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

[Azzy]

Hi, I've been playing D&D since Basic over thirty years ago. Played lots of AD&D and 2nd Ed, a little 3rd, then took a long break. Now, I am getting into 5E and just making characters with my players and having some issues. I am asking for feedback from experienced DMs in 5E because I see LOTS of game balance issues! For now, I'll just focus on a couple.

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?

Having played a fighter, I assure you they don't suck. Both AC and attack bonuses have an upper limit in 5e, but that's fine—you'll have the hp to soak the damage that hits, and Second Wind helps with that.

2. Burning Hands: way too powerful! Hmm... AD&D Burning Hands: range 5', 1 point per level of the caster, no save. Now, 15' range, and 3d6 to every target (avg 10), save for half (not likely at lower levels). Without Con bonuses, a party of 1st-level characters in tight formation could be toasted by a single level one spell!

Now, I've noticed a lot of monsters have tons more HP than earlier counter-parts. Take Ogres for example: old version about 19 hp, now averages 59. So having a spell do more damage sort of makes sense, but against PCs at lower levels this seems potentially devastating.[/QUOTE]

Low-level PCs are probably unlikely to see burning hands aimed at them, and when they do the DC should be low enough or the PCs to handle. Also, PCs in this edition are harder to kill than in some previous editions (some people complain about this, while others appreciate it).

So, am I just missing tons of stuff that will later show "Don't worry, it really is balanced."? I am sure others have expressed such concerns, so thanks for any feedback. Much appreciated.

Just play a few games and you'll see that things are fine. While 5e isn't the finest-balanced game, it's miles more so than 3.5/PF, and AD&D.

 

[ccs]

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.

As fighter has always been one of my favorite classes, back then or now, I'll disagree with you on this. My 5e fighters have more options just in the PHB than my Basic/1e/2e ones ever did (without additional books or just playing a different fighty class).
But hey? If you don't like fighters & never did? Don't play a fighter. If you're the DM? Find out what your players think - & then change things however you see fit.

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?

Though I'm sure you could dig out some optional rule from the 2e Combat & Tactics book or some 3/3.5/PF alt system, what you're wanting just isn't how D&D generally does defense.

 

[S'mon]

IME 5e has good balance, but you need to play it to get a sense of it.

Also, level 1 PCs are more like novices than veterans, the balance for eg MM monster stats is based more around level 3 PCs. So eg kobolds and goblins are very deadly vs level 1 PCs but make nice opponents vs level 3+.

 

[S'mon]

Remember, monster casters are weaker than player casters because monsters don't get proficiency bonuses (unless otherwise stated).

All the published spellcasting monsters & NPCs get a Proficiency Bonus based off their CR (not caster level). This does make them weaker than PCs at higher level, but they do have a PB.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Thanks for all the feedback. I know I have to try it before I'll be certain about things as far as balance goes.

For now, I've been playing with adjusting the Fighter Styles. For example, instead of Defense simply adding a +1 to AC while wearing armor, I was considering having it add the Fighter's proficiency bonus to AC. It's just an extra +1 at lower levels, but as it represents the Fighter's dedication to defensive combat, it would be a good bonus at higher levels.

A similar argument could be made for Dueling, adding proficiency bonus to damage instead of a straight +2 forever.

I plan to come up with house rules for all the Fighting Styles, basing them on proficiency bonus so as the Fighter's level increases, they will (as one would expect) become better at what they do.

I don't think it would break any balance, but we'll have to see. Thanks again for the feedback.

 

[dave2008]

Thanks for all the feedback. I know I have to try it before I'll be certain about things as far as balance goes.

For now, I've been playing with adjusting the Fighter Styles. For example, instead of Defense simply adding a +1 to AC while wearing armor, I was considering having it add the Fighter's proficiency bonus to AC. It's just an extra +1 at lower levels, but as it represents the Fighter's dedication to defensive combat, it would be a good bonus at higher levels.

