D&D 5E Analyzing 5E: Overpowered by design

[pemerton]

One Orc rushes up to a one foe and Dodges instead of attacking. Another Orc does the same. Another, the same. One Orc per enemy. This greatly increases the defense of that Orc. If the target disengages, he lost an action. If the target attacks the Orc, he's at disadvantage. If the target uses a ranged attack against anyone else, he's at disadvantage.

Just out of curiosity, what does this represent in the fiction?

 

[billd91]

Just out of curiosity, what does this represent in the fiction?

Simple enough - the enemy advances but with a defensive attitude, probably leading with a shield. The sort of thing you'd expect a well-disciplined and equipped soldier to do - like a Roman legionnaire. Rather than rushing, I'd call it a cautious advance and, as such, I don't think I'd do it for orcs. Makes excellent sense for Hobgoblins, though.

 

[DaveDash]

For clarity, if you aren't making your own monsters, and are using the ones actually provided by the system... how's it doing then?

This depends if you optimize or not. Using a well optimized party using the offending feats mentioned above (EK Fighter + SS + CBow Expert), we cake walked most of content in the monsters manual at high level (never tried fighting the Tarrasque, but almost everything else).
The main kind of encounter that still remained challenging was using LARGE amounts of low CR monsters mixed with a few higher ones, and when I say large, I mean 10-20. This consumes resources of even the highest level groups and wears them down over the course of the day, even if it isn't the most deadly encounter for them.

Forget solo monsters. Nothing in the monsters manual, except perhaps the Tarrasque, can go toe to toe with a party with Sharpshooter Fighters/SorLock/etc in it. Well, not unless you made the terrain extremely difficult for the party, but even then they can probably get around it.
Of course you can go ridiculous and throw deadly x n (One encounter we had was about 112,000XP adjusted) but that's not really how most campaigns run.

Now for your average run of the mill party who do not have optimized builds and feats, you will probably find high level content very enjoyable and challenging, and that probably was the design intent.

 

[Quartz]

1. Fighters: Nova damage.

But it is a nova. If you're doing the 1-combat day then that's fine, but that shouldn't be the case.

7. Moon Druid: Ability to cycle hit points and maintain a strong hit point buffer for a lot of the day. Excellent spell list. Very hard to kill class competent in all areas of melee and spell combat with good healing capabilities.

Shapechanging with its separate pool of HP is far too good IMHO

1. Two-weapon fighting and Dueling are not on par with Archery and Great Weapon Mastery. There is no way to spike damage for either style.

With regard to Duelling, have you considered the Shield Master feat? That bonus attack / shove with the shield can put the enemy in harms way. For example, you could push the opponent next to the rogue who can then make a Sneak Attack. And with a regular +2 damage, the Duellist is in some way the anti-nova. Do note that part of the Great Weapon Mastery feat also applies to one-handed weapons.

2. Rogue damage: I understand rogue damage being weaker than fighters, barbarians, and other martial classes due to an inability to spike damage using a feat or spells and lack of multiple attacks, but I don't want the gap to become as wide as it appears right now. I'm going to be watching this closely to make sure Great Weapon Master fighters and Sharpshooter archers aren't making Sneak Attack a far too weak option.

There's no 30' limit to the range of Sneak Attack, so Rogue archer assassins with the Sharpshooter feat can be devastating. And, with teamwork, rogues can get more than one SA per round.

 

[Zardnaar]

This depends if you optimize or not. Using a well optimized party using the offending feats mentioned above (EK Fighter + SS + CBow Expert), we cake walked most of content in the monsters manual at high level (never tried fighting the Tarrasque, but almost everything else).
The main kind of encounter that still remained challenging was using LARGE amounts of low CR monsters mixed with a few higher ones, and when I say large, I mean 10-20. This consumes resources of even the highest level groups and wears them down over the course of the day, even if it isn't the most deadly encounter for them.

Forget solo monsters. Nothing in the monsters manual, except perhaps the Tarrasque, can go toe to toe with a party with Sharpshooter Fighters/SorLock/etc in it. Well, not unless you made the terrain extremely difficult for the party, but even then they can probably get around it.
Of course you can go ridiculous and throw deadly x n (One encounter we had was about 112,000XP adjusted) but that's not really how most campaigns run.

Now for your average run of the mill party who do not have optimized builds and feats, you will probably find high level content very enjoyable and challenging, and that probably was the design intent.

I used 40 Kobolds on level 8 PCs and 10 Orcs on level 4 PCs was a TPK. Lots of stuff with high HP total such as Gnolls at low levels can mess up PCs.

