D&D 5E PvP Class Comparisons

[Argyle King]

Is the issue any PvP or incidental PvP?

Very few RPGs, if any, can cope with accidental or incidental PvP, which is harder to cope with than pre--declared PvP. I feel it needs to be known beforehand to all players if PvP is acceptable or expected, and what the limits are. It makes a great difference to what classes are viable and the desirability or otherwise of various build options, and it can be very constraining, as a lot of options valid in a normal game aren't as viable.

I don't understand the allusion to GURPS as better supporting accidental PvP. Gurps PCs can have no combat skills above default, and first strike is very powerful in Gurps. A Spec Ops gurps PC could easily take out a bunch of equal pointed non-combatant PCs with very little risk.

I find the potential of PvP far more effective than the actuality. Tension between PCs can work very well, the actuality of PvP combat not so much, the latter tending to resentment and a series of retaliatory PC murders, especially amongst younger players.

The issue isn't really PvP at all. The issue is that the way PCs interact with the world is -at the same time- very different from how non-PCs interact with the world, and -on top of that- it also seems to be that they are very different from each other.

Yes, you are right, you might have zero combat skill in GURPS, and -quite obviously- you will be easily murdered by someone who is optimized for combat. However, the game isn't built to assume one method of conflict resolution is the primary method. The silver tongued bard with no combat skill can still contribute because multiple pillars are supported, and, not only can I try other methods of conflict resolution, but the system also makes an attempt to reward me for doing so. That's actually getting off topic, but you had questioned why I mentioned the game, so I felt inclined to answer. As far as straight combat, if I'm fighting a NPC warrior, the world works in a certain way. If I'm having a conflict with a PC, the world still works the same way. The assumptions of the entire world don't suddenly change drastically simply because I have a different target.

It seems as though I'm having trouble conveying the problem I have, so I'll try to break it down. While this discussion is about 5th, I do continue to use D&D 4E as an example because part of the problem I'm having with 5th right now is something that I think was visible in 4th and is easier to explain using 4th as an example. So, with that in mind, let's say we have three different sets of math: PC Math, non-PC Math, and World Math. 4E would look something like this:

4E PC Math................. 4E World Math................... 4E non-PC Math

To explain: Neither PC Math nor non-PC math matches up with the World Math. There were (and still are when I play the game) situations where the PCs can generate numbers which quite literally break the game world because of their damage output capabilities and etc being compared to the numbers used to build the world. That by itself isn't necessarily problematic. It's different than the style I general prefer, but it seems narratively appropriate for the style of game, so ok. The problem came when I started to realize that non-PC Math didn't match up with the World Math either, but it was on the opposite side of the scale; monsters which the game world and fluff said were feared creatures and terrors to behold had virtually zero chance of ever breaking out of even a simple item like dimensional shackles. PC's could break the world; meanwhile, the skills of their counterparts were so poor as to be shackled by the world and struggle to even do mundane things. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that the two sides of the game are built differently, but, surely, they can be built differently with a mind toward a more similar numeric interaction with the World Math.

So now, even though I feel this has little to do with my view, I will answer a quick question about GURPS because I assume it will (or would have) come up in response to what I've said thus far if I do not address it. Surely, the question will be asked, "but you build everything in GURPS, right?" Quite simply, no; no I don't. For the vast majority of things, I don't at all worry about character points when GMing. I create what I want to create without much of any mind paid toward building things the same way PCs are built. In that regard, I'd say my background with D&D 4th Edition vastly helped me to grasp how to run a GURPS 4E game without going insane. D&D taught me that I may not need to know everything for a non-PC that I need to know for a PC. However, the difference is that I can look at the world math when running one of my GURPS campaigns and still have an idea about how my creation will interact with both the PCs and the World Math. In spite of me using different methods of creating PC elements and non-PC elements, they still interact with the game world math in a commonly shared way. To give a better idea, I can fit most of what I need to know about several non-PCs on an index card; I don't in any way feel required to build everything brick by brick. I can do that -which is very different from the rules for making a PC- and not worry about whether a monster or super villain or town guard or whatever will for some arbitrary meta-game reason of different maths have to fear that Dark Shroud, the merciless super villain, will struggled to break down a simple door or some other mundane task while the PCs are sneezing and accidentally blowing holes in the world with at-will powers. (Though to be fair, if I really wanted that as some sort of comedic campaign premise, I could use the tools provided to build it.)

