D&D 5E What is Over-Powered?

[DaveDash]

I guess I'll run this by my test party then. My first thought is that Greater Invisibility has a paltry duration, so as soon as they recognize what's happening they will just pull back (SOP when encountering unknown threats), assuming they don't simply kill the thing despite its invisibility. But maybe this will be the one time when a monster actually earns its CR.

Am I to assume the strategy involves detecting the party's approach in advance, casting Greater Invisibility, then Mind Blasting them all in a concentrated group before grappling/Misty Stepping to a place where it can eat the brains in peace? Is that the gist of it? It could work, although it would work a lot better if the Mind Flayer had an Intellect Devourer along to detect the Shadow Monk sneaking around. That would raise the difficulty to 30% over Deadly of course, but it could work.

Yes that's the general idea.

If the mind flayer is unlucky and goes last, it can misty step into position and mind blast.

Greater Invisibility is so it can attack with advantage and then grapple without the players stopping it. A lot of character abilities like cutting words etc require sight to work. It also makes it a lot harder to hit

Since it's an arcanist, it wouldn't be unheard of for it to have placed a few alarm spells around the place.

 

[aramis erak]

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

The power level in general is higher than AD&D or pre-3 D&D at low levels, but by mid-levels, no, it's not. And casters are considerably less powerful by level 11+

 

[SirAntoine]

The power level in general is higher than AD&D or pre-3 D&D at low levels, but by mid-levels, no, it's not. And casters are considerably less powerful by level 11+

Compared to AD&D it's far over-powered. I'd say even at high level though spell-casters not so much.

I can appreciate the desire to give all classes more powers, or even just new powers, in the interests of creativity and competition with other RPG's, but there is definitely a problem with the design philosophy behind 5th Edition. In AD&D 2nd Edition, when kits were introduced, they came with special benefits and hindrances. Leaving the creativity and competition with other RPG's aside, 5th Edition should have written hindrances for all of the new and improved powers that went above and beyond what you had in AD&D.

I am tempted to go class by class, calling out what I see as unbalanced from the PHB, but there is so much I am discouraged. I just opened it to the barbarian now, and there are all these totem powers, with no hindrances, and extra critical damage, extra ability scores, etc.. It's like the critical hit/ fumble problem. If you are going to allow a critical hit, you need to balance it with a fumble. Many will react like this would only be punishing players, but D&D has lost its grittiness and its realism and sense of desperation.

 

[Gadget]

Compared to AD&D it's far over-powered. I'd say even at high level though spell-casters not so much.

I can appreciate the desire to give all classes more powers, or even just new powers, in the interests of creativity and competition with other RPG's, but there is definitely a problem with the design philosophy behind 5th Edition. In AD&D 2nd Edition, when kits were introduced, they came with special benefits and hindrances. Leaving the creativity and competition with other RPG's aside, 5th Edition should have written hindrances for all of the new and improved powers that went above and beyond what you had in AD&D.

You seem to be coming at this from an AD&D/OSR perspective; is that correct? It may seem that way but this is a different context and a direct comparison does not tell the whole tale without context. You are forgetting that 2E also had a fundamental flaw that many of the mechanical 'power ups' were 'balanced' with role-playing restrictions that were easily bypassed or not applicable in many campaigns. If you took a 5e character and drooped them in a 2e campaign, would they be balanced? I don't know, but that is not really a relevant question.

I am tempted to go class by class, calling out what I see as unbalanced from the PHB, but there is so much I am discouraged. I just opened it to the barbarian now, and there are all these totem powers, with no hindrances, and extra critical damage, extra ability scores, etc.. It's like the critical hit/ fumble problem. If you are going to allow a critical hit, you need to balance it with a fumble. Many will react like this would only be punishing players, but D&D has lost its grittiness and its realism and sense of desperation.

I would submit that D&D never really had any 'realism'. The DMG has many options to make it more gritty if you so choose. I would advise on trying things out in context rather than reading things based on playing them in an BCMI/AD&D game.

 

[SirAntoine]

You seem to be coming at this from an AD&D/OSR perspective; is that correct? It may seem that way but this is a different context and a direct comparison does not tell the whole tale without context. You are forgetting that 2E also had a fundamental flaw that many of the mechanical 'power ups' were 'balanced' with role-playing restrictions that were easily bypassed or not applicable in many campaigns. If you took a 5e character and drooped them in a 2e campaign, would they be balanced? I don't know, but that is not really a relevant question.



I would submit that D&D never really had any 'realism'. The DMG has many options to make it more gritty if you so choose. I would advise on trying things out in context rather than reading things based on playing them in an BCMI/AD&D game.

I disagree it's a different context. Coming to 5th Edition from any previous edition of D&D is equally valid, and there is a growing concensus that one reason why 5th Edition is as good as it is, is because the designers wisely went back to AD&D for many ideas. There were some kits in 2nd Edition that had ineffectual hindrances, but the intention was well made to balance the advantages. I don't see this in 5th Edition.

I personally come at 5th Edition with the intent to a) learn how to play it, and b) see if anything is good for my campaign.

 

[Gadget]

The context is different because it is a different edition. Whether or not the designers went back to AD&D for ideas is neither here nor there; the designers were trying to evoke the feel and/or style of previous editions, not the exact mechanical constructs. The question is whether or not something is balanced in 5th Edition; not how balanced a 5e character dropped them into an AD&D campaign would be. There has been a lot of game design work done, particularly in the balance department, in the years since AD&D.

There may be a few balance problems in 5e, but classes having abilities or powers without 'hinderances' in general is not generally one them. These classes have these abilities in leu of other abilities they would have had if they chose a different class. I would suggest looking at the free to download Basic game pdf, which has more traditional classes (with the default subclass built in) that may be more of a strait forward comparison.

 

[SirAntoine]

A lot of what is over-powered, which is subjective, depends on how much you want to permit outstanding characters to outshine average ones in the system. This is the most difficult aspect of AD&D, particularly 1st Edition, where some classes vastly outshined others. Point-buy ability score generation is often picked to limit this between individuals, but the original rules were made with the expectation that a random ability score generation would provide your options of what character to play. This limited the overall number of rangers, paladins, and even magic-users, but when you take that away everyone would be free to be one of the strongest classes. (Though the number of rangers in a party was limited to three.) Just some thoughts.

 

[SirAntoine]

The context is different because it is a different edition. Whether or not the designers went back to AD&D for ideas is neither here nor there; the designers were trying to evoke the feel and/or style of previous editions, not the exact mechanical constructs. The question is whether or not something is balanced in 5th Edition; not how balanced a 5e character dropped them into an AD&D campaign would be. There has been a lot of game design work done, particularly in the balance department, in the years since AD&D.

There may be a few balance problems in 5e, but classes having abilities or powers without 'hinderances' in general is not generally one them. These classes have these abilities in leu of other abilities they would have had if they chose a different class. I would suggest looking at the free to download Basic game pdf, which has more traditional classes (with the default subclass built in) that may be more of a strait forward comparison.

What is more important, though, in the title, "D&D 5th Edition", the fact it's D&D or that it's the 5th Edition? Anyone buying it expects it to be D&D, based on what they expect. I agree they have tried to evoke something of a feel from AD&D, but in leaving behind such all-inclusive, important mechanical constructs they have fallen flat on their faces.

And the question is what is over-powered in 5th Edition, for you, not whether 5th Edition is "balanced".

 

[SirAntoine]

Much that is the game is not there for balance, either. Rolling for more hit points at every level, instead of just for the first nine, is just in the game as a matter of taste. Its effect is to badly reduce compatibility, and hurt the balance that existed before. Ability score increases, too, are just a matter of taste but they are in the new game despite having been extremely rare before. The result is a change in flavor, and hurting the balance yet again.

 

[Diamabel]

Compared to AD&D it's far over-powered. I'd say even at high level though spell-casters not so much.

I can appreciate the desire to give all classes more powers, or even just new powers, in the interests of creativity and competition with other RPG's, but there is definitely a problem with the design philosophy behind 5th Edition. In AD&D 2nd Edition, when kits were introduced, they came with special benefits and hindrances. Leaving the creativity and competition with other RPG's aside, 5th Edition should have written hindrances for all of the new and improved powers that went above and beyond what you had in AD&D.

I am tempted to go class by class, calling out what I see as unbalanced from the PHB, but there is so much I am discouraged. I just opened it to the barbarian now, and there are all these totem powers, with no hindrances, and extra critical damage, extra ability scores, etc.. It's like the critical hit/ fumble problem. If you are going to allow a critical hit, you need to balance it with a fumble. Many will react like this would only be punishing players, but D&D has lost its grittiness and its realism and sense of desperation.

You assume that "gritty realism and desperation" should be forced upon the players artificially through the system, rather than the situations they are in during play. There is no need to "balance" a critical hit with a fumble.. that is not balance. Can players crit enemies? yes. Can enemies crit players? yes. *That* is balance(kind of).

In 5th, everyone gets to choose a different set of powers and abilities. Why should those abilities come at the cost of anything, other than "not getting the powers other classes get"?

Want to play hard mode? sure, go for it.. but there is no need to force it on everyone through punishing game mechanics.

5th edition, more than any prior edition has at least attempted to balance the game so that *all* classes are powerful in a different way, and all have appeal. Some abilities are out of scale, but it's reasonably close, for the most part.

You mention later "the original rules were made with the expectation that a random ability score generation would provide your options of what character to play. This limited the overall number of rangers, paladins, and even magic-users, but when you take that away everyone would be free to be one of the strongest classes."

This is terrible design. TERRIBLE. It's more punishment for bad rolls. Oh, you rolled poor enough not to be able to play a good class? Well, enjoy your low scores and substandard class, peasant!