With 5e at 95 percent done, I am taking inventory on 5e. I have always thought that the Players Handbook would be about 80 percent of the game and the Monster Manual would be 15 percent. This leaves the othe 5 percent for the DMG. With 95 percent game done for me I feel comfortable takng inventory.
The Players Handbook is suprisingly complete right out gate with range of class choices and raises which is very complete. Take the fighter for example. There are 3 distinct choices. The Batle Master has list manuevers that offer a variety of effects and tactical choices similar to 4e with an action economy. I even liked disarm. I would say that it would take an item interaction to pick it up. If the group decided it did not there is nothing stopping the disarmer from picking it up themselves after they disarm; if we are saying it is free action to interact with it. For simplicity sake I would say picking up the disarmed item combat would use an item interaction action, thus using up an action for the round. The champion has some heal utilities later on and some and greater crit chance up to 15 percent more. They also can gain different weapon focus such as great weapon then ranged for example. Then there is the Eldritch Knight which gives Fighters access to spells and that out combat utility I have heard so much about 
I have found interesting options with all classses. I think it was very complete book right out of the gate.
I have mentionend before I am a big fan of advantage and disadvantage and bounded accuracy. 80 percent
I was also very happy with the monster selection and math. I did not feel that the ACs or Hit Points were out of Ballance. I think they can be adjusted by DM if they felt needed to challenge group. 15 percent.
This leaves the DMG. For me the most needed section would be the magic item selection. The rules that allow different options such as lingering wounds will be nice and work well with the Champion fighter and their increased Critical chance but not needed.
It took several books for me to get the same level of complteness with 13th age it was core book and True Ways which finished up the classes. Pathfinder it would be core book, Advanced Class Guide, and MM.
So All in all happy with state of 5e
Dave2 wrote:
Im actually finding 5e very incomplete without the DMG.
- Some summon spells in the phb seem to require monster cr increases/decreases. This wasnt in the MM.
- What are the rules to handle magic items and in particular magic weapons in regards to monster CR.
- Traps, diseases, poisons, etc.
- Converting older modules right now is very guestimation. Badly need rules for templates, since the MM is inconsistent (ie, undead).
- NPC CR evaluation for encounters. NPCs in the monster manuals follow monster rules.
- Lack of monsters in the MM requiring some DMG insight (small to gargantuan monsterous spiders etc).
I agree that the DMG needs to be seen. We're not going to start a 5e campaign until it's out.
I disagree that low level spell casters are weaker than low level weapon users. Even burning hands from a level 1 wizard out-does (non-fire resistant monsters, of course) a great weapon fighter against 1-4 goblins. And the wizard can get it back after a short rest, so it's not even a once a day power. Can't say about warlock, sorcerer, etc...We've only played with the free basic PDF and did some one-shot delves just to try out combat mechanics, and exploration mechanics.
From what I can see, spell damage also can grow a lot faster and a lot more than weapon attack damage can. Add to the the DoaM, weak monster saves, and AoE...Wizards are the damage masters of the game, from a purely 'high numbers/DPS' perspective. Also, don't forget how wizards can shut things down with slows, unconsciousness, stuns, blindness, etc. as well. Then a fighter or rogue can really step in and never miss.
Low level 5e is rocket tag, pretty much every fight. Not that I totally mind that; low level 4e had too much HP's on each side, IMO. When a daily power cannot even drop a level 1 kobold or goblin with one hit, there's a problem, LOL. A single 5e bugbear can decimate a small level 1 party, however...Again, not that I really mind that. Stuff should be scary, and if a bugbear was in my apartment, well, I'd be dead in a heartbeat. (Not a gun owner.)
I like 5e, but we're leaning more towards sticking with 4e for now, for our fantasy TTRPG fix. I hope the DMG lives up to at least some of the massive expectations that have been heaped on it by myself, my group, and most of the forum people here...
My group is trying out 5e, and we like it well enough. I like most of the classes.
still, needs more feats, and hopefully some alternate rules that add more choices to the game. So far, it's cool, but we haven't seen a reason to ditch 4e, and some of my players would rather play pathfinder.
@seti
Currently running an 11th level game:
The Paladin is a single target melee damage machine like nothing you've ever seen. Wizard gets great DPR from casting Bigby's hand/WoF plus other stuff. But his DPR curve is very bursty and dependant on AOE/saves/etc. Lore Bard does crappy damage but is doing a lot more in combat than just damage, although he does get good damage out of Moonbeam. Cleric gets most of her damage from Portent cantrip sacred flame and spiritual weapon, however Clerics have taken a huge nerf from earlier editions in terms of their power in combat.
