D&D 5E Basic already surprising us.

[Obryn]

If a fighter had magic boots that let him jump super far, a belt that gave him the strength of a giant, and an amulet that made his skin like stone, he would be similar to a wizard. He has tools that allow him to do stuff natural capacity can't.

Several big reasons, all of them gameplay related and some of them also genre related.

Magic items aren't inherent to the character. They're campaign dependent. They're DM dependent. You may or may not find them. If they are for sale, it's a complex point buy system for stuff. Every other character could also use them, so your class becomes irrelevant. And you're mighty because of stuff you have, not stuff you can do through training or experience. Your character dissolves into the gear they carry.

 

[Obryn]

As a 4venger who's played a good amount of 3.X/PF and is cautiously excited about 5e, I do think the wizard and fighter are much closer to each other in 5e than they are in 3.X. Without the endurance boosters of wands and scrolls, and a much lower number of casts per day, the wizard isn't the soloing beast he was before. The balance now is much more similar to Leverage than it is to the Justice League.

Oh I agree with that - it's much better designed and balanced than 3.x, certainly.

I'm still unconvinced. This is part of it. And that's fine.

 

[billd91]

But why, then, does this wizard gain them automatically through leveling, and the fighter have to find all his magical powers? Wouldn't it make more sense for the wizard to get a few cantrips and rituals, and have all of his other spells acquired through the discovery of wands, staves, and magic scrolls, just as the fighter gains his powers through magic swords and armor?

Ultimately, minus the few new spells the wizard gets per level - he does acquire his new spells through the discovery of scrolls and recovery of other people's spellbooks. If part of what you're driving at is that wizard spells were too easily obtained in 3e, I wouldn't argue against it. That really is a point of departure from 1e and it does make it a lot easier for the wizard to cherry pick the spells he wants.

 

[TwoSix]

Oh I agree with that - it's much better designed and balanced than 3.x, certainly.

I'm still unconvinced. This is part of it. And that's fine.

Oh, me too. I've only played one Starter Set adventure with 7 year olds, not exactly a situation where balance concerns predominate. I do have concerns about some spells, but my biggest concerns from 3.X (half hour buffing parties, scry-and-fry, teleport as encounter control) have mostly vanished.

 

[KarinsDad]

4-5 encounters is more typical of 4e, and rounds are likely closer to 5+ rounds than 3 or 4. So, two full-on spells, 2 lesser encounter spells used 1/encounter each, and 10 uses of at-wills.

My players use Action Points, so in a 4 encounter day, that's usually 2 APs, especially if they are running low on surges and they know to use them or lose them. In a 5 encounter day, that can be 3 AP. That's 2 to 3 more At wills (or more likely, the first action sets up an encounter or daily on the second action to be more reliable).

And every PC has those AP, not just (typically) Fighters like in 5E. The team has more options that way and can sometimes counteract bad rolls.

5E tends to be you are successful more often, but when you are not, there's little you can do about it.

Also consider the variety of spells. At the start of the first combat, the 4e wizard has offensive options. That drops to 4 once he's used up his dailies. Each encounter gets used once, so if you assume using encounters early in every fight, choices are 6, 5, 4...until he finally uses dailies and ends 3, 2. The 5e wizard preps 9 spells plus 2 cantrips for 11 choices, assuming he is as reluctant to use his top-level slots as the 4e wizard is to use his dailies, he retains those 11 choices until he has used up his highest-level slots. But, really, 11 understates it, since the wizard can choose to use lower-level spells in higher level slots. So, for instance, each scalable level 1 spell represents 3 choices for the 5th level wizard. If those 9 prepped spells are evenly distributed over the 3 levels of spells available, that's 20 choices total, including cantrips. Dropping to 11 when out of 3rd level slots, and 5 when out of 2nd level slots.

The games are designed too drastically different. The 4E wizard does about the same damage as the fighter (who does less damage than the striker), he just happens to spread his damage around with spells like Arc Lightning.

The 5E wizard does less damage and eventually a lot less damage than the fighter, unless the wizard is nova-ing. He can only nova so many times per day and things like Shield or other defensive spells can take away from that quantity. But that's ok because the wizard has more versatility. Less damage most of the time, more versatility most of the time when he really needs it.

One other difference about 5E is that if the PCs bring a lot of healing options with them, they could theoretically adventure for more than the 4-5 encounters per day average of 4E. The spell casters can only do this, though, if they do not blow through their non-cantrip spells like water (or they have multiple wands or other magic items). Some players blow through their resources, some players don't. This is a facet of the game that I would like getting to.

