Are the classes overpowered?

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

akaddk

Jul 06, 2014 17:15:16

I must say that I wasn't expecting basic to be so... not basic. I expected the classes to be stripped down versions of what we saw in the playtests but it seems that what we got was amped up versions instead. They all seem to have very powerful abilities that are stacked with options at every level. I half expected all those options to be in the PHB and even then, as some sort of balanced, "take one of these but take something else out" kind of options.

 

I was really happy to see that the rogue got a d8 but then I also saw that they can dodge half their incoming damage which is just... huge. All the classes seem to have all these types of very powerful abilities to the point where I already consider them to be high-fantasy characters and yet the PHB is going to introduce more options?

 

Not sure I'm keen on that, to be honest.

#2

GhostStepper

Jul 06, 2014 17:26:38

I looked at the classes and thought that i'll never run it below level 3 because everything was too underpowered at low levels. 

#3

MechaPilot

Jul 06, 2014 17:30:45

akaddk wrote:
#4

akaddk

Jul 06, 2014 17:31:06

GhostStepper wrote:
#5

Marandahir

Jul 06, 2014 17:31:37

I would gather that the DM's Guide has rules for dialing the power-level of the game up or down, just as it might dial the fantasy up or down.

#6

GhostStepper

Jul 06, 2014 17:38:11

akaddk wrote:
#7

edwin_su

Jul 06, 2014 17:36:02

akaddk wrote:
#8

GhostStepper

Jul 06, 2014 17:37:16

edwin_su wrote:
#9

Rastapopoulos

Jul 06, 2014 17:38:40

akaddk wrote:
#10

edwin_su

Jul 06, 2014 17:41:19

akaddk wrote:
#11

MechaPilot

Jul 06, 2014 17:43:54

akaddk wrote:
#12

MrHotter

Jul 06, 2014 17:44:04

The Players Handbook will add more options, but will not be making all characters stronger than the Basic Rules.  The idea is that a character from basic should be able to play alongside a character built using anything from the PHB. 

 

The 'Uncanny Dodge' you mention for the 5th level Rogue comes at the same time as the Fighter is getting a second attack and the Wizard is getting Fireball and Haste.  I think that works out fine. 

#13

Rastapopoulos

Jul 06, 2014 17:44:30

edwin_su wrote:
#14

FFSAA

Jul 06, 2014 17:46:50

edwin_su wrote:
#15

AaronOfBarbaria

Jul 06, 2014 17:47:32

Yeah, "stripped down" means not having a bunch of different options to choose from - and the basic classes have most of their choices locked in - it does not mean "less powerful," and I am confused as to why that would even be a thought.

#16

Paraxis

Jul 06, 2014 17:51:52

To me character classes are not overpowered at all, in fact with the high damage values being thrown around I would say all PC's need a huge hit point increase at 1st level. When I do add my house rules I think all player characters will have Con score in extra hit points, just to help them alive early on.

#17

dmgorgon

Jul 06, 2014 17:57:00

akaddk wrote:
#18

akaddk

Jul 06, 2014 18:10:27

I guess I had considered the playtest to be the expanded options type characters. These classes are quite complex and have powerful options which doesn't spell "Basic" to me. The fact that these powerful options are "baked in" to the basic version is the problem I'm having with it. I'd much rather they have been actual options with something more simplistic and core to the class concepts. Things like Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, etc. aren't what I would consider core to the rogue concept but they do seem to be core to the rogue thief concept.

 

In other words, I had a different interpretation of what the term "basic" entails.

#19

Lawolf

Jul 06, 2014 18:15:46

Compared to 3e PCs, the 5e PCs definitely seem weak. 

#20

GhostStepper

Jul 06, 2014 18:35:15

akaddk wrote:
#21

Psikerlord

Jul 06, 2014 18:54:12

akaddk wrote:
#22

seti

Jul 06, 2014 19:42:51

I think 5e PC's seem weak (in the HP) and 'basic' (amount of choices/rules) compared to 4e PCs. They seem = to 3e and 2e PCs, but do more damage on average. 

 

Although, the wizard pretty much is a 4e PC, but with a lot less HP, until higher levels. The wizard has at-wills (cantrips, melee attacks, ranged attacks), encounters (spells w/ arcane recovery), and dailies (spells), and utilities (spells). Many of the spell level 1 and up damage-dealing spells do damage on a miss too.

 

LOL, by the time the 5e wizard has about the same HP as a 4e wizard, he or she is dealing out a lot more AED damage, and has way better U spells.

 

I'm not ripping on the 5e wizard; just pointing out that to me, the 5e wizard (according to the Basic PDF) is, in all ways other than low level HP and level scaling defenses, better than the 4e wizard was. And 4e's classes were built to be more powerful, even at level one. 4e monsters were too, especially when they gave them more damage after MM1 and MM2.

 

 

#23

FFSAA

Jul 06, 2014 19:03:22

Lawolf wrote:
#24

GhostStepper

Jul 06, 2014 19:03:49

seti wrote:
#25

mellored

Jul 06, 2014 19:12:51 		you can't really coompare level 1 wizards from 3e aand 5e. 3e wiards where suposed to be weak at level 1. You should compair level 5 wizards.
(Reply to #24)

seti

GhostStepper wrote:
#27

MechaPilot

Jul 06, 2014 19:16:13

seti wrote:
#28

Devilbass

Jul 06, 2014 19:20:29

Paraxis wrote:
#29

Emerikol.

Jul 06, 2014 19:28:12

I think overpowered might be the wrong measuring stick.  Perhaps complexity is a better one.   Complexity wise the game is easier than 3e and 4e but more than 1e/2e.   I'm talking about choices in combat as my complexity measure.   

 

Power wise though I think 4e characters are much weaker which is not a criticism in and of itself it would depend on the monsters faced.   I think 3e is still much stronger than 5e power wise as you advance into the mid to upper levels.   I think 1e/2e is probably stronger too.   So 5e is the weakest game after 4e.   I think from a balance perspect that is what a lot of those so focused want.

 

 

 

#30

akaddk

Jul 06, 2014 19:33:11

If it ends up being the case that PHB options are sideways options and not upwards options, and that the level of challenge the PCs face is balanced against their power, then I don't have as big a problem with it as I initially thought.

 

However it still stands that I feel they are far more representative of high fantasy rather than the low fantasy that I was expecting from Basic.

#31

GhostStepper

Jul 06, 2014 19:41:17

seti wrote:
#32

seti

Jul 06, 2014 19:54:55

I liked rituals, and in my games, they always came up as a group effort. They did take 'time' (as they should) so obviously they were useless in combat, but it didn't matter too much that not every PC had the ritual caster feat. Maybe a caster led the ritual, but everyone pitched in money, skill rolls, etc. There were mechanics for 'helping' in ritual casting that said you didn't have to be a ritual caster to aid a ritual caster. Also, I didn't always make people pay gold for a ritual; sometimes it required a side quest to gather special stuff, or it used stuff they either already had or conveniently just found, or it involved a sacred space, an alter, shrine, teleportation circle, etc. they could just walk to.

 

Also, anyone could take the ritual caster feat. I don't know how 5e will handle that, as the PHB and DMG aren't out yet.

 

I wanted backgrounds to be a bigger thing in 4e. They didn't even come along until the Dark Sun Campaign Setting book, IIRC. That's one thing I love about 5e. Backgrounds are a real thing, from day one.

#33

Chakrum

Jul 06, 2014 20:10:34 		I think it's perfect. Stronger than 1/2nd edition but weaker than 3/3.5/4th. It feels right to me.
#34

Guest855761860

Jul 06, 2014 20:29:42 		Yes theyre overpowered by my standards but i guess 4e was mega over powered and so in my mind they'd meet somewhere in the middle to try to appease everyone
#35

FFSAA

Jul 06, 2014 20:41:54

mellored wrote:
#36

Rastapopoulos

Jul 06, 2014 20:55:45

Lawolf wrote:
#37

mestewart3

Jul 06, 2014 21:00:12

Actually I am a little worried that the classes might be under powered at high levels.

