D&D 5E Basic already surprising us.

[Tony Vargas]

Interestingly enough, I do not see you arguing for wizards to be more capable at 1st level because those darn fighters have better AC, better hit points, do more damage, can fight for dozens of rounds every day, and can even heal themselves.

They're already there. They've retained the at-wills they got in 4e, when they /were/ brought up to snuff at 1st level (and stayed reasonably balanced at all levels), got bumped a HD type from 3e, and got back the broken of Vancian, plus the flexibility of Spontaneous casting.

Seriously, casters have never had it this good.

Mind, you fighters, are back to near-2e-quisinart-of-doom DPR, too - though how that holds up in a relative sense depends on the monsters that get rolled out....

 

[Sadras]

The hobby, itself, has been extremely unpopular for the last 30 years or so, ever since the fad in the 80s passed. So, 'popular' among people pursuing very unpopular hobby...

Okay, I'm not disagreeing with you there, never said the hobby was popular, and where are all the straws?

 

[KarinsDad]

They're already there. They've retained the at-wills they got in 4e, when they /were/ brought up to snuff at 1st level (and stayed reasonably balanced at all levels), got bumped a HD type from 3e, and got back the broken of Vancian, plus the flexibility of Spontaneous casting.

Seriously, casters have never had it this good.

Mind, you fighters, are back to near-2e-quisinart-of-doom DPR, too - though how that holds up in a relative sense depends on the monsters that get rolled out....

Well, not always.

At lower levels, 4E at wills typically average 7.5 points of damage plus some other effect. 4E at wills can often target multiple foes.

At lower levels, 5E at wills typically average 4.5 to 5.5 points of damage, but they hit more often. A 27% to 40% drop in damage and a drop in having additional effects (slowed 10 feet of move is hardly a worthwhile effect). Low level Wizards had it better in 4E with the exception that they get more dinky at wills and they hit slightly more often in 5E than they did in 4E. The to hit difference is made up by the damage difference.

Granted, monsters have fewer hit points in 5E.


4E fighters typically did 8.5 to 10.5 damage starting out and in 5E, do anywhere from 7.5 to 10. A slight drop.

On the other hand, 5E Wizards at mid to high levels are a lot weaker with fewer spells and less effective spells for the most part than their 1E through 3.5 counterparts. High level Wizards had it better in 3E.

5E fighters have more abilities than 1E to 3.5E, for example, the ability to heal themselves or take less damage or for some fighters, the ability to cast spells without multiclassing. Even most of the older splat books gave fighters few supernatural powers.

It seems to me that it is the 5E fighters that never had it so good, especially when compared to the wizard. High level 3E wizards could nearly end a battle in a single round. No more (with the possible exception of Meteor Swarm).

 

[Mistwell]

I do not believe anyone has ever produced such survey results. You may be reading something into the few vague stats from the (highly-self-selected) playtest surveys that WotC has alluded to. (Or, hey, you may have access to some real data - if so, let's see it!) And, I didn't say that the fact that the vast majority of people who every played D&D no longer play it (or, at least, no longer buy it, since it's never again moved units like it did in the fad years) /proves/ that was imbalance that drove them away from it. Just that it's not support for the idea that imbalance has successfully retained them.

I don't think arguing those specific survey sets is useful. So let's pretend the data they have is flawed and weak like you say and imply.

It's versus less data than that, to support the modern style. At least the self-selected data and the old data and the weak data suggest one way over another way. I didn't say anything has to "prove" it - I don't care if it's just a slightly mild preference for one thing over the other. I am saying that, given you have to choose a direction for the Basic core game, and choose what will be the optional content to alter that Basic core game, they should go with what little evidence they have.

So on-balance, it makes sense to choose the traditional game as the Basic core game, with options to alter than in the PHB and the DMG. Even if the data supporting that is weak and flawed, it's still better than the weak and flawed data supporting the alternative.

Because potential new fans aren't likely to make it that far.

Given the choice between traditional vs modern, the evidence suggests (weak and flawed though it may be) that the better way to attract players to the game is to offer the traditional experience, with options to alter than in the for-sale books.

I mean, we just can't get past the fact that WOTC has data suggesting a particular direction for the Basic core game - even if there are lots of objections to that data, they don't surmount the "it's at least some data suggesting a direction". It might turn out to be wrong - but you play the odds in these things, and the odds say (even if the odds are 51% vs 49%, due to all those flaws) you go with the traditional game for the Basic core game, given historical and current survey and sales data.