Now, back to D&D; fast forward to 5th Edition. The monsters still, quite frankly, seem to suck. Yes, I am aware these are playtest versions. Yes, I am aware that (supposedly) the math for creatures in the full version of the game will be different. Well, ok... but that still doesn't change that the non-PCs seem to be operating on a completely different scale than PC elements. Which is strange because I would generally assume that "bounded accuracy" would cause a bit more normalcy among the various math sets of the game. On top of that, the PCs are now also operating on different scales from each other. How it's different (to me) in D&D 5th as opposed to say a 500 Point GURPS accountant losing in combat to a 100 point warrior is for many reasons:

1) The 500 point accountant is forgoing combat ability and instead purchasing non-combat abilities. What is the D&D 5th Edition dual-wielding barbarian giving up when compared to the monk or -to use an example taken right from my original post- when compared to just the regular ole cliche barbarian using a big honkin' weapon? I'm not talking perfect balance here. If one character has less combat ability, but makes up for it by being better elsewhere, I'm not as bothered by it, but that is not (as far as I can tell in actual play) the case. Even worse is that I'm comparing two characters who have the same combat role when I watch one completely murder the other... not because of tactical choices or better weapons or better equipments or anything like that, but because one choice appears to be clearly better than the other choice.

2) I mentioned above that I'm ok with a character being less capable in straight combat if they make up for it other ways. Well, that is true to an extent. It's true if the methods of problem resolution are not weighted. What do I mean by that? Well, quite simply, if the game assumes that one method of problem resolution (i.e. combat) is the primary method, and the game also supports that method more than other methods then I argue that it's not an equal exchange to give up combat ability for something that benefits me in other pillars of play. If I'm playing a game where combat abilities are best 75% of the time and other things are best 25% of the time, then two characters who have spent equal effort to excel in their areas -one in combat; one in something else- are not honestly equal because the choices are weighted. If I'm playing a game where there is less assumption about what the "right" answer is for a problem, I feel that the choice to focus on one pillar or another is more of an actual choice.

This ties into why I kept mentioning that D&D 5th supposedly is being designed to encourage multiple pillars of play and styles of resolving problems. If that's true, then it shouldn't be an issue that the barbarian can murder better than the bard or the wizard or somebody else because things like knowledge skills, diplomacy, and other avenues of approach will be useful. Not only useful, but useful more often, and one method of resolving problems won't always feel like the trump card. I have no illusions about D&D not being an adventure game; it most certainly is, and, with that in mind, I do somewhat expect combat to be more supported by the system since killing monsters in a dungeon and taking their stuff is part of the D&D genre. However, even with that in mind, I have to then ask a few questions: a) if the choices/pillars are weighted, how are the classes which aren't focused in the primary pillar going to keep pace with those that are; b) shouldn't two classes which are geared toward the same pillar be more even; c) what are classes who focus in the primary pillar giving up so as to balance them against the other choices? B and C are the two which I feel my views on the disparity among classes find the most fault with, but A is important as well since it's really just a different way of saying what C says.

There are some classes which appear to give up a lot, but then there are others which don't appear to give up anything at all. Everyone gets what appears to be a balanced set of backgrounds to choose from; everyone gets skills, and feats, and other things. So then how exactly is the game supposed to show me that these different options are equal? It seems there are some options which get a bunch of cool stuff and a bunch of effective stuff to use in what I view as the primary pillar of D&D play, but then some options which get decidedly less; yet both sets of options get the same things in the other pillars too. I'm struggling to see how this balances out or creates a better game than what is already available under the same brand name. What is the new method offering me in this regard that the previous two editions have not? What is the new method offering me in this regard that I wouldn't otherwise find if I were to explore the even older editions which I'm currently not familiar with? None of that is even considering games outside of the D&D name.