 

Take for example that a level 16 GWF without a magic weapon takes a little over 4 swings to drop an Ogre* (a little over 3 with a +3 magic weapon).  A CR 2 enemy takes more than a round to kill at level 16. If HP scales up at the rate weve seen so far how many rounds would it take said fighter to beat a CR 8 enemy?  How many turns would it take to beat a CR 11 enemy.?  If a high level character can't drop enemies 14 CR lower than their level in a round then things are going to get really sloggy really fast. Especially seeing as you need to kill over 250 ogres for a party to level up.

 

Hopefully HP inflation doesn't work the way I'm worried it will and there won't be a problem.  Also this isn't just about the fighter, I am worried about the whole party's damage output at high levels.

 

*http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356518-Is-a-3-weapon-needed-when-it-boosts-damage-by-53/page4

 

#38

Zardnaar

Jul 06, 2014 21:23:12

Rastapopoulos wrote:
#39

akaddk

Jul 06, 2014 22:09:42

My version of power doesn't break down simply to the math. I'm talking about having a variety of options that don't represent what I perceive should be what Basic classes are. Options are power in an RPG and on that basis, these classes are anything but basic.

#40

GhostStepper

Jul 06, 2014 22:29:06

Guest855761860 wrote:
#41

Tony_Vargas

Jul 06, 2014 22:40:28

edwin_su wrote:
#42

DarkTannara

Jul 06, 2014 22:37:44

So far not as impressed with 5th as much as I hoped. still like it better than fourth though.  Kind of feel like everything I mentioned in the play test nobody cared.

(Reply to #39)

mestewart3

akaddk wrote:
#44

akaddk

Jul 07, 2014 1:19:42

mestewart3 wrote:
#45

Jenks

Jul 07, 2014 3:02:02

Rastapopoulos wrote:
#46

akaddk

Jul 07, 2014 3:13:16

Jenks wrote:
(Reply to #46)

Jenks

akaddk wrote:
(Reply to #44)

mestewart3

akaddk wrote:
#49

akaddk

Jul 07, 2014 4:07:36

mestewart3 wrote:
#50

Nicodaudel

Jul 07, 2014 7:15:11

Jenks wrote:
#51

mellored

Jul 07, 2014 7:35:02

FFSAA wrote:
#52

Person_Man

Jul 07, 2014 8:27:34

I agree that the Basic classes are way too complex and powerful.  More importantly though, you cannot hand the Basic rules to 4 people who have never played D&D and expect them to learn and play D&D.  And that's a huge problem. 

 

100 pages is waaay to long, and someone who is going to DM would basically needs ot read and be familiar with all the rules. Within the voluminous rules, there are no instructions on how to actually DM, no instructions on how to set up and run a real adventure, no monsters or traps, the discussion and explaination of how to roleplay is less then a page long, there's no explaination on how to set up meaningful exploration challenges and why exploring a dungeon can be a fun activity, there are a bunch of references to rules that aren't actually in the Basic rules, the Wizard and Cleric spellcasting resource management is ridiculously complicated, etc.

 

I was hoping that the Basic Rules would be basic, and that I could just email them to my non-D&D playing friends, and then invite them to come over and play.  But that's just not possible. 

#53

GhostStepper

Jul 07, 2014 8:48:46

mestewart3 wrote:
#54

Guest855761860

Jul 07, 2014 8:56:28 		Thats a good point. Perhaps the starter. Set should have been free and the basic rules for purchase
#55

Tony_Vargas

Jul 07, 2014 16:41:07

mestewart3 wrote:
(Reply to #49)

mestewart3

akaddk wrote:
(Reply to #52)

mestewart3

Person_Man wrote:
(Reply to #4)

Titanium_Dragon

akaddk wrote:
#59

MechaPilot

Jul 07, 2014 20:41:55

Titanium_Dragon wrote:
#60

Tony_Vargas

Jul 08, 2014 14:16:39

MechaPilot wrote:
#61

Zardnaar

Jul 08, 2014 19:16:22

Tony_Vargas wrote: