| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1ZardnaarApr 03, 2015 6:33:26 |
OK I have probably played to much 5E but we are on our 3rd or 4th campaign in 5E after playing the last 2 major ones through to level 13 and 14. Here are some basic thoughts.
1. Most of the classes are broken relative to the monsters and encounter building guidelines. This is not a major problem as Type 1 (vintage) in Magic the Gathering is broken but it is semi balanced by everything being broken.
2. Different classes peak at different levels (relative to the other classes).. Moon Druids at level 2, 10 and maybe 20, fighters at level 11, Paladins at level 6 and 7 etc. I do not know what the best classes are but lean towards lore bards, light clerics and oath of the Ancient Paladins myself. Wizards are not that good BTW except at the highest levels of the game, and the Moon Druid is not all that either (I like the land Druid better).
This does not bother me at all. IRL I have another addiction. According to my Steam account I have put in 1400 hours since August 2013 into Europa Unversalis IV. EUIV is a grand strategy sandbox game. l
Today I played EUIV as the Aztecs complete with huamn sacrifice mechanics in the latest patch. The Aztecs in game have a 150% tech point penalty cost relative to the Europeans. This means if a technology costs a European nation 600 points it costs the Aztecs 1500 points. They also cannot build any boats and their empire loses their vassals whenever you pass a reform of their religion which you need to do 5 times. A large European nation like France or Castile(Spain) also outnumbers you 4-1 and techs up a lot faster than you and if you outnumber them 4-1 you would still lose.
In this game the Europeans turned up and I promptly lost 1/3rd of my empire to imperialism gang bang from Portugal/Castile/France. I then had 4 garbage rulers in a row over the next 100 years and I had massive problems but I survived and started to thrive eventually winning my 1st war against France while still being behind in tech although I managed to westernize in the game and aquire European technology (I'm playing catch up).
So what has EUIV got to do with D&D? Well basically it is a sand box game where you can figure out what you want to do and how to do it. Playing France is kind of like playing a Druid in 3.5. Playing the Aztecs is kind of like playing a monk with 10 points point buy while the Druid gets to use 25.
I have played a few strategy games mostly 4X and grand strategy games over the years and the ones I have likes a lot I normally end up playing on very hard or beyond in terms of difficulty levels. In these games you have that choice and in Civilization I-III I usually played on Deity or Sid levels of difficulty and/or used house rules like beating the game on Deity and doing a 5 city challenge (build 5 cities thats it, all captured cities get burned to the ground). I also played Hearts of Iron II mod Arsenal of Democracy (for the hard core) and beat that on very hard difficulty as Germany. In that game attrition kills your tanks dead once you get around Stalingrad let alone Siberia.
These games much like D&D are a sandbox. I think D&D should be played in the way each group or DM feels like playing as opposed to rail roads that 3E and 4E went down to some extent. Here are my thoughts on the classes and what I have noticed so far..
Barbarian. Not sure I have only seen the Barbarian as a single splash level.
Bard. The Lore Bard is the best one, the Valor Bard is a bit to MAD with the default array and to squishy and doesn't deal enough damage on the front line.
Cleric. 3 of the clerics seem good (Light, Life, Death) several are decent (war, tempest) and the others are a bit meh. Bless and Guidance are very silly (read powerful) spells.
Druids. The Druid is one of more difficult classes to get right in 5E IMHO. It really does depend on how you build them (blaster, healer, wild shape etc). Moon Druid can be frustrating from what I have seen sometimes for the DM sometimes for the player.
Fighter. The Battlemaster Fighter is the best one across all levels of play. Reports from people whose opinion I listen to on other forums indicate that the Eldrittch Knight is the best one at the highest levels of the game (15+). None of them are bad though.
Monk: I ended up unbanning this class. I still can't get anyoneto play it. No idea how good or bad it is it looks OK at level 1 and then gets weak but IDK. Looks like I will be using one as a Rogue sub just to test the class out next time I play. And I don't even like the class.
Paladin. A bit meh compared to the other martial types and then it hiuts level 6 and the sun comes up and angels sing from the heavens. 2 of them are good (Avenger and Oath of Ancients). One is moar damage one is a better defensive aura and spell selection IMHO.
Ranger. The poor maligned ranger. The beastmaster is pants the hunter is very good. Similar to the warlock as in how good they will be depends on how you build them.
Rogues. All of them seem a bit meh. Semi decent damage and useful abilites though. Not a massive fan of the class and it often is not picked as the PCs break its role up among themselves. The Thief seems to be the best one and makes a great healer with the healer feat. Bonus action healing that puys healing word to shame.
Sorcerer. The Sorcerer is very good perhaps better than a wizard espicially if you are playing from level 1.. The wizard may be more versatile but twinned buff spells (enhance ability, haste, stoneskin, greater invisability) are really that good and overshadow wizards at similar levels. Your party memebr will love you the DM is probably wondering what happened.
Warlocks. This is another high skill class depending on who plays them and how they build them. Very versatile class and you can go in multiple ways with it. Best multiclass in the game as well (Bladelock, Sorlock, Bardlock).
Wizards. 3 wizards are decent/good/great (Transmuter, Abjurer, Diviner), 1 is ok (invoker) and the other 4 are meh to the point of play a lore bard or sorcerer instead.