I suspect that there might be 7 charge healing wands and stronger healing potions and such in the 5E DMG (mostly for use between encounters, they do not require a short rest). 4E had very few worthwhile healing items. Even the stronger healing potions in 4E were a bit lame (the wizard uses up two minor actions and a surge to get 40% of his hit points back and the next round, the same level monster hits him for 30% of his hit points). For the fighter, it was 25% to 30% of his hit points. A second wind did almost that well (and gives the defense boost) if used with an AP.

So, yes, neo-Vancian gives fewer slots, scales with slots instead of levels, and has (for now) an arguably less-problematic set of spell lists. But saves are definitely looking pretty good from the caster side, relative to old-school Vancian, or even 4e attack rolls. Even relative to 3.5, save DCs scaling with level instead of slot is on the win side for 5e casters.

Yup.

I just hope the splat books put out comparable spells, items, and feats instead of the bigger, badder, better splat books of 3E and 4E.

 

[TwoSix]

Ultimately, minus the few new spells the wizard gets per level - he does acquire his new spells through the discovery of scrolls and recovery of other people's spellbooks. If part of what you're driving at is that wizard spells were too easily obtained in 3e, I wouldn't argue against it. That really is a point of departure from 1e and it does make it a lot easier for the wizard to cherry pick the spells he wants.

Yes, that's definitely the biggest part of my concern. More wands and more staves, finding a spell is rare and precious event, and more fighter-oriented items that do non-combat effects will make me happy.

 

[Capricia]

I really don't get one side of the argument on the mythic fighter thing.

Those of us who don't want our fighter like that want fighting to be believable outside of a mythic context. We don't want demigods or others warriors who are using clearly supernatural capabilities as the only option for fighters. Our fighters are martial artists who are bound by things like gravity.

We don't see a high level wizard as a demigod or supernatural being because, based on how magic is described in the game, he is essentially a gadgeteer. He is equivalent to a guy carrying a rocket launcher, laser pistol, and having a remote control that can call down a tactical nuke. There is nothing he innately has (other than brains) that allows him to manipulate reality like a superhero. His spells are applications of scientific knowledge. Now a psion or sorcerer on the other hand is straight up a superhero. There is an important distinction.

If a fighter had magic boots that let him jump super far, a belt that gave him the strength of a giant, and an amulet that made his skin like stone, he would be similar to a wizard. He has tools that allow him to do stuff natural capacity can't.

I just don't get how some of you seem to absolutely refuse to acknowledge that there is a whit of conceptual or setting difference between innately supernatural capabilities and tools that allow you to do things beyond natural capacities.

Innate vs. tools. It is a conceptual distinction. Maybe you don't give a care about it in your game, but I for one feel like you are demanding that we don't care about it in our game and that our distinctions are arbitrary. They are not. They are entirely rational and consistent distinctions.

And I also haven't seen anyone saying that they don't want you to be able to do it your way. I see people actually saying they support your right to have such options in the game, either through subclasses that allow that or DMG modules that change the game. You can do it that way and no one is going to complain.

But you can't fairly demand that the game be presented in such a manner that we can't do it our way.

Two things. First, you don't need to be mythic or supernatural to contribute in meaningful ways. The Defy Death and original Indomitable effects from the playtests were completely mundane things that nonetheless had a significant impact on the class and said a lot about how they could stand shoulder to shoulder with druids and wizards and clerics. There's nothing mythical about, say, being able to consistently shoot an arrow into the eye of whatever you aim at. You could have a completely mundane fighter with the ability to kill anything with an bow and arrow simply because every shot was completely lethal. But that wouldn't be balanced. By that same measure, something like Remarkable Athlete doesn't actually work. It doesn't increase the scope of what a fighter is capable of and its only tangible benefit is providing a 1-3 bonus to initiative checks. The idea that increasing jump length by a tiny handful of feet is significant is just flatly, plainly false.

Second, on the whole "innate vs tools" thing. To use a better example, you have Iron Man and Captain America. Each level, Iron Man gets new gadgets and weapons and can make his existing weapons even more powerful. Iron Man can also find even more gadgets on adventures, and there are special weapons that only he can use. Meanwhile, when Captain America levels up, his ability to punch things improves. The GM might give him a magic shield, but this is not assumed by the core rules. His "peak human" abilities also function well below the level of an olympian, even as Captain America approaches the peak level, at which point Iron Man has become so powerful that he can call down SHIELD helicarrier airstrikes on whole evil fortresses.

