D&D 5E What is Over-Powered?

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

I don't know about "complaints," but the druid (base class) is acknowledged as one of the two best summoner classes in the game in the guide here (http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4148541), tied with specialist Conjuror (wizard). So there's someone besides me out there who considers the druid to be already quite strong at the spell game before you even factor shapechanging into the equation.

I agree that if someone was expecting to play a druid as basically a fighter-in-Allosaur-form, they might not be happy at certain levels when their HULK SMASH move turns out to be weaker than the actual fighters against ogres-instead-of-orcs. If you had been critiquing strictly Moon Druid shapeshifting instead of Moon Druids I probably wouldn't have even opened my mouth, but I thought you were critiquing the whole package.

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.

This is an interesting assertion, and it's certainly one that 5E buys into: that classes need to be balanced on a moment-by-moment basis, instead of as a entire lifecycle that you buy into when you first generate the character. If you carry it to its logical conclusion, you'll see that all classes should therefore have the same resource mechanics too: "you'll be awesome for the hardest encounter of the day and then stink for all the rest" is the signature of a mid-level wizard who novas, which is bad both for him and for the fighter who gets to be consistently quite good at every fight but is outshone when the wizard novas. That's essentially the same dynamic as the LFQR mechanic you're criticizing except on a different timescale, and there are people who hate the fact that the wizard nova can happen. (That's the 5-minute adventuring day and half the "casters rule" debates there in a nutshell.)

At any rate, I take a global view of class power, so I personally don't find "you stink now but if you survive you'll be awesome" to be in any way un-fun, the way you said I should be. 5E doesn't do that anyway but if it did I wouldn't be upset.

Summoning has so far proven awful in actual gameplay. Like 'Okay, so I cast a summon spell. They act on "*rolls initiative*" about half a round from now.' 'Okay, the bad guys hit you. Check concentration.' '*roll* They all disappear'.

'Okay, this time I cast it before the combat. Then I switch into a dire wolf and they won't know which one is me, and it'll be great. *rolls initiative* Okay, I act on 20 and they're on 10. I charge up to attack. And get hit. And lose concentration. Before the summons act even once. Again.' 'If it's any consolation, I had three guys with AE in this combat, so at most they'd have gotten one attack off.' 'None'.

Huh. You play summoners very differently than I do. And your DM is much more fond of wizard artillery, I guess, if there are three Fireball casters in every combat. (The way I see it, if a wizard wastes a 3rd level spell killing off my wolf pack, he's down a 3rd level slot and I'm down a 3rd level slot, so we're even except that he wasted his spellcasting turn during combat and I expended mine before combat.) On playstyle: I'm more likely to hide in the woods and spellcast while my conjured wolfpack is tearing up the enemy. That's with my multiclassed Warlock/Lore Bard who admittedly has better non-concentration options than a Moon Druid does, but even if I were a druid I expect I'd be laying low and/or holding a bow and trying to look like an archer instead of a spellcaster, instead of charging into melee as the biggest wolf in the wolfpack and the most obvious target. And if I did have the same experience as you where "I act on a 20 and they're on a 10" my immediate reaction would just be, "Next time I'm going to hold my action". Different playstyles I guess.

It is definitely partially a player problem... Because dnd players hate giving up their turns to do nothing, and that was her other option.

Oh, yeah. That is definitely a playstyle difference. I have no problem whatsoever giving up my turn to Hold an Action, Hide, or Dodge. I'd rather give up a turn than give up HP and spell slots fighting on poor ground...

 

[krunchyfrogg]

I consider a high level Eldritch Knight Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter build to be over powered, as you can outshine all other party members combined in combat, and you have very little in the way of weakness (especially if you also pick up Resilience Wisdom).
Other Fighter subtypes can be problematic as well, but high level EKs can spam shield etc and become very hard to deal with.
Also these ranged builds render melee redundant, which I actually do consider game breaking if you also happen to have a melee character in your party.

What gives the Crossbow an advantage over the Long Bow? Is it only the 1d10 over the 1d8, or is there more to the equation?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What gives the Crossbow an advantage over the Long Bow? Is it only the 1d10 over the 1d8, or is there more to the equation?

There's a questionable interpretation whereby (according to some people) the rules-as-written allow you to carry a shield in one hand, a hand crossbow in the other, and then make your full attacks with the hand crossbow (including the -5/+10 to damage option) and then make a bonus action attack with the same crossbow on top of that. In short, the advantage lies in getting to use a shield and a bonus action attack, in melee as well as at range (thanks to Crossbow Expert removing disadvantage in melee).

There's also a slightly-less-questionable interpretation wherein you dual-wield hand crossbows and get the same effect sans shield.

 

[keterys]

I agree that if someone was expecting to play a druid as basically a fighter-in-Allosaur-form, they might not be happy at certain levels when their HULK SMASH move turns out to be weaker than the actual fighters against ogres-instead-of-orcs. If you had been critiquing strictly Moon Druid shapeshifting instead of Moon Druids I probably wouldn't have even opened my mouth, but I thought you were critiquing the whole package.

This particular player is I think trying to replicate a play experience from a previous edition that is not very tenable past 4th level, though was more than served by 2nd and 3rd. I might be wrong, but that's the impression I've gotten.

Huh. You play summoners very differently than I do.

Not my character, just my only observances of how well it's worked in play.

And your DM is much more fond of wizard artillery, I guess, if there are three Fireball casters in every combat. (The way I see it, if a wizard wastes a 3rd level spell killing off my wolf pack, he's down a 3rd level slot and I'm down a 3rd level slot, so we're even except that he wasted his spellcasting turn during combat and I expended mine before combat.)

Well, it's based on adventure writers, not DM, but I agree that it was an exceptional amount of AE. Every combat except 1 had an AE source in it, and that 1 that didn't I think actually did but we nuked the caster before he acted.

That said, given that it was things like "Cone of Cold, I hit everyone _but_ the guy who charged" there wasn't a lot of loss for including the summons. In this particular case we were attacking what we thought were normal soldiers defending a gate, so that we could break into a keep, and so _everyone_ was surprised by the 3 guys with lightning bolts.

On playstyle: I'm more likely to hide in the woods and spellcast while my conjured wolfpack is tearing up the enemy. That's with my multiclassed Warlock/Lore Bard who admittedly has better non-concentration options than a Moon Druid does, but even if I were a druid I expect I'd be laying low and/or holding a bow and trying to look like an archer instead of a spellcaster, instead of charging into melee as the biggest wolf in the wolfpack and the most obvious target. And if I did have the same experience as you where "I act on a 20 and they're on a 10" my immediate reaction would just be, "Next time I'm going to hold my action". Different playstyles I guess.

Definitely a different playstyle. That said - what's this "hold my action"? There's no delaying your initiative, so I'm guessing you mean take the Dodge action? Anyhow, I'd have been fine with her just controlling her wolf pack as well, but I'm not her.

Oh, yeah. That is definitely a playstyle difference. I have no problem whatsoever giving up my turn to Hold an Action, Hide, or Dodge. I'd rather give up a turn than give up HP and spell slots fighting on poor ground...

Yep. She didn't make a summoner. She made a shapeshifter, she was just looking for options of things she could do before combat before she shapeshifted.

 

[DaveDash]

What gives the Crossbow an advantage over the Long Bow? Is it only the 1d10 over the 1d8, or is there more to the equation?

It's a couple of things. It gives you an extra attack with a hand crossbow, and considering most of your damage comes from the +10, that's pretty powerful.

It also allows you to use your crossbow in melee, which is game breaking from a combat perspective if you happen to have melee characters in your party as well, since the ranged character can be just as effective in melee as ranged, yet the vice versa is not true.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Definitely a different playstyle. That said - what's this "hold my action"? There's no delaying your initiative, so I'm guessing you mean take the Dodge action? Anyhow, I'd have been fine with her just controlling her wolf pack as well, but I'm not her.

Technically this would be a "ready action". "I stay within the wolf pack and charge the enemy as soon as they charge."