 

[Sadras]

It didn't have the hodge-podge structure that would result from that. Rather, it had a basic structure (AEDU, for instance) that facilitated balance, which is what you'd see in a game designed with balance in mind from the beginning.

Perhaps, my take is they worked from 2e and incorporated 3.x and 4e rather than from an AEDU approach backwards.

You'd see classes with a stunning lack of features, at a minimum. What we do see, is complete-looking sub-classes (that aren't too well balanced), and we're promised alternative sub-classes. So, /maybe/ they'll have a sub-class of fighter or wizard that's better-balanced, or not. Even if they do, though, the basic sub-classes remain imbalanced.

Fair enough, makes sense.I doubt we will find sub-classes that are equally balanced - it will depend on the playstyle from table to table. Even 4e had its "balance" issues with certain paragon and epic classes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, not always.

At lower levels, 4E at wills typically average 7.5 points of damage plus some other effect. 4E at wills can often target multiple foes.

At lower levels, 5E at wills typically average 4.5 to 5.5 points of damage, but they hit more often. A 27% to 40% drop in damage and a drop in having additional effects (slowed 10 feet of move is hardly a worthwhile effect).

And 4e mosters, at first level tended to have 30+ hps, while 5e monsters might have as few as 3 or, perhaps, 10 or so. So, relative to what you're shoot'n at, that's more like /doubling/ damage.

Then look at dailies. A 5th level daily might do 3d6+bonuses in 4e, in 5e it does 8d6. And, you get more of them as you level, not just 1, and you can hot-swap it with any other spell you have memorized, and swap those with any you know with an extended rest. That's compared to swapping out your 1 fifth-level daily for the one alternate in your spellbook (2 with a feat) only when you take an extended rest. The flexibility and power of neo-Vancian casters is off the charts compared to 4e.

On the other hand, 5E Wizards at mid to high levels are a lot weaker with fewer spells and less effective spells for the most part than their 1E through 3.5 counterparts. High level Wizards had it better in 3E.

Just about any tier 1 class was very broken in 3e, yes. But, the flexibility granted by Neo-Vanican, and the addition of at-wills makes it anything but clear that 5e wizard is lagging the 3e, relative to the kinds of challenges he'll face.

It seems to me that it is the 5E fighters that never had it so good, especially when compared to the wizard.

Perphaps, if you exclude 4e, entirely, from consideration, of course. The 5e fighter's got it better than the 1e or 0e fighter, (if you don't consider the relative abundance of fighter-only magic items in classic D&D). It rivals the 2e fighter's relative DPR. It barely touches the 3e fighter's customizeability, and - like any class that can take backgrounds, which is all classes, so not really a function of the fighter class, at all - it outdoes it in terms of skills. (Though, honestly, the only thing the 3.x fighter had going against it was being in the same game with all those tier 1-3 classes. It was actually an elegant, robust class design.) For that matter, the Pathfinder fighter apparently matches the 5e fighter fiddly-named-feature-to-avoid-the-appearance-of-dead-levels for fiddly-named-feature-to-avoid-the-appearance-of-dead-levels.

Or, perhaps not.

High level 3E wizards could nearly end a battle in a single round. No more (with the possible exception of Meteor Swarm).

We'll see what the full spell list looks like. Neo-Vancian save DCs are based on proficiency, not slot level, so all it'd take is one not-so-high-level Save-or-Else introduced in a moment of madness.... If saves were based on slot level instead of proficiency, though, that'd be a good point.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Perhaps, my take is they worked from 2e and incorporated 3.x and 4e rather than from an AEDU approach backwards.

It's easy to lose the thread of a conversation here, without nested quotes. Yes, of course you're right, that's what they did with 5e.

Fair enough, makes sense.I doubt we will find sub-classes that are equally balanced - it will depend on the playstyle from table to table. Even 4e had its "balance" issues with certain paragon and epic classes.

You mean Paragons Paths/Epic Destinies, or specific classes at those levels? Not that 'balance problem' even means the same thing in the context of 4e. ...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think arguing those specific survey sets is useful. So let's pretend the data they have is flawed and weak like you say and imply.

Better yet, concede they aren't in evidence.

It's versus less data than that, to support the modern style.

I don't know. 3.x/Pathfinder and 4e are both 'modern style.' Combined they probably had a pretty good 14 year run, in spite of the edition war.

Given the choice between traditional vs modern, the evidence suggests (weak and flawed though it may be) that the better way to attract players to the game is to offer the traditional experience, with options to alter than in the for-sale books.

Consolidate current players, probably. Attract lapsed players, possibly. Retain new players? Doubtful.