You seem comfortable with the idea that "tools" are implicitly better than "innate". But why? Why is that a meaningful distinction? And what makes a wizard ability to summon fire or demons or mystical forces with the power of his mind and finger waggling a tool and not some innate ability? If a fighter grabbed the wizard's wand and micked the words and motions, would he be able to summon meteors? No. A tool is something that's easy to use. Anyone can press a button that launches a nuclear missile. Only a 17th level wizard and above can cast a 9th level spell. That's innate. And even IF you want to argue that it's tools vs innate, it's still the case that you have tools with no drawbacks that make innate abilities look stupid. But you can't. Because they aren't.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The games are designed too drastically different. The 4E wizard does about the same damage as the fighter (who does less damage than the striker), he just happens to spread his damage around with spells like Arc Lightning.

The 5E wizard does less damage and eventually a lot less damage than the fighter, unless the wizard is nova-ing.

Lawolf, I think it was, ran the numbers on this on the WotC boards, and it's actually awfully close. The fighter edges out the wizard at most levels for single-target damage, even in the "most valid comparison" (really, hardest comparison on the fighter, since the archer doesn't really make that much use of the fighter's toughness) of a mostly-ranged archer-fighter vs the obviously mostly-ranged wizard. As soon as you start factoring in the way AEs spread damage around, the wizard pulls ahead. That doesn't take into account the many other things spells can accomplish, of course.

One other difference about 5E is that if the PCs bring a lot of healing options with them, they could theoretically adventure for more than the 4-5 encounters per day average of 4E.

5e was - according to Mearls - designed around a 'day' of around 4-5 encounters, and 5e encounters are, in service to 'fast combat' pretty short. So there will usually be more rounds of combat in a 4e day than a 5e day. There may actually be more individual encounters in 5e, since they can be pretty tiny and trivial, though (perhaps one reason they went for short-rest instead of encounter recharges?), while still representing fewer rounds and less challenge in total.

And, your assertion about healing resources is exactly backwards - unless you're assuming unlimited potions or something odd like that - HD represent only a fraction of the (relative, mind you) healing potential of surges. Yes, casters can burn their slots for healing, and thus extend the day, but doing so is doubly bad for them - it reduces their spells available, /and/ spreads those spells out. I wouldn't count on casters to use a tactic that's terrible for them when the alternative - more frequent long rests to completely re-charge hps & HD (and spells) - is much more attractive. The DM is going to have to force that issue, if he wants it to manifest.

The spell casters can only do this, though, if they do not blow through their non-cantrip spells like water (or they have multiple wands or other magic items). Some players blow through their resources, some players don't. This is a facet of the game that I would like getting to.

Blowing through resources or conserving them might have interesting consequences, especially if different players take different tactics in the same party - so long as the day length is held close to the average as Mearls intended. If a party blows through resources, but is generally able to rest early, though, or conserves them and has longer days (in terms of rounds of combats, encounters, or other measures of challenges faced), the balance of the game is going to shift from the point it was designed for.

I suspect that there might be 7 charge healing wands and stronger healing potions and such in the 5E DMG (mostly for use between encounters, they do not require a short rest).

Maybe. Magic items aren't assumed in 5e, though. At least, they're not supposed to be, the game is meant to be as functional and balanced as intended without them.

4E had very few worthwhile healing items. Even the stronger healing potions in 4E were a bit lame (the wizard uses up two minor actions and a surge to get 40% of his hit points back and the next round, the same level monster hits him for 30% of his hit points). For the fighter, it was 25% to 30% of his hit points. A second wind did almost that well (and gives the defense boost) if used with an AP.

Healing in 4e was consolidated around surges. The amount of healing available - and it was readily available between combats, and reasonably so even during combat - double or triple the hps of the party, just in base surges, with extra hps from leader abilities and (comparatively rare) non-surge healing layered on top.

Prettymuch the opposite of what you suggest. A 4e party could often handle significantly more than the typical number of encounters - and varying the number of encounters didn't much impact class balance. 5e characters have a lot less healing (even relative to their much lower hps) available within the course of the day, and less access to it (HD require an hour-long rest, Cure..Wounds competes for spell slots, etc) - and 5e - as specifically called out by its chief designer - is not meant to work well with substantially more (or fewer) challenges per day, anyway.

I just hope the splat books put out comparable spells, items, and feats instead of the bigger, badder, better splat books of 3E and 4E.

Power inflation has always been a serious issue for games like D&D. Nothing about the structure of 5e suggests that it will be any less of an issue this time around. Indeed, the relatively arbitrary way game elements - classes, spells, items, etc - seem to be designed suggests that it may be a more significant issue this time around.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, this thread has done more than anything else to un-sell me on 5e, because we're fully down a wormhole where class imbalance isn't worked around, it's actively applauded and even insisted upon.
Folks are talking about a "mythic fighter" option. Like, a module to let Fighters be as cool as Beowulf.

