| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1Eternal1Sep 05, 2014 8:33:28 | This seems like the only forum I can find that I would cover game impalances with 5e. I am very tired of people saying "this was playtested for 2 years" as clearly some things have fallen through the cracks. I would like some input on balancing the following.
Dexterity - This stat was a very powerful stat in all previous versions of the product. 5e made it even more so by allowing it to add a damage bonus to finesse based weapons attacks (and monk attacks). So, basically you have one stat that gives you +attack, +damage, +ac, +initiative, one of the best ability check saves, one of the best saving throw saves, and good proficiency synergies. I believe a change is needed. Possible change is that you do not get a damage bonus from dexterity (you do get a +accack for finesse).
Perception - This ability is extremely overpowered, and for some reason has been increased since playtesting by nerfing search (investigation). How can one ability allow for detecting secret doors, detecting stealth, detecting sounds, detecting traps and has both an active and passive component. In beta, search (investigation) played a larger role and has now a dead ability in 5e. I think investigation should really be search, and cover any "active" use of looking for traps, secret doors, hidden objects or whatever. I think perception should can still be used for detecting/hearing other beings and can be both active and passive the way it is now.
Cantrips - I think there should be a formula that accounts for casting a certain number of cantrips prior to a short or long rest. Infinite anything allows for abuse. I have a wizard and I spam flamebolt all over the place, for attack purposes and other. Why not, it's infinite? I suggest limiting cantrips to something like 1 per level + 1 per primary stat bonus of the spell. This may be a little too restrictive, but I am sure some formula will make sense.
I have some other thoughts as well, but I think this is a good way to get started. There are a lot of things I really like about 5e and I want it to be the best version to date. For that to happen, there will need to be some open mindedness in making the game better. |
| #2Hurin88Sep 05, 2014 8:39:16 | I agree there are some imbalances. I've been saying the stats are not balanced and dex is the god-stat for over a year now. Perception is a bit too strong too, I would agree. I'm not so sure of the cantrips, though-- they are great at first level, but they don't scale, so they get to be of rather limited usefulness. |
| #3EinlanzerSep 05, 2014 8:47:56 | For one, I always kind of thought Initiative made more sense for Intelligence or Wisdom. I also think Finesse should only apply to attack roles and not damage roles. I know it creates MAD but I honestly don't care because it just makes a lot more sense and helps ensure a balance between str and dex.
The attributes have never been particularly well balanced in any version of D&D, and they even openly admitted it in earlier versions. The nice thing is that being so macro level, they are one of the easiest things to houserule and tweak. i'm toying around with various fluff rules to bolster the role of other attriibutes, such as a once/short rest tactical bonus using your Int modifier which alllows you to use your reaction to add your Int mod to any single die roll or to your AC after an attack is made (turn a miss into a hit, etc.), or granting an inspiration bonus based on Charisma.
I think they messed up with starting HP, which ripples out to some other things. You should start in the neighborhood of 15-25 HP instead of 5-15 like 4e did, which would have removed the weird inverse difficulty scale that exists and also allowed non-magic items (like basic poisons and healing potions) to be a little more powerful at the baseline and therefore scale better. Level up should require either a roll, or the median HP gain rather than median +1, so that you end up with slightly less HP by 20th level on average. |
| #4LawolfSep 05, 2014 8:45:57 | The designers didn't care all that much about balance when designing this game.
/thread |
| #5DemoMonkeySep 05, 2014 9:27:23 | Dexterity
Use point buy. Have dexterity of 12 or 13 cost 1 point more to buy than the cahrt says. Have 14 or 15 dex cost two more points than the chart says. If using the array or rolling and you take a 12 or 13 Dex, reduce one other stat by 1; a 14 or 15 dex, reduce other stats by 2. A 16 or higher (rolling only) reduce other stats by 3.
(I don't actually think this is necessary, but if you really think Dex is an uber stat, make it cost like an uber stat)
Perception
How has it actkually worked out in the games you have run?
Cantrips
Cantrips are there to avoid "wizard with a crossbow" syndrome.
How many crossbow bolts could you reasonably carry? Lets say, 40.
So give the wizard 40 cantrips a day. Not infinite. Problem solved. |
| #6Eric888Sep 05, 2014 9:51:14 | Heavy armor requires strength, otherwise your movement is extremely impaired, and heavy armor provides better AC than you will ever get out of light or medium armor. So Dexterity actually hurts your AC if you pick it over strength.
That's not to say that your concerns are not justified. Rapier is an overpowered weapon. And it is a little lame that if you number-crunch, dual-wielding rogues get more benefit out of +2 dex than they get out of actually taking the dual-wielding feat by a staggering margin. And since we are moving back to the 2e days where enemies often do more damage than they have HP, initiative can make or break encounters.
But as long as fighters, clerics, and paladins are still prioritizing strength over dex for the armor; and other classes are choosing con over dex for the HP, I think we are okay.
As for perception being overpowered. Yes. Completely. /subscribe
As for cantrips, Guidance is insane and should not be at-will. Our games have seen every scene stopped so the cleric guidance before everything that happens. It is dumb. |
| #7ankiyavonSep 05, 2014 9:57:09 |
|
| (Reply to #6)ChrisCarlson |
|
| #9BW0222Sep 05, 2014 10:00:55 | I have never been a big fan of balance arguements. Utlimately, attempts to enforce balance seem doomed to failure. Some players are simply better than others -- more creative, more tactical, better roleplayers, etc. Others depend heavily on the DM and campaign setting -- which can nerf classes for months at a time. 4E's attempts to enforce balance... weren't well received.