WotC is probably most interested in the first, so, there you go.

 

[Mistwell]

Better yet, concede they aren't in evidence.

Why would I concede to something patently false. You seem to be confusing the word "evidence" with the phrase "100% proof". That's not what it means. One witness on a dark night with bad vision saying "I saw a guy who looked like it might be around 6 feet tall" is evidence. The old survey, the new survey, the internal and external playtest data, the old sales data, the news sales data, competitive analysis, ALL of that falls under the heading of "evidence". Evidence is not a black or white issue, where it must meet some high level criteria to "count". You're looking for "100% proof" and that's a ridiculous standard to require and now how business (or legal) choices are made.

I don't know. 3.x/Pathfinder and 4e are both 'modern style.' Combined they probably had a pretty good 14 year run, in spite of the edition war.

Pathfinder still contains much of the concept we're talking about though. Or are you arguing PF wizards are not substantially more powerful than PF fighters, other than magic items or divine intervention or similar outside forces? So no, we're talking about just one version of the game, 4e, which had this balanced concept of fighters balancing against wizards and pretty much every level.

And please don't confuse me with some 4e hater - I am not, I loved the game and played it for many years. I just think, given the data WOTC has, and the choice of traditional vs modern for this concept, they should go with traditional for the Basic core and have options to alter that in the PHB and DMG.

Consolidate current players, probably. Attract lapsed players, possibly. Retain new players? Doubtful.

Based on what? The only evidence we have, weak and flawed as it is, is that traditional works better than modern for the Basic core game - even if it's only a slight amount more, that's all you need to make that decision, given you need to make the decision based on the data you have.

WotC is probably most interested in the first, so, there you go.

I think they are most interested in making the most amount of money overall, and given the data they have, they made the choice they made.

 

[KarinsDad]

And 4e mosters, at first level tended to have 30+ hps, while 5e monsters might have as few as 3 or, perhaps, 10 or so. So, relative to what you're shoot'n at, that's more like /doubling/ damage.

That's a bit of an unfair comparison though.

1st level 4E is more comparable to 3rd level 5E. 4E was purposely designed this way to bypass the learning stages of level 1 and 2.

The monsters have more hit points, but so do the PCs. The PCs do more damage as well at low level.

And in fact, many 5E low level monsters are more like minions or tough minions (i.e. in our 4E game, tough minions took 2 hits to kill). Hardly the same challenge level as most 1E through 4E low level monsters.

5E is like a turkey shoot for spell casters and non-spell casters alike. They just don't heal that well when they get shot at back.

Then look at dailies. A 5th level daily might do 3d6+bonuses in 4e, in 5e it does 8d6. And, you get more of them as you level, not just 1, and you can hot-swap it with any other spell you have memorized, and swap those with any you know with an extended rest. That's compared to swapping out your 1 fifth-level daily for the one alternate in your spellbook (2 with a feat) only when you take an extended rest. The flexibility and power of neo-Vancian casters is off the charts compared to 4e.

Yes, 5E Fireball is a bit unreal at either 14 or 28 average damage, but then again, a 5E 5th level fighter gets 3 or more attacks, often hitting and often doing 30 points in a single round. Round after round after round. And Fireball still has that pesky targeting issue.

One aspect of 5E casters though is that they really do not have more spells per level. Even if they go offensive with every single spell at level 5, that's 10 to 12 non-cantrip offensive spells and a boatload of cantrips. In 5 encounters, 4E wizards get 10 encounter, 2 daily and 1 utility spell plus their at wills (which end up being more at wills than 5E because wizards get bonus non-damaging at wills like Prestidigitation). It's not that much different. 5E casters do have more flexibility, but then again, many of the 4E powers do more than just damage. At level 20, it's 22 to 32 Dailies for the 5E caster, and in 4E, 29 encounter, dailies, and utility powers in 5 encounters (not including bonus stuff from feats, themes, items, etc.). The number of non-at wills that each can cast is comparable, the 5E just does have more versatility with more to choose from.

But Vancian was a dinosaur. Neo-vancian needs something to offset it. Easily saved spells, even for high level on and fewer of them (and wimpier in some cases, stronger in other, but not by too much).

Just about any tier 1 class was very broken in 3e, yes. But, the flexibility granted by Neo-Vanican, and the addition of at-wills makes it anything but clear that 5e wizard is lagging the 3e, relative to the kinds of challenges he'll face.

I can agree with this. 5E monsters seem wimpy. But 5E PCs seems fragile over multiple encounters.