In other words, that there should be a Fighter who's actually better than the Fighter we just got. In other other words, that there's an acknowledgment and acceptance that there could be an actual better Fighter who won't break the game's balance, but which some folks don't want to see because then the Fighter would be... stronger and more versatile? And this is what the game is being designed around?

To hell with that, guys.

The imbalance we're talking about is really more of a "when you look with a microscope with the numbers, they turn out to not be the same". In actual game play, for any non-optimizer, it's essentially a wash.

But most importantly, and this is the thing I think that is most important to focus on, THE GAME IS FUN TO PLAY, AT ALL LEVELS, REGARDLESS OF THESE ISSUES. We've had a huge amount of playtesting go into this, and that's the overwhelming message that came out of it, for both the open and closed playtests.

It's why I say all this micro-optimization talk is a bit of balooney. A lot of people who are into it are not even playing the damn game that often (though some do). The overwhelming bulk of the people actually playing, are loving this version of the game. That's what is important.

 

[Jack the Lad]

Yes, game rules of magic are permitted to break the normal statutory limitations of man or beast.

When I say that the limitations you keep referring to are game rules, I'm pointing out that they are only game rules. They're arbitrary. D&D is not Ancient/Medieval Europe + Magic. If we apply the rules of the real world to D&D - if we look at it in any kind of scientific way - it falls apart immediately. A dragon could not fly in the real world. A dragon could not maintain homeostasis in the real world. A dragon could not even evolve in the real world.

Dragons - and all of the other physiologically and biologically impossible creatures in any D&D bestiary - exist because D&D is not the real world. It is a world of Myth, Fantasy and Legend. The rules, limitations and physics of the world are very different from those of the real world, for PCs as well as monsters.

Magic does that and has the right to do that, by its very own name.

That's a circular argument and so pointless; "Magic can do anything because it's magic." I could say with equal authority that I'm right because I'm always right.

Magic is not a real thing. We cannot go out and scientifically measure magic and then write rules that accurately represent the measurements. Its limitations and capabilities in D&D are game rules, and there's no absolute, objective reason that they have to be the way they are.

a DM is advised that he can tone down or up magic in a setting to suit the campaign's needs, what he does with more difficulty is tone down supernatural/innate powers to mundane characters.

Why is it more difficult to tone down a Fighter than a Wizard?

Yes. It actively changes the game style much like 4e impressed a power system (like a card game) on its users.

In what practical way does it change the 'game style'? Why does the idea of a Fighter who can jump to the horizon bother you when a Wizard who can fly there does not? Does a Fighter who can face a troll while unarmed and unarmoured and tear its arm off also bother you?

It is much easier to work on a basic module and tack on a module which reworks the fighter to supernatural/herculean powers. You can disagree with me all you want, that is my view.

This is a matter of personal preference and once all the books, modules, errata and whatever else have been released it won’t matter - except that the 'core' game, in your ideal world, would be one in which the Wizard can do anything because she is using magic and the Fighter can only do 'realistic' things because she is not.

When mundane men, and I use the term men loosely given we have dwarves, elves...etc, are able to break limitations without the use of magic - then yes I think we have advanced to mythical and supernatural proportions.

You're saying here, again, that dragons, demons, giants, active gods, wizards, magic etc do not make for a game of 'mythical or supernatural proportions' and I'm not sure how to address that.

You cannot accept and embrace the existence of impossible creatures, other planes, deities who regularly and provably take a hand in the events of mortals' lives and Wizards able to fly, turn invisible, stop time and all of the other superheroic things I listed in my first post on one hand and on the other hand not only insist but somehow hold as self evident that anyone not explicitly and specifically using magic must abide strictly by the rules of the real world, even though they can somehow defeat these literal dragons and demons with sticks.

That's not just wrong, it's not even internally consistent.

And Mike Mearls also promised us a DMG which I imagine will have those mythical and legendary powers in modules.

If that’s the case, I’ll be happy that they exist in the game. I do not and will not believe, however, that the ‘default’ should be for Fighters to be capable of nothing more than a human being in the real world.

So many straws everywhere...did I mistakenly state that the entire Beastiary was devised based on Medieval Europe?
But nevertheless...here is my attempt on Dragons.
St George and Dragon (Medieval)
Scylla (Ancient) - type of Hydra but close enough.

Are you trying to say that I’m clutching at straws, or arguing with a strawman? I’m doing my sincere best to understand and address your points.