3) This is somewhat related to what I've said already, but more consistent World Math and a more coherent relationship between World Math and both PC Math and Non-PC math makes the experience different. Yeah, sure, the 500 point accountant easily gets murdered, but he's still interacting with the world in the same manner. There's not one session where the adventuring party easily takes down the evil banker, but, during the next, the evil banker manages to TPK the party because a new player started controlling him as a PC and that meant a complete change in the math of how the character worked.

On the other hand, if I can repeat a part of what I've said previously though, the 500 point accountant actually is a more powerful character because he likely has wealth, contacts, allies, and a variety of other traits which the 100 point warrior does not have. Sure, he may easily die in a straight up conflict, but that's like saying the local mayor would easily die in a straight up fight. It may be that the mayor would, but he also has the resources of a town available to him, and he can, to a large extent, mold the conflict into what he wants it to be via political power.

In D&D, that same thing is supposed to be true, but really isn't. The mayor sends the town guard to try to arrest the PCs, but they get murdered, and I (as a player) start to wonder how safe the town really was if the guards were so terrible. However, then the mayor hires a barbarian to track down the party and we're all easily murdered... wait, what? Somehow that seems wrong, but apparently not to anyone else playing the game. On the other end of the spectrum, the DM decides to make the town guards super high level to handle the shenanigans of the PCs, but then I (as a player) wonder why the mayor was bothering to recruit my character at all if he has epic level guards at his disposal. Yes, this is an extreme example, but trying to give more reasonable examples (or what I thought were more reasonable examples) hasn't seemed to convey the problems I'm seeing.

I had thought bounded accuracy would help make the PCs feel like they exist as part of the world rather than feeling separated from it and above it. Note, that's not the same as me saying I feel the PCs should be ordinary. I'm fine with PCs being above what is normal; above average. I simply had assumed (and apparently very wrongly) that there would be a smaller range, and that that smaller range would mean less of a gap between pieces of the game... a smaller range between PC and non-PC, and also a smaller range among the various classes when compared to each other.

 

[Argyle King]

I can't think of many games, tabletop or otherwise, where a knowledgeable player won't destroy an inexperienced player (excluding luck). A skilled chess player can win multiple games at the same time. A good poker player can clear out an entire table. And, yes, a skilled RPG player can slaughter everyone else in the party.

...and I'm not discounting that, but I'm not even discussing experience. I'm discussing being told that two options are equally valid when they, in reality, are not. The player with the dual-wielding barbarian wasn't more experienced than the rest of the table. He's been playing 5th edition for the same amount of time as everyone else at the table. If we're talking pure D&D or pure rpg experience, it seems reasonable to assume he's one of the least experienced at the table because he's in his early 20s; the player of the other barbarian is in his late 40s or 50s (at least... he's never outright stated his age, but he's talked about playing 1st and 2nd Edition when he was in college) and has been playing D&D for a long time.

Not that it really matters, but, as an aside, the table I'm at during the Encounters seasons is pretty far from what most people would expect a D&D group to look like. Maybe giving some insight into the table will help. If not, it might at least be interesting or add context to the discussion. I myself am 31 and would dare say I don't look anything at all like the typical tabletop gamer; the DM of the table I tend to be at is I think somewhere around 28 or so and looks somewhat like a typical gamer; the guy playing the traitor was is in his early 20s, and then to the left of me sit three girls who are in their early 20s and don't at all look like what the stereotypical gamer girls are assumed to look like -in a good way.

Experience-wise, I've been playing rpgs for between 13-14 years. When it comes to D&D, I'm mostly familiar with 3rd and 4th Edition; I've also very briefly dabbled in 1st, but not enough for knowledge of the game to really stick with me, and I'm currently playing 5th via Encounters. Outside of D&D, I've played Rifts, Heroes Unlimited 2nd Edition, Dragon Age, Edge of The Empire, Pathfinder (which is still kinda D&D), GURPS 4th Edition, and GURPS Dungeon Fantasy. While DF is still GURPS 4E, I mention it separately because the product line is built with a more specific style of game in mind; one which can be (imo) reasonably compared to my experiences with D&D.

