and a bit of physical resistance know as "hit points." So in 5e the fact the fighters do so much more damage, is in fact them "hitting" much more frequently. It just isn't tracked through the to hit rolling mechanic, but the damage rolling mechanic.

So a 5e fighter with Dex 16 "hits" a lot more than a Wizard with Dex 16, and it is not even close. Makes perfect sense.

 

[ad_hoc]

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.

Why play a high magic campaign if you don't want the effects of high magic?

Magic items in 5e are designed to actually be special. They make things easier by design.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

What you are missing is that in D&D rolling a "hit" doesn't necessarily mean your sword struck the opponent (read the description of hit points by Gygax in the 1e DMG)....

Yeah, I'm long familiar with it. I've had to explain to numerous players how an 8-point hit to a 10th-level level fighter with 55 hp isn't nearly as deadly as it is to the 1st-level fighter with 7 hp. The higher level character's combination of combat experience and skill, luck, etc. turns the blow at the last moment so it hurts, but doesn't run him through like the 1st-level guy.

Guess I was hoping 5E would go a better direction. I have to explain to my new players how all this works. Basically, D&D now seems too much to me like a video game... I'll give it a try, but I have a feeling I'm going to be putting my core books up on ebay in the next few months.

 

[Dausuul]

Yeah, I'm long familiar with it. I've had to explain to numerous players how an 8-point hit to a 10th-level level fighter with 55 hp isn't nearly as deadly as it is to the 1st-level fighter with 7 hp. The higher level character's combination of combat experience and skill, luck, etc. turns the blow at the last moment so it hurts, but doesn't run him through like the 1st-level guy.

Guess I was hoping 5E would go a better direction. I have to explain to my new players how all this works. Basically, D&D now seems too much to me like a video game... I'll give it a try, but I have a feeling I'm going to be putting my core books up on ebay in the next few months.

I don't get it. The way it works in 5E was exactly the way it worked in Basic, 1E, 2E, and 3E. Literally the only edition that did things differently is the one you skipped. So... why does it now feel like a video game where it didn't before?

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.

Spells are balanced for PCs to use against monsters. If you give those spells to monsters to use on PCs, it's on you to consider the consequences. As a rule, PCs deal more damage but have fewer hit points than monsters.

There are balance issues in 5E, but they are not obvious on casual inspection. The biggest issue I have found is the aforementioned encounter-per-day problem. If the party only faces 1-2 encounters in a day, it heavily favors the classes that regain resources on a long rest (i.e., non-warlock spellcasters). My group has been experimenting with solutions, and so far the best we've found is to reduce short rests to 1 minute but only allow two per day.

Other issues include certain feats (Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Polearm Master) and multiclass combos (mostly involving warlocks) which can be exploited if you know what you're doing. And some classes are on the weaker side, particularly ranger, sorcerer, and monk. All of that said, however, 5E is far more balanced than any other edition except 4E.