Brand new DM to 5E and many concerns...

[Dausuul]

It's especially funny considering the numerous video games using TSR-era D&D rules. Even more so since the videogamiest of all editions (4e in my opinion) is the basis of so very few video games.

Not only that, but there is a huge class of video games (MMOs) which is directly descended from Dungeons and Dragons. It should be World of Warcraft players complaining about how their game is too much like D&D, not vice versa.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

My point was they each have the same chance to hit! They both have +5 (Dex and PB) Attack bonus against AC 13 or a 65% chance to hit. That makes no sense whatsoever. A Fighter has spent years training in weapons and combat, but the Wizard is just as likely to hit.

It's not so bad, if you assume that a level 1 fighter with zero experience hasn't actually been training for years. Granted, it goes against the description from earlier editions, but it's fairly consistent for what it is. Both characters are barely trained in the use of a dagger, and have the same amount of natural talent, so they're both equally skilled with that dagger. They both have training in other stuff, too, but that's irrelevant to their dagger skill.

For me, it's much worse to consider the Fighter with Strength 14 and Dex 12 against the Wizard with Strength 8 and Dex 14. If you give them each a dagger, they're equally likely to land a blow (which is tolerable), but the Wizard will hit exactly as hard as the Fighter does, in spite of the significant Strength deficit. That was the point which put me on the road to considering more serious house rules, and alternative game systems.

 

[cfmcdonald]

It's not so bad, if you assume that a level 1 fighter with zero experience hasn't actually been training for years. Granted, it goes against the description from earlier editions, but it's fairly consistent for what it is. Both characters are barely trained in the use of a dagger, and have the same amount of natural talent, so they're both equally skilled with that dagger. They both have training in other stuff, too, but that's irrelevant to their dagger skill.

For me, it's much worse to consider the Fighter with Strength 14 and Dex 12 against the Wizard with Strength 8 and Dex 14. If you give them each a dagger, they're equally likely to land a blow (which is tolerable), but the Wizard will hit exactly as hard as the Fighter does, in spite of the significant Strength deficit. That was the point which put me on the road to considering more serious house rules, and alternative game systems.

But they don't hit just as hard, because the Wizard isn't trying to hit hard at all. By using finesse, he is trying to slip the dagger into a vulnerable point. Using finesse weapons as an example just confuses the issue of "hitting hard". Anyway a dagger isn't going to be the preferred attack of either a Fighter or a Wizard, so I don't see the point of the comparison.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But they don't hit just as hard, because the Wizard isn't trying to hit hard at all. By using finesse, he is trying to slip the dagger into a vulnerable point. Using finesse weapons as an example just confuses the issue of "hitting hard".

If you're trapped behind a wooden wall that has 30hp, then a finesse dagger hits as hard as a brute force dagger, because the metric for force is the HP.

The only time when finesse damage makes any sense whatsoever is if you're attacking something that has weak points. It's a reasonable(ish) assumption when you're talking about humans or dragons, but less so when you're talking about golems or elementals.

 

[smbakeresq]

I have played for almost 40 years, every edition.

5e is just easier to play then all previous editions. It’s also easier to DM, which means less set up time and more play time.

The way the game uses AC with bounded accuracy, IMO, makes AC more important. You still get hit, but getting hit less really means more as creatures hit harder. You get the back and forth and trading blows effect, which is good.

Also the way the game is set up hordes are much more of a problem, as they should be. Being outnumbered should be an exciting combat.

As far as spells, with much higher HP as you go up spells that just do damage wane in effectiveness rather rapidly.

5e is subtle, you really need to play it to see how it all works.

 

[smbakeresq]

Well, TwoSix, reading about the Bounded Accuracy concept behind 5E was what disappoints me. I never found any problem with the idea that a group (even large) of goblins and such should not be any real threat to higher level characters. As characters became more powerful, getting strong magical items went hand-in-hand with getting more powerful spells. Facing stronger foes that would crush lower-level characters was exciting at upper levels. To me such things made the game heroic on a classic scale. The escalator effect, or whatever it is called, was never an issue.

I have been thinking about it this afternoon, and I think an easy fix might be to do something like this:

Hit Dice is d10 or better, use Proficiency Bonus (PB) to Attack rolls, use PB - 2 for Skill Checks.
Hit Dice is d8, use PB -1 for Attack rolls and Skill Checks.
Hit Dice is d6, use PB -2 for Attack rolls, but PB for Skill Checks. For spells requiring an Attack roll, maybe use full PB still... I'll have to think about it.
Saves and other Ability checks use full PB for any type of HD.

But also I like the idea of Armor giving DR instead of increasing AC. It makes more sense. The target is still struck by a weapon, but the armor protects the wearer from the blow, taking all or some of the impact.

Anyway, I could go on and on, but that wasn't the point of the OP. The argument seems to be Fighters are balanced (for the most part) as is and Burning Hands (and similar) won't unbalance things either. But, if you have any suggestions I am listening LOL.

A large group of goblins isn’t a problem for a higher level PCs IF the group is properly played. You can’t just stupid you way through anymore with more and better equipment. Magic items are still great, however they are not longer required to just keep up. Higher level foes can still crush lower level foes if played correctly.

5e is a lot more then it seems at a glance.

 

[cfmcdonald]

If you're trapped behind a wooden wall that has 30hp, then a finesse dagger hits as hard as a brute force dagger, because the metric for force is the HP.

The only time when finesse damage makes any sense whatsoever is if you're attacking something that has weak points. It's a reasonable(ish) assumption when you're talking about humans or dragons, but less so when you're talking about golems or elementals.

You're moving the argument up a level of abstraction, from whether wizards hit harder than fighters, to the entire hit point abstraction and what it represents vis-a-vis finesse weapons vs. strength weapons. The abstractions of D&D are built around combat, not attacking walls. Its obviously nonsensical to even imagine that a dagger could significantly harm a wall or a golem made of solid steel. So you either accept the abstractions that D&D is trying to sell and handwave away the places where the abstractions 'leak' (like sneak-attacking a being of pure fire with a dagger) or you don't. But this really has gone a long way from the original topic.

 

[S'mon]

The biggest factor is the super high HP for everything I guess. In the case of the ogre, for instance, HP is triple what it was before. Despite their lower AC compared to 1E, they are much more dangerous. Having lots of HP and taking hit after hit reminds me too much of video games. What can I say, it is a gut reaction and usually for me, first impressions are correct LOL.

I don't like the 5e Ogre either. But most 5e monsters aren't statted like that. Look at the Bugbear, Lizardfolk, Gnoll, Hobgoblin & Orc for example.

 

[S'mon]

Well, TwoSix, reading about the Bounded Accuracy concept behind 5E was what disappoints me. I never found any problem with the idea that a group (even large) of goblins and such should not be any real threat to higher level characters.

This eventually becomes the case in 5e, but you need to be around twice the 1e level to get the equivalent feeling of power. So eg 10th level 5e PCs can trash mobs of orcs the way 5th level 1e PCs can.

 

[S'mon]

In 2e a wizard and a fighter both had THAC0 20 at level one. If the optional rule of weapon specialization was in use, and the fighter opted to use it, the fighter had a 1 point advantage to hit.

However in 1e the M-U had THAC0 21 and a -5 non-prof penalty, Fighter had THAC0 20, -2 non-prof penalty, and with UA could x2 specialise for +3 to hit, +3 damage and ATT 3/2!