I've also ran some higher level combats in an arena style setting and high level characters. Fighters using action surge do insane damage (90+ per round), whereas spell damage doesn't really keep up at that level. Most high level spells average around 50-60 damage range. Spells excel when there are more than one monster, such as Chain Lightning against 4+ targets is probably the best damaging spell in the game (considering you can pick targets).
My conclusions thus far: Martial classes in this game are the best single target DPR and can do the highest damage to one target in a round. Spellcasters do more raw damage output the more monsters are involved in an encounter, but can't do the same single target damage that martial classes can. Spellcasters obviously have a lot more utility than just pure damage, of course, however they're generally limited to "one thing per encounter" due to concentration mechanics.
This is from my observations level 1-3, 11, and 17.
The best thing about 5e mechanically so far is how fluid combat is at mid-high level. 4e feels literally like a chore now.
DaveDash wrote:
I disagree that AE dmg should be discounted simply because the monster is still effective down to 1 HP. While focus fire is optimal, softening up the enemies isn't nothing. That, in combination with the utility of spells, puts casters and martial types on fairly equal footing IMO
Nevvur wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
It still feels pretty balanced to me, since a caster can do AoE damage OR very good DPR using sustained damage spells such as WoF or Bigbys plus cantrips/other damaging spells. Fighters also tend to suck once their action surges have been expended. Paladin does good damage consistently though and can up that by expending spell slots.
Realistically at level 17 you're looking at ~45 damage to 4 monsters from a Chain Lightning vs a Fighters ~90 damage to one monster. Both are equally as useful, and the Wizard will result in the encounter being over quicker than if he was replaced with another Fighter. The more monsters, the more useful the Wizard.
Also Fighters can go through unlucky combats where they don't hit much. Seen it happen. And at high levels heaps of monsters can fly.
In my current game (level 11) in terms of raw damage output the Wizard is on par with the Paladin across the adventuring workday, and that is discounting AoE damaging done multiple times to multiple monsters.
Casters can also win fights instantly with spells like banish, which my players make good use of much to my annoyance.
DaveDash wrote:
Fallstorm wrote:
I would agree that martial classes can do a large amount of single target DPS that keeps pace with casters maybe slightly out pases on single target. However, AOE can be a valuable thing with group encounters which can be frequent occurance with the set up being leader and the support creatures. In 4e and Pathfinder with things like scaling AC you may often ignore the support creatures and go right to the leader. In 5e and things like pack fighting that may give the support creatures advantage on attacks combined with bounded accuracy the support creatures are now quite dangerious indeed. AOE is invaluable in this case. In encounters such as these AOE can be as valuable as high single target DPS. I think a party with mixture of AOE damage dealers and high single target DPS will have a much easier time dealing with allot of the encounters I have experienced than a part that is heavy with just AOE or single target. So in this regard I feel that the classes balance out; just in different ways each as valuable as the other.
I also liked 4e and have muliple copies of most all books. I aslo like Pathfinder and 13th age. Mutiple books with these also.
5e to me just has different feel with bounded accuracy and advantage and disadvantage. I think it is also easier to introduce to new players to with the flatter math.
I hope the DMG does fill the wholes that people want. The group I am in has allot of veteran players experienced in Games such as Dungeon World and Fate and eye ball allot of things. The DMG will be nice to have but not make or break the game for us.
5e. so far? Daddy likely. I do want more options for the future, and higher quality product via a better printer but over all- I'm happy with what 5e. is and what it has the potential to become. I do want the DMG, but have begun a 5e. campaign set in pre spell plague F.R. around 1368 DR. Old school game, retro New game system. Good stuff! 
A properly built Warlock/Sorcerer can out DPR any martial class in the game at almost every level. Head over to the DPR Kings thread, and start back around page 2. It takes a little bit of reading and figuring out, but a well built caster can absolutely dominate the martial classes in 5E (Fighters occasionally out-DPR only on levels where they get an Extra Attack).
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Chakravant wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
It amazes me that massive explosions do less damage than single target damage spells. Balancewise I understand it, although it is very counterintuitive to how things work in real life.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Dave2 wrote:
On the casters vs martials, martials are doing the best single target damage(warlock/sorc maybe excluded, but I'd really like to see the full build for this).
Chart on damage per 16 round day with +1 weapons @ level 11: http://tarsis.org/me/dpad/dpad_2.png
Evoker tends to be in the monk and rogue area of single target damage while fighters, barbarians and paladins are the single target kings. I wouldn't at all discount the AE damage and utility of casters though. 5e unlike allows for lower level monsters to hit higher level PCs pretty easily. From all the game reports I've seen packs of lower CR monsters have been a lot more likely to TPK a party than a single high CR monster. So having an evoker around to deal with packs is really a valuable asset for any party.
I'm pretty happy. Other people I play with have a couple complaints (most of them relating to 'feel', as in 'I dont feel as powerful as I did in 2nd edition', which I think is amazing from an objective perspective) but are overall pleased. I do want to see some more 4E options like a warlord, or martial healing, or other things that make some posters less happy, and I want to see more classes. But as for complaints I don't really have any. I've played both a casty and a fighty and they seem pretty fun. Currently playing/practicing a sorceress, Moon Elf, in the Realms.
And I want my Eladrin back! 
I love, LOVE the 5E rules. Having played 4E recently, and 2E back in college, I find that 5E is bringing back an immersive feeling of being in the character. More role playing and creative thinking.
That said, one change between the last 5E beta and the final 5E release stands out as a major problem. I would go so far as to say that it is BROKEN.
The big change is with concentration spells.
- Taking combat damage breaks concentration unless the player makes a DC10+ CON save
- Way more spells now have a duration concentration
- Of the caster classes, only Sorcerors have proficiency in CON saves
Now the concentration rules may make sense for Wizards. Especially the way that any small amount of damage triggers a DC:10 CON save to maintain concentration.
The place where I see this as BROKEN is with the PALADIN class, and similar combat casters.
Of the 15 L1 paladin spells, only 3 are not concentration. (Command, Cure Wounds, and Purify Food and Drink).
Paladins no longer have proficiency in constitution saves.
CON is probably a paladin's 2nd or 3rd stat after STR and possibly CHA. So CON save bonus of +2 or +3.
Every time they take damage there is at least a 30-35% chance that their concentration will fall (higher if the damage is greater than 20 points).
Which means that a spell like "compelled duel" can be expected to last until the paladin takes about 2 hits. (And each hit counts separately--so magic missile can break pretty much any concentration spell.) And this is AFTER the opponent failed a WIS save vs a 3rd stat save DC. A player is probably better off role-playing a good insult to get a monster's attention for 1 round.
But Bless, Divine Favor, Heroism, and Shield of Faith are all basically neutralized by the concentration rules.
As a DM this can easily addressed with house rules. I'm inclined to say that a paladin's concentration can't be distrupted by damage if he is using a combat spell in combat. Concentrating on combat is what knights do in a fight. Nobody cries over a scratch.
But in the Adventurer's League, we have to stick with the
Similarly, I think that Warlocks are seriously nerfed by the concentration rules too. Hex looks like it's meant to be a good warlock spell. But since it is concentration, then even though it has a duration of 1, 8, or 24 hours, in practice we can expect it to last until the warlock takes 2-3 hits or one magic missile. Since warlocks get only two spell slots until level 11, so keeping a concentration spell going between short rests is pretty desirable.
So I think the CON saves are "broken" on the low end, because a paladin has a 30%-35% chance to fail one even if taking only 1 point of damage.
I think CON saves are also broken on the "high" end. For example, if a level 20 Paladin has 204 hit points and takes 50 points of damage, she would need to make a DC25 CON save to maintain concentration. (And 27/44 paladin spells (61.4%) are concentration. Only one of the non-concentration spells (Death Ward) is really a combat spell.)
So to summarize, I think that there is a real problem in the following combination of facts:
- Concentration is very easy to disrupt for combat caster classes.
- Many spells have been made "duration: concentration". For some classes, the majority of spells are concentration.
- Sorcerers are the only caster class that has proficiency in CON saves.
So as DM I will be running my tables with house rules that reduce how often CON saves are called for in combat.
DaveDash wrote:
CirinEvada wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
I am sorry I lost a reader so early at 95 percent done for 5e statement. To me it really is. The concept of bounded accuracy and advantage and disadvantage have been detailed. This is what makes this addition unique. The classes, races, spells, combat, skills, and experience have been detailed in the Players Handbook. The Monster Manual provides the monsters and foes to fight. To me this is the vast majority of the game; around 95 percent. The other 5 percent for the DMG is for the Enchanting and Magic Item rules. The rest are optional rules and guidelines that will be nice to have, but not key for the groups I play with.
As I mentionend before I enjoy the bounded accuracy and advantage and disadvantage mechanic. I also think the monster math was fine. So I have been happy with how 5e has played and how it is to run form a DM perspective.
I do hope the DMG does meet the expections of those on the forums and others. I also look fook forward to the DMG and the options and tweaks it will provide, but the only thing that is needed from the book too me is the Magic Item and enchanting rules the rest is just iceing on the cake.
I just ran through the numbers through a spreadsheet.
Candidates:
- Warlock 2/Sorc18 doing as much DPR as it can with quickened SR + EB.
- Ftr20 Champion with greatsword just whacking things. Just gave him great sword fighting style.
- Paladin 20 with greatsword, using divine smite as much as it can, plus hunters mark and thunderous smite in the first round. Just gave him great sword fighting style.
Assumptions:
- All single target damage.
- 12 rounds workday, fairly standard based on the rules (4 encounters of three rounds, or 6 encounters of 2 rounds).
- One short rest in the middle.
- Assumed flat 65% chance to hit for all candidates equally.
- Gave the Sorc 24 hours of hex.
Results:
- Ftr - 668.8 damage (501.6 without a short rest, quite unrealistic).
- Sorc - 562.65 damage
- Paladin - 401.15 damage
Unless I have made a major error somewhere the claims that this Sorcerer is somehow game breaking is false. If the Ftr gets more short rests it blows all other classes out of the water in terms of damage output.
I'm not into math, so I will not question your numbers.
Still though, single target awesomeness is really only a part of the picture. Unless your DM never runs groups of monsters, you still need the amazing output of AoE casters.
Plus, fighters miss sometimes. casters with AoE and DoaM (half damage on failed save) don't. While it is true that a monster with one HP is still a threat, the very next thing that hits it puts it down. If anything, the above post doesn't prove fighters are 'better', it just proves they are better in a situation where there's only one monster to pound on.
I'd rather have a evoker wizard on my team than a great weapon fighter if I had to survive a group of 10 goblins. They'd pick the fighter apart, while he or she drops 2-3 in 2-3 rounds. The Wiz (or Sorc, whatever) will drop a few (at least) in one round.
So...IMO, you need both. Plus a healer. That's still a 5e issue...You have to play a certain archetype to heal...Cleric, or to a lesser extent, Paladin.
PS: I'd count DPR considering all targets, not just single targets. That'd really change the numbers shown.
seti wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
[quote="Chakravant"]
DaveDash wrote:
Sorry about page 202. I sometimes get confused on that one as it is part of the Quicken Spell angle of the build (EB as standard, Quicken as bonus).
I'm not sure normalizing opportunity attacks is fair, but okay.
I forgot about Agonizing Blast.
I forgot about Elemental Affinity (fire)
I forgot about Elemental Adept (fire)
Sharpshooter might increase the DPR (AC on monsters is awful low, making the -5 to hit potentially manageable), but shouldn't be factored in unless the same is done for the Fighter.
When you're doing more damage, combat takes fewer rounds. That means less healing. That means other party members can focus on extra DPR as opposed to survivability.
When you're doing smaller damage more often, you eliminate overkill damage, spreading the DPR in a superior manner.
This is all ranged, providing you with added survivability.
It is fine to have all your eggs in one basket if the result is your enemies die quickly.
Yes, this build has zero utility. All it does is damage. It isn't a "good" build. It is example of how unbalanced 5E is. It is boring, and rote. I don't really like it.
But when you argue "Who is the DPR King of 5E?", it has yet to be topped once you add in all the damage riders.
I made some of the changes you requested (Meteor Storm opener, and Twinned instead of Quickened) and the Sorcs damage goes up to 733.8* over a 12 round workday, which is higher than the Ftr (with one short rest). This equates to about a 9% increase of damage over the Fighter across the course of the day.
Yes that's great DPR, although almost exclusively fire damage, and The Fighter also remains ahead if allowed two short rests in a work day, which is fairly common.
In other words, the game is fairly balanced.
*Most of which is split across two monsters. So it's not really a fair comparison any more. Also any single target encounters and that DPR will drop back to EB+SR levels.
DaveDash wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Yes, Feats are optional. In the same vein, so is 5E. That's kind of a pointless statement, isn't it?
Dave2 wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
I am glad you have enjoyed D&D and got chance to look at the DMG and enjoyed it. The D&D groups I play and run for have enjoyed 5e. I have not had a chance to look at the DMG yet, but was sold after the Players Handbook and the MM clinched it for me. The Monster Math was good for me. I am also big fan of bounded accuracy and advantage and disadvantage. These things led me to the statement that game was 95 percent done.
I am glad for those that got chance to get look at the DMG and enjoyed it.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote: