Real Life Examples of Disparity in Play

[Lokiare]

Improved phrasing thanks to Archaeo:

How are people finding the balance between caster and martial characters at their table? While I suspect the balance may be tilted toward the casters, I'm interested in seeing what other people have experienced. Please provide any information that may help explain the disparity, including the character builds involved, the encounters they've faced, and any DM rulings that may have impacted the PCs' effectiveness.

So have people had real life examples of disparity between the effectiveness of classes in play yet?

I'm currently looking to get into a 5E game so I can prove some of the theory crafting that's been going on, but maybe others have beat me to it.

If you do have an example please describe your build, the build of the character that you had the disparity with and what circumstances led you to see the disparity.

For example (this is not real):

My character: Champion Fighter level 7, long sword, shield, half-elf, great weapon feat.

Disparity character: Evocation school wizard level 5 with fireball, flaming sphere, and fire bolt.

I was hewing my way through 2-3 kobolds per round and I decided to nova so I used action surge and took down 6 kobolds in one round. I was feeling pretty happy with my self, but the wizard that went right after me centered a fireball on me using his ability to miss targets he missed every party member in melee and hit the rest of the group of kobolds and 9 out of 13 of them were killed instantly. At that point I realized that the best I could do was out done by a single spell in the wizards re-portiere.

[Uldric]

You have an AC in the 18-21 range and HP of likely 60+, plus second wind and more HP recovered per HD spent when resting. The wizard has an AC likely of 15 or 16 if he has used one of his precious spell slots to cast mage armor and maybe 31-36 HP. He managed to kill in one round what it took you two rounds to kill, not a terrible discrepancy. This doesn't even get into why your DM had so many Kobolds tightly packed together or why a 7th level fighter and 5th level wizard are fighting 1/8 CR monsters. Killing large numbers of low level creatures a couple times a day is kind of the reason you bring an evoker with you while adventuring.

Lets put it this way, who is more likely to come out alive fighting these 13 kobolds without the help of the other; the fighter or the wizard? This is a cooperative game. This is why we work together.

[pikeamus]

Yeah, I don't much like that as an example because it is one situation, that happened once, when characters are built to face many situations cooperatively. A better example would be say, a player that ran a fighter and found that a warlock was out damaging him while also being just as effective as a tank, over the course of a whole adventure path (so versus many different enemies). Don't know if that is possible though.

But anyway, I don't have any real examples to contribute, since I've not played a game of 5th yet.

[EvilAnagram]

Of course a wizard is better at taking out a group of low-threat monsters. That's what they're good at. When you're up against a group of enemies that fall over in a stiff breeze, wizards have an advantage. If you were up against a boss, your nova would deal much more damage than a fireball.

[Jakinbandw]

I've been playing a bard, and I find myself consistently the least useful in combat. Sleep is useful, but I can usually only get 2-3 monsters with it, so after I cast it in combat, I pretty much sit around and twiddle my thumbs. All my biggest contributions are out of combat. Using charm monster, healing, my expertise for spotting things. The fighter and Pali would have a much harder time without me, but I would die without them.

Also the number of encounters we have a day means the number of spells I toss out is very limited. Meaning I have to save them for tight spots and not be careless

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not sure what kind of point the OP is trying to make here, but I can cite numerous examples of "disparity" from every earlier edition of D&D; usually they boil down either to differences in player skill, or to one character having a substantial advantage (in ability scores, racial abilities, or magical items) due to lucky rolls or DM favoritism.

Yes, disparity happens. I hope the DMG has a chapter on reducing it.

[Z3ro]

Such examples are going to be hard to find, as most people are playing at low levels, given the available adventures so far. For what it's worth, here's my experiences (these range from levels 1 to 12, mostly on the lower end):

At first level, sleep can be an encounter-ender. I say can because if the baddies aren't clumped together, or if the wizard rolls low (both happened to our group), it takes out one or two kobolds, no better than other spells. But when it does go off well, it absolutely does wreck an encounter. It's balanced by being limited to twice a day, and it rapidly doesn't scale. Even at second level fighting orcs the wizard switched to other spells.

Control spells like hold person weren't used much, as they allow a save every round. When they were used, they were only marginally more useful than straight damage, as a save (in any round) invalidated the spell unless the party made a strong effort to eliminate the held creature. On top of that, more than once the wizard successfully held someone, only to have their concentration broken before the party could attack the held monster, effectively wasting the spell.