 

[KarinsDad]

Just out of curiosity, what does this represent in the fiction?

It could represent several things.

Sizing up the enemy (like in a boxing ring where participants do not come out swinging right away). In fact, the maxim for boxing is "always protect yourself". Boxers often attack when they see an opening, not willy nilly like D&D melee combatants. The rest of the time, boxers are protecting themselves.

Aikido which is based on the concept that when a foe strikes, he leaves some part of his defense vulnerable. If the defender does not attack back, the defender remains defensively invulnerable.


Basically, it's just an offshoot of action economy tactics that many PC (or NPC) groups already employ at times. For example, casting Web. It's actually not that different than having a melee guy on a few tougher foes and letting the rest of the extra PCs focus fire and mop them up one at a time. The only difference is that it is a defensive tactic to decrease the number of enemy attacks that hit instead of an offensive one to decrease the number of enemy attacks by taking out an enemy.

It tends to work better for the side that has quite a few more attackers (probably at least 3, more is better). If one only has one extra attacker, it's not that good. Hence, the reason to use it in combination with things like Entangle.

 

[DaveDash]

I assume you ae using foresight? I have used that spell as a DM against the players. I used a CR12 archmage with a different spell selection and he buffed King Snurre. Greater Invisibility duplicates the effects of foresight at lower levels and I have seen that spell on PCs using GWF/SS/CE feats.

Yes, Wizard casts Foresight on the EK Fighter. He now is basically unkillable (disadvantage to attack him, shield, misty step, haste, Fighter HPs, Indomitable, Resilience (Wisdom), etc) and in most of our games, did around 70-80 damage per turn, equating to about 400-500 damage consistently (including an action surge here and there) over the course of most combats. He can attack every round, ignores cover, ignores disadvantage in melee, and just tears things to shreds.
Now you could argue the Wizard could cast foresight on himself instead, but when you are playing together as a group, why would you, when putting it on the SS Fighter makes your party do WAY more damage overall.

The Wizard could try and keep up if he shapechanged or true polymorphed into something, but he won't be able to. Shapechange doesn't give him legendary actions, True Polymorph doesn't give him his own spells, and unless he decides to do that permanently he will lose his spell due to concentration. Better to just Foresight the Fighter and be done with it, especially in dungeons and other places that are impracticable for Shapechange/True Polymorph.

 

[KarinsDad]

Simple enough - the enemy advances but with a defensive attitude, probably leading with a shield. The sort of thing you'd expect a well-disciplined and equipped soldier to do - like a Roman legionnaire. Rather than rushing, I'd call it a cautious advance and, as such, I don't think I'd do it for orcs. Makes excellent sense for Hobgoblins, though.

I'm doing it for the Orcs in this encounter because their leader is cunning. He's trapped and has to keep his troops alive in order to survive. Typically I wouldn't, but it's always good to mix some things up once in a while.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes, Wizard casts Foresight on the EK Fighter. He now is basically unkillable (disadvantage to attack him, shield, misty step, haste, Fighter HPs, Indomitable, Resilience (Wisdom), etc) and in most of our games, did around 70-80 damage per turn, equating to about 400-500 damage consistently (including an action surge here and there) over the course of most combats. He can attack every round, ignores cover, ignores disadvantage in melee, and just tears things to shreds.
Now you could argue the Wizard could cast foresight on himself instead, but when you are playing together as a group, why would you, when putting it on the SS Fighter makes your party do WAY more damage overall.

The Wizard could try and keep up if he shapechanged or true polymorphed into something, but he won't be able to. Shapechange doesn't give him legendary actions, True Polymorph doesn't give him his own spells, and unless he decides to do that permanently he will lose his spell due to concentration. Better to just Foresight the Fighter and be done with it, especially in dungeons and other places that are impracticable for Shapechange/True Polymorph.

I have seen the CE+SS combo up to level 13. I thought the Battlemaster fighter was the best fighter but at the highest levels I can see the EK being better, its just a bit meh below level 10.

 

[Psikerlord#]

To answer tge OP: We have swapped out the -5/+10 mechanic for +1 stat, and donot allow multiclassing. This brings the power level down substantially, and at my table at least, has proved more fun overall.

I also use injury rules at zero hp, to curb whack-a-mole, and impose disad on most mid-combat hide attempts (i prefer a realistic approach to hiding, rather than gameist). I don't use the optional flanking rule either (too easy to get adv).

So far its worked terrific.