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

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

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!

LOL thanks for pointing it out. I wasn't about to risk bring up the topic again but that goes back to my original point about the Fighter not being so hot in 5E. From the comments, however, I get the Fighter can still be a great character, just different from what I am used to from earlier versions.

Personally, once UA came out, players were interested in Fighters again and I can't think of a single 1st-level Fighter that WASN'T specialized (not always double, but always single). Then with the differences in THAC0, they were hitting a bit more often than the other classes and the extra attack every other round made up the difference.

Anyway, the way HP is working in 5E really makes up for the lack of increased defense in the sense of AC like in prior editions. We still might end up making some changes, but for now we'll just play RAW and see what happens.

 

[GreyLord]

It was pointed out to me on another forum, but the more I think about it the more it holds true.

AD&D does NOT seem to be the inspiration for 5e and in fact probably has almost the exact opposite position in play value and archtype than 5e.

When they made 5e it seems that they based it more on D&D (NOT OD&D, that is more like AD&D) from the B/X era, or early BECMI where they only looked at the Basic and Expert rules. In regards to attack bonuses that Fighters attain and the ability to hit the characters are comparable, at least at first at lower levels.

The BIG difference is that while the B/X fighter's to hit abilities are based upon level and them getting better, the 5e fighter's to hit abilities are more based upon a split of level and ability modifiers. Thus, the 5e fighter is actually more powerful at lower levels, but this slowly evens up until around 10th to 12th level.

BX also reflects the idea of being limited to +3 magic items at most.

In essence, 5e is more a toss back to the simpler way that D&D was looked at by those who played BX or BE (out of BECMI) than full on OD&D, AD&D, or 3e.

You could look at it from those two heritages where the AD&D heritage has fighters hitting harder (and more easily than other classes), more often, and in hand to hand combat could tear things up. Meanwhile Magic-Users completely stunk in combat with weapons, but once spells they got to sufficient level (normally around level 5) they started being the kings of the world (which could make Fighters and Rogues feel a tad underpowered for some, most were still happy with their characters though).

On the otherhand BX and BE have fighters get noticeably better than wizards at fighting, but it's more on the scale that 5e has it. To counter this, Fighters don't get the number of multiple attacks that fighters got in AD&D and such. Wizards still got better when they got more magic like 5e, but as they only got up to 6th level spells at most, their magic wasn't as overpowering as high level AD&D or OD&D magic. BX was in many ways a different beast than AD&D was.

In addition, due to the limitations of the Magic items listed in BX (or Basic and Expert of BECMI) AC also had the same limitations in many ways of 5e. Monsters rarely had super high AC's in comparison.

In AD&D there were so many ways to increase AC that you could have a character with -10 AC (30 AC equivalent in 5e) regularly, especially if one played 2e monsters also could eventually have super high ACs (with at least one or two having AC over 30 being in the 30-35 AC range comparable to 5e).

In short...

TLDR is that I see 5e being based more on the simpler and quicker forms of D&D in the past, mainly BX and the Basic and Expert of BECMI than having any heritage based upon AD&D.

 

[akr71]

1. Fighters suck. This has pretty much always been the case in earlier editions, so I am not surprised, but in 5E they seem even worse than before. Tell me this, with the same stats and in normal clothing, why is a 20th-level fighter just as easy to hit as a 1st-level fighter??? Sure, the higher level guy might get a point or two of AC from feats, maybe his Dex is a bit better for another point or two, but that is basically it. Why don't the classes add some portion of their proficiency bonus to AC or something? After all, you get better at attacking (proficiency bonus increases) as levels increase, but no better at defending? Where is the logic in that?

The logic is in the assumption that not all hits are wounds. The 20th level fighter has way more HP, so while the fighter is no harder to hit, the level 20 fighter will last longer in a fight.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Hmm. If you like a strong leveling effect, and since you seem to have simulationist leanings, maybe take a look at the PF2 playtest?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Its obviously nonsensical to even imagine that a dagger could significantly harm a wall or a golem made of solid steel.

If it's nonsensical to imagine that a dagger can harm an iron golem, but then someone with a dagger stabs an iron golem to death, then something has gone horribly wrong with the system.

But this really has gone a long way from the original topic.

This point is related to the original topic, because the original topic is that the basic combat rules don't make a lot of sense, and I'm more-or-less agreeing with that. You need to make some concessions to common sense, if you want to play 5E as written. Between the original point and this related one, I want to help the OP decide whether they should give 5E a chance as written, or incorporate more thorough house rules, or give up and play something else entirely.

 

[cfmcdonald]

If it's nonsensical to imagine that a dagger can harm an iron golem, but then someone with a dagger stabs an iron golem to death, then something has gone horribly wrong with the system.
This point is related to the original topic, because the original topic is that the basic combat rules don't make a lot of sense, and I'm more-or-less agreeing with that. You need to make some concessions to common sense, if you want to play 5E as written. Between the original point and this related one, I want to help the OP decide whether they should give 5E a chance as written, or incorporate more thorough house rules, or give up and play something else entirely.

Okay, but then it sounds like you want some other simulationist combat model. No version of D&D has ever been that, though 3e maybe came closest. That has nothing to do with concerns about 5e specifically.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Okay, but then it sounds like you want some other simulationist combat model. No version of D&D has ever been that, though 3e maybe came closest. That has nothing to do with concerns about 5e specifically.

Abstraction is a matter of degrees, and D&D has always been somewhere in the middle of the pack, being more simulationist than (for example) Everway but more abstract than (for example) GURPS. Prior to 4E, the rules supported a wide range of interpretations, and you were perfectly justified whether or not you wanted to say that a successful attack roll necessarily correlated to a physical impact between weapon and target.

Fifth edition tries to go back to that middle ground, and flat out tells us that different DMs have different ways that they like to interpret the meanings of various rolls. Whether or not the rules are fluid enough to support the prior range of interpretations, is going to be a matter of perspective. Personally, I think the rules don't go far enough to support the level of simulation which was provided in AD&D, but that's just my opinion. It sounds to me as though the OP wants the game to support the same level of simulation that AD&D or 3E supported, and I would suggest that it requires some house rules in order for it to do so.

 

[smbakeresq]

Its not a combat simulator, however properly run it simulates the flow of combat very well

 

[robus]

Its not a combat simulator, however properly run it simulates the flow of combat very well

So more of an emulator then?

 

[Harzel]

I added some significant house rules before playing 5e. (It was some changes to spell casting, not weapon combat.) Even though they did not cause the game to crash and burn, they were definitely a mistake - they were quite unnecessary and resulted in some minor but still annoying problems.