A similar argument could be made for Dueling, adding proficiency bonus to damage instead of a straight +2 forever.

I plan to come up with house rules for all the Fighting Styles, basing them on proficiency bonus so as the Fighter's level increases, they will (as one would expect) become better at what they do.

I don't think it would break any balance, but we'll have to see. Thanks again for the feedback.

I would suggest you play the game first. It also depends on how much your players are into optimizing, but your suggested revisions will make it nearly impossible to take a fighter down.

To clarify, I do like the idea (I think it adds some flavor), but it will unbalance the game, not balance it. If you just like the idea - go for it, but don't expect it to balance the game. It will probably require you to beef up monsters to make things a challenge for the fighter characters (which in turn makes it much more deadly for other characters).

EDIT: One last clarifying item. It will not break the game, I think it is hard to do that. However, you will likely need to constantly make adjustments to their opponents and you can throw out the encounter building guidelines, because they certainly don't assume such high AC and HP.

 

[Ratskinner]

Hi, I've been playing D&D since Basic over thirty years ago. Played lots of AD&D and 2nd Ed, a little 3rd, then took a long break. Now, I am getting into 5E and just making characters with my players and having some issues. I am asking for feedback from experienced DMs in 5E because I see LOTS of game balance issues! For now, I'll just focus on a couple.

Happy to offer my help.

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?

As mentioned by others above. 5e relies much more on HP to describe a target's invulnerability than earlier editions. I've even described "hits" as complete misses that wind or off-balance the target. Its not my favorite solution, but it works out tolerably numerically in the end.

2. Burning Hands: way too powerful! Hmm... AD&D Burning Hands: range 5', 1 point per level of the caster, no save. Now, 15' range, and 3d6 to every target (avg 10), save for half (not likely at lower levels). Without Con bonuses, a party of 1st-level characters in tight formation could be toasted by a single level one spell!

Didn't really notice a problem with any pure damage spells being overpowered, and didn't have anyone use Burning Hands. However, I would say that squishy casters getting into melee range is truly a bad idea for them.

Now, I've noticed a lot of monsters have tons more HP than earlier counter-parts. Take Ogres for example: old version about 19 hp, now averages 59. So having a spell do more damage sort of makes sense, but against PCs at lower levels this seems potentially devastating.

Yup. The first three levels are the most dangerous, after that it actually gets notably more difficult to kill PCs with book-standard straight-up fights. You'll need to start tossing in terrain (especially water, IME) and other factors to give the monsters a decent chance at downing a PC. That said, I find the encounter guidelines mostly useless outside those first few levels. On the other hand, it tolerates a lot more eyeballing in encounter design than either 3 or 4e. Its much more like 2e, that way. If anything, the monsters are a little boring with many of them being little more than bags of HP waiting to be whittled down. Again, terrain and tactics are the saving grace to make combat interesting, and at least the tactics portion has been made a bit simpler than previous editions.

With regards to HP, you have to also consider AC and monster attack bonuses. As one of my players noted: "I think the designers realized that players really like to hit a lot and roll a bunch of damage dice, but they don't like taking lots of hits for big damage." I'm confident he was right, and the basic monster stats reflect this.

So, am I just missing tons of stuff that will later show "Don't worry, it really is balanced."? I am sure others have expressed such concerns, so thanks for any feedback. Much appreciated.

IME, the biggest balance issues are between classes that "recharge" at different rates (short vs long rest). The most prominent offender I saw was the Paladin vs Fighter. The Fighter does a much better job at hanging in for the long haul (i.e. 6-8 encounters between long rests) because a lot of his abilities recharge on a short rest. The Paladin is set up to go nova a few times and really cronk a few opponents, most of his abilities recharge on a long rest. However, if the party has a chance to take a long rest more frequently than 6-8 encounters, the Paladin will be using his nova abilities less tactically and dominating the damage output (and wasted damage). This sorta crushes the design goal of the fighter being the best at melee.