This is another one that confuses me, though. I said that Dragons don’t exist in the real world because you said - and apparently maintain - that their existence does not make for a supernatural/mythical/legendary world. That somehow only superhuman Fighters are capable of pushing things over that line.

I assume you’re not saying that you believe St George’s Dragon or Scylla really existed. If you’re saying that there is acceptable mythologies and unacceptable mythologies, let’s play that game.

Scylla most famously featured in the Odyssey, which as I’m sure you know is an account of Odysseus’ journey home from the Trojan War. In which the invulnerable, non-magical demigod Achilles was a major player. And in which the Gods regularly and directly intervened on behalf of their followers. Oh, and Achilles was trained by Chiron the centuar, as were Ajax, Thesus, Jason, Perseus and Hercules. None of whom were Wizards, by the way.

Greek mythology actually exemplifies what I’m saying even better than Norse mythology.

Sure, I don't disagree. Hence the many pages of advice in every DMG for the DM to consider the appropriate level of magic in a campaign.

Aaaand whiplash. You now agree that D&D (as-is) is supernatural and mythical? It would help if you could clarify your position on this.

Considered, answered above...Mike Mearls...DMG....Modules.

Also answered above.

That is a design anomaly/error call it what you want. It is more relevant to compare how much the fighter can lift in game compared to others in game than comparing that to results of the real world, cause then you might as well compare hit points, fatigue, resting, HD mechanic, travelling and the like.

What is your opinion on the jumping and unarmed combat bits of that part of my post? And if you want to compare the lifting limits of the fighter to what others are capable of:

• Using Animate Dead, you could have your trusty 20 Skeleton buddies jointly lift up to 6000 lbs.
• Using Animate Objects, you could have up to 5 Large or smaller objects - no weight limit - become creatures under your control, and not only move themselves but also attack your enemies for up to one minute.
• Using Bind Elemental, you could summon an Earth Elemental to lift 1140 lbs.
• Using Charm Person, you could convince a Fighter to do your lifting.
• Using Conjure Elemental, same deal as Bind Elemental.
• Using Create Undead, you could raise 3 Mummies who can jointly lift 1440 lbs.
• Using Dominate Monster, you could have a Balor lift 3120 lbs for you.
• Using Dominate Person, a Fighter.
• Using Enlarge, you could double the party Fighter's lifting ability. Or equal it, if you have 10 Strength.
• Using Mass Suggestion, you could theoretically have 12 Balors team up and lift 37,440 lbs!
• Using Move Earth, you could lift 3,647,790 lbs - but only of earth, sand or clay.
• Using Reverse Gravity, you can lift any number or weight of items that fits into a 100 foot tall 50 foot diameter cylinder to the top of the cylinder.
• Using Shapechange, you can become a Balor yourself and lift 3120 lbs.
• Using Telekinesis, you can lift up to 300 lbs.
• Using Tenser's Floating Disk, you can lift up to 500 lbs.
• Using True Polymorph, you can turn anyone you like (of level 18 or higher) into a Balor.
• Using Unseen Servant, you can lift as much as a human can lift. Which might mean as much as a human Fighter. Who knows.

Now, consider all the mystique, power and awe I have given to magic. Consider that mundane's have but one saving throw to resist the effects of a magic spell. Now consider the Fighter who is able to shake off the arcane - hence his additional saving throw. That is pretty impressive, for me.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you're right in every particular on this. Even then, the Fighter's additional save is only impressive because magic is such a powerful force to be facing - because of 'all the mystique, power and awe'.

Unfortunately, you're not right. A Fighter with 10 Wisdom saves against a DC19 Charm Person spell 19% of the time with Indomitable and 10% of the time without it. That’s hardly impressive.

Again, though, let’s give it the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say the Fighter uses it, and it works! It will be a long rest before he can use it again. The Wizard has up to 21 spells remaining.

Alternatively, the Wizard uses Reverse Gravity and the Fighter spends the next 10 rounds 100 feet in the air with no saving throw - and then takes fall damage on the way down.

The imbalance we're talking about is really more of a "when you look with a microscope with the numbers, they turn out to not be the same". In actual game play, for any non-optimizer, it's essentially a wash.

No, it's not. This is essentially the opposite of the truth.

Wizards and Fighters are playing a different game in 5e at the moment. They are in entirely different leagues in terms of the scope and power of their abilities. Wizards can stop time, reverse gravity, fly, turn invisible, summon demons and angels, etc etc etc etc. Look at the examples in this post of the different ways they can approach 'lift heavy object' alone. This is not even slightly a numerical issue.