In our group, the sorcerer overshadowed the evoker at blasting by quite a bit. Metamagic is far more powerful than the few small benefits the evoker gets. Being able to cast a quickened fireball and a twinned firebolt in one round is devastating, and led to the sorcerer doing some of the highest amount of spike damage. Once he was out of sorcery points, he felt a bit useless, though.

The battlemaster fighter was surprisingly effective. His main shtick was to trip someone, then use GWM on the rest of his attacks to turn them into a fine red paste, a tactic that worked amazingly. The first boss fight lasted exactly one round, as the fighter squished him with action surge and two lucky criticals. The monk felt overshadowed by the fighter until he got shadow jump at 6, then played more like a ninja.

Outside of combat, the fighter did a lot of face stuff. He put a 14 in CHA and took the noble background and did most of the talking. The sorcerer could have, but the player simply wasn't as good at the social part of the game, he mostly wanted to blow stuff up (which he did splendidly).

Overall, across multiple sessions, the only players who've felt like the weren't contributing as much were the monk at low level (compared to the fighter) and the evoker at higher level (compared to the sorcerer). Otherwise, the balance has not been an issue.

[Triclinium]

My goodness. Your character failed to outperform a specialist doing exactly what he specializes in.

If the fact that all classes are not equal has you in a tizzy, either cope or play something else. Nothing is forcing you to play 5e or any other game really. At this point people are pretty used to the idea that some classes will outperform others. It is really only a big deal if you make it into one by making things a competition with your party members. Otherwise who cares?

[pwykersotz]

I put my group against a Helmed Horror a couple weeks ago. The Barbarian and Fighter took it down while the casters failed their arcana checks to identify it and spent the time cycling through spells trying to find what would work against it.

Actually, come to think of it, the Wizard (who specializes in Battlefield Control) is the one who has to work hardest to keep up. Part of the time it is difficult for him to utilize his Grease and Fog Cloud without hitting allies, and his comparative fragility (even with mage armor) makes him spend more time trying to jockey for position than being an encounter ender.

At this point they are level 3 though, and it's impossible to tell real trends with my data.

[MustacheFart]

I'm just going to come right out and say it.

Dedicated spellcasters can outdo whatever I do as a "mundane" melee character mechanically; However, I am a far superior player so I make up for it by being the better player. I am a very capable strategist and am able to come up with great tactics on the fly. As such I have had little problem outshining the casters.

Let them blow up a whole town or city with a spell. I'll be the guy sitting on the thrown in charge of the kingdom, ruling all of them, by the time I am done.

[squashmaster]

Low level play, which is all I've done so far since this thing ain't been out that long, has no significant disparity. Thanks to bounded accuracy it's all about approach and actual RP.

[Lokiare]

You have an AC in the 18-21 range and HP of likely 60+, plus second wind and more HP recovered per HD spent when resting. The wizard has an AC likely of 15 or 16 if he has used one of his precious spell slots to cast mage armor and maybe 31-36 HP. He managed to kill in one round what it took you two rounds to kill, not a terrible discrepancy. This doesn't even get into why your DM had so many Kobolds tightly packed together or why a 7th level fighter and 5th level wizard are fighting 1/8 CR monsters. Killing large numbers of low level creatures a couple times a day is kind of the reason you bring an evoker with you while adventuring.

Lets put it this way, who is more likely to come out alive fighting these 13 kobolds without the help of the other; the fighter or the wizard? This is a cooperative game. This is why we work together.

My example was made up on the spot and not real. It was thrown together at a moments notice to show what I meant.


Of course a wizard is better at taking out a group of low-threat monsters. That's what they're good at. When you're up against a group of enemies that fall over in a stiff breeze, wizards have an advantage. If you were up against a boss, your nova would deal much more damage than a fireball.

See above. Also the theory crafting shows that the wizard is only a few points behind the fighter in single target damage also. If the wizard uses just a few choice spells and the fighter isn't built for damage the wizard will easily overtake them.


I'm not sure what kind of point the OP is trying to make here, but I can cite numerous examples of "disparity" from every earlier edition of D&D; usually they boil down either to differences in player skill, or to one character having a substantial advantage (in ability scores, racial abilities, or magical items) due to lucky rolls or DM favoritism.

Yes, disparity happens. I hope the DMG has a chapter on reducing it.

