D&D 5E What is Over-Powered?

[Flamestrike]

Is it fair to say a Human Fighter, Paladin, or Barbarian is the most powerful character levels 1-4?

Moon Druid.

 

[SilverfireSage]

Okay, but let me put it like this. If the average damage for a hit is 4 in AD&D, but 15 in 5th Edition, that is 3.75 times as much. So would you be okay with 6th Edition making the average damage for a hit 56? What is stupid about 56 then, which could be balanced just as easily, but which isn't stupid about 15 instead of 4?

It would be nice to be "on the same page" if you share stories between playing different editions, and I don't see any reason for the bigger numbers. It's what we have in print now, but I can hope it doesn't get to 56 and that it goes back to 4.

It allows for more variability and more scale when it comes to monsters and power levels. It's absolutely absurd that in AD&D, a red dragon can be felled potentially by a critical hit because it rolled low on hit points. Having bigger numbers allows for the monsters that should be powerful to be powerful, and this works in a mechanical and in a story sense. If you're fighting a gargantuan red dragon, do you expect it to die in just a few hits or do you expect it to be a long drawn out fight with a bunch of tactics and variation?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have been reading the PHB, and so far I am finding quite a lot to be overpowered. Has anyone felt this way?

Though I admit I haven't read through most of the thread up to now, this kinda confuses me. First impressions can be wildly inaccurate (consider the initial fan reaction to the 3e Monk vs. today's), and it seems a little weird to consider "quite a lot" of things overpowered. I mean, it sounds like hyperbole, and only possible in a relatively narrow sense (e.g. "most classes can take control of a campaign away from the DM" or whatever).

In general, I think 5e is...inconsistent about power scale. Some might call that "organic," or the like, and consider it a positive. I don't.

Moon Druid.

Druid is a great example of this inconsistency. At specific points, it greatly outshines alternatives. At others, it actually starts to lag behind...for exactly the same reasons as why it used to be OP. Most attempts to fix it will just break things somewhere else, and often in obscure ways. It isn't beyond fixing, but it's a challenge.

 

[SirAntoine]

It allows for more variability and more scale when it comes to monsters and power levels. It's absolutely absurd that in AD&D, a red dragon can be felled potentially by a critical hit because it rolled low on hit points. Having bigger numbers allows for the monsters that should be powerful to be powerful, and this works in a mechanical and in a story sense. If you're fighting a gargantuan red dragon, do you expect it to die in just a few hits or do you expect it to be a long drawn out fight with a bunch of tactics and variation?

This is a very good answer. In terms of variability and more scale, I have to say you may be on to something. But I want the monsters to have randomly rolled hit points, with low minimums and very little bonuses on their hit dice. I like the possibility they have more than average, too.

 

[Gecko85]

Druid is a great example of this inconsistency. At specific points, it greatly outshines alternatives. At others, it actually starts to lag behind...for exactly the same reasons as why it used to be OP. Most attempts to fix it will just break things somewhere else, and often in obscure ways. It isn't beyond fixing, but it's a challenge.

Not sure I see why that's a problem. If every class was relatively equal to every othe class, at each level, then why even have classes? To me, each class has a trade off. Some are better at lower levels, some at higher levels, others more "pretty good" all the way through. Makes for interesting choices and interesting parties.

 

[Diamabel]

Okay, but let me put it like this. If the average damage for a hit is 4 in AD&D, but 15 in 5th Edition, that is 3.75 times as much. So would you be okay with 6th Edition making the average damage for a hit 56? What is stupid about 56 then, which could be balanced just as easily, but which isn't stupid about 15 instead of 4?

It would be nice to be "on the same page" if you share stories between playing different editions, and I don't see any reason for the bigger numbers. It's what we have in print now, but I can hope it doesn't get to 56 and that it goes back to 4.

A few thoughts.

The numbers have not been increased arbitrarily- the increases you see in 5th compared to AD&D make more numbers meaningful, example:

Strength score- in AD&D, strength had little meaning unless you had a very high or very low score. You needed a score of 16 to receive a single +0/+1 bonus, or a 7 or less to get a penalty.
So.. any strength score between 8 and 15- where the bulk of stats will fall, are identical.(in combat) In addition, 18(x) was *substantially* more powerful than 17, especially on the higher end.

In 5th edition, you get -1 at 8-9, 0 at 10-11(10.5 being the average human score) and +1 at 12-13, with each increment of 2 giving +1 or -1 accordingly. There is relevant difference every 2 stat points.

Now compare the hit/damage bonuses between a maximum strength human fighter:
AD&D: 18(00)str +3/+6
5th: 20 str +5/+5

Not all that different at the top end, but VASTLY different with an average score.

Having meaningful stat lines and slightly more bonuses increase the average damage... but they also somewhat normalize the damage, hitpoints, etc.
You won't end up with 7 hitpoint ogres and 40 hitpoint ogres. "But variance is good!" - to a point.. Ogres as weak(hp wise) as an orc? nah.

I don't believe this to be a case of number creep (3rd would be much of a culprit in that), but of normalization, meaningful choice and character growth.. and importantly, design space.

You make a strange comparison regarding "average damage". Average damage of *what*? a kobold? an ogre? a dragon?

There is a sweet spot, in my opinion- How many average hits for an average strength person to kill an average kobold? This is a more important question than what numbers to use. If you can answer with "2 hits with a 1d6 spear, on average" then you could set up the average kobold to have 6 hitpoints. An exceptionally tough kobold might survive one more spear thrust, while a strong fighter could kill the average kobold with a a single hit.

Why not smaller numbers? because each number can end up being too large a percentage of the maximum, when you are dealing with whole numbers only. With smaller numbers, you remove meaningful stats.. even if they are above average! because in the context of AD&D, +1 hit and damage vs low hp enemies matters more than it does in 5th... and there is no middle ground.

 

[Diamabel]

This is a very good answer. In terms of variability and more scale, I have to say you may be on to something. But I want the monsters to have randomly rolled hit points, with low minimums and very little bonuses on their hit dice. I like the possibility they have more than average, too.

Scale is very important.. you can still have the variance, but within bounds.. 5th ed ogres have a 28-91 hitpoint range. Huge variance, but.. an ogre is an ogre! It will never fall into the HP levels of an orc, for example.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Druid is a great example of this inconsistency. At specific points, it greatly outshines alternatives. At others, it actually starts to lag behind...for exactly the same reasons as why it used to be OP. Most attempts to fix it will just break things somewhere else, and often in obscure ways. It isn't beyond fixing, but it's a challenge.

I don't think there is any point past 1st level where Moon Druids lag behind.

Level 1: Not much
Level 2-4: Change into dire wolf/grizzly form for combat
Level 5-9: Shapechanged forms lose some punch, but luckily for you, Conjure Animals just came online! And at level 7, so does Conjure Minor Elementals/Woodland Creatures! (As I read RAW, the spell doesn't let you choose which fey gets summoned, so the 8x Pixie cheese won't work unless your DM wants it to, but summoning eight other creatures still does great things for your HP pool and action economy.)
Level 10: Hey, shapechanging is in again! Elemental form is online.

I haven't played with Moon Druids past this point, so it's possible that maybe you're right and it's right at level 11 that Moon Druids fall behind, but it's hard for me to imagine that being the case because conjuring stuff is still fantastic and you're now getting access to high-level spells like Transport Via Plants (awesome!)/Fire Storm/Regenerate/Anti-Life Shell/etc. Those options don't seem weak enough to say druids are at any point weaker than average. It seems to me that the druid has a nice set of overlapping abilities that function at all levels of play past level 2. Could you clarify where you see them lagging?

 

[pemerton]

If every class was relatively equal to every othe class, at each level, then why even have classes?

Because they are good at different things?

 

[Hussar]

Okay, but let me put it like this. If the average damage for a hit is 4 in AD&D, but 15 in 5th Edition, that is 3.75 times as much. So would you be okay with 6th Edition making the average damage for a hit 56? What is stupid about 56 then, which could be balanced just as easily, but which isn't stupid about 15 instead of 4?

It would be nice to be "on the same page" if you share stories between playing different editions, and I don't see any reason for the bigger numbers. It's what we have in print now, but I can hope it doesn't get to 56 and that it goes back to 4.

There is a very good reason for the bigger numbers - increased granularity. If a kobold can do 4 points of damage, and an ogre tops out at weapon+6 and a Fire giant at weapon +10 (the stat block lists 30 as the max - 2d10+10) that doesn't leave a whole lot of space. How much damage should a hill giant do? Or a troll?

You wound up pretty much unkillable in melee by 8th or 9th level in AD&D by any single monster.

By spreading that damage out, melee combat becomes a LOT more lethal. A 3e troll can potentially do 50 points of damage in a single round, more than virtually any 1e monster in a single round. Giants were hitting the low hundred points in 3e as well. it adds granularity and makes it so that melee combat remains a dangerous business.