Spellcasters semi rule the roost just due to the sheer quantity of the classes that cast spells as opposed to the raw power of the spell casters as such. Without being proficient in constitution saves and/or using the warcaster feat you probably will not enjoy playing spell casters unless you roll an 18 con or something like that. Unless you like throwing around a lot of fireballs.
|
| #2ChrisCarlsonApr 03, 2015 6:42:37 | Almost all of that sounds more like a playstyle issue, rather than a design issue. Because I have not experienced the same things you keep bringing up over and over, thread after thread. I have not come away with many of these same opinions. And yes, I've been playing it as long as you. Maybe not as much (because I don't think anyone can take that title away). But, yes, I've played it plenty thus far, regardless.
I agree though, that when approached with a certain bent, many of the things you see as a problem or concern, have the potential to surface. I just choose not to bring my previous edition baggage to the 5e table. |
| #3ZardnaarApr 03, 2015 6:48:55 |
|
| #4SatyrnApr 03, 2015 7:01:36 | 1400 hours...
...
... Are you retired? |
| #5ChrisCarlsonApr 03, 2015 7:03:43 |
|
| #6ZardnaarApr 03, 2015 7:03:47 |
|
| #7Hurin88Apr 03, 2015 9:34:29 | What happens to Paladins at level 6? Just wondering. |
| #8Coredump00Apr 03, 2015 9:53:07 | OTOH, I have like 2,000 hours on Total War Sam2: but I just leave the game on, Steam doesn't know the difference so last week I 'played' it for 168 straight. |
| #9AaronOfBarbariaApr 03, 2015 10:11:23 | Again, Zard, it seems most of your points regarding balance can be accurately phrased as "5th edition has a target power level that differs from what I believe the target power level is or should be."
That is how you can say "all the classes seem broken relative to the monster and encounter building guidelines." They are all hitting their mark (or near enough to it) - you just think they are supposed to be aiming at a different mark entirely. |
| #10MistwellApr 03, 2015 10:56:02 | I always appreciate your perspective Zard, because you book so many hours of playing. I don't always agree, and in this case I suspect there are playstyle issues impacting your views, but still it's always good to get your read on things. So thanks. |
| #11paulstraitApr 03, 2015 12:20:46 |
|
| #12ZardnaarApr 03, 2015 13:29:06 |
|
| #13ZardnaarApr 03, 2015 13:31:17 |
|
| #14ZardnaarApr 03, 2015 13:34:42 |
|
| #15ZardnaarApr 03, 2015 13:40:05 |
|
| (Reply to #15)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #17ZardnaarApr 03, 2015 14:44:56 |
|
| #18AaronOfBarbariaApr 03, 2015 15:07:34 | None of that wall of text shows anything in 5th edition as being out of line with other parts of 5th edition - just that 5th edition is, as I've tried to illustrate and failed, not enitrely in line with what you personally think the game should be like (which is obvious, to me, is different than what the designers intend the game to be like). |
| #19RastapopoulosApr 03, 2015 23:39:25 |
|
| (Reply to #17)Lokiron | Zardnaar, I think you put a lot of heart and energy into all these posts, and your perspective is appreciated, especially since it seems you're a lot more positive than you were some time ago. Your OP seems very subjective (which is very often the case), but the more opinions are posted, the more we learn.
|
| #21Dark_StrykeApr 04, 2015 7:11:18 |
|
| #22RhennyApr 04, 2015 7:56:06 |
We haven't played as much as you, Zard. I'm DMing and playing in 3 games (on and off over the weeks), but 6th level is the highest we've gotten to.
So far, we've played a fair variety of classes (but no Bard or Druid yet) and we are finding pc to pc balance pretty even. Different ones appeal to different players for play style/feel more than power in most cases.
I agree that monsters are less powerful than pcs, but again, that seems by design because it is much easier for a DM to make things more difficult than to have to temper things that are too strong.
I'm running Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle and I'm keeping pcs 1 level lower than what was suggested in the adventure. That's helping, but still many encounters are only there to get players to use resources, or to advance the story. Once in a while there is a deadly encounter, but overall, the party can really keep moving without rest for longer periods than previous editions. I like this. It helps the flow and pacing of the games.
I really think that 5e is very different than prior editions as to the pace and flow. If groups are looking for near death challenge with every encounter, it doesn't seem like 5e will provide that easily. I'm totally ok with that and am loving 5e. |
| #23arnwolf666Apr 04, 2015 10:14:14 | For me it is not about balancing one class versus another for pvp. It's about creating classes that contribute to the game in different ways. |
| #24ZardnaarApr 04, 2015 11:56:40 |
|
| #25PsikerlordApr 04, 2015 18:46:27 |
|
| #26ZardnaarApr 04, 2015 18:52:33 |
|
| #27MistwellApr 04, 2015 22:07:19 | The thing is, almost nobody interprets the Healer feat the way you do. Time after time I've seen DMs say they would allow ONE use out of combat, and not repeated uses between combats, despite what some game designer might suggest about stacking short rests. And once that happens, the Healer feat just doesn't do nearly as much. If many of your games use it to basically heal 100% between combats, no wonder you're finding PCs to be overpowered. They're not supposed to heal 100% between every combat. |
| #28ZardnaarApr 04, 2015 23:35:50 |
|
| #29FFSAAApr 05, 2015 7:51:21 |
|