D&D 5E (2024) Mike Mearls explains why your boss monsters die too easily

[Zardnaar]

I think it’s the second-best balanced edition of D&D. Not a high bar, but it’s something.

5.5 best balance out if one is would want to play.

5.0 probably in 3rd or 4th place. B/X would be higher.

Note I include DM stuff as well.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

5.5 best balance out if one is would want to play.

5.5e is amazingly balanced, for now, until they start releasing more books with power creep...

 

[Zardnaar]

5.5e is amazingly balanced, for now, until they start releasing more books with power creep...

Yeah at levels that matter with classes I think they did great.

Higher level and monster design not so much. Tweak the races and DM special monsters probably very good.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It absolutely had its issues. However, if you play it with people who aren't out to break the game with super uber combos and just have fun with it, the sheer number of races, classes, feats, prestige classes, etc. allowed you to very accurately create just about any character concept. 5e doesn't have nearly as many, so quite often you have to settle with kinda sorta getting close to the concept.

I never thought "Druid + Natural Spell" counted as being "out to break the game with super uber combos."

And yes, I have known people on this very forum who either personally did this, or personally did things like it, following what made sense for their characters, and bumbling into something that made them stupidly overpowered. The reverse is, of course, dramatically easier, where one player picked things purely because they were enjoying themselves and now find they're being left behind by everyone else.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

5.5e is amazingly balanced, for now, until they start releasing more books with power creep...

Really? Like...really?

I'm genuinely baffled by this statement. How do you mean "balance" then? I'm sincerely trying not to slip into sarcastic jerkish responses here. I'm baffled that anyone could feel this way about 5.5e, and see it as somehow dramatically improved over 5.0, given it's...nearly totally unchanged, as far as balance is concerned.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Really? Like...really?

I'm genuinely baffled by this statement. How do you mean "balance" then? I'm sincerely trying not to slip into sarcastic jerkish responses here. I'm baffled that anyone could feel this way about 5.5e, and see it as somehow dramatically improved over 5.0, given it's...nearly totally unchanged, as far as balance is concerned.

Yes really. The most egregious Nova damage abilities were nerfed into the ground, the weakest classes and subclasses were all buffed to become closer to the most powerful ones, and damage is generally balanced more around consistent damage per round than just blowing all your resources in Turn 2 and then needing a rest. The balance is dramatically different (better IMO) than 2014 rules

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes really. The most egregious Nova damage abilities were nerfed into the ground, the weakest classes and subclasses were all buffed to become closer to the most powerful ones, and damage is generally balanced more around consistent damage per round than just blowing all your resources in Turn 2 and then needing a rest. The balance is dramatically different (better IMO) than 2014 rules

I guess I haven't seen the "egregious Nova damage abilities" being nerfed. I agree that the weakest things were given buffs, but in my experience they were incredibly tiny buffs....and the powerful classes got their own buffs along with it, so it kinda came out in the wash in my experience. (And yes, I have in fact played 5.5e!)

 

[tetrasodium]

You have a task to do, do you sit for 24 hours before taking a break and then doing it? Unless the character is Deadpool, I expect they do not know rules of the game, nor can they epxploit them, for them it is life and an adventure.

You have badly misinterpreted the rule. Nothing in it suggests 24 hours of real world table time.

Furthermore there are three classes of players relevant to the decision to wait & all three need to be considered due to the fact that the other two are likely to be gm or some fraction of the players at any given table

• Wargamers: the decision is largely a cost benefit analysis of pure logic. Although factors such as potential impact on enjoyable tactical combat might weigh heavily, the level of disdain and outright contempt shown in 5e's rules design tactical combat should not be ignored.
• Videogames: the game is treated like a video game. Why would they not rest as often as they could in order to unload with full on nova power as often as possible when the purpose of playing is to win. To these players wotc's choices to actively remove elements from past editions that would make choosing to wait a nonoptimal choice yells loud and clear that waiting and resting again is the intended way of play. Setting such a low bar on what it takes to start or complete a rest only underscores design intent here. Like the wargamers the impact on tactical combat might be considered as something to weigh against the sheer joy of being able to wtfpwn & ROFLstoml the enemy, but tactical combat is heavily downplayed by the 5e ruleset itself and is unlikely to provide much weight to offset a mindset that approaches & plays the game largely as a place to crush your enemies see them driven before you and to hear the lamentation of their women.
• Theater geeks: anyone who would rest excessively in order to fuel a 5mwd nova cycle is dubbed TFG & "weirdo".

The rules need to be written in a way that accepts and considers the mindset of all three groups as potentially playing the game and some rules need to consider one group more heavily than the others if that group brings a mindset likely to generate poor gameplay. Sid Meyer of the civilization games did a great (and very long) presentation about those and other types of gamers§ and why it's important to balance when a given group should be overly considered or flatly ignored in regards to particular elements of game design. All of the groups he discusses are likely to play the game being designed and not all of them are going to have desires that are healthy to the goal of making a good enjoyable game, but sometimes specific design elements need to be written specifically with the goal of supporting the needs of a given group that depends on something working well.
§I want to say it was at gdc a few years ago but could be wrong

 

[BenjaminPey]

I agree with dr Jawa. I find 5.24 to be fairly well balanced, too. Noticeably better than 5.14.

 

[Zardnaar]

I never thought "Druid + Natural Spell" counted as being "out to break the game with super uber combos."

And yes, I have known people on this very forum who either personally did this, or personally did things like it, following what made sense for their characters, and bumbling into something that made them stupidly overpowered. The reverse is, of course, dramatically easier, where one player picked things purely because they were enjoying themselves and now find they're being left behind by everyone else.

Yeah its a rare combo but you could stumble into it without trying.

Druid summoning eas also strong even without the 3 broken feats.

PHB only at levels that matter its about as vad as it gets in 3.5.

I suspect mist 3.5 players were more casual which contributed to 4E demise. They didn't experience 3.5 being broken.

I have 50 3E books and didn't see most of the power combos players just weren't interested in it.

Worst ones I saw.

3.0 Shadow adept
3.0 cleric archer
3.0 crit paladin
3.5 Druid
3.5 bard archer (+8 to hit and damage group buff. Could have been +16).
The broken stuff was less of a headache than running it.

The Druid player was the bigger problem than the class.

Rereading it now dont miss the system, tge fluff was great. Best edition conceptually perhaps (or 2E its 50/50).