D&D 5E What is Over-Powered?

[SirAntoine]

The druid seems fine, except switch the 10th and 14th level circle of the moon powers.

 

[SirAntoine]

The fighter seems mostly okay, too. The champion should get one maneuver at 3rd level, though, plus one more at 7th level, then 10th, and 15th.

The eldritch knight is over-powered, of course. Give them d8 hit dice, make them have to take armor off to cast spells, and change the following abilities:

War Magic. The character just can cast cantrips in the same round they attack, or give the target a -1 penalty to save against the spell.

Eldritch Strike. Move this to 18th level. The character can make melee attacks with bonded weapons against a target at a distance of up to 5' away per level instead.

Improved War Magic. Move this to 10th level. The character can cast any spells in the same round they attack, or give the target a -2 penalty to save against the spell.

 

[Cernor]

-2/+4 sounds good. The damage is hugh enough to be significant, like your strength went up by eight, and with only a -2 to hit, you should hit a lot more often with this attack.

The problem is that the -2 would be equivalent to the target having half cover. If you have the Archery fighting style (like most Sharpshooters would), then the penalty of the feat is negated, essentially giving you a flat +4 to damage. The -5 penalty is more difficult to permanently counteract, being the equivalent of three quarters cover. You need the Archery fighting style and a +3 weapon, which shouldn't be available until at least level 11, to negate the penalty (without expending other resources).

 

[Tony Vargas]

It was at the very beginning, when they announced they were making 5th Edition. They said we'd be able to play a character from any edition at the same table where other players have characters from different editions. This was discussed at wizards.com, and we concluded that Wizards of the Coast accidentally left that impression with the way they worded the article. So maybe they didn't actually intend to do that.

What was expressed was not an intention to make actual characters from prior editions playable in 5e, but to make the styles or sorts of characters fans of each edition would want to play compatible in 5e, at the same table. They backpeddled rapidly, but they haven't actually missed the mark by that much. Apart from the Warlord, they've kept to their idea of putting every class from a PH1 in the 5e PH. And, each of those classes strongly resembles what they were in earlier editions. Apart from the Sorcerer, which is nothing like the 3.5 sorcerer, and apart from the fighter, ranger, rogue, paladin, cleric, druid, wizard, warlock, sorcerer, bard, barbarian and monk, being nothing like they were in 4e, that is. Heck, it's not even like the 5e & 3.5 sorcerer being different means you can't cast spontaneously in 5e - just that you don't /need/ a sorcerer (or favored soul) to be able to do that, so the sorcerer needed some other differentiating factor.

I imagined they were making the new edition "all-inclusive", and I expected huge rulebooks. I wanted to learn how to run the game for 4e players, alongside 3e players, etc.

The rulebooks aren't exactly thin. And, you probably can run the game satisfactorily with fans of 0D&D, B/X, BECMI, 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, AD&D, AD&D 2e, AD&D 2e w/C&T et.al, Rules Cyclopedia, and, heck, Arduin Grimoire, Hackmaster, and various OSR and d20 games, all at the same table, and have them each find quite a bit familiar and fun.

That's not a perfect success, but it's close enough.

 

[SirAntoine]

What was expressed was not an intention to make actual characters from prior editions playable in 5e, but to make the styles or sorts of characters fans of each edition would want to play compatible in 5e, at the same table. They backpeddled rapidly, but they haven't actually missed the mark by that much. Apart from the Warlord, they've kept to their idea of putting every class from a PH1 in the 5e PH. And, each of those classes strongly resembles what they were in earlier editions. Apart from the Sorcerer, which is nothing like the 3.5 sorcerer, and apart from the fighter, ranger, rogue, paladin, cleric, druid, wizard, warlock, sorcerer, bard, barbarian and monk, being nothing like they were in 4e, that is. Heck, it's not even like the 5e & 3.5 sorcerer being different means you can't cast spontaneously in 5e - just that you don't /need/ a sorcerer (or favored soul) to be able to do that, so the sorcerer needed some other differentiating factor.

The rulebooks aren't exactly thin. And, you probably can run the game satisfactorily with fans of 0D&D, B/X, BECMI, 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, AD&D, AD&D 2e, AD&D 2e w/C&T et.al, Rules Cyclopedia, and, heck, Arduin Grimoire, Hackmaster, and various OSR and d20 games, all at the same table, and have them each find quite a bit familiar and fun.

That's not a perfect success, but it's close enough.

Okay. I'm really happy the new game meets your approval.