Other than that problem, I found 5e pretty solid and hard to "break" on the PC side.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Having read up on the whole Bounded Accuracy thing and from some of your explanations, I get the idea that HP is what is meant to scale up to represent increased combat defensive ability (makes sense, Fighters with d10s, wizards with d6s, etc.), as compared to earlier systems where better ACs (mostly though magic items) played a bigger role.

But what it comes down to is basically this:

You hit less often but things have fewer HP (max in AD&D was basically 200 for the toughest monsters), so it takes time since hitting is rare.

OR

You hit more often but since everything has more HP, it still takes time to whittle things down.

To me, it seems like a poor trade off. Now, as DM, I have to track numerous hits and reducing HP over and over until the foe is defeated. With players hitting more often, it looses some of the excitement to the attack roll IMO. I understand hits are far from guaranteed, and for modern times maybe it plays better to the gaming audience.

If I'm wrong and misunderstanding the concept, please let me know. But in a nutshell you hit more but things take more damage or you hit less and they need less to be defeated, right?

 

[Oofta]

To the OP: I think your concerns are overblown. As others have said, white-room analysis doesn't really work particularly well. In addition, I'd wait on the house rules and adjustments until after you've played the game for a bit. I have some minimal changes that I've made that make sense to me, but I wouldn't go changing classes for perceived "balance" issues just yet. This being the internet, you'll find someone who says that the fighter of all variants are either hopelessly overpowered and broken or incredibly underpowered wimps. In my personal experience, they work just fine.

As far as burning hands, I don't think I've ever seen it used so I wouldn't be too concerned.

But my general quick advice would be:

• Don't hand out too many magic items, at least at first. You don't really need them in this edition and some can be problematic. It can be fun to have a gonzo campaign where everybody glows like a Christmas tree, but it can change the balance of power significantly.
• Your PCs don't need sky-high ability scores at 1st level. In fact, I think it works better if they don't ... so personally I use the 27 point buy. Whether or not you allow that, PCs don't need multiple 18s at the start. Or any 18s.
• The game seems to work best when you have 6-8 encounters between long rests and 1-2 short rests. Easy to do if you're into dungeon crawls, I personally use the alternate rules where a short rest is overnight and a long rest is several days (or a week or more).
• I personally ignore the number multiplier when figuring out difficulty of encounters, especially at higher levels. I just add up the XP budget and compare to party level. Also remember that the XP budget is just a guideline, you'll have to adjust based on your group and what works. Don't be afraid to throw deadly encounters if it makes sense. Encounter design is more art than science though, so don't expect any calculation to work 100%.
• Don't be afraid to tweak monsters. I add special abilities, re-skin monsters, give monsters bonuses to hit and so on if needed.
• Remember that the game is a lot more flexible than some other editions; a lot of times there is no specific rule and it will be up to you to make a judgement call. Stealth rules (or lack therein) is an example where you simply have to make judgement calls on what makes sense.

I'm sure I could come up with some more, but the bottom line is simple. Try the game for a while and see what works for you and your group. I find this edition easier to run and adjust than the previous two editions.

 

[Morrus]

Thanks for all the feedback. I know I have to try it before I'll be certain about things as far as balance goes.

For now, I've been playing with adjusting the Fighter Styles. For example, instead of Defense simply adding a +1 to AC while wearing armor, I was considering having it add the Fighter's proficiency bonus to AC. It's just an extra +1 at lower levels, but as it represents the Fighter's dedication to defensive combat, it would be a good bonus at higher levels.

A similar argument could be made for Dueling, adding proficiency bonus to damage instead of a straight +2 forever.

I plan to come up with house rules for all the Fighting Styles, basing them on proficiency bonus so as the Fighter's level increases, they will (as one would expect) become better at what they do.

I don't think it would break any balance, but we'll have to see. Thanks again for the feedback.

I'd agree with everybody else that I'd play the game before trying to adjust it. You can very rarely get a good feel for a game until you've played it.