I also have to take any argument on a new release with a gain of salt. We don't know if dexterity, cantrips, or perception is overpowered or not. No one has played any serious time to tell. Even if several groups had run campaigns under the final rules... their opinions on certain abilities could merely be a reflexion on their players, classes, setting, modules, etc. However...
Dexterity This doesn't seem so bad to me.
First, all attributes are capped by a much lower point-buy. (If you aren't using a point-buy, then you are already inviting balance issues with bad/good roll issues.) You typically can only start with a 16 or 17 (and not all races can) and have a maximum cap of 20.
Second, armor caps dexterity and heavy armor even does away with any penalty. A martial type or cleric with plate mail can have an AC of 18 -- even with an 8 dex. Meanwhile, no dex based character could reach that even with a 20 dex. 17 is the max with studded leather, 17 with half-plate (baring a feat). Ultimately gold is easier to come by than a high AC. You can't use a shield without medium armor proficiency, so dex based characters will likely never be using shields.
Third, dexterity only works with finesse weapons and ranged weapons. They only simple finesse weapon is a dagger and dart. Further, thrown weapons let you add your strength to hit and damage. There are no reach finesse weapons, no two-handed finesse weapons, and only d4 thrown finesse weapons. Stength based characters (who can wear armor) are clearly superior to dex-based characters with the exception of long ranged combat.
Perception Lots of systems only have perception checks. I've never found these that earth-shattering to combine search and spot. DMs have always found it difficult to tell players when to use a search vs. spot and they two were extremely subjective in many cases. It is hard to say why a ranger can spot someone hiding in a concealed pit, but only a rogue can see a pit trap. I can't imagine any major balance issues combining them. DCs in 5E as now flat. In previous versions Wizards were pretty much as good at searching as rogues, due to the int difference. Rogues have expertise. In the end... we are only talking the proficency bonus difference here. That is a +2 to +6 (at 20th-level). Having or not having the skill is a pretty minor thing overall.
Cantrips Remains to be seen for me. 4E had at will powers and it doesn't break balance. Previous versions of D&D always suffered a balance issue in which spellcasters had to sit around and do nothing once their spells run out. There isn't much of a difference between having them fire away with a light crossbow and casting a cantrip. Another reason why dexterity isn't that important. Most cantrips are in the d8 range with no ability modifier -- some with saves, range is limited, and ranged suffer disadvantage in melee. Most scale at 5th, 11th, and 17th. I don't see this as earth shattering as martial, monk, rogues, and others will likely have far more powerful attack options which can be used at will. Other than maybe a warlock, I can't imagine most spell casters wanting to rely on cantrips through any significant portion of a fight.
|
| #10KalaniSep 05, 2014 11:33:45 | Dexterity: Dexterity to AC only applies wearing light armor and medium armor (max +2). With all stats capped at 20, the highest armor-based AC a PC can get (not counting feats, fighting style, spells, or magic armor) is 20 (Plate + Shield). Including fighting style, Fighters can reach AC 21 (Defensive).
Light Armor users max out at 19 (Studded Leather, Shield, 20 Dex). When using point buy, your maximum Dexterity is 17 at level 1. Such a character can achieve 20 Dexterity no earlier than 8th level.
Other AC comparisons: Duelist Fighter/Paladin/Ranger with the Dual-Wielding Feat - AC 20 (Plate, +1 Defensive, +1 Dual-Wielding). If they chose TWF instead (likely), their AC would drop to 19 unless they were a Champion with both fighting styles. If said character was wearing light armor, their max AC would be 19 (Studded Leather, +1 Defensive, +1 Dual-Wielding, 20 Dexterity).
1st level characters gain limited gear. If you choose class/background packages, most classes with heavy armor grant chainmail at 1st level for an AC of 13-17. Comparatively, most light armor classes start with Leather, for an AC of 16 (assuming PB and +dex race). The +1 AC bonus is consistent across all levels, all other things being equal.
While Dexterity is a highly useful statistic, it is nowhere near the god-stat it was in prior editions, thanks largely due to bounded accuracy and max stat caps. I have seen many people during the playtest completely dumping Dex as it did not fit their character. The same holds true for heavily-armored characters since the games launch. Most dump dex hard, as their armor imposes disadvantage on their check which is worth a -5 penalty.
Cantrips Cantrips are balanced using action economy. Each cantrip cast is at the expense of a more powerful spell. Cantrips are also balanced against weapon-using classes in two ways. Firstly, while the damage of cantrips scales with level, it scales at the same rate that a fighter gains Extra Attacks. Secondly, the damage of a cantrip is slightly lower than a weapon-users base attacks, as cantrips do not add ability modifier to damage (Empowered Evocation and Agonizing Blast being the two exceptions to this rule). I am of the opinion that your opposition to cantrips comes in their unlimited use nature. This is a departure from 3.5, but is a direct port of 4Es "At-Will" powers, which all classes gained.
Cantrips are also balanced alongside the fact that spell slots have been greatly reduced in 5E compared to 3.5, forcing spellcasters to use their cantrips at the point where their high-level 3.5 counterparts would still be casting spells. At lower levels, 5E spellcasters are much more potent than their 3.5 counterparts, always having a cantrip or two to fall back on instead of a wooden stick, dagger, or a crossbow.
I understand that this goes against what you are used to, and it has caused a knee-jerk reaction in you due to its unfamiliarity - but despite how powerful they appear on paper, if you give it a chance during actual play you will find that Cantrips are not as powerful as they first appear, and that spellcasters do not overshadow the warrior classes by virtue of their existence.....
For example L1: Wizard casts a 1d10 Firebolt. Meanwhile the Fighter could be attacking with a 2d6+3 greatsword, or two 1d8+3 Rapiers (Var. Human, TWF Fighting Style, Dual-Wielder). L2: Wizard casts a 1d10 Firebolt. Meanwhile, the Fighter has a 1/rest Action Surge, allowing them to deal spike damage of 4d6+6 or 3d8+9 L5: Wizard casts a 2d10 Firebolt. Meanwhile the fighter gains Extra Attacks, swinging for up to 4d6+6 damage each round, with spike damage reaching as high as 8d6+12
Even at these levels, a Wizard would much prefer to use their spells over their cantrips, as a 1st level Burning Hands deals 3d6 damage (5d6 at 3rd level), while a 3rd level Fireball deals 8d6 damage..... Still less than a fighters maximum Single-Target damage, but spread out over multiple targets. The Wizards Fireball seems stronger than the fighter, due to its multi-target effect, however it is balanced alongside the fact it is a limited-use ability, compared to the fighter who can use Action Surge multiple times/day (limited only by short rest availability but averaging 2-3x daily).
When put into perspective, Cantrips are balanced fine. The only issue with Cantrips is that it is a departure from tradition, and the idea of spellcasters always having a spell to cast makes some people uncomfortable....This is an emotional reaction due to cognative dissonance, and has nothing to do with game balance.
Edit: Corrected math
|
| #11AshrymSep 05, 2014 10:05:04 | Dexterity -- Dexterity does apply to a lot, but in restricted ways. It doesn't help damage just because it's DEX when it's limited to a weapon that does less damage, for example. A greatsword with STR does more damage than a finess weapon with DEX. This is because an investment in the DEX stat is exceeded by equipment given the same investment in STR. Armor is the same. DEX can apply to AC but it's 100% replaceable by equipment by using heavy armor. It doesn't take as much STR for heavy armor as it does DEX for lighter armor for high AC's; 15 STR for full speed in place for AC 18 compared to 20 DEX for 17 AC in light armor doesn't seem to be rather exceptional. There are benefits to DEX but at cost to other ability scores and the damage / AC is overstated.
Perception -- I don't see investigation as dead because it's still an active search function. It's certainly not overpowered because a bonus to perceive the dragon about to breath fire on you over someone else's smaller bonus to see the same thing doesn't seem to apply a benefit in such a context. In order for it to be over powered it would need to accomplish something beyond a bigger bonus to notice things. Frequency of use is not the same as overpowered.
Cantrips -- These just replace regular weapon attacks. If they are overpowered simply because they are at will then so are weapon attacks. |
| #12DemoMonkeySep 05, 2014 12:42:30 | As an aside, I always thought a spellcaster casting a cantrip (or a 4E at-will non-weapon power) was about as physically taxing to them as a person swinging a weapon. Could they do it all day, constantly, without a rest? No, they would collapse from exhaustion. So it's not really infinite.
Could they do it enough times in a day that there was no point in tracking it like ammunition? Yes.
It's the difference between a conceptual objection and a practical one. |
| #13RKVMSep 05, 2014 10:12:26 |
|
| #14OrwellianHaggisSep 05, 2014 10:13:28 | I've seen people saying DEX is a god-stat, and I kind of agree it has more uses than the other stats... but I don't tend to build characters that use it. |
| #15dmgorgonSep 05, 2014 10:14:50 | In 2e dex did not factor into initiative checks. With that said, I've played in many 2e games in which dex was used as a house rule simply because 1E players either didn't realize it wasn't in the rules or they didn't want to give it up. The designers of 3e saw this happening and they decided to enshrine it into the game for its popularity.
|
| (Reply to #13)Eric888 |
|
| #17TimboramaSep 05, 2014 10:59:38 |
|
| #18KalaniSep 05, 2014 11:05:51 |
|
| #19spelleySep 05, 2014 11:06:46 |
|
| #20KalaniSep 05, 2014 11:10:23 | The distinction was not clear. As a house rule - yes it would work (everything works as a houserule). I was simply pointing out that this would be a houserule, as the RAW does not allow for such cherry-picking of attack/damage stats. |
| #21EinlanzerSep 05, 2014 11:13:54 |
|
| #22Lord_KyrionSep 05, 2014 11:42:43 | Dexterity really is overpowered, but it has never been a problem in my games. If someone wants to play a Strength based character then they do it.
The cantrips aren't really a problem, they do less damage than most weapon attacks. Even the 1d10 fire bolt is no better than a crossbow (unless you're an Evoker and can add your Intelligence). |
| #23SaelornSep 05, 2014 11:44:15 |
|
| #24TimboramaSep 05, 2014 11:45:04 |
|
| #25KalaniSep 05, 2014 12:14:56 |
|
| #26SorxoresSep 05, 2014 12:34:04 |
|
| (Reply to #18)Ashrym |
|
| #28KalaniSep 05, 2014 15:19:12 |
|
| #29danycSep 05, 2014 15:22:05 | Dexterity has always been a strong stat, but it's never been (and isn't) the only strong stat. Constitution gives you HP and HP is... huge. In my games, if a character focused on some other stat is picking between Dex and Con for some extra defense, they will almost always choose Con. Doubly so for casters in 5e due to Concentration. Wisdom is a strong stat if you're a caster who uses it, since it also doubles up on Perception (an incredibly important skill as this thread itself admits) and Insight (which can be almost as important if your game includes any social elements). Both Wis and Con also give you 'primary' saves, arguably better ones than Dexterity (failed dex save = more damage, failed Wis save = paralyzed, frightened, dominated, etc, failed Con save = blinded, poisoned, turned to stone... or more damage from a souped-up necrotic damage effect like Harm or Finger of Death).
Another thing to consider is who uses what. Intelligence might not have a lot of multi-function, but it's the core stat for Wizards and I hope no one is insane enough to argue that Wizards are underpowered or need help being better at more things. The fact that they have to focus on what is a dump stat for many, I think, is part of the thematic balance of the class. On the other side of it, which classes use Dexterity? Monks, Rangers and Rogues (and some Fighter builds). All initial testing suggests that these classes are on the weaker end of the spectrum. Rogues live on a super stat, but they NEED it to survive and do their job; initiative and stealth power assassination, and stealth is required every round if you're doing ranged combat. No other class has a requirement for constant skill use like that. Add to the fact that Rogues also face a lot of MAD due to their expected roles as the skill junky - most Rogues will take some Intelligence or Charisma, if not both! Really, letting the Rogues dump stat Strength is necessary because arguably they need every other stat to one degree or another.
So bottom line, Dexterity being strong doesn't seem like much of an issue. |
| #30Benz74Sep 05, 2014 16:19:57 | If hp were only a measure of physical wellness, then adding a DEX mod to damage wouldn't make much sense. But as written, hp is also a measure of stamina, luck, mental durability, and "will to live" (PHB p. 196).
For that reason, I can see how fitting it is to add the DEX mod to damage for these swift, dazzling Yoda/Zorro/Swashbuckling character types.
To bring some balance, a DM might houserule that only rogues, bards or a champion archetype fighter can add their DEX mod to damage with a light or finesse weapon. (Other classes would add their STR mod.)
Or create a Swashbuckling fighting style that allows it.
Or a Finesse Weapon Expert feat...
|
| #31Benz74Sep 05, 2014 16:37:43 | As for cantrips, I tend to agree that a limitless amount of cantrips per day might be a bit much (and lead to possible abuses like the Guidance example one of the posters gave).
A the top of my head, a possible houserule might include a possible chance of giving the zealous caster one or more levels of exhaustion (and/or hp damage)
First 10 cantrips : no penalty 10-20 cantrips : for each cantrip cast, there is a 10% chance of suffering one level of exhaustion (and/or 1d6 damage) 20-30 cantrips : 25% chance of suffering two levels of exhaustion (and/or 2d6 damage) 30+ cantrips : 50 % chance of suggering three levels of exhaustion (and/or 3d6 damage)
Admittedly, this quick houserule itself might not be balanced!
|
| #32KalaniSep 05, 2014 16:57:19 | I would only apply such a penalty if you applied it equally to weapon attacks.... First 10 attacks, no penalty.... etc
Cantrips are balanced against weapons and the Extra Attacks ability. If you arbitarily limit cantrips for "realism", it is only fair to limit melee weapons in a similar way.... Perhaps requiring both to make constitution saves to prevent exhaustion from overuse within a short time frame.
This is the first example I have seen which has limited spellcasters for the sake of realism however. Usually it is people trying to gimp the warriors and monks for "realism". |
| #33Benz74Sep 05, 2014 17:11:13 | Good argument. But not all cantrips are meant for combat. The concern is with the possible abuse of those other cantrips (since the number of combat rounds between short or long rests are usually limited anyway). |
| #34blake_marloweSep 05, 2014 17:28:06 | eternal1, i too disagree that cantrips are a problem. why is a weak at-will spell any more unbalanced than a fighter swinging a greatsword all day long?
and re: finesse weapons, i don't think any of them have the damage output capability that STR-based weapons do, as has already been described at great length by several others.
as for initiative: on this i do agree, and yeah, DEX saves are pretty darned important.
|
| #35MistwellSep 05, 2014 18:22:11 |
|
| #36Tony_VargasSep 05, 2014 19:30:46 |
|
| #37N4M8-Sep 05, 2014 19:35:55 |
|
| #38CCSSep 05, 2014 19:51:30 | As far as Perception being over powered..... honestly? I don't give a crap. Because as the DM I ALREADY know what I'm going/not going to tell you. Because in games i run you get info based upon what you do (or don't do). Not just by rolling dice & reporting a #. |
| #39MistwellSep 05, 2014 19:53:39 |
|
| #40setiSep 05, 2014 20:25:52 | Cantrips do less damage than ranged weapon attacks, considering that they don't get DoaM, and they don't get + INT mod for damage either. No problems, IMO. I also hate the crossbow wizard.
DEX is over-powered. I figured out a fix a while ago for that. Make perception an ability score. (PER) Have PER bonus effect initiatve. That nerfs DEX somewhat, and also makes it so high WIS PC's don't always have awesome perception skill (which makes no sense; Clerics having better perception than pretty much everyone has always bothered me.) You could even make PER the ability for ranged attacks. DEX for bows is also silly. Shooters use perception more than dexterity. Ask anyone who has used bows, crossbows, or guns in reality.
As far as saves go, well, 5e messed them up too. 90% of saves use 3 ability scores. Do what 4e did, and make a fort/ref/will system where fortitude = best of STR or CON, reflex = best of INT or DEX, and will= best of WIS or CHA. Done.
I like finesse melee weapons, so I wouldn't change them. |
| (Reply to #39)Ashrym |
|
| #42BennedictSep 05, 2014 20:48:57 |
|
| #43EinlanzerSep 05, 2014 20:53:53 | Honestly, my biggest concern remains what it has always been in every edition of D&D - that the mental stats are all a little too dumpy when you aren't a caster that needs them for spells. The inverse is not nearly as true, nor should it be.
One was using Intelligence to generate Tactical Points, which coulld be applied to attack/damage/skill rolls in an "interrupt" kind of way to bolster them after the roll happens, maybe as a new use for a bonus or reaction action. Charisma could be used to improve the effectiveness of the help action in some way. Wisdom is arguably fine as is due to the potency of Perception, but perhaps you would consider using it as an alternative to Dex for Initiative. |
| #44TiaNadiezjaSep 05, 2014 20:50:45 |
|
| #45ChaosmancerSep 05, 2014 20:57:30 | I hate to be "that guy" but I feel the need to point something out
Haven't Dex and Perception worked this way for years, in many different games across the spectrum. I know 3e had ranks and spot, listen, ect, but since 90% of perception is spotting something wasn't it essentially the same? Dex has always been an AC, Damage, Initiative, and saving throw stat. These are "issues" that have existed for what? 15 years at least? I'd say obviously the majority of the community or game designers disagree with these being problems and if you still feel this is bad you can just do whatever you did in previous editions to "fix it"
As for Cantrips... seems like a non-issue to me. The only abusive one I can think of is Guidance and that's only if it is being spammed on everything (and in that case I'd wonder why? Why do they feel the need to do this, is failing that terrible for them? Are they scared of failing for some reason?)
I just don't see these as big balance issues |
| #46ShiroikenSep 05, 2014 21:30:55 |
|
| #47PsikerlordSep 05, 2014 22:38:35 | Dex is a great stat to have, but hardly essential. if you want decent dex saves take the shield mastery feat and stand in half cover for at least +4 on dex saves (more with magic shield). Want good initiative, take the alert feat. Str fighters vs dex fighters, weeeeell, dex fighters probably have the most benefit, but without strength they cant push/knock prone very well, or bust down doors easily, or make athletics checks well.
Perception has always been the most useful skill in the game. I like that DMs have the flexibility to allow investigation a look in now, watering down perception some.
Cantrips are perfectly fine, they're UP as is. They are the filler between the caster's real spells. |
| #48Mind_Flayer_MonkSep 05, 2014 22:38:56 | You can get 20 AC with mage armor (13) + 20 Dex + shield. |
| #49BiktorSep 05, 2014 22:46:48 |
|
| #50ChakrumSep 05, 2014 23:59:32 | I think all the talk a few weeks ago comparing 2 hnd vs DW vs Duelist showed 2 hnd on top. Dex fighter's have some benefits while giving up top DPR and top AC. Str fighter's gain better DPR and AC(and can have DR with heavy armor mastery), but gives up some range and initiative, as well as better dex saves. Both are perfectly fine builds and can bring something to the game. What is wrong with that? |
| #51arnwolf666Sep 06, 2014 2:48:27 | As someone who absolutely abhors (sp) at will cantrips, I do not believe they are imbalanced or game breaking. |
| #52ZardnaarSep 06, 2014 5:50:53 |
|
| #53N4M8-Sep 06, 2014 6:07:43 |
|
| #54CEBedfordSep 06, 2014 11:48:25 | I was already planning to have Perception give some of it's utility back to Investigation, so that's easily fixed.
STR being required for Heavy Armor works well, but that stat could use a little more of an edge for sure. Maybe expand it's set of proficiencies a bit more? I think I might bring back 1.5x STR modifier for 2 handed weapons? Perhaps applying to both attack rolls and damage, after all what you might lack in finesse you more than make up for in brute force to penetrate armor rather than find weakspots. Plus, non-magical melee combatants could do with a moderate boost in power anyway.
Also, it might be worth implementing the optional encumberance rules. In a game where people love their loot, limiting what they can haul makes the party brute(s) much more valuable.
I've had a thought about breaking up initiative based on the conflict type: CHA for social conflict, INT or WIS for magical duels, but that's very situational.
The key to remember is that loot can help swing things too, it seems by default to be less common, bearing less of a Walmart's World of Wonder sort of feel. It should be easy to use that to offset any problems with members of the party being overshadowed by others. Carefully awarding an item here and there can help get a lacking character back into the mix. Same principle applies to encounter design. Make sure to include situations where STR wins out. |
| #55Cyber-DaveSep 06, 2014 8:03:22 |
|
| #56KalaniSep 06, 2014 9:56:45 |
|
| #57CarlTSep 06, 2014 10:59:00 |
|
| #58RamzourSep 06, 2014 11:47:12 |
|
| #59Tony_VargasSep 06, 2014 12:36:07 |
|
| #60MistwellSep 06, 2014 12:46:11 |
|
| (Reply to #60)Tony_Vargas |
|
| #62KalaniSep 06, 2014 13:05:50 |
|
| #63RamzourSep 06, 2014 13:19:42 |
|
| #64MistwellSep 06, 2014 13:40:15 |
|
| #65Eric888Sep 06, 2014 13:44:53 |
|
| #66KalaniSep 06, 2014 14:08:07 |
|
| #67ZardnaarSep 06, 2014 14:09:00 |
|
| #68KalaniSep 06, 2014 14:17:37 | Staff of Defense is a magical item. It is irrelevant to the discussion as the DM can very easily prevent PCs from gaining access to this (or any other) magical item of their choice. Unlike 3.5 or 4E, players cannot purchase permanent magic items in 5E, and therefore - they cannot be included in the discussion for the same reason we cannot include house rules......Its existence is subject to DM approval.