The DM has, I believe, a mainly D&D background which spans from 2nd to 5th. To some extent, I make the assumption he hasn't playing other games (or at least has played them very very little) because attempts to have conversations with him about other games have been mostly awkward. He's pretty loyal to the brand name, but has expressed doubt that he'll "switch' to 5th edition when it is released. He currently runs a 3rd Edition home game; has expressed a dislike of 4th, but has told of fond memories with 2nd.

The older guy (by which I don't mean old; just older than myself) has -as best I know- played every edition of D&D at some point or another. He enjoys what I'd consider something of an old school mentality; by that I mean magic items should be rare, and a player should be thankful for even a +1. He's lighthearted about it, and, in general, just seems to want to play and enjoy the experience. In previous seasons, he had been a DM, but wanted to play for this one. I'm not entirely sure of everything else he's played. I do know he plays Savage Worlds regularly because he's talked to me about the game before. I also know he's very much into painting minis and 3D terrain.

I know the least about the player of the traitor. I know he's in his early 20s. I'm know he's heavily played 4th Edition before, but I'm not sure if he had played D&D prior to that.

Directly to my left during this past session was a girl who is 21. She plays D&D, but it's (from what I can tell) a much more casual and social thing for her. She knows enough about the game to get the general concepts and understands the game, but doesn't put a lot of effort into thinking about the game as we're playing. From talking to her during game days, I've learned she plays a lot of video games, like ponies, and has experience with both Rifts (via an older brother,) and Edge of The Empire (which she loves.) She's also enjoys CCGs.

The next seat to my left was a girl who is just shy of being 20. I know she has some D&D experience, but, prior to meeting her during Encounters, I'm not sure what she's played. I think she's at least played 4th, and I know she has recently started playing 3rd with a group quite frequently... I know that because I've also recently joined the same group. She highly enjoys the rpg experience and looks forward to it every week. She also enjoys painting minis, Munchkin, Dr. Who, and various board games.

Continuing left is a girl who is in her early 20s, but I'm not exactly sure of her age. I do not believe she had played D&D prior to Encounters. She seems to highly enjoy the dramatic aspect of roleplaying; she has a drama background. Since starting to play, making characters and coming up with stories for them has become one of her hobbies. She currently has a notebook with several characters in it that she created for fun. I'm not aware of whether or not she plays other types of tabletop games. I know she's pretty big into comics and super heroes; preferring DC over Marvel.

 

[Argyle King]

The shorter version, for those who may not want to read the two huge posts prior to this one.


let's say we have three different sets of math: PC Math, non-PC Math, and World Math. 4E would look something like this:

4E PC Math....................... 4E World Math................... 4E non-PC Math


My preference would be something like this:

Game Math


However, I understand the difficulties involved in that, so I'd be willing to accept this:

PC Math...World Math...non-PC Math



Looking at the playtest and not having knowledge of the finished game, 5th edition currently looks (to me) something like this:

[some classes----------PC Math-------------some classes]......World Math(if you're not stabbing things see a different set of rules)......non-PC Math

 

[Gadget]

Jonny3D3D,

I think you have a point about imbalance here (with barbarians, TWP, & multiple attacks), and people are going a bit overboard on the PvP badwrongfun. Yet I can't say I agree with you. If I understand correctly, you seem to be advocating a process sim viewpoint in which 'the game rules (more specifically the PC rules) are the physics of the game world' and everything proceeds forth from that. 3xE taught me that I don't want to ever go back to that, even if 4e did go a little overboard in the other direction.

 

[Argyle King]

Jonny3D3D,

I think you have a point about imbalance here (with barbarians, TWP, & multiple attacks), and people are going a bit overboard on the PvP badwrongfun. Yet I can't say I agree with you. If I understand correctly, you seem to be advocating a process sim viewpoint in which 'the game rules (more specifically the PC rules) are the physics of the game world' and everything proceeds forth from that. 3xE taught me that I don't want to ever go back to that, even if 4e did go a little overboard in the other direction.

