Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Lanatir Sep 10, 2014 7:00:45	I really dont know where to ask this, so im trying it here. I only have read a bit of the PHB so far, and my info is mainly from the starter set. Is my impression correct that characters are quite a bit less powerful then they were compared to 3, 3.5 and 4th edition? I do understand it correctly that a fighter only gets 1 point of base attack every 4 levels or so? When the profession bonus goes up? Also, attributes now have an absolute maximum of 20? Was the general powerlevel lowered? Does this also take into account monster strength, because if those are still as strong as they used to in older editions (and i cant tell cause i havent seen a monster manual yet) that would be a serious imbalance. This is not meant as a critique, just generally wondering if i percieve this correctly.
#2 DemoMonkey Sep 10, 2014 7:09:27	It depends on how you measure "power". In terms of absolute numbers, 5E's character numbers are lower than 4E or a High-Magic 3.5 campaign.   In terms of effectiveness, I would say they are about equal.   To simplify, it doesn't matter if your attack bonus is +10 against a target AC of 18, or +30 vs a target number of 38.
#3 seti Sep 10, 2014 7:20:04	Spells (and spell users, like the wizard) seem much more powerful on paper than weapon-users in 5e. From a bit of combat and delves I've done with the free basic PDFs, it doesn't seem to show up in play as much as I thought. (Although, I play with close friends, and no one min-maxes, rules lawyers, or fails to point out when something they use seems too powerful.)   PC's and monsters (especially at levels 1 and 2) pretty much play rocket tag every encounter, though.   The 5e wizard is even more powerful than the 4e wizard, while the 5e fighter is weaker than the 4e fighter, IMO. 5e doesn't seem as bad as 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, or PF...But it isn't all tight and balanced like 4e either. It's a total compromise edition. I like it ok, but it also has too much rules vagueness and not enough options for weapon-focused PCs yet.
#4 BoldItalic Sep 10, 2014 7:36:43	It's okay, monsters have been rebalanced to correspond.   Rather than abilities, to-hit rolls and AC rising with level in an unbounded way, they have been kept almost constant or increasing very slowly. One beneift of this is that low-level monsters can still be challenging to high-level characters (albeit in greater numbers). Another is that magic items that confer numerical benefits go on being useful as the characters advance in level so they don't have to be continually replaced with upgraded versions.   It works.
#5 Lanatir Sep 10, 2014 7:20:48	Well, i feel that it might be best to use the starter set adventure first, because im seriously used to the 3.5 edition powerlevels, and if i use that knowledge i would probably overpower the obstacles and challenges in comparison to now less powerful characters. Dont want my group to wipe on a bunch of hopgoblins.
#6 dmgorgon Sep 10, 2014 7:23:55	We haven't seen all the option porn for this edition yet,  but the game was not built around increasing bonuses.   You will no longer be able to take pride your +50 check.
#7 mellored Sep 10, 2014 7:28:32	To-hit, AC, and DC do not scale nearly as high.   HP scales faster.
#8 BoldItalic Sep 10, 2014 7:44:00	Lanatir wrote:
#9 Huntsman57 Sep 10, 2014 8:27:10	Strictly in bonus #'s 5th chars are weaker, though some of the special abilities and feats are quite impressive. I rather prefer this way of doing things, and I hope magical items follow the same path...power coming from interesting and potent abilities rather than simply climbing the +1, +2, +3, ad nauseum ladder.