The Mage Armor spell cast by a Wizard is not subject to DM approval, however it does not stack with magical armor and consumes a 1st level spell slot (valuable at low levels, but increasingly more negligable at higher levels). Also, you must remove your armor to benefit from the spell - as the spell ends immediately if the target dons armor. Likewise, Mage Armor offers little benefit to Barbarians and Monks, as the spells benefit is mutually exclusive with the Unarmored Defense ability.
If you allow Staff of Defense into the equation, I could just as easily say that the Fighter has +1, +2 or +3 Plate Armor. +X Plate > Staff of Defense. If magic items are allowed in the discussion, the benefit of Mage Armor is further reduced as it is mutually exclusive with magical armor.
At present, it is debatable whether Bracers of Armor stack with Mage Armor or Unarmored Defense however. With that being said, if Bracers of Defense does stack, it stacks just as easily with magical armor - again giving advantage to the plate-wearing character.
|
| #69ZardnaarSep 06, 2014 14:23:33 |
|
| (Reply to #65)Ashrym |
|
| #71KalaniSep 06, 2014 14:42:48 | In addition: As a concentration spell, the +1d4 benefit may be wasted if you fail a concentration check prior to the recipient using the bonus, requiring you to recast the spell and use yet another action.
Honestly, the benefit of this spell is of moderate importance at best - and is best used for those actions where the person lacks proficiency or where the threat of failure is dire. As such, it is of limited benefit that only looks OP on paper, but offers few advantages in actual play. This is especially true if the character is making their check at disadvantage. If the character has proficiency, and/or is making their check with advantage - guidance offers few benefits to the character, as characters can usually succeed on most proficient checks at least 50% of the time (if not more).
The spell is also of increasingly reduced benefit with increasing proficiency bonus.
If the spell granted advantage, then I would have an issue - as said advantage would cancel out disadvantage at minimum. |
| #72TOTMgamerSep 06, 2014 17:05:48 | rules are made to be broken. house rule what you dont like. there are always gonna be things in a rule book people dont like and people do like it can't please everyone at once. |
| #73MistwellSep 06, 2014 18:58:58 |
|
| #74Tony_VargasSep 06, 2014 19:13:49 | Only issue I've seen with Guidance is the player with it interrupting the flow of play to cast it just as the target is rolling, or worse has rolled... |
| #75KalaniSep 06, 2014 19:20:39 |
|
| #76Emerikol.Sep 06, 2014 19:21:35 | The problem is that in real life dexterity and intelligence really are vastly superior attributes in reality. So any nerfing will likely fly in the face of realistic expectations. If all of the finess weapons did less damage that might though be believable and help if that level of nerf made you happy. Personally dexterity is probably more likely to produce higher damage than strength is when you have a defender who is actually trying not to get hit.
|
| #77Tony_VargasSep 06, 2014 19:58:38 |
|
| #78N4M8-Sep 06, 2014 19:40:08 |
|
| #79EinlanzerSep 06, 2014 20:18:55 |
|
| #80h347h50Sep 06, 2014 20:19:26 |
|
| #81KalaniSep 06, 2014 21:42:57 | I forgot to account for L20 barbarians.... Which I might add, is an almost irrelevant detail given its a capstone ability; few campaigns make it to epic level (let alone L20); and you are talking about epic characters at that point - most of which should have one or two magic items of some kind or another (even in a low magic campaign).
I do not factor in capstone abilities into my calculations. I was referring to numbers which are relevant for 99% of a characters adventuring career. Not the final 1%. It annoys me when people look at L20 characters in a vacuum. They don't sprout fully grown at that level - making their capstone abilities just that - capstones.
In addition, barbarian melee damage is irrelevant for the purposes of discussing AC. AC 30 has yet to be seen, as we are not certain whether Bracers of Armor stack with other sources of AC as yet, or whether the final item will function similar to Unarmored Defense or Mage Armor (this is likely).
Again, Magical items are as irrelevant to the discussion as house rules are - both are subject to DM fiat, which is highly variable. Having Bracers of Armor and several other AC boosting items is as likely as a DM creating a houserule that grants all Fighters a +2 AC bonus when wearing heavy armor, due to the belief that the Fighters training allows them to gain more benefit from armor than other characters. |
| #82h347h50Sep 06, 2014 22:42:52 |
|
| (Reply to #82)Ashrym |
|
| #84KalaniSep 06, 2014 23:16:08 |
|
| #85JetstreamSep 07, 2014 1:17:44 |
|
| #86KalaniSep 07, 2014 1:30:17 |
|
| #87JetstreamSep 07, 2014 1:39:03 |
|
| #88Cyber-DaveSep 07, 2014 6:43:12 |
|
| #89Cyber-DaveSep 07, 2014 6:53:06 |
|
| #90Cyber-DaveSep 07, 2014 6:55:35 |
|
| (Reply to #3)LordVonDerp |
|
| #92Eldren73Sep 07, 2014 9:54:11 | Based off your post, OP, it sounds to me like you might just prefer a slightly lower-powered game vs. the default of 5th Edition. Nothing wrong with that on an objective basis. I wouldn't personally want to be in a game like that, but if you have players that are fine with it, it's what you ought to do at your table. They may be in for a bit of a shock, and might quickly become "drunk on power", if they attend a baseline game or participate in organized play.
|
| #93KalaniSep 07, 2014 10:25:51 |
|
| (Reply to #85)LupusRegalis |
|
| (Reply to #89)Tony_Vargas |
|
| #96Cyber-DaveSep 07, 2014 12:13:47 |
|
| #97Tony_VargasSep 07, 2014 13:56:44 |
|
| #98ZardnaarSep 07, 2014 15:44:08 |
|
| #99EinlanzerSep 07, 2014 17:26:28 |
|
| (Reply to #76)Melwick |
|
| #101EinlanzerSep 07, 2014 17:32:54 |
|
| (Reply to #101)Melwick |
|
| #103EinlanzerSep 07, 2014 17:46:00 |
|
| #104MistwellSep 07, 2014 17:41:57 |
|
| #105KalaniSep 07, 2014 17:49:49 | I have two suggestions which help increase the importance of Intelligence.
If the players are stuck, and cannot think of a solution - I ask them to roll an Intelligence check. If successful, I give them a clue based on their Intelligence. Smarter PCs get better clues, even if both characters succeed on their check. There are two methods which can be used to simulate this.
The other suggestion is to have players roll INT checks when ever they act "smarter" or "dumber" than their PC actually is.
PC acting smarter than their characters INT
PC acting stupid for a character of their INT
Stupid PCs will get fewer chances to "take back" their player's stupid ideas. Smart PCs would gain lots of second chances, especially if their character is a veritable genius (16+), and is most likely smarter than the player themselves.
|
| #106MistwellSep 07, 2014 18:00:45 |
|
| #107KalaniSep 07, 2014 19:16:21 |
|
| #108Cyber-DaveSep 07, 2014 21:05:13 |
|
| #109ZardnaarSep 07, 2014 20:41:42 |
|
| #110KalaniSep 07, 2014 20:57:14 |
|
| #111ankiyavonSep 07, 2014 21:16:45 |
|
| #112KalaniSep 07, 2014 21:48:34 |
|
| #113ChakravantSep 07, 2014 21:54:58 | I'm pretty sure in 4E death is at negative bloodied or three strikes, not negative Con. Still, it is very much a negative value. |
| #114ZardnaarSep 07, 2014 22:04:04 |
|
| #115Tony_VargasSep 07, 2014 23:18:38 |
|
| #116Tony_VargasSep 07, 2014 22:34:09 |
|
| #117ChakravantSep 07, 2014 22:27:16 |
|
| #118ankiyavonSep 07, 2014 22:55:30 |
|
| #119Tony_VargasSep 07, 2014 23:11:24 |
|
| #120KalaniSep 07, 2014 23:14:06 |
|
| #121KalaniSep 07, 2014 23:25:46 |
|
| (Reply to #121)Tony_Vargas |
|
| #123ChakravantSep 07, 2014 23:26:54 |
|
| #124KalaniSep 07, 2014 23:44:10 |
|
| #125ZardnaarSep 08, 2014 0:37:11 | I thought the 3.5 FIghter was an elegantly designed class the main problems with it being other things in the 3.5 rules which made it suck and how it did not comapre that well with other classes, or even the 2nd ed fighter assuming WS was allowed. The fighter chasis was used in Star Wars Saga and it worked well. Another screw up was the way feats worked in 3.5. THe fighter could also lay the smackdown in 3.5and it was one of the most popular classes in our games at least from what I could see forom the DM side of the screen. Saw very few wizards in 3.x games though, 2 Druids and a mutitude of clerics of which only 1 was really min/maxed to any great extent as I did see the 3.0 cleric archer in play.
|
| #126KalaniSep 08, 2014 0:56:36 |
|
| #127Cyber-DaveSep 08, 2014 14:29:46 |
|
| #128ZardnaarSep 08, 2014 13:03:37 |
|
| #129KalaniSep 08, 2014 14:41:56 |
|
| #130Tony_VargasSep 08, 2014 22:50:00 |
|
| #131Cyber-DaveSep 09, 2014 5:55:27 |
|
| (Reply to #131)Tony_Vargas |
|
| #133XguildSep 10, 2014 10:13:25 | Tony just out of curiousity, where do you get this "balanced for 6 to 8" encounters stuff from? I don't remember ever running across that in any of the released game material. Just curious since from what I have gathered none of the adventures released so far for that game come anywhere close the presumption of 6 to 8 encounters. |
| #134viper5Sep 10, 2014 15:40:25 |
|
| #135h347h50Sep 10, 2014 19:43:56 |
|
| #136XguildSep 11, 2014 7:53:20 |
|
| #137ZaranBlackSep 11, 2014 11:21:04 | There goes my argument for making Cantrips Finesse attacks... |
| (Reply to #100)Arbitrary_Aardvark |
|
| #139PhantymwolfSep 11, 2014 14:54:08 |
|
| #140ClockworkNecktieSep 11, 2014 17:22:53 | Is there a single example in the game where any "stat disparity" would actually matter, as long as the classes and archetypes themselves are balanced?
Okay, Dex is a great stat. Does it really make rangers and monks overpowered? That's not something I've seen. Does it influence people to make weird stat decisions for min-maxing reasons? Not really, thanks to greatweapon master, heavy armor master, and decent class design. I'm not seeing a problem. |
| #141cranebumpSep 11, 2014 18:28:30 |
|
| #142ZardnaarSep 11, 2014 18:34:40 |
|
| #143Tony_VargasSep 11, 2014 22:29:45 |
|
| #144ZardnaarSep 12, 2014 1:36:46 |
|
| #145Brock_LandersSep 12, 2014 6:05:49 | Depends on the quality of the encounter. |
| #146Emerikol.Sep 12, 2014 8:40:29 |
|
| #147ZardnaarSep 12, 2014 12:45:46 |
|
| (Reply to #138)Melwick |
|
| #149Tony_VargasSep 14, 2014 14:01:15 |
|
| #150ZardnaarSep 14, 2014 14:05:18 |
|
| (Reply to #150)Tony_Vargas |
|
| #152ZardnaarSep 14, 2014 14:39:46 |
|
| #153Tony_VargasSep 14, 2014 14:54:36 |
|
| #154TashiroSep 15, 2014 7:31:58 | Game Balance. To me, game balance shouldn't be a mechanical thing. The mechanics should focus on making the game as accurate to one's vision as possible. Balance isn't something that can be created by the mechanics - that's impossible - it would stifle the game with thousands of nit-picky little rules of 'don't do that', and 'you can't do that', and 'you must do that'.
Balance is created through roleplaying, a good game master, and good players. You create challenges which cater to each of the character's strengths and weaknesses, you ensure that each of the players are having fun, and you ensure everyone has something to do. If you get that combination, it doesn't matter if the characters are mechanically balanced, because that isn't the point of the game. Not all characters are equal - and they shouldn't have to be.
So what if one character class is demonstrably stronger than another? What if one race is more powerful than another? This doesn't upend the game and make it hard / impossible to play. The fact is, as the game evolves, you'll get imbalances. One player may roll better attributes at the start, or position them in a way that is 'optimal', while another player doesn't. One player may choose a race and class which synergizes well, and another may pick a pair which is conceptually interesting, but doesn't play to the character's strengths. Spell selection may be sub-optimal for one player, but not for another. Feats may be chosen which makes one character that much better, while another may simply go for attribute buffs. Then you add magic items, enchantments, and what-have-you, and things skew even more.
And that's perfectly fine. If the players are having fun, then there's nothing wrong.
When I first started running Dungeons and Dragons, there was a group we nicknamed "The Illegal D&D Group". The players had 100th level characters, attributes maxed, hit points in the thousands, armour class in the deep negative double-digits (back when THAC0 was a thing), star destroyers, lasers, ghetto blasters, sunglasses, hand guns, and more.
I was starting up a new AD&D campaign, and a few people asked to bring their characters in. I said 'yes', because I didn't have a campaign setting or anything, I was too fresh (having been a GM for maybe a year). So I had to juggle 100th level characters with 1st level characters. This was a trial by fire, and I walked out of this with the skill set to make a game interesting and fun for everyone, without having to worry about their character sheets or whether or not the characters were balanced.
It's served me well for the World of Darkness, Exalted, Shadowrun, D&D, TORG and scads of other games. Now, my rule is 'as long as the character fits in the setting, I'm cool with it'. Does the mechanics need to be balanced? Hell no. I much prefer if the mechanics reflect what the setting is supposed to be like. A ranger does this, this, and this? Cool. A rogue does this? Awesome. A fighter does this other thing? Nice. Do they need to be on par, power-wise, skill wise, etc? Nope. But if you nerf a class so it is 'equal' to another, then it feels wrong. You're trying to force a style of play, rather than making a concept for people to see.
|
| #155awogamanSep 15, 2014 14:27:51 | I don't see the problem with high Perception. As the DM, we're supposed to help describe the world and such; and need various avenues to give the PC's information and such. Perception is one of the many tools at our disposal to do so. I've always thought that Initiative should be a combination of both Dexterity and Intelligence as you're relying on both physical and mental reactions. But I can see why Dexterity would take precedence. Example: Say you're driving late at night and a deer jumps out in front of you. You're not going to be like: Oh hey, that's a deer, it would suck balls if I smoked it and would destroy my car; I guess I should apply the brakes and try to avoid smacking it. NO. You, slam on the brakes and after narrowly avoiding capping the fool do you start to realize what happened. Overrall it seems that cantrips will do less damage than a melee fighter. The cantrip damage improves when melee types get extra attacks. But I believe the only spell casters that add their modifiers to damage is a 10th level evoker. But that's only going to be up to a +5 where as melee fighters will be adding their +5 on multiple attacks. So I think it all balances out fine. |
| #156KalaniSep 15, 2014 15:21:05 |
|
| #157AhglockSep 15, 2014 18:23:41 | I agree with the perception point. Mainly because they put a investigation skill in and right now it's just sucks. Spotting the whatever is the most important part so getting to get more details with investigation is weak sauce.
Personally id run it as perception is passive vs higher Dc investigation is active vs lower dc. So perception helps more vs surprise but investigation is better vs traps or for finding hidden enemies once you know to look for them.
Intelligence needs something. Yeah maybe adding skills was too much in 3e but doing nothing and being a weak save does too little.
Other than that im finding it to be well balanced for a launch. |
| #158Tony_VargasSep 15, 2014 22:30:39 |
|
| (Reply to #158)Tashiro |
|
| #160MistwellSep 16, 2014 8:32:18 | Some of this comes down to grid play vs. gridless. You can typically get through more encounters in an allotted session time frame using gridless than with a grid. |
| #161LawolfSep 16, 2014 9:11:49 |
|
| #162ZardnaarSep 16, 2014 11:39:43 |
|
| (Reply to #159)Tony_Vargas |
|