Yes, I'm aware that the RAW are a little ambiguous as to whether you can ready a move and an action simultaneously (it says you can ready a "move or action" but it doesn't "or both" or "but not both"). As a DM I would totally allow this though, and as a player I would totally attempt to declare it. From a fiction perspective it makes perfect sense and from a RAW perspective it seems reasonable-if-ambiguous.

 

[SirAntoine]

It's a couple of things. It gives you an extra attack with a hand crossbow, and considering most of your damage comes from the +10, that's pretty powerful.

It also allows you to use your crossbow in melee, which is game breaking from a combat perspective if you happen to have melee characters in your party as well, since the ranged character can be just as effective in melee as ranged, yet the vice versa is not true.

They need to be very careful with this, because if missile fire becomes superior it will ruin D&D. You have to be more effective really, not just equally effective, in melee to justify using a sword.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

They need to be very careful with this, because if missile fire becomes superior it will ruin D&D. You have to be more effective really, not just equally effective, in melee to justify using a sword.

Too late! 5E is already there.

 

[DaveDash]

They need to be very careful with this, because if missile fire becomes superior it will ruin D&D. You have to be more effective really, not just equally effective, in melee to justify using a sword.

I agree completely, and I feel at higher levels missile is already pretty powerful due to the number of creatures that can fly, teleport, etc.

Also you can still don plate before you head into a dungeon as a low strength Crossbow Expert, you just move a bit slower, but who really cares since you're just as deadly at range. I have done this as a low level archer, since AC is critically important at low levels. Combined with EK + Shield you can get your AC up to 23 so you make a pretty decent tank.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I agree completely, and I feel at higher levels missile is already pretty powerful due to the number of creatures that can fly, teleport, etc.

Not to mention breathe fire in an area, charm anyone within 30 feet, stun everyone in a 60' cone, suck out your brains if they grapple you...

I've been looking through old AD&D material recently, which made me realize something striking about 5E: all special abilities in 5E have range limits. I can't think of a single 5E monster which does something to "anyone looking at it" or "anything it can see." And the range limits are all short. One of the reasons why missile combat is so strong in 5E is that range and the ability to disperse your PCs geographically without degrading their ability to apply force is the most effective defense against almost anything out there.

Put it this way: high-level Monks have fantastic saves, right? Proficient in everything at level 13 with the ability to reroll using ki. However, if two illithids Mind Blast a group of four 14th level Monks who are trying to melee their minions, one or two of the monks are likely to be stunned regardless. (+5 to Int saves means 10 or greater succeeds, meaning 45% chance for success, 79.75% chance when ki is factored in, so there are eight chances at about 20% success to stun a monk. Specifically, 4 * (1 - 0.7975)^2 = 1.43 monks on average will be stunned.) If the monks are dispersed and firing bows, however, only one monk at a time can be targeted and so only 0.364 monks will be stunned on average. It's true that the monks will chew through the minions 50% faster when using melee attacks instead of bows due to higher melee DPR, but 33% lower offense in exchange for 4x the defense is nothing but a win-win situation--not to mention the fact that missile weapons can potentially outright ignore the minions and go straight for the mind flayers.

On top of that, combat in 5E is mobile by default (can attack/cast spells in the middle of movement), and there are a number of cheap and easy ways to enhance your movement even further (class features like Cunning Action and monk/barb movement increases; low-level, widely-available, long-lasting stackable spells like Longstrider and Expeditious Retreat; feats like Mobile that combo even better with Cunning Action/Expeditious Retreat on rough terrain). Ranged combat is quite simply the dominant combat paradigm in 5E, and anyone who doesn't plan for combat to happen is doing it wrong, or has a DM who is deliberately going easy on them/depicting a tactically-inept opposition[1].

So far I've been enjoying 5E but if I burn out and quit/go back to AD&D, it will probably be over missile dominance. It makes the game just too easy.

-Max

[1] Possibly for legitimate reasons. If half the 5E players on the Internet believe in the superiority of Great Weapon Fighting style over Archery, why wouldn't stupid orcs be vulnerable to the same logic until someone shows them differently?