I'm not necessarily advocating "process sim" because I feel that implies that I want a D&D game which is 'more realistic.' To be fair, I would like that, but it's not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating something similar to what 3rd Edition did in that virtually everything in the game runs on the same math, but I am most certainly not advocating the 3rd Edition methodology.

Take the 4E approach of having PCs and monsters being built differently. I'm 100% ok with that. However, figure out a way to take that approach yet still have the 'PC Math' and 'non-PC Math' be more similar to the math which the game world is built upon. I believe it to be possible. Give me options, but have them be actual options instead of "well, I can pick one of these seven ok options or I can pick the one option which is obviously better than the rest." I believe that is possible too.

So, 4E methodology and 4E style flatter math, but more consistent and unified math in the vein of 3E. Monsters being built differently doesn't need to mean that they are built on a completely different set of assumptions than PCs. If 5E can manage to do that, I'll be happy. If 5E can manage to do that and still manage to be a simpler game (which I believe is possible to do,) that would be best.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

No. First level magic-user. Sleep. Entire party kill, like that.

But this is a key spell for why the magic-user in AD&D is important: it spends time being worse than the fighter, but can save the party when necessary.

The dynamics of adventuring games provide different dynamics to PvP games.

I understand that, when 1st-level mages had only 1 spell, this was balanced, but I don't think it's relevant in 5e. Mages now cast spells at-will. They don't need overpowered spells, even if the spell is only overpowered at low levels.

edit: I find a problem with sleep and D&D style magic too, but, if some of the other threads are any indication, any mention of increasing casting time or adding some other draw back to such spells is against the spirit of D&D. I've been told that casters being able to turn everyone else into dust is how you know the game is working properly.

On some forums, true, but many people who protest against adding drawbacks to spells are not a fan of "wizards rule, fighters drool". Rather, they want a better way of balancing wizards. IMO, the best way to balance a wizard is with balanced spells.

I don't like the idea of making spells hard to acquire or hard to cast or have very long memorization times (especially in an unfair way, easily doable in the first case, and unpredictable in the last case), a common feature of 2e and earlier D&D. I do like the idea of nerfing the heck out of spells like Greater Invisibility and Shapechange and Major Creation and Wish and... controlling save DCs so they're not so high.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The monsters still, quite frankly, seem to suck. Yes, I am aware these are playtest versions. Yes, I am aware that (supposedly) the math for creatures in the full version of the game will be different. Well, ok... but that still doesn't change that the non-PCs seem to be operating on a completely different scale than PC elements. Which is strange because I would generally assume that "bounded accuracy" would cause a bit more normalcy among the various math sets of the game.

What, specifically, do you mean by this? Do you just mean NPCs have different abilities (mob tactics, disciplined, condition if damage roll is high) than PCs? Or that they don't maximize their first hit die like PCs do? Or that they don't get a proficiency bonus the same way PCs do?

What is the D&D 5th Edition dual-wielding barbarian giving up when compared to...just the regular ole cliche barbarian using a big honkin' weapon?

The dual-wielding multiclass barbarian is an overpowered build. I don't think anyone would argue against that. Hopefully they fix it by the time the game comes out. It doesn't seem to be intentional.

Well, quite simply, if the game assumes that one method of problem resolution (i.e. combat) is the primary method, and the game also supports that method more than other methods then I argue that it's not an equal exchange to give up combat ability for something that benefits me in other pillars of play. If I'm playing a game where combat abilities are best 75% of the time and other things are best 25% of the time, then two characters who have spent equal effort to excel in their areas -one in combat; one in something else- are not honestly equal because the choices are weighted.

I think playtest feedback has clearly shown that players want all classes to be able to contribute in combat, and the designers have designed to that (which is why, e.g., the Rogue has Cunning Action and a really easy Sneak Attack). In other words, character effectiveness is already weighted towards combat.

