D&D 5E (2024) Martials and Magic. Two Years of Testing.

[Zardnaar]

Coming from you, that's rich as hell, Zardnaar. You dismiss anything that isn't your own viewpoint constantly. Like easily dozens of times just in THIS thread.

Most of my things are from data or from designers.

Its also should be clear its an opinion.

You lean more towards absolute statements. I also dont frame things in a way where theres only one solution which is usually 4E from fans of that edition.

I you like tactics and far enough. Claiming its strictly better is an absolute. I dont think you can pin a favorite edition on me for example. Its often obvious why someone likes their favorite edition.

Most editions do something better than other editions. If you dont like that 1 thing though that edition won't be for you. If you only like 1 edition D&D broadly wont be for you long term as it changes every 8 years or so on average.

OD&D is really rough even if one likes simple.

I also admit im self aware my groups not typical and the current gamers are playing very different to veterans of older editions.

What forums argue about barely matters to the wider D&D world. 5MWD seems very common now. If people are having fun is it an actual issue? We don't play that way ymmv.

I don't dismiss your like of 4E. I do dismiss your absolute statements thats are applicable to subjective entertainment. At least you want to play 4E i can respect that. I not a fan of Ravenloft I don't demand they change RL to cater to me. Im not a big fan of 1E but don't care if someone likes it. Its really only a problem if they're claiming its the best and implying its bad wrongfun to like something else.

Seems even ENworlds slowly becoming aware the wider D&D groups are playing different to most of us.

Deep changes to 5.5 were rejected in the playtest. We've seen fans of current edition do that 3 editions in a row now. Beats me why people think current fans of 5E would be any different. Its funny they blame old timers (10% maybe iirc not a monolith either) when things they like gets outvoted.

Until people organically get sick of 5E......

 

[Maxperson]

Is your argument that because it's the original designer saying it, it's not white room? Because that's not true at all. In fact the original designers probably did everything in the whitest of white rooms before any play testing was done.

I don't understand why you're comparing Battlemaster to Champion in a martial/caster thread. In any case, no one really denies the imbalance exists, we're just arguing over the degree of imbalance. More interesting to me is what to do about it. My inclination is to nerf spells to be more in line with the power of free or low cost abilities, seeing as these supposedly costly resources are so plentiful that in many games they never run out of them. I suppose another option would be to actually make spell slots scarce.

In either case, it's hard for a DM to do this with house rules. This level of change is getting to be like brain surgery on the game and I think player buyin would be an issue. It's at the point where you start looking for different systems.

Spell slots are already scarce. In 3.5e, at 20th level my wizards had an average of 53 spell slots available, and many more great spells to pick from at all levels. In 5e at 20th level you have 22, and spells above 6th level are relatively few to pick from, and far fewer spell slots. 3 at spell levels 7-9, where 3.5e had 15.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What forums argue about barely matters to the wider D&D world.

See, that's where I'm completely convinced you're wrong.

You are correct that the wider D&D world is often ignorant of the specifics. That I can believe is true.

I completely reject the claim that because they are ignorant, that means that the system is completely irrelevant. That doesn't follow.

Instead, we have to ask: Why don't they know? What do they see? What things do they figure out?

And, most important of all: Why does it seem to be the case that people do learn this stuff eventually?

Because that's the long-term lesson of 3e, you know. It took nearly 20 years, but you finally, finally have people genuinely and openly admitting the faults that were there in 3e on day zero. People actually recognizing that a lot of the criticisms that were made for years....were in fact always perfectly valid, they were just covering for the system's limitations and unwilling to admit that a thing they liked playing had serious faults. Now, because they aren't actively playing it anymore, because it isn't part of their identity anymore, they can admit those faults.

Even casual players of 3e/PF1e now understand, yeah, Monks pretty much just suck, don't bother. Fighters are rough unless you get special GM favoritism. Spellcasters, just play competently--there's no need to optimize because a competent spellcaster will be extremely powerful in 3e. The only possible exception would be classes like Ranger, Bard, and Paladin, where they're weak enough to start out with that they benefit from trying to optimize, but strong enough to start with that you don't need to ruthlessly optimize in order to get something pretty dang good.

Folks legit have actually learned the limits of 3e now. Why is it that it's somehow good or right or helpful to decide, "Y'know what, don't bother asking anyone to learn the rules we spent 3+ years making, it doesn't actually matter"?

The correct response is to ask why people aren't learning the rules, so you can...y'know, write rules that people will actually learn.

Further: Everything I say is an opinion. That's what opinions are. If you take offense with my making my points with maximum force, I can't honestly apologize because I don't feel sorry, but I can say that that was how every English teacher I ever had taught me to speak: do not add "in my opinion" "I believe" "I think" etc., etc., because those water down your points. Whatever you write IS what you think, that's the whole point of expressing a thought to another person.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Is your argument that because it's the original designer saying it, it's not white room? Because that's not true at all. In fact the original designers probably did everything in the whitest of white rooms before any play testing was done.

I don't understand why you're comparing Battlemaster to Champion in a martial/caster thread. In any case, no one really denies the imbalance exists, we're just arguing over the degree of imbalance. More interesting to me is what to do about it. My inclination is to nerf spells to be more in line with the power of free or low cost abilities, seeing as these supposedly costly resources are so plentiful that in many games they never run out of them. I suppose another option would be to actually make spell slots scarce.

In either case, it's hard for a DM to do this with house rules. This level of change is getting to be like brain surgery on the game and I think player buyin would be an issue. It's at the point where you start looking for different systems.

Casters built for blasting do damage better than Battle Masters built for hitting things. Hence, for the Champion to even tread water, it has to at least keep up with the Battle Master, and the math for how much extra damage Battle Masters can do is very simple.

It's a useful comparison specifically because it shows just how weak the Fighter chassis is when you don't give it enough rounds of combat. Meanwhile, spellcasters thrive in reduced combat rounds per day. The closer you get to ~10 rounds of combat per day, the closer you get to "spellcasters can cast a spell every round of every combat". If the Champion is being left in the dust by other types of Fighters, how can it possibly be keeping up with spellcasters, unless the GM is actively distorting the rules to favor the Champion? The Battle Master already has some struggles and would really like just one extra short rest per day (that is, an average of 3/day not 2/day).

Further, keep in mind the explicit statement from the designers: expecting 6-8 encounters a day. If you assume most combats are 3-4 rounds...that gives us about 8 three-round encounters or about 6 four-round encounters (24 rounds either way), or some mix thereof. Sure, you can try to instead go for longer combats but 5e doesn't really do long combats all that well. Sure, you could go for shorter combats, but then you'll need scads of them just to let the Fighter keep up.

This isn't some random theory divorced from reality. It is, quite literally, what the designers built the game around. The practical assumptions they built their calculations upon. They weren't kidding when they talked about the 6-8 encounters thing. Just about the only part where they were kidding was their insistence that it doesn't have to be combat; as you can see, even those 6-8 encounters a day still leave the poor Champion in the dust compared to the actual performance baseline for Fighters, the Battle Master. You'd need to start with an 18-20 crit range to make this work right in less than 22 rounds of combat.

And, to be clear, it's not just Fighters. Non-caster Barbarians, Rogues, and Monks all fall into the same boat, and ironically so do Warlocks for a large chunk of the game.

 

[Zardnaar]

Peopke compla8ned about 3.

See, that's where I'm completely convinced you're wrong.

You are correct that the wider D&D world is often ignorant of the specifics. That I can believe is true.

I completely reject the claim that because they are ignorant, that means that the system is completely irrelevant. That doesn't follow.

Instead, we have to ask: Why don't they know? What do they see? What things do they figure out?

And, most important of all: Why does it seem to be the case that people do learn this stuff eventually?

Because that's the long-term lesson of 3e, you know. It took nearly 20 years, but you finally, finally have people genuinely and openly admitting the faults that were there in 3e on day zero. People actually recognizing that a lot of the criticisms that were made for years....were in fact always perfectly valid, they were just covering for the system's limitations and unwilling to admit that a thing they liked playing had serious faults. Now, because they aren't actively playing it anymore, because it isn't part of their identity anymore, they can admit those faults.

Even casual players of 3e/PF1e now understand, yeah, Monks pretty much just suck, don't bother. Fighters are rough unless you get special GM favoritism. Spellcasters, just play competently--there's no need to optimize because a competent spellcaster will be extremely powerful in 3e. The only possible exception would be classes like Ranger, Bard, and Paladin, where they're weak enough to start out with that they benefit from trying to optimize, but strong enough to start with that you don't need to ruthlessly optimize in order to get something pretty dang good.

Folks legit have actually learned the limits of 3e now. Why is it that it's somehow good or right or helpful to decide, "Y'know what, don't bother asking anyone to learn the rules we spent 3+ years making, it doesn't actually matter"?

The correct response is to ask why people aren't learning the rules, so you can...y'know, write rules that people will actually learn.