#10 Arbitrary_Aardvark Sep 10, 2014 8:54:48	Starting characters in 5th edition are definitely less powerful, and less "mature", than in 4th, about equivelent to 3rd, and slightly more than 1st and 2nd. I base this on three factors: 1. How much a 1st-level character feels like a person who might have had a previous adventuring career. 2. Whether a party of 1st-level characters can take on and reliably beat a similarly-sized group of spear-carriers (in the literary, not literal, sense.), or one or two higher-level monsters. 3. How "fragile" a 1st-level character is against level-appropriate threats. I'm only going to compare starting characters with those later in the same tier. (Pre-paragon for 4th, pre-prestige class for 3rd.)   Let's look at #1 first. All editions of D&D have pretty much claimed in the fluff that your character could be a grizzled veteran soldier, a mystic scholar, a world-traveled sailor etc. They could also be guy fresh off the farm, or who was just chosen by a deity, or whatever. This has mostly been true for the martial classes since the original D&D, since before 4th edition the only real difference between a 1st and a 13th level fighter in feel was the 13th level had more plusses, and more attacks. Higher-level rangers and paladins received more benefits (weak spell-casting, paladin mount), but you could still convince yourself that you were a tough, experienced warrior. Except that you were only barely better than a 1st-level NPC city guard, and two of them could probably take you down. 1st-level rogues generally were unconvincing, being able to occasionally pick a lock or pocket, and spell casters (pre 3rd edition) had very few spells. In OD&D, a wizard had one spell, and a cleric zero, at 1st level. In 3rd edition, you had a little more illusion of maturity, but still could only do a fraction of the sorts of things a higher-level character could do.   Note that I'm not talking here about power, but versimilitude. If you wanted to run "Rognar the barbarian bard, scourge of the goblins", you just couldn't. You couldn't start multiclassed, and spellcasters had so few options. This hampers you if you want your back story to have involved any sort of adventuring. (Note that the reverse, running "wet-behind-the-ears" types in an edition with powerful 1st level characters is almost equally problematic. I say almost, since you could always just be gifted. Sort of like Lancelot when he started.)   In 4th edition, starting characters felt like they could be seasoned adventurers. They already had at will powers (so spellcasters wouldn't run out of spells), and two special moves (daily and encounter powers). You weren't all-powerful in feel, but the characters felt like they had options, and could have already been adventuring. Also, there were, by the end, classes which felt a lot like most of the popular multi-class combinations (fighter/wizard, or rogue/wizard).   In 5th, we really are back to the earlier mode. Basically, it isn't until 3rd level (2nd for a few classes) that your character really becomes defined, and you become a warlock of the dark one, a tactically cunning fighter, a beast-master ranger etc. I understand that this is for two reasons; one, so that players can get a feel for the rules and their characters prior to making irreversable choices, and two, so that you can play the "wet-behind-the-ears" sort of character. That said, Mearls (IIRC it was he) said that he expected that experienced groups might just start at 3rd level.   Looking at #2, the only edition which really let 1st-level characters take on similarly-sized groups of spear-carriers (theatrical term for extras) was 4th edition. Because of minions, you could have a fight where five PCs found against a half-dozen city guardsmen (four of which were minions, and the other two CR 1 soldiers). Because of the encounter-balancing mechanism for CRs, and the higher hitpoints characters had in 4th, you could also have them face, say, two CR3 creatures, like a pair of wolves. I think 5th edition is likely to fall into more of a 1st and 2nd edition area, where the easy fights will once again be against giant rats and medium centipedes.   Looking at #3, fifth edition characters are better off than any but 4th (and possibly 3rd.) It looks to me (from reading the rules) that it is a little harder to actually kill a character than in 3rd due to getting rid of negative hit points, but it is a lot easier than in 4th to be reduced to zero. Also, harder hitting monsters can one-shot kill a character, which generally wasn't as big a problem in 3rd, and rarely a problem in 4th.   Overall, I think that 5th edition starting characters are stronger than pre-3rd edition, about the same as 3rd, and much weaker than 4th edition. However, from what I've read the intention in 4th was for starting characters to have the feel of about 3rd level characters from earlier editions), and that there was some talk about viewing 1st and 2nd level as optional for experienced play groups in 5th edition.
#11 Guest703856308 Sep 10, 2014 9:33:36	Overall everything feels underpowered relative to the past, but once you reset your expectations to the new normal, it seems reasonably balanced.
#12 Lanatir Sep 10, 2014 11:13:45	As i said. I wasnt critical towards that idea, on the contrary. The new System makes giving out rewards so much easier. a +1 Longsword is now a real treasure, even for higher level characters. Talking about it...did they get rid of masterwork armor and weapons?