The extremes of this can be dealt with by a pre-game talk. This game is going to be mostly combat, so take magic missile instead of comprehend languages. This game is going to be mostly infiltration, so take sleep instead of thunderwave. Etc.

There are some classes which appear to give up a lot, but then there are others which don't appear to give up anything at all. Everyone gets what appears to be a balanced set of backgrounds to choose from; everyone gets skills, and feats, and other things. So then how exactly is the game supposed to show me that these different options are equal? It seems there are some options which get a bunch of cool stuff and a bunch of effective stuff to use in what I view as the primary pillar of D&D play, but then some options which get decidedly less; yet both sets of options get the same things in the other pillars too.

Can you think of any specific examples? It seems to me that the classes that are worse at combat do get more stuff for the other pillars, and the classes that are best at combat don't get more stuff for the other pillars (beyond the baseline stuff that everyone gets).

The mayor sends the town guard to try to arrest the PCs, but they get murdered, and I (as a player) start to wonder how safe the town really was if the guards were so terrible. However, then the mayor hires a barbarian to track down the party and we're all easily murdered... wait, what? Somehow that seems wrong, but apparently not to anyone else playing the game.

It's hard to imagine that this high level barbarian is more effective than a few 0-level guards?

On the other end of the spectrum, the DM decides to make the town guards super high level to handle the shenanigans of the PCs, but then I (as a player) wonder why the mayor was bothering to recruit my character at all if he has epic level guards at his disposal.

If anything, 5e makes this easier, since higher-level characters aren't automatically immune to a whole bunch of lower-level characters.

I had thought bounded accuracy would help make the PCs feel like they exist as part of the world rather than feeling separated from it and above it. Note, that's not the same as me saying I feel the PCs should be ordinary. I'm fine with PCs being above what is normal; above average. I simply had assumed (and apparently very wrongly) that there would be a smaller range, and that that smaller range would mean less of a gap between pieces of the game... a smaller range between PC and non-PC

I don't understand what you mean by this, though. Yes, a 4th-level barbarian is better than a 0-level guard. That doesn't mean that there can't be 5th-level barbarian NPC out there?

 

[Argyle King]

What, specifically, do you mean by this? Do you just mean NPCs have different abilities (mob tactics, disciplined, condition if damage roll is high) than PCs? Or that they don't maximize their first hit die like PCs do? Or that they don't get a proficiency bonus the same way PCs do?

I mean several things. One of the things I mean by that is that -unless I do something incredibly stupid or use rather horrible tactics- it's pretty rare for me to feel that my character has been threatened during Encounters. An easy example is one of the sessions from this season. We decided to attack the pirate hideout head one. Despite the fact that there was something like 30 pirates, we (as the PCs) just sorta steamrolled them. To be fair, with two barbarians, a fighter, and a monk, we were a very melee heavy party, so that helped.

However, later, we also pretty much annihilated the Ice Witch. Though we then struggled against one PC. In the same encounter, I witnessed a change from "this is kinda easy" to "I think this might be a TPK" simply due to PC math being different. What I said at the end there is one of the primary things I mean. So, I suppose it's a little bit of everything you listed? I'm not quite sure. With such a drastic difference, it's hard for me to give worthwhile feedback.

I might propose that there seems to be little middle ground to the game. I say "might" only because it's difficult to point to one thing right now. I'm open to the probability that the math of the finished product will be much better, but I cannot look at that, so I can only consider what I have seen.


edit: I said it was rare for me to feel threatened in 5th. I want to explain that a little more because I suppose that's not 100% accurate. Most of the time, I do not feel threatened. However, when the game does reach a point where someone can seriously harm the party, it seems that people die quickly. There's very little middle ground; it goes from one extreme to the other. One thing I noticed is that everybody and everything in 5th edition seems to be very accurate; most things hit what they're aiming at most of the time. The bad part to that is an occasional feeling of rocket tag where one side wins initiative and proceeds to stomp the other side. Another problem with that is that multiple attacks become even better because it gives more opportunity to hit more things with the same amount of actions. This is another area where I feel a more normalized set of game maths would help.

I think playtest feedback has clearly shown that players want all classes to be able to contribute in combat, and the designers have designed to that (which is why, e.g., the Rogue has Cunning Action and a really easy Sneak Attack). In other words, character effectiveness is already weighted towards combat.

The extremes of this can be dealt with by a pre-game talk. This game is going to be mostly combat, so take magic missile instead of comprehend languages. This game is going to be mostly infiltration, so take sleep instead of thunderwave. Etc.

Can you think of any specific examples? It seems to me that the classes that are worse at combat do get more stuff for the other pillars, and the classes that are best at combat don't get more stuff for the other pillars (beyond the baseline stuff that everyone gets).

Right, things are weighted. So, if one option is weighted, is it really balanced to have one class be focused on a pillar which gets used 75% of the time and a different class be focused on a pillar which gets used 25% of the time? Even if the class focused on the 25% is twice as good at its particular focus, that's still not necessarily equal with the class which is focused on the 75%. If we can instead change those percentages to say 60/40, it's still not perfect, but it's close enough that I likely won't mind. Otherwise, I feel as though you run into the problem 4E sometimes had where you could focus on other things, but, in reality, doing so hurt the effectiveness of your character. Gee, do I take linguist for my feat or versatile expertise? I think, as much as possible, I should be able to make choices concerning my character based on what I think is cool rather than what the game says is the 'right way.' Even if there is a 'right way,' I don't like being beaten over the head with it so much that my experience turns into some 3E situations where I realize that I'm basically playing the game wrong if I choose certain classes and expect to be competent beyond a certain level.

Yes, I also agree that pre-game talk helps. I am a big advocate of that. Right now I'm running a super hero game. Prior to making characters, I sat down with the group and emphasized that, while there would be combat and many of the other tropes of comics, they should not ignore some basic mundane skills; at least have some thing that your character is good at outside of just fighting. It worked. I think that's part of the GM's job -to communicate game expectations to the group. What's difficult is when a game system is built in such a way that one option is weighted, but the options are generally presented as though they are not. Again, this is an area where I felt 3rd Edition did very poorly (despite the fact that I highly enjoy 3rd.) I think 3rd has a lot of 'trap choices' which look like they're really good on paper, but actually are not very good at all. As far as weight goes, 4th Edition is a good example too; why would I ever take a situational feat that gives me a minor bonus while holding a sword on the winter solstice during a rain storm when I can instead take a feat that gives me a flat bonus all the time? When it comes to weight, if the system assumes I'll be doing a particular activity most of the time, then focusing on something outside of that primary activity (because the game presents itself in a manner which says I can pick whatever I want and all choices are equal) gives me a worse character by no fault of my own. If you're telling me the game has a broader focus, but then actually building a game which primarily focuses on one area, I feel as though I'm not getting the proper 'pre-game talk' to help me align my expectations with what the game actually intends to do.

Unfortunately, I do not have a specific example which currently comes to mind. Encounters hasn't exactly been the best venue for pushing the boundaries of the game. As I gain more experience with the game and try different classes, I should be able to answer that better. I've made it a point to try different classes and options with each season so as to gain a broader view of how things work.

It's hard to imagine that this high level barbarian is more effective than a few 0-level guards?If anything, 5e makes this easier, since higher-level characters aren't automatically immune to a whole bunch of lower-level characters.

I don't understand what you mean by this, though. Yes, a 4th-level barbarian is better than a 0-level guard. That doesn't mean that there can't be 5th-level barbarian NPC out there?

After the fight against the pirates, I was expecting Shang Tsung to walk through the doors of the game store and announce "Flawless Victory."

I'm willing to accept that as some sort of fluke of luck perhaps. Maybe we were just simply very well suited to the task. There have been other combats which were not so one-sided, but then I also have to consider that I'm orchestrating combat plans with people I've largely never played with before and who have varying degrees of tactical sense. (Which is in no way meant to belittle or demean anyone; some people simply grasp tactical concepts better than others.) In my mind, I've tried to consider how some of the encounters (little e) might have gone with my home group; a group that I feel does very well when it comes to tactical thinking and working together as a cohesive unit.

I suppose what I want to avoid is how things were in the prior two editions. In 4th, it's pretty rare for my primary group to take the enemy seriously. In fact, the last three 4E campaigns have ended when the guy who typically DMs 4th for the group was so frustrated over how easily his encounters were getting crushed that he knew not what else to do. It's not that he was trying to kill us; he just tired of spending a lot of time creating interesting and dynamic encounters only to have the PCs (myself and the other people of that group) win most encounters with nary a scratch. In all fairness, I'd say the most recent 4E game was better in that regard, but it was better because the DM so heavily weighted encounters against us that the group was essentially facing the same challenges that a much larger group should face. However, once we hit level 8 (where the last game ended,) things started to look pretty much how they usually do for us. This became a problem for the group because some of the players felt that -short of the DM using 'god powers' to punish someone- they could typically run roughshod over most non-PCs without much fear of the game world being able to stop them. The problem got so bad at one point that the DM (same guy I mentioned above) stopped trying to run social encounters because it usually ended with some of the players simply deciding to kill of maim NPCs to get what they want. I've talked to him about it, and he (the 4E DM) expressed that he could sit and come up with PC-killer monsters every week to keep things in check, but doing so wasn't fun.

In 3rd, the town guard example I used isn't something which specifically happened, but it was a brief summary of how I sometimes looked at the game world. As a player, I'm someone who enjoys doing activities like building a castle; having followers, and other such things. When I first learned 3rd edition, it seemed like those were valid options, and, for a while, they were. However, there very quickly came a point when I realized that none of my followers could really contribute anything to me, and that I could likely kill all of them single-handedly without them ever taking even one HP from me. So, naturally, I then think "well, then what sense are armies in this world?" "If I can kill everybody in this town by myself, I don't understand how this town continues to exist." In contrast, if I then went to a 'higher level town' where the guards and NPCs were better, then it really didn't make any sense why someone of my lowly abilities would be hired? "So, wait, the king has a platoon of epic level guards, but he's paying level 4 PCs money to kill goblins? Why not just send one guard?"

Yeah, I know, I'm supposed to ignore that when playing D&D. Often, I do. I just accept that's how the game is played, but there are times when it's really hard to make myself ignore that. I like the idea that I advance. I like the idea that my character gets better and cooler powers. I dislike the idea that my PC can very quickly reach a point where I'm immune to the world.

In that regard, I think 5th is better. Despite the lackluster performance of the playtest and Encounters adversaries, the game at least appears to want to be closer to what I want. You hit the nail on the head by saying higher level characters aren't immune to lower level creatures; that's part of what I want. What I want, is, as I've said numerous times already, is for the PC side of things and the non-PC side of things to more consistently interact with the Game World Math. In 4th Edition, it's a little silly to me that I, as a PC, could quite literally use at-will powers to blow a hole through the gates of hell (something which happened in a campaign,) but a supposedly feared demon or other such creature had virtually zero chance to break a pair of handcuffs (dimensional shackles.)

I'm starting to babble I think and talk and circles, so, I'll try to sum up my point. In 3rd Edition, it seems hard for me to believe that the fighter and the druid are designed to be anywhere close to being equal. In 4th Edition, the PCs are very obviously so far beyond the bounds of the world they live in that it's hard to take the game world fiction of 'Points of Light' and the reputations of the villains seriously. What I want from 5th edition is a set of math for the game which fixes both of those problems. I should be in the same general ballpark of usefulness as other PCs, and I also believe that -while I'm ok with PCs being beyond what average people can do- PCs should be designed as part of the world instead of designed as being set apart from the world and operating on a completely different scale. I think, in many ways, 5th edition has made strides toward that, but I think further work toward that should be done, and I hope that the finished product is much closer to what I want. Unfortunately, it seems that what I want quite often is at odds with what the vast majority of people who have participated in the polls want, so I don't expect to get what I want.