D&D (2024) Pulse check on 1D&D excitement level

[Ruin Explorer]

Does everyone have to do the same amount of single target damage? Everyone have to have the same utility out of combat?

No-one is suggesting either of these things needs to be the case, though, are they? Not a single person on this board has ever suggested either AFAIK.

So I think hyperbole like that is unhelpful to the discussion re: balance.

5E actually isn't too bad re: combat balance. Only 4E did better. At least up to the low teen levels, full casters for example aren't "outright better" than non-casters in actual combat, unless you're doing like, 2-3 encounters/day specifically and they know it.

The issue is that full casters generally do well in all three pillars - some do amazing - whereas the non-casters typically do less well outside combat. At best they might do well in one of the other pillars, but that's far from assured, especially given their lack of "fiat" abilities. 1D&D's rules/class changes, so far, make absolutely zero improvement to this. In fact they arguably make the problem worse by making all casters preparation casters, casting from new, even bigger lists, which increases the strength of casters outside combat.

That's really the entire balance issue with 5E - play a full caster and you get to participate in the whole game. Play other classes and you get to participate in some of the game. It didn't have to be that way - it's purely down to the legacy/sacred cow decision to give casters incredibly broad utility in their spell lists.

What's particularly sad is the easiest, cheapest "fix" would have been to make all casters spontaneous rather than prep, forcing people to make real decisions about what they could cast, and to chop the spell lists down a bit, but they went the precise opposite way.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

5E actually isn't too bad re: combat balance. Only 4E did better. At least up to the low teen levels, full casters for example aren't "outright better" than non-casters in actual combat, unless you're doing like, 2-3 encounters/day specifically and they know it.

if you filed off the serial numbers and just put the combat abilities of the PC classes to the Monsters as a combat game I would think 5e was fair to well done on balance (not perfect, but even 4e wasn't)

let me start with as a wizard, a cleric, a bard, a sorcerer, a druid or a rogue I can make a GREAT combatant. Fighter Barbarian Warlock and Paldiden standd over them a bit, and Ranger and monk under them a bit... but oveer all if we only do combat mechanics they are pretty good.

The classes that (IMO) do the worst monk and ranger both are still able to be useful and be 'not TOO far behind" with a bit of work on optimization

The issue is that full casters generally do well in all three pillars - some do amazing - whereas the non-casters typically do less well outside combat.

that's my rub... right there. A full caster can decide to 'spec into combat' sometimes day by day sometimes by locking in choices at level up and be close to the 1st tear combat classes... but they can ALSO choose to spec into anything else... and I mean almost anything

At best they might do well in one of the other pillars, but that's far from assured, especially given their lack of "fiat" abilities. 1D&D's rules/class changes, so far, make absolutely zero improvement to this.

I am hopeing the fighter is about to get a ground up rewrite to give them LOTs of options... but if not, I will feel let down

In fact they arguably make the problem worse by making all casters preparation casters, casting from new, even bigger lists, which increases the strength of casters outside combat.

yeah who looked at a bard and saiid "Man if only they could be more versatile"

That's really the entire balance issue with 5E - play a full caster and you get to participate in the whole game. Play other classes and you get to participate in some of the game. It didn't have to be that way - it's purely down to the legacy/sacred cow decision to give casters incredibly broad utility in their spell lists.

100% this

What's particularly sad is the easiest, cheapest "fix" would have been to make all casters spontaneous rather than prep, forcing people to make real decisions about what they could cast, and to chop the spell lists down a bit, but they went the precise opposite way.

you know you could even keep the spell book on wizard as the only prep caster... but not let them learn more, they ONLY get the 2 per level

 

[Incenjucar]

Honestly if they just separated combat and non-combat feats and made sure that martials each got 4-5 free non-combat feats over 20 levels, that would help a lot. And I don't just mean skill boosters, but more things like getting swim or climb speeds, direction sense, perfect information recall, improved sense of smell, extreme carrying capacity, etc.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Honestly if they just separated combat and non-combat feats and made sure that martials each got 4-5 free non-combat feats over 20 levels, that would help a lot. And I don't just mean skill boosters, but more things like getting swim or climb speeds, direction sense, perfect information recall, improved sense of smell, extreme carrying capacity, etc.

I liked the saga system having feats and talents... I figured making Combat Feats and Non Combat Talents where the classes starte with so many and got so many as they leveled and then you have class list and generic feats and talents... but that is too big a difference for 1d&D

 

[deganawida]

Honestly if they just separated combat and non-combat feats and made sure that martials each got 4-5 free non-combat feats over 20 levels, that would help a lot. And I don't just mean skill boosters, but more things like getting swim or climb speeds, direction sense, perfect information recall, improved sense of smell, extreme carrying capacity, etc.

Look at 2e: Warrior group classes got 3 NWP at start, same Rogue groups, while Wizard and Priest groups got 4 each. Sure, Warrior and Rogue classes get 75% of NWP as the others, but it's really not that big of a difference in play.

EDIT: Oh, and Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers got more WPs than other classes, which could be exchanged for NWPs, allowing them to potentially have even more skills than other classes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If to

If you like 5e, why wouldn’t you buy it? It is just more 5e.

It's only more 5e to some people. But of course you know that.

For my part, I've been following the playtest in case they come up with any ideas worth importing into my game, but so far nothing worth adding in. I certainly have no desire to buy any of it.

I am very curious about what they're going to do with fighters. It's always an interesting question for D&D when a new fighter iteration shows up.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I, like you, love 5e and don't want or expect this to be 6e. The rub for me is that outside of the species/background changes, everything else has felt like a downgrade to 5e instead of an upgrade. Even the Ranger I would put as even with Tasha's options.

Now, that said, if these changes mean more people playing D&D, then I hope it has all the success in the world. And I am fairly confident that I'll be able to keep using my 2014 core with any new adventures and settings that come out post 2024, so if I don't like what I see in the 5e PHB2, I'll just skip it! If my players want to make PCs using it, they can!

I realize I'm an outlier even in 2014 (I routinely run campaigns into Tier III and IV, love gonzo weirdness, scifi mixed in, etc) so I don't expect WotC to cater to me, I was just hopeful that D&D would stay weird and messy. So far, it just has a very clinical feel to me.

Yeah, the only thing they've changed that I saw as mostly an improvement (the species changes) were already upgraded in what I believe is a superior fashion in Level Up. So no benefit there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh, speaking of, I am legitimately excited to see the Bastion system, though I know it could easily be disappointing.

Another thing I feel has been well handled in Level Up.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I realize this is a minority opinion, but I want different classes to do different things and feel different. I am less concerned with balance.

Homogenizing things is not a selling point for me.

Couldn't agree more. One more reason that this iteration is actively moving away from what I want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Doing different things, sure, but that does not mean they have to be (let alone should be) unbalanced

Better balance, more homogeneous, both good in my book

More homogeneous is by definition less interesting.