#13 mellored Sep 10, 2014 11:14:41	Lanatir wrote:
#14 Eldren73 Sep 10, 2014 12:29:42	Overall, 5E seems to want slightly lower numbers, but I don't think I'd classify it as "less powerful".  It's certainly not as prone to heavy multi-product optimization as, say, 3.5 was (if you had a lenient DM, you could pull in material from non-Core books or even third-party material published under the OGL to have a ridiculously powerful character), and it isn't as boxed-in with absolute numerical parity as 4E was, but in general characters can still feel quite powerful.  At 1st level, for instance, a decent roll on a cantrip can let a spellcaster practically one-shot a monster, and cantrips are fully spammable now: they don't take slots, they don't use resources, and they do appreciable damage (1d10 for a Flamebolt, for example).  It has the benefit of letting a spellcaster remain an actual spellcaster after they've used up their daily selection of spell slots, but it can make the martial types feel a bit overwhelmed when they're sitting there smacking on something for between 1d6-1d8 (plus Strength of course, or Dexterity for a Finesse weapon) per hit.   I don't think the characters are "less powerful" personally.  But we'll also have to wait and see: Monster Manual will give us a robust idea of what kinds of creatures are out there, and the Dungeon Master's Guide next month will hopefully show us what kinds of optional rules will be floating around, which will be where the optimization crowd will really start to go nuts (and which will quickly see these forums degenerate into ongoing complaints of this or that class being "overpowered", for probably the foreseeable future of 5E's product cycle).
(Reply to #13) seti	mellored wrote:
#16 Zardnaar Sep 10, 2014 15:23:01	Your PCs are more powerful for the 1st 1-5 levels IMHO maybe even 1-8. The spells do more damage than 3.5, you can make more attacks, sleep doesn't have a saving throw at all, you have more healing available etc.   Spellcaster power drops off after level 8 or so and buffs are a lot weaker though. You do not get the extremes of 3.5/PF though like level 4 PCs hitting for 4d6+20 damage and things like that. Thats my PC in Pathfinder ATM level 1 Bard/Rogue3 win initiative and kill.
#17 Cyber-Dave Sep 10, 2014 15:23:11	seti wrote:
#18 Zardnaar Sep 10, 2014 15:43:34	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#19 Illithidbix Sep 10, 2014 16:56:05	For comparison of "number to add to a D20"; yes.  A starting Fighter in 5E with chainmail and a shield has AC:18 and probably has +5 to hit vs AC with a longsword. At level 20 they'll almost certainly have +11 vs AC (+6 Prof; +5 from STR/DEX 20) plus any magic items.   While A level 30 4E fighter was likely to have about +35 vs AC after the expected +6 magic items, stats upgrade and expertise feats.   However! An Ancient Red Dragon in 5E has AC 22. vs AC 39 in 3.5 and AC 48 in 4E!   AC scales no where near as quickly as it did in earlier editions.
#20 Tony_Vargas Sep 11, 2014 22:56:59	Lanatir wrote:
#21 Thunaer Sep 12, 2014 4:19:54	The power level is a little bit less then one might be used to coming from 3.5 and 4 but I think as a whole the system currently worls pretty well as long as you put common sense above RAW.  i think one of the keys to this edition will be needing to understand the creatures  you are using against the party and the mechanics they can and should employ. I think another thing is you need to do if  are running this for a group used to 3.5 or 4th is to ask them to use a ittle bit of caution for a little bit until they get a feel for the game. 5th edition is what it is nd for the most part it is pretty good, I am looking forward to the DMG to see some optional rules are like and am hopeful for the reemergence of a printed form of Dragon and Dungeon magazine in the future as those titles would be of great help to new and old players alike.