Further: Everything I say is an opinion. That's what opinions are. If you take offense with my making my points with maximum force, I can't honestly apologize because I don't feel sorry, but I can say that that was how every English teacher I ever had taught me to speak: do not add "in my opinion" "I believe" "I think" etc., etc., because those water down your points. Whatever you write IS what you think, that's the whole point of expressing a thought to another person.

Peopke complained about 3.5 back then. I made the following points (context 4E fixing 3.5).

1. 3.5 being broken was definitely a high level thing. 1 skeptical about how many games actually went that high. Vs forum theory crafting.

2. Prestige classes were actually optional. DM would have to allow specific combos.

3. Splatbooks were also optional. To break 3.5 you basically needed a druid or high lvl phb only. One would also have to get them. I had 60 odd most players I saw had 0. Occasional person has 1 or 2.

4. You needed the knowledge to powergame the system. Casuals lack that knowledge. Druid was the least favorite class or one of them iirc

3E worked better at the casual levrl imho. Early 3.0 we played it like 2E.

I suspect 4E fixed problems a lot of people didn't actually experience. Veteran gamers playing those high levels with the knowledge to break the game and a DM who said yes to everything coukd have experienced it sure. I doubt they were tge majority.

My houserules at the end (around 2008/10)were a list of banned stuff some optional rules from UA for druid and banned item creation feats porting in 2E rules.

Breaking 3E required specific books, knowledge,DM buy in and high level. I dont think a lot of tables had that combo een mine with 60 odd books as I missed a few.

Druid wotj natural spell was the worst offenders. I think a lot of thec
worst of it was theorycraft and games where DMs were inexperienced or said yes when they should've said no.

Houserules can't fix complexity though. We had a massive list of spells that needed ficed/baked on the old forums.

Rapid edition cycles didnt help. 3 core sets in 8 years. I dont think anyone coukd keep up with the bloat. We couldn't and had 6- ,hour weekly sessions

 

[Johngernaut]

Spell slots are already scarce. In 3.5e, at 20th level my wizards had an average of 53 spell slots available, and many more great spells to pick from at all levels. In 5e at 20th level you have 22, and spells above 6th level are relatively few to pick from, and far fewer spell slots. 3 at spell levels 7-9, where 3.5e had 15.

The comparison between 3E and 5E is interesting, but that's not what defines scarcity. It's more useful to look at whether you'll run out of spell slots if you cast one every round of combat which of course depends on how many rounds of combat there'll be between long rests. And I don't think level 20 is the best example, something like level 5 is probably a better average for most campaigns.

Anyway, it's true that spell slots are few enough that changing the rest rules is a viable way to grind down spell slots over the course of a campaign. It also requires building time pressure into the campaign, and a change in player mindset that they can't be fabulous and amazing at every juncture. This probably makes D&D less attractive for a lot of players.

It's a useful comparison specifically because it shows just how weak the Fighter chassis is when you don't give it enough rounds of combat. Meanwhile, spellcasters thrive in reduced combat rounds per day. The closer you get to ~10 rounds of combat per day, the closer you get to "spellcasters can cast a spell every round of every combat". If the Champion is being left in the dust by other types of Fighters, how can it possibly be keeping up with spellcasters, unless the GM is actively distorting the rules to favor the Champion? The Battle Master already has some struggles and would really like just one extra short rest per day (that is, an average of 3/day not 2/day).

Champion is the worst fighter subclass and one of the worst subclasses of any class, no argument there. Ok, the purple dragon knight was published, so maybe it's second worst.

I don't feel like doing the math to find out how long it takes for a fighter to catch up in damage to a caster dropping fireballs and cones of cold every round but I don't doubt it's a long time.

It's bad that there is this damage hole or deficit that some classes have to dig out of, because other classes are able to drop huge upfront damage and others do a slightly higher average damage over a long period of time. I don't think most D&D campaigns keep a damage scoreboard like this but it's probably felt at the table.

 

[Maxperson]

The comparison between 3E and 5E is interesting, but that's not what defines scarcity. It's more useful to look at whether you'll run out of spell slots if you cast one every round of combat which of course depends on how many rounds of combat there'll be between long rests. And I don't think level 20 is the best example, something like level 5 is probably a better average for most campaigns.

Anyway, it's true that spell slots are few enough that changing the rest rules is a viable way to grind down spell slots over the course of a campaign. It also requires building time pressure into the campaign, and a change in player mindset that they can't be fabulous and amazing at every juncture. This probably makes D&D less attractive for a lot of players.

Another thing you have to consider are utility spells. A fair amount of utility spells, taking slots away from combat use, are used throughout a day of adventuring(as opposed to adventuring day).

Also, the number of rounds folks are calculating here for the adventuring day balance is low. I keep seeing 23 rounds bandied about, but combats average 4 rounds and 6-8 medium to hard encounters at 4 rounds each is 24-32 rounds of combat. Taking away slots used for utility spells, even 22 spell slots leads to scarcity in combat during an actual adventuring day.

I've found that if you change to an adventuring week and you can't long rest until at least 7 days after your last one, you can fit in those 6-8 encounters spread out over a week, which is closer to how DMs actually plan out encounters. The game is far better balanced that way.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The comparison between 3E and 5E is interesting, but that's not what defines scarcity. It's more useful to look at whether you'll run out of spell slots if you cast one every round of combat which of course depends on how many rounds of combat there'll be between long rests. And I don't think level 20 is the best example, something like level 5 is probably a better average for most campaigns.

Anyway, it's true that spell slots are few enough that changing the rest rules is a viable way to grind down spell slots over the course of a campaign. It also requires building time pressure into the campaign, and a change in player mindset that they can't be fabulous and amazing at every juncture. This probably makes D&D less attractive for a lot of players.


Champion is the worst fighter subclass and one of the worst subclasses of any class, no argument there. Ok, the purple dragon knight was published, so maybe it's second worst.

I don't feel like doing the math to find out how long it takes for a fighter to catch up in damage to a caster dropping fireballs and cones of cold every round but I don't doubt it's a long time.

It's bad that there is this damage hole or deficit that some classes have to dig out of, because other classes are able to drop huge upfront damage and others do a slightly higher average damage over a long period of time. I don't think most D&D campaigns keep a damage scoreboard like this but it's probably felt at the table.

That last bit is more or less my point.

Zardnaar and others seem to be of the opinion that players are ignorant rubes who cannot observe that their characters fall short or fly insanely high. I don't accept that. Now, I certainly agree that it takes time. If players barely read the rules, then they have to rely on the (very crappy) human intuition about probabilities and such. But over time, folks notice. Which is exactly what I have been arguing @Zardnaar : sacrificing the long-term health and stability for the quick fix of a new edition that doesn't actually address the fundamentals.

Unfamiliarity and ignorance get you a few years at least. Maybe a decade if you're pretty lucky. But after that, the cracks show too badly. 4e was a couple years early for that relative to 3e's launch. Imagine if 4e had waited two years and really drilled down during that time, addressing the places where the math was still off and getting better feedback about what folks wanted in terms of presentation. Whole different ballgame if you ask me.

 

[tetrasodium]

Spell slots are already scarce. In 3.5e, at 20th level my wizards had an average of 53 spell slots available, and many more great spells to pick from at all levels. In 5e at 20th level you have 22, and spells above 6th level are relatively few to pick from, and far fewer spell slots. 3 at spell levels 7-9, where 3.5e had 15.

You ve got that backwards, simply counting the pool of spell slots and pretending functionality of those pools overlaps enough to support the comparison ignores the differences in how those too pools worked. Unless the wizard is using the lolbroke spell point variant they are preparing social utility control/(de)uff spells with vancian prep so some of those slots will be dedicated to spells that will turn out to be aimed at needs that just don't come up. In 5e however those spell slots can be used in any combo and prep can load up on top tier spells from All of those trivially with no real opportunity cost if a scenario for some of them never comes up.

 

[Johngernaut]

Also, the number of rounds folks are calculating here for the adventuring day balance is low. I keep seeing 23 rounds bandied about, but combats average 4 rounds and 6-8 medium to hard encounters at 4 rounds each is 24-32 rounds of combat. Taking away slots used for utility spells, even 22 spell slots leads to scarcity in combat during an actual adventuring day.

Some are also oversimplifying to that 6-8 encounters per day thing, when that's not the full story. It's ignoring the whole XP factor used to calculate encounter difficulty and there's a daily XP limit. 6-8 encounters assumes medium difficulty whereas the DMG clearly says this varies depends on the difficulty of the encounter, which is measured by the XP value of the monsters.

The other thing is spell slots are not the only resource. HP is too. And wizards and sorcerers get the least HP, and not coincidentally, they get the strongest spellcasting. So theoretically, running out of HP should be more of a problem for them than running out of spell slots.

In any case, I have a variant rule of slow natural recovery that applies to spell slots as well as HP to address this issue and I'm happy with it.

Imagine if 4e had waited two years and really drilled down during that time, addressing the places where the math was still off and getting better feedback about what folks wanted in terms of presentation. Whole different ballgame if you ask me.

There's a lot to like about 4E, but I'm not sure I'll ever warm up to the encounter/daily power model.