D&D 5E What is Over-Powered?

[Flamestrike]

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?

Replace the dot points in Wild Shape with this:

• A Druid in Wild shape retains the mental ability scores (Cha, Wis and Int), proficiencies, class features, Hit Dice and hit points of his normal form. The Druid gains the physical ability scores (Str, Dex, Con), size, AC, proficiencies, attacks, movement modes, speed, senses, resistances, immunities, vulnerabilities and special abilities of the wild shaped form.
• Druids gain a pool of temporary HP equal to (Druid level x 2) whenever they assume a Wild shape from their natural form.
• A Druid in Wild shape may calculate his AC by adding his proficiency bonus to the base forms AC.
• A Druid in Wild shape cannot use Multi attack if the form has the ability to do so. When a Druid in such a form takes the attack action, he may only use one of the listed attacks under Multi attack unless he also has the extra attack class feature. A character with at least 5 levels in Druid ignores this restriction, and can freely use multi attack if the beast he wild shapes into has the multi attack ability.
• A Druid may use either his own proficiency bonus or the beasts proficiency bonus (whichever is higher) for any melee or ranged attack, skill or save that either the Druid or the beast are proficient in. The Druid retains his own proficiencies (however some may be unusable in his new form) and gains the creatures proficiencies in its listed skills, saves and with its natural attacks. If the new form has abilities that require a saving throw to resist, the Druid may substitute his own Spell attack DC for the DC of the special attack.

Problem fixed at every level. Scales perfectly.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Okay so a few things. Firstly, "relatively equal" is hardly an exacting standard to meet, so please don't characterize my position as some kind of drive for mathematical perfection. And even if it were a rigorous standard, there are plenty of reasons for having different classes. Pemerton covered one end: different areas of focus. A Rogue, a Wizard, and a Fighter might be "relatively equal" in power at all levels, but capable of very different things. But there's another end to it too: different archetypes, and the degree to which you want to differentiate them. Are all characters that kill with some kind of physical implement "Fighters," or is it deeper than that? Does using magic definitely preclude being a "Fighter," or is it broader than that? Etc. Aesthetic reasons for having different classes are still perfectly valid.

I also strongly disagree with the notion that it is an "interesting choice" to be good early and poor late, or good late and poor early, or any combination or blending thereof. If you're an active participant in the game, the game should equip you with tools, knowledge, and a chance to learn and improve (both from successes and mistakes) without having to ditch your concept in all but rare cases. Choosing what block of sessions you get to have maximal agency is hardly a good thing, IMO. Especially given the fact that "good late" has been, in D&D editions, almost always superior to "good early," both in absolute and relative terms.

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?

I was exclusively considering the stuff you get for being a Moon Druid, since that's the example that was mentioned. Unless summoning is specially empowered for Moon Druids, of course. Don't have a copy on hand to check.

The point is: people gush over how OP Moon Druid Wild Shape is...but it's really only OP for specific windows. Its power comes in discrete chunks, rather than "smoothly." So people fret about how powerful it is and try to nerf it, not realizing that although it might seem bazonkers at level 2, if you nerf it, a few levels later it's not so hot. Then you hit the next improvement and it spikes, sailing over other characters to a high point. It's this zig-zagging I don't care for. I freely admit, it's a preference and not an objective fact--but I strongly believe everyone has a better experience when no one can expect to feel "marginalized," in a purely game-mechanical sense, at any point along their adventure, and the heavy zig-zagging of the Moon Druid's kit-specific stuff seems to encourage exactly that kind of situation.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The point is: people gush over how OP Moon Druid Wild Shape is...but it's really only OP for specific windows. Its power comes in discrete chunks, rather than "smoothly." So people fret about how powerful it is and try to nerf it, not realizing that although it might seem bazonkers at level 2, if you nerf it, a few levels later it's not so hot. Then you hit the next improvement and it spikes, sailing over other characters to a high point. It's this zig-zagging I don't care for. I freely admit, it's a preference and not an objective fact--but I strongly believe everyone has a better experience when no one can expect to feel "marginalized," in a purely game-mechanical sense, at any point along their adventure, and the heavy zig-zagging of the Moon Druid's kit-specific stuff seems to encourage exactly that kind of situation.

That's what I was trying to point out: the Moon Druid isn't like an AD&D wizard (much as I love them), where you have to make it through a brutal winnowing process in order to earn your long-term power. The Moon Druid is strong at every point in the game, it's just not the same strength at every point. He's always got new stuff coming online, and sometimes his old stuff improves.