#22 Sword_of_Spirit Sep 13, 2014 18:18:05	Level matters.   At low-level I would take a 5e character of any class over their equivalent 3.x character. Hands down.   Take a 1st-level human fighter for instance (variant human in 5e, for easiers comparison). Same hit points. Both get a bonus skill. 3e gets three feats and a +1 attack bonus over some classes. 5e gets a +1 to two ability scores of his choice, a feat that is probably worth three 3e feats, and a fighting style that is better than a 3e feat. And probably two more skills. Oh, and second wind. As a bonus action regain 1d10+1 hp, and you can do it again after each 1 hour rest you take that day.   2nd-level human fighter. Same hit points (though if you use the average hp option from 5e compared to the similar option in the 3e DMG, 5e comes out ahead). 3e gets another feat, and another +1 attack bonus. 5e gets an extra point of healing with second wind. They also get action surge, which allows them to take an extra action (any action) for free. Recharges on a short rest.   3rd-level human fighter. Same hit point (or 5e slightly better). 3e gets another feat and a +1 attack bonus. 5e gets another point of healing with second wind. They also gain a subclass. The most basic subclass lets them crit on a 19-20. Applies to all weapons, comes earlier than you can get it in 3e, but crits aren't quite as powerful as 3e.   So if you are looking at attack bonus, the 3e fighter wins. But if you look at how attack bonus relates to 5e in general, you'll see that everyone starts with the same attack bonus and it increases on the same schedule for all characters and monsters. What 5e fighter gets instead is *much* cooler toys. (Note, I'm comparing to 3.x PHB and modest early splats, not the crazy broken feat combos and prestige class paths to power that show up in later sourcebooks).   It's the same for all of the other PHB classes. A wizard casts 3 cantrips (including decent attacks) at will instead of preparing four 0-level spells. He has four or five 1st level spells prepared and two spell slots in which to cast them 3e-sorcerer style. He also regains one of his spell slots with a short rest. Oh, and he has 2 more hit points. And the spells are more powerful.   At high levels if you are optimizing in 3e you are probably going to beat 5e most of the times. (Probably not with a 3e PHB vanilla fighter.) But your 5e characters are going to have more interesting and reliable tricks. For instance, a 20th level fighter has 4 attacks, all at his full attack bonus. If he is a Battle Master he has a variety of 8 or 9 maneuvers he can use that generally add damage and a special effect to go along with them (amongst other things). If he is an Eldritch Knight he casts 4th level spells (amongst other things). If he is a Champion he crits on an 18-20, gets a second fighting style, and regenerates 5+Con mod hp per round when under half hp (amongst other things).   4e characters start more powerful but don't get as powerful as 5e characters as high-level. 1e-2e characters start weaker, and non-casters remain weaker (unless you just count attack bonus) while casters are harder for me to assess at high-level.
#23 DM_HEEGZ Sep 13, 2014 19:57:34	mellored wrote:
#24 Zardnaar Sep 14, 2014 4:37:18	Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
#25 Uchawi Sep 14, 2014 4:38:05	There is not a good method to control complexity at the table so you can change the baseline assumptions at first level. The developers intentially increased the power curve at third level, assuming you will be happy to start off a higher levels if you want more power. The problem is, the amount of choices for certain classes remain fairly static and linear. And no one is going to agree on what is powerful when comparing classes, or monsters.
(Reply to #2) Dwalon	DemoMonkey wrote:
#27 mellored Sep 14, 2014 11:12:42	Dwalon wrote:
#28 Leugren Sep 14, 2014 13:29:08	I recently created a lightfoot halfling druid who is a native of Maztica, and is modeled after a Peruvian pan flutist, complete with a vicuña as a pack animal (a small llama).
#29 Orethalion Sep 14, 2014 13:58:56	mellored wrote:
#30 Zardnaar Sep 14, 2014 14:03:02	Orethalion wrote:
#31 Dwalon Sep 14, 2014 14:15:17	This is why I disagree with the "old school feel" adage that has been marketed with 5e.  To me in 1e through 3e, when you were a hero, you could do remarkable things.  Now in 5e, you are just another slightly better than the commoner spearchucker.
#32 ZezKai Sep 14, 2014 15:01:08	Dwalon wrote: