D&D (2024) Wow, 5.5e characters are STRONG!

[Mistwell]

I whipped up a few premade characters for an event this weekend. Until I did, it hasn't sunk in how much PCs are being buffed. All the changes in the playtest packets have been relatively small, but they really add up.

Races are stronger. Backgrounds are stronger. Classes are stronger. Subclasses are stronger. Spells are stronger. And weapons for martial characters are a lot stronger. (I don't think I fully realized that weapon masteries kind of sort of make any martial character into a battlemaster fighter, except with infinite superiority dice).

You put all that together, and 5.5e characters are strong like Diddy Kong. Perhaps especially at lower levels. Honestly, unless 5.5e monsters get buffed, we'll have to rethink what balanced encounters are.

I am finding a lot of spellcasting classes are not much stronger and on average their best spells are weaker.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's a really good point. The best feats in 5e (5.0e?) have been removed, changed, or have level requirements now, so a free 1st level feat isn't what it used to be. I concede the point.

Also, having 2 feats instead of 1 isn't the same as having 1 instead of 0. I think a lot of people who went variant human weren't necessarily "power gaming", but instead needed a feat to make their character concept work. If backgrounds give free feats, that may not be the case.



Agree! As I said, 5.5 characters being more powerful isn't a bad thing. Balance is good! Fixing underpowered options like Four Elements Monk is good! On the whole, I'm very pro-5.5e. I'm just surprised that some people doubt that the characters, as currently presented in the playtest, are stronger on the whole. I think they clearly are.



It wasn't massively different, but there were times when the changes were very noticeable. For one, there was much more healing before a character got to 0 HP. That was great to see. Cure Wounds heals for a dozen HP on average now and that really stands out.

The biggest thing was the weapon masteries. Twice, slow on a longbow shot made a monster lose an attack. Sap was really nasty and caused some whiffs (granted, we were at a level with no multi-attack). Graze felt a little icky, honestly. When a monster was reduced to 3 hit points, a greatsword attack auto-killed it even when the attack roll was a natural 1. I didn't have any philosophical complaint about damage-on-a-miss going in, and I've played under that concept before in 4e and 13th Age, but seeing it in action in 5e felt strange. I'm not even sure Graze is good compared to the other masteries, but realizing that an attack would kill a critter no matter what felt weird.

I can only report on what happened in one session, so I can't tell you how good the new monk is, or how Cleave and Topple work in play, or many other things. But the PCs did indeed seem stronger, even given that they were probably weren't optimized as well as they could have been.

I hadn't followed the playtest closely but had seen some math on high level characters and weapon masteries doing more damage than GWM using 2014 characters. Makes me think that may be affecting low level play even moreso.

 

[FrogReaver]

I am finding a lot of spellcasting classes are not much stronger and on average their best spells are weaker.

Interesting. Is this true across all tiers or most notably in tier 3 and 4?

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree with the above assessment.

Note, some species are stronger, such as Dragonborn, but this is errata to bring them upto the standard of other species.

Some species have traits shuffle around a bit, after the score improvements relocate to the background section instead of the species section.

But 2024 is more about robustly balancing the species compared to each other, than an actual increase of the species design space.

Races can all assign starting ASI's now, right? +2/+1? That with any useful racial features will tend to increase PC power levels as well. Oftentimes in 2014 you had to choose between a good racial feature or a race with ASI's matching your class.

Starting feat even if not the best will too.
Weapon Masteries obviously are a martial buff.

Also aren't all subclasses level 3 now. I think waiting till level 3 for subclass abilities probably makes casters feel overall weaker - whereas martials were already waiting till level 3.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, no.

The one real boost is the Feat at first Level...but every book publisjed aince Mythinc Odysseys of Theros in 2020 haa had thoae as standard, over three years now.

Weapon Masteries are functionally juat "Martial Cantrips," which are nice but not a huge boost.

Classes and Species are on the same balance measure as before.

If the argument has been that martials are way behind the casters, the casters were not weakened in 2024, and now the martials and casters are balanced with one another in 2024, the power level has risen by a lot.

 

[Parmandur]

If the argument has been that martials are way behind the casters, the casters were not weakened in 2024, and now the martials and casters are balanced with one another in 2024, the power level has risen by a lot.

Oh, God, let's not start that up, I'll just say the logic there fails on a false premise.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, God, let's not start that up, I'll just say the logic there fails on a false premise.

The logic there was very sound. The premise that martials were way behind casters was false.

 

[Clint_L]

I tried out the new monk rules on my Level 9 Mercy monk. It's pretty strong. And level 10 is when things get even better - five attacks/round.

 

[Parmandur]

The logic there was very sound. The premise that martials were way behind casters was false.

Precisely.

 

[FrogReaver]

The logic there was very sound. The premise that martials were way behind casters was false.

IMO. Depends on the levels in question.