D&D 5E What is Over-Powered?

[Staffan]

Maybe they took the "Advanced" Moniker off it for a reason. (Or maybe 3E still had the richness of AD&D and 5E only recently lost it? I don't have the historical context to know for sure here.)

They took off "Advanced" back in 3e because parents coming into stores and not buying "Advanced" Dungeons & Dragons for their kids was a real problem. Also, because one of the first things Wizards did when they bought TSR was buy off Dave Arneson so they wouldn't have to pay him royalties on non-Advanced D&D products.

 

[Hussar]

But you can't design classes in a vacuum. Classes have to be designed in relation to the math of the challenges they face. AdnD monsters were typically doing a it 4 damage per hit. 5e monsters are often doing 15 points. Which means classes need some means to mitigate that damage. Thus barbarians get resistance to damage.

 

[pemerton]

I am so pleased that 5th Edition brought back criticals on a natural 20, instead of demanding a reroll to confirm it.

As a side-note: in this respect 5e is following 4e, which had no critical confirmation rules.

 

[Diamabel]

I am really very humble. As for the rest of your comment, I need to get through the other classes to put everything into perspective. The fighter's superiority dice, for example, I may recommend changes to, and for the other classes. You say everything will be reduced to mediocrity, but I want to stop you there and say that it would be very balanced from what I am used to. The monsters wouldn't hit so hard, or have so many hit points. I want to use the original hit dice, such as 1-1 for goblins and 2 for gnolls. That is 1d8-1 (minimum 1) hit points for the standard goblin, and they just get a shortsword or spear typically, which does 1d6 points. You see where I am coming from? It's all different. I'm not going as far as to say 5th Edition should be a reprint of AD&D, it's just that there should be like a dial in the game to make it more like AD&D and BECMI also, in terms of power.

I'm the kind of player who never looks at the DMG or the MM, also. So all I know of the monsters is my expectations from earlier editions. I want to be able to join a 5th Edition game, say at a convention, and know how much it will take to defeat goblins. It's all very particular, I know, but I hope to find a proper balance between the old standard and the 5th Edition "modern" standard. I am not meaning to disrespect the 5th Edition or the modern standard.

Things sound very big to me, which your experience may show isn't. Advantage, for instance, sounds like a real big deal. Getting to roll a second die was unheard of, at least until the Choose Future spell from the Tome of Magic was released in 2nd Edition. I just don't feel the barbarian should be "twice" as strong as others with the same strength scores, or be able to fight with bonuses to damage without taking at least a small penalty. I am very much a believer in balancing things out that way, like the fumble with a natural 1 to balance the critical hit. Now I am maybe starting to rant, but I feel there is no other way to address your questions without explaining more of where I am coming from.

The barbarian's "resistance" to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage is a 50% reduction by the book in 5th Edition. This, too, was just unheard of before. I don't feel there is anything about the barbarian that would provide that kind of bonus. That is the kind of thing I might expect from an iron golem in the new edition, or from skeletons vs. piercing and slashing weapons. The barbarian already has extra hit points that let him take more damage. Damage reduction 3, which is 3 fewer points per hit down to a minimum of 1, is something I could live with. If you play with much higher damage, this maybe should be more significant, maybe something like 5 or 4 + 1 per three barbarian levels.

The stealth only working for 1 minute is poor, I agree, but again I am of the mindset that the stealth actually grants invisibility and silence so it's supernatural and pretty cool for a barbarian to me. (Thieves' hiding in shadows and moving silently actually grant invisibility and silence in all of the campaigns I've played.) If the stealth is something less than this, of course it should be longer, but again it's like taking the rogue's ability to me, and the tracking ability of the ranger, too, if it goes too long and the party doesn't feel they need a rogue or ranger to do most of the stealth or tracking. The book has it unlimited if I read it correctly. I just think that is over-powered given these points.

Retaliation now, it's really something I need to re-examine after analyzing the fighter's abilities. Retaliation is something that was unheard of as such before, and I think if anyone can do it, it should be the fighter. I would hate to think the monsters can retaliate. That practically changes the tone of combat in D&D, if so. I mean, you take turns attacking, and if they can attack back on your turn that would be an awesome surprise or a shock. Everyone would want to do it then, and I don't see why other characters couldn't try it. I wouldn't have introduced such a maneuver with the barbarian. That implies it's something primal, whereas I think it should have to be more of a finesse maneuver. It's big, so I put it this way.

Of course, I am just throwing darts at a board. I hope to engender discussion from others who can make suggestions. Paraxis, the Jester, Zardnaar, and steeldragons are just a few of the people I know who are experts with the mechanics and at DMing.

To make changes, things need to be done in context of the system as a whole.

Regarding retaliation: retaliation and battlemaster maneuver-riposte function similarly, but have much different intent.

Riposte can be activated on an enemy miss, signifying an opening in the defenses of the attacker caused by the failed attack- The skill of the battlemaster allows him take advantage of this small opening.

Retaliation however, while similar in end result, has MUCH different flavour- It activated on the barbarian being *hit*. It is the skill that says "Strike me, and I shall make you pay!"

This ties in to the theme of the barbarian- he's not particularly evasive, but can trade blows with powerful opponents.. Damage resistance supports this theme heavily. Warriors have armour and skill, rogues and monks have ways to avoid taking damage, while barbarians mitigate... and the few extra HP from barbarian d12 hit dice is not enough.

Barbarians already trade defense for more effective attacks with Reckless attack.. there is no need for further penalties. Barbarian stealth changes one thing- stealth while travelling at a normal pace, instead of half speed.. that is it.

In 5th edition, even the lowly Kobold deals 1d4+2 damage, and pack tactics- so they are generally attacking with advantage. An ogre strikes for 2d8+4.
Enemies also will hit players with average AC much more in this edition.

I would suggest taking a look at the system as a whole before making such changes.. the math is quite simply VERY different from AD&D. There is no need to throw darts at a board- or indeed switch out the board entirely with sweeping changes- when you can walk right up to it and put the dart exactly where it's needed.

 

[SirAntoine]

To make changes, things need to be done in context of the system as a whole.

Regarding retaliation: retaliation and battlemaster maneuver-riposte function similarly, but have much different intent.

Riposte can be activated on an enemy miss, signifying an opening in the defenses of the attacker caused by the failed attack- The skill of the battlemaster allows him take advantage of this small opening.

Retaliation however, while similar in end result, has MUCH different flavour- It activated on the barbarian being *hit*. It is the skill that says "Strike me, and I shall make you pay!"

This ties in to the theme of the barbarian- he's not particularly evasive, but can trade blows with powerful opponents.. Damage resistance supports this theme heavily. Warriors have armour and skill, rogues and monks have ways to avoid taking damage, while barbarians mitigate... and the few extra HP from barbarian d12 hit dice is not enough.

Barbarians already trade defense for more effective attacks with Reckless attack.. there is no need for further penalties. Barbarian stealth changes one thing- stealth while travelling at a normal pace, instead of half speed.. that is it.

In 5th edition, even the lowly Kobold deals 1d4+2 damage, and pack tactics- so they are generally attacking with advantage. An ogre strikes for 2d8+4.
Enemies also will hit players with average AC much more in this edition.

I would suggest taking a look at the system as a whole before making such changes.. the math is quite simply VERY different from AD&D. There is no need to throw darts at a board- or indeed switch out the board entirely with sweeping changes- when you can walk right up to it and put the dart exactly where it's needed.

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.

 

[Flamestrike]

Do you have any advice on controlling rest tempo, especially in a sandbox style game? I'm okay with them resting as much as they want while exploring dungeons sometimes, but I think I'd like a short arc where there is time pressure (partly to let PCs who do conserve resources shine), and I'm brainstorming ideas to make it work.

Only allow two per day. They can take more, but gain no benefit from them.

The PC's will naturally pace themselves accordingly, taking them only when needed.

 

[Flamestrike]

To answer your original question, they tried to shoot/stab him to death, but the Staff of Defense bumped his AC to ridiculously high levels. Hitting AC 21 is extremely difficult, and he didn't have to conserve the staff's charges for later encounters. His initiative was at the very bottom of the order, which was a HUGE boost because his shields (including his first) were up for everyone else's turns as opposed to breaking halfway through the round. It never hurt that everyone rolled poorly on their saves, either.

Thats not how shield works. It lasts till the start of your next turn.

 

[Cernor]

I know how the spell works, but the turn order matters. Say you have two PCs at init 20, then the shielding wizard at init 10, then two more PCs at init 5. On round 1, the first shield would only be present for 2 attacks before dissipating; if the wizard had init 1 instead of 10 it would be there for 4. If there are 5 shields possible over the course of the fight, the init 10 wizard would get 18 attacks to go against his shield (assuming shield on the first attack and all 4 PCs attacking once each): 2 before his first turn, then 4 between each of his next 4 turns. On the other hand, the wizard at init 1 would get 20 attacks against his shield in the fight at the cost of going last in the initiative order. Having those 2 attacks hitting the shielded AC makes a difference when he only has ~30HP to lose.

 

[Minsc]

Big Offenders
Sharpshooter+crossbow expert
Polearm Master+Great Weapon master

Feels like a feat tax
Warcaster
Resilient

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

 

[Flamestrike]

I know how the spell works, but the turn order matters. Say you have two PCs at init 20, then the shielding wizard at init 10, then two more PCs at init 5. On round 1, the first shield would only be present for 2 attacks before dissipating; if the wizard had init 1 instead of 10 it would be there for 4. If there are 5 shields possible over the course of the fight, the init 10 wizard would get 18 attacks to go against his shield (assuming shield on the first attack and all 4 PCs attacking once each): 2 before his first turn, then 4 between each of his next 4 turns. On the other hand, the wizard at init 1 would get 20 attacks against his shield in the fight at the cost of going last in the initiative order. Having those 2 attacks hitting the shielded AC makes a difference when he only has ~30HP to lose.

Even still, AC 21 isnt unhittable for 2nd level Characters by any stretch of the imagination. At +5, he should get hit at least once by a party of 4 PC's (25 percent chance to hit).

What was the composition and level of the PC's again?