It's somewhat similar to the way that, when enemies start having Legendary Resistance, the wizard has to adapt his tactics. He's still strong against Vampires, but he has to apply different strengths than he did when he was just fighting Trolls and Umber Hulks. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's what I was trying to point out: the Moon Druid isn't like an AD&D wizard (much as I love them), where you have to make it through a brutal winnowing process in order to earn your long-term power. The Moon Druid is strong at every point in the game, it's just not the same strength at every point. He's always got new stuff coming online, and sometimes his old stuff improves.

It's somewhat similar to the way that, when enemies start having Legendary Resistance, the wizard has to adapt his tactics. He's still strong against Vampires, but he has to apply different strengths than he did when he was just fighting Trolls and Umber Hulks. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Nor do I--in a very generic sense; adapting to a non-static world. But if I signed up for AWESOME SHAPECHANGE ACTION, and then learn that shapechanging is crap (hyperbolically speaking) for levels X-Y and W-Z, I'm not going to be very happy. And as mentioned, these summoning shenanigans are external to the Moon Druid. They're part of Druid, sure, but almost nobody complains about the Land Druid being "OP" and they should have the same spell stuff (as I understand it).

Needing to adapt because your old tools can't solve all future *kinds* of problems is fine. Needing to adapt because your old tools no longer work for solving the *same* kinds of problems irks me. I expect vampires--magical, sentient undead--to require novel solutions, they're a long step above most previous fare. I don't expect ogres to require you to abandon the tools that worked just fine against orcs or what-have-you. The specific creatures aren't the point--the point is "big mean sack of HP" describes both, while "vampire" almost always entails things that other kinds of undead don't, much like "werewolf" entails things that many beasts, even magical beasts, don't.

 

[Staffan]

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.

I think that makes for a very poor sense of balance in the context of an RPG. Telling the guy who plays a wizard "You're going to suck for the first six months of playing while the fighter guy shines" and the guy who plays a fighter "You're going to be awesome for the first six months of the campaign, and then you'll suck" won't make anyone very happy. Balance should be dealt with on a level-by-level basis, and any differentiation should be circumstantial. "You suck on the battlefield and excel in the courtroom" is a much more interesting type of balance.

 

[Cernor]

Edited: no longer relevant.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

This strikes me as particularly odd.

Its like saying:

"Since professional baseball is structured such that its players are segmented into tiered leagues (Rookie ball, A, AA, AAA, Major Leagues) based on their relative proficiency, there becomes no need for various positions (pitcher, catcher, shortstop, right-tfield, et al)."

 

[Gecko85]

I think that makes for a very poor sense of balance in the context of an RPG. Telling the guy who plays a wizard "You're going to suck for the first six months of playing while the fighter guy shines" and the guy who plays a fighter "You're going to be awesome for the first six months of the campaign, and then you'll suck" won't make anyone very happy. Balance should be dealt with on a level-by-level basis, and any differentiation should be circumstantial. "You suck on the battlefield and excel in the courtroom" is a much more interesting type of balance.

I wouldn't say any class sucks at any level - but relatively speaking one might be better than another at some given point. Which I think is fine, and some think is not.

 

[Gecko85]

This strikes me as particularly odd.

Its like saying:

"Since professional baseball is structured such that its players are segmented into tiered leagues (Rookie ball, A, AA, AAA, Major Leagues) based on their relative proficiency, there becomes no need for various positions (pitcher, catcher, shortstop, right-tfield, et al)."

Not quite what I was saying. Let's try this again.

Using your baseball analogy, each class is like a different position. Each has a particular job. Some players can play multiple positions (a utility player), while others are more specialized (a slugger, a closer, etc.) And some are less powerful, but no less important (a middle reliever). That's how I see the classes, too. When I said some were better early while others were better late, I was talking in relative terms. I don't think any class "sucks" compared to the others at any point. So, again, I disagree with the notion that every class needs to be somehow equal. Each class is important, but in different ways.

 

[Minsc]

LOL. I thought you were a newbie.

We call 3rd Edition - 5th Edition, "D&D 3rd Edition, or D&D 5th Edition", instead of "AD&D...", just for short! That was a decision Wizards of the Coast made long ago, probably to just use the brand name more simply, and for no other reason. Everyone knows it's really AD&D 5th Edition now, but AD&D has caught on nonetheless as referring to both 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D.

AD&D 1st Edition is the system that had the greater influence overall. It can be seen in D&D 5th Edition more even without ability score requirements. The most significant thing is the implementation of "races" to help define characters. In BECMI, there were only classes, even for elf, for example (1st level elf, then with experience advancing to 2nd level elf). The math is also AD&D's, and so are most of the spells and monsters.

I remember reading, at the time, that the decision to drop "Advanced" was made because it might scare away new players, thinking the game would be too difficult.

I absolutely love 2e. I grew up on Basic D&D and 2e.

The mechanics are different for every edition. I happen to enjoy 5e the most (in my limited experience).