The point I'm trying to make is that the forum theory crafting reflects reality. Either it does or it doesn't. If we can get a good number of posts where players/DMs saw disparity then we know the theory crafting is accurate.


My goodness. Your character failed to outperform a specialist doing exactly what he specializes in.

If the fact that all classes are not equal has you in a tizzy, either cope or play something else. Nothing is forcing you to play 5e or any other game really. At this point people are pretty used to the idea that some classes will outperform others. It is really only a big deal if you make it into one by making things a competition with your party members. Otherwise who cares?

Or I could try to analyze the game and point out its weak points for others who don't want to invest in games they won't play.


Low level play, which is all I've done so far since this thing ain't been out that long, has no significant disparity. Thanks to bounded accuracy it's all about approach and actual RP.

The numbers say differently and player choices (RP) can only take you so far. If the numbers are against you no amount of cleverness will bridge the disparity gap.

[Ferrin33]

I'm just going to come right out and say it.

Dedicated spellcasters can outdo whatever I do as a "mundane" melee character mechanically; However, I am a far superior player so I make up for it by being the better player. I am a very capable strategist and am able to come up with great tactics on the fly. As such I have had little problem outshining the casters.

Let them blow up a whole town or city with a spell. I'll be the guy sitting on the thrown in charge of the kingdom, ruling all of them, by the time I am done.

Now imagine someone doing what you're doing, but get this; as a spellcaster.

[Sartharina]

My example was made up on the spot and not real. It was thrown together at a moments notice to show what I meant.Thus invalidating the whole damn point of the thread by falsifying data? :smallconfused:


See above. Also the theory crafting shows that the wizard is only a few points behind the fighter in single target damage also. If the wizard uses just a few choice spells and the fighter isn't built for damage the wizard will easily overtake them.Only according to your theorycrafting and models. So far, it hasn't been true in play, thus invalidating your point. What now?


The point I'm trying to make is that the forum theory crafting reflects reality. Either it does or it doesn't. If we can get a good number of posts where players/DMs saw disparity then we know the theory crafting is accurate.Well, the theory says spellcasters should easily be invalidating martial characters. All the examples so far have martial characters outshining casters. Also - you're looking for Bad Data by only fishing for results that conform to your expectations (Regardless of whether it's an outlier or not) from a nonrepresentative sample, and excluding/not requesting information that contradicts it.


Or I could try to analyze the game and point out its weak points for others who don't want to invest in games they won't play.Through terrible attempts at data manipulation.


The numbers say differently and player choices (RP) can only take you so far. If the numbers are against you no amount of cleverness will bridge the disparity gap.Fortunately, the math of 5e is such that the numbers are almost never 'against' you.

[pwykersotz]

Thus invalidating the whole damn point of the thread by falsifying data? :smallconfused:

Only according to your theorycrafting and models. So far, it hasn't been true in play, thus invalidating your point. What now?

Well, the theory says spellcasters should easily be invalidating martial characters. All the examples so far have martial characters outshining casters. Also - you're looking for Bad Data by only fishing for results that conform to your expectations (Regardless of whether it's an outlier or not) from a nonrepresentative sample, and excluding/not requesting information that contradicts it.

Through terrible attempts at data manipulation.

Fortunately, the math of 5e is such that the numbers are almost never 'against' you.

Yeah, I'm with Sartharina on this one, Lokiare. You've been arguing in bad faith since the beginning. You often have what I consider to be valuable insights to make, but you cover them in so much bias that they're hard to pick out. If your whole mission is to rain on parades instead of creating helpful discussion, that just makes it trolling, which is sad because I know you're better than that.

[Surrealistik]

The party's Druid summons and my Warlock throwing around fireballs/Agonizing Blast eldritch blast with Hex/Darkness basically invalidated our Fighter during Dead in Thay, the former especially so. The Conjure series is painfully broken; grants _way_ too much action economy for far too long a period.

[rlc]

ITT lokiare has reached new levels of dorkdom, playing a game to prove a disparity. I mean, I agree that there shouldn't be one (and if there is, then martial characters should do more damage while magic characters do more effects), but this experiment is pretty lame.

[MustacheFart]

Now imagine someone doing what you're doing, but get this; as a spellcaster.

That doesn't happen though when I am at the table. Call it arrogance. Call it cockiness. Call it whatever you want. I am playing right now with three dedicated casters at the table and I've outshined every single one of them. So has my wife on her rogue. It's more about the player.

You missed my point. Dnd isn't entirely a numbers game. It's about RP as well. Play to your character's strength and don't focus on the weaknesses. NPCs in the world that you play in typically relate to the mundane, non-magical characters more because they're like them and within the scope of their imagination/reality. They can't necessarily relate to the all powerful wizard but they can to the knight. This is power. This is power that mundane characters have over the spellcaster. It's something I rarely see brought up.

What's more impressive to an npc, a wizard killing the big evil monster that has been terrorizing their town with a single spell or the lone "knight" (I use this term to represent any mundane class) who strolls in, goes toe to toe with it, and after struggling, comes out on top? It's ALWAYS the latter because that's what people relate to. That's what's impressive. That's what is remembered.

How often is the king of a kingdom a "mundane" compared to a spellcaster? Quite freaking often. That's not for no reason.

I would wager that as much as mundanes have a weakness for not possessing magic they have a strength...

...for not possessing magic!

[Falka]

Seriously OP, once you said you haven't played a single 5e game yet makes me understand all your hyperboles so far. You should play some games and theorycraft less.

[emeraldstreak]

So far everything is as expected. Which is to say, there are disparities, but we build for them. The weaker characters are expected to pick up later in the game.

[squashmaster]

The numbers say differently and player choices (RP) can only take you so far. If the numbers are against you no amount of cleverness will bridge the disparity gap.

Cool for the numbers. So far my experience has been, with bounded accuracy, at low levels, rolls come out to a little over 50% success rate overall, and if you're optimized well a little higher than that. Isn't that...the intention of bounded accuracy?

RP should be able to take you as far as the game goes...because...it's a role playing game...and if RP isn't good enough...the DM is bad...or maybe we're not playing right? We should switch to rollplay?

[Slipperychicken]

I was hewing my way through 2-3 kobolds per round and I decided to nova so I used action surge and took down 6 kobolds in one round. I was feeling pretty happy with my self, but the wizard that went right after me centered a fireball on me using his ability to miss targets he missed every party member in melee and hit the rest of the group of kobolds and 9 out of 13 of them were killed instantly. At that point I realized that the best I could do was out done by a single spell in the wizards re-portiere.

He can only do it a few times per day, and he'll most likely get wrecked without you to protect him.


The party's Druid summons and my Warlock throwing around fireballs/Agonizing Blast eldritch blast with Hex/Darkness basically invalidated our Fighter during Dead in Thay, the former especially so. The Conjure series is painfully broken; grants _way_ too much action economy for far too long a period.

Doesn't Conjure require the caster to spend an action each round directing the summons?

[LaserFace]

So have people had real life examples of disparity between the effectiveness of classes in play yet?

I'm currently looking to get into a 5E game so I can prove some of the theory crafting that's been going on, but maybe others have beat me to it.

If you do have an example please describe your build, the build of the character that you had the disparity with and what circumstances led you to see the disparity.

For example (this is not real):

My character: Champion Fighter level 7, long sword, shield, half-elf, great weapon feat.

Disparity character: Evocation school wizard level 5 with fireball, flaming sphere, and fire bolt.

I was hewing my way through 2-3 kobolds per round and I decided to nova so I used action surge and took down 6 kobolds in one round. I was feeling pretty happy with my self, but the wizard that went right after me centered a fireball on me using his ability to miss targets he missed every party member in melee and hit the rest of the group of kobolds and 9 out of 13 of them were killed instantly. At that point I realized that the best I could do was out done by a single spell in the wizards re-portiere.

So, it looks like you're trying to collect data to prove a point, instead of collecting data to help you begin forming an opinion. I don't think that's cool.

Based on the hypothetical scenario you've painted, I would say the Fighter was just making poor use of their resources, and there's more I'd want to know before I really say someone is really "dominating". But we're all going to have differing opinions on what's what. Inviting people to just come in and agree with something you have a hunch of being true just strikes me as really unscientific and probably going to lead to unnecessary negativity towards the edition.

I think you're really just inviting the people with predispositions to leap to nonsense conclusions, without enough play experience or general understanding of how things work, to pool together their absurdities in once place and create a cataclysm of ridiculousness. I really think if you want to discuss potential disparities, you should adopt a different tone.

I will say that as a DM of a 5E group, after 5 sessions with various characters (a rotation of like 10 different people with each playing distinctly different characters) levels ranging from 1 to 3, I have seen people shine in different situations. But nobody is dominating the game, no way. Everyone relies on each other.

[Cambrian]

Doesn't Conjure require the caster to spend an action each round directing the summons?

Quite the opposite-- the conjure spells have this paragraph:
The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your
companions. Roll initiative for the summoned creatures
as a group, which have their own turns. They obey any
verbal commands that you issue to them (no action
required by you). If you don't issue any commands to
them, they defend themselves from hostile creatures,
but otherwise take no actions.

So they do not require any actions to command (makes the brain hurt if you compare them to how the ranger's companion functions...), they are however reliant on the caster to maintain concentration.

I'd rule that if summoned mid-combat they skip their first reaction-- requiring only 6 seconds to gain your bearings when teleported into the middle of melee is generous enough.

[archaeo]

Doesn't Conjure require the caster to spend an action each round directing the summons?

Nah, they all say the conjured stuff "obeys any verbal commands that you issue to it (no action required by you)," so they really are very powerful spells. One assumes Mearls & Co. mean for this to be balanced by the fact that they're concentration spells, but it's a bit unclear as to whether that works.

On the plus side, as far as balance is concerned, the low level spells will quickly be outclassed by monsters, while the high level summons are all relatively dangerous, as many of them have a chance to turn on the party.

edit: ninja'd


So they do not require any actions to command (makes the brain hurt if you compare them to how the ranger's companion functions...), they are however reliant on the caster to maintain concentration.

It's worth noting that the ranger's companion gets a lot of bonuses (HP equal to Ranger level x4, proficiency bonus to damage, attack rolls, and skills) and a new one can be found during down-time. People underestimate the Beast Master; at level 11, they get the equivalent of three attacks (one Ranger, two beast) and many of those beast attacks give free grapples or trips.

[Cambrian]

It's worth noting that the ranger's companion gets a lot of bonuses (HP equal to Ranger level x4, proficiency bonus to damage, attack rolls, and skills) and a new one can be found during down-time. People underestimate the Beast Master; at level 11, they get the equivalent of three attacks (one Ranger, two beast) and many of those beast attacks give free grapples or trips.I don't mean function from a balance standpoint, but just the mechanics-- a Wizard can summon in some random creatures from across the multiverse and is so adept at issuing orders a bonus action isn't even required.

The Ranger, who has a highly trained companion and focuses to intently fight as a team, has to devote most attention to micromanaging the piss out of the poor creature or it just stands there-- presumably with the most dimwitted look on it face.

[Gnomes2169]

It's worth noting that the ranger's companion gets a lot of bonuses (HP equal to Ranger level x4, proficiency bonus to damage, attack rolls, and skills) and a new one can be found during down-time. People underestimate the Beast Master; at level 11, they get the equivalent of three attacks (one Ranger, two beast) and many of those beast attacks give free grapples or trips.

... And all of that goes away when the druid's 4 pixies poly the panther into a toad, which only cost the druid a single spell. And then the beast master is down to his two weaksauce attacks (which he has no class resources besides a few less-useful-to-a-beastmaster-than-they-are-a-hunter spells) while the hunter could simple volley the pixies dead in one round, keeps his own attacks, and may make an extra attack against closely-packed enemies as a bonus action if he wants to.

The beast master isn't terrible, per say, but he definitely gives up way too much for the minion he gets, compaired to those that a summoner can call to himself.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

that has nothing to do with the ranger, spamming save or suck with pixies is stronk period. Assuming you let the pixies act before they can be countered.

I don't really know what it is about the Ranger spell selection you find more useful for the Hunter than the Beastmaster, though.

[Gnomes2169]

that has nothing to do with the ranger, its just that spamming save or suck with pixies is stronk.

So is a bonus action to command all of your undead.

Or a non-action to command anything you hit with planar binding.

Or a non-action to command everything you get with summon monster. Which gets you multiple bodies, who can far out-damage the poor pet over the course of an adventuring day (especially with the 8 hour durration.)

Or a non-action to command the things you can get with literally every summoning spell, except those very few you need to take bonus actions for.

Which begs the question, "WHY DOES THE PET COST AN ACTION EVERY SINGLE ROUND?"

If it was just a bonus action each round, or an action once and then it continues to try and finish the task goven to the best of its abilities, or hell, even the best of both worlds, if it was a bonus or non-action to command it and it continued to do the job until complete or given new orders (like literally every other minion in the game), then I could see why the beastmaster would be worth the investment of character creation tools and the potential power of the subclass. Having a competent companion that can perform its actions without draining you of yours is always a strong option, and one that would fit the ranger nicely. But the ranger did not get that. Instead, he got a melee-based critter that is close to ~65% of his damage potential on any given action, who has HP almost equivalent to that of a wizard who needs non-stop cheerleader action to even chase after a squirrel, and the cheerleadering makes it so the ranger cannot do anything but walk behind the animal until level 5.

This is why no one likes the beastmaster. Not because it has a weak companion (in fact, the companion itself gives the ranger some good beef to his actions), but because it has the single worst method of commanding the companion out of every character that can get one, period. Not only that, but given the caliber of the creatures that can be summoned, summonera can get something just as strong (if not stronger) at high levels for very few in-character resources, 0 of them being an entire subclass with the associated feature slots.

Is the reason for the hating clear now, or...?


I don't really know what it is about the Ranger spell selection you find more useful for the Hunter than the Beastmaster, though.

Well, mostly that you can combo the class features with spells (like volley with lightning arrow, or swift quiver with collosus slayer), much, much more effectively with hunter than with your action-stealing puppy.

[Vowtz]

:: Real life experience:


After conjuring 8 wolves a spellcaster will make 8 attacks, all with advantage(pack tactics), with a low/okay damage (2d4+2), each with a special effect (knock prone).

This spellcaster will roll 16 dices for attack, maybe 16 dices for damage, and will maybe force his enemies to roll 8 saves, if a monster try to flee he gets AoO for more dice throwing.

Not only its a game breaking battlefield control tool, it takes forever for the creatures turn to be resolved.



:: Real Life experience:

Transforming into a Giant Octopus, if a Druid hit his target it's automatically restrained, now he and his friends got advantage and the creature has disvantage, if it's a flying creature (Dragon) it falls from tje sky.

He's got 52 extra HP and can get 52 more as a bonus action.




:: Real Life experience:

"Archery" fighting style with the sharpshooter feat is potentially more damaging than a Great Weapon Fighter. Since he's got +2 in all his attacks, using the sharpshooter feat is not so demanding, if you add battlemaster accuracy maneuver, his penalties ae gone. Add hunter's Mark, colossus slayer and sneaks attack and the result is a bow cannon that no barbarian can hope to compare.

Causing as much damage from a distance with arrows when compared to a superstrong guy with a greataxe just feels wrong, I already houseruled sharpshooter to lose 5 on attack and gain 5 on damage, instead of 10.

[Lokiare]

Thus invalidating the whole damn point of the thread by falsifying data? :smallconfused:

Only according to your theorycrafting and models. So far, it hasn't been true in play, thus invalidating your point. What now?

Well, the theory says spellcasters should easily be invalidating martial characters. All the examples so far have martial characters outshining casters. Also - you're looking for Bad Data by only fishing for results that conform to your expectations (Regardless of whether it's an outlier or not) from a nonrepresentative sample, and excluding/not requesting information that contradicts it.

Through terrible attempts at data manipulation.

Fortunately, the math of 5e is such that the numbers are almost never 'against' you.

I called my example out clearly as not real. There was no falsifying of anything.

We only have a handful of people saying they see no disparity. Wait for the rest of people to chime in.

There are at least 3 examples of the casters outshining the non-casters in this thread. There are only 3-4 examples of no disparity. Its a pretty even match right now.

I'm looking for results that match up to my hypothesis. This is called the scientific method. You don't look for every other result except the one you hypothesized. You look for the one you did. If very few are found then we can safely say our theoretical models are inaccurate and go about trying to correct them.

I should have asked for the alternate though to get a good idea of how many people don't notice.

Not attempting to manipulate anything. Its called gathering data.

The numbers are against you any time you are making a check or saving throw that you don't have proficiency in and you don't have a high ability score modifier. The numbers are against you anytime you have a single roll to avoid a deadly or debilitating condition.


Seriously OP, once you said you haven't played a single 5e game yet makes me understand all your hyperboles so far. You should play some games and theorycraft less.

I've played in all of the play test sessions, but I can't find an online game of 5E that fits my schedule and I can't get my players of my 4E game to even consider it for when people don't show up or for a one off. They formed their opinions long before the basic rules came out.


Cool for the numbers. So far my experience has been, with bounded accuracy, at low levels, rolls come out to a little over 50% success rate overall, and if you're optimized well a little higher than that. Isn't that...the intention of bounded accuracy?

No, actually the intention behind bounded accuracy was to remove the treadmill that existed in 3E and 4E. The idea that enemies don't get better to match the increase in skill that characters have. As we can see from the final results they completely missed that mark with monsters having proficiencies in saves and progressively higher ability scores as their CR goes up. They literally increase to match the players. The only place where bounded accuracy shows up is with AC, but this is offset with HP. So there is literally nowhere that bounded accuracy has any real effect on the game.

The other thing that you are talking about is the smaller range of numbers. That's entirely separate from bounded accuracy.


RP should be able to take you as far as the game goes...because...it's a role playing game...and if RP isn't good enough...the DM is bad...or maybe we're not playing right? We should switch to rollplay?

No, role playing should be the second layer of the cake, not the first layer of cake on top of the icing of a poorly designed system that breaks at the slightest touch. The DM isn't bad if role playing isn't enough. The system is bad.

I have news for you roll play and role play are not opposites. They can both exist equally in every game. They can also both be almost entirely absent from the same game. You are building what is called a false dichotomy. Comparing two non-comparables.


So, it looks like you're trying to collect data to prove a point, instead of collecting data to help you begin forming an opinion. I don't think that's cool.

Nope, just following the scientific method. The theory crafting we've done on these forums is the hypothesis. Seeing if they bear out in play is the result.


Based on the hypothetical scenario you've painted, I would say the Fighter was just making poor use of their resources, and there's more I'd want to know before I really say someone is really "dominating". But we're all going to have differing opinions on what's what. Inviting people to just come in and agree with something you have a hunch of being true just strikes me as really unscientific and probably going to lead to unnecessary negativity towards the edition.

Actually its completely scientific. Verifying a hypothesis. If no one posts stories of disparity, then the hypothesis is wrong. Its really as simple as that.


I think you're really just inviting the people with predispositions to leap to nonsense conclusions, without enough play experience or general understanding of how things work, to pool together their absurdities in once place and create a cataclysm of ridiculousness. I really think if you want to discuss potential disparities, you should adopt a different tone.

I think people assume I have a tone, when I don't actually have any tone at all. I normally speak in a completely neutral tone which gets misinterpreted as being negative, when in fact it is just being realistic. Its sad, but not any individuals fault as they have been taught that everything must be positive or its bad and that anything that is a criticism is evil.


I will say that as a DM of a 5E group, after 5 sessions with various characters (a rotation of like 10 different people with each playing distinctly different characters) levels ranging from 1 to 3, I have seen people shine in different situations. But nobody is dominating the game, no way. Everyone relies on each other.

Are they doing this because they have an unspoken social contract to not ruin each others fun? Because players new to the game might not understand what will ruin each others fun and cause havoc.

[Theodoxus]

Regarding the Ranger companion, I've offered to let the Ranger in the group I'm running have both paths - but, the animal companion has to be directed every round. Otherwise, I houseruled that the pet could keep attacking on its own until directed otherwise.

Interesting anecdote - in the game I was playing in, the DM allowed a Bard to have a mastiff, using Handle Animal to direct the dog, and let it attack/defend itself once per enemy; completely overshadowing the Ranger ability. The Ranger in that game went Hunter though, so the Bard wasn't stepping on toes. I did think it quite funny.

As for the OP question, my real life examples of disparity are with multiclassing. Our 1st level Druid took a level of Monk at 2nd level, to gain unarmored defense and multiple attacks. He literally had to cheat (by conning the DM) with spamming multiple bonus attacks (TWF, Martial Attack and Flurry) to be as effective as anyone else in combat. The Ranger (archery spec'd) easily outdid his damage, especially when Colossus was activated (the Ranger typically got the killing blows on weakened opponents). The Rogue was the real damage dealer, being ranged with two dice of sneak, and a lucky d20 that crited quite often. 6d6+8 was nothing to sneeze at (to the point that I was regularly opting to Commander's Strike the Rogue because even 3d6+4 was better than my d8+5.

So yeah, the uberness of a monk/druid combo doesn't come online for quite some time. I would assume any low level multiclass is going to be less effective than a straight class in most circumstances - at least if you MC before 4th level.

[emeraldstreak]

Well, the theory says spellcasters should easily be invalidating martial characters. All the examples so far have martial characters outshining casters.

Please define "outshine"

[Rummy]

So is a bonus action to command all of your undead.

Or a non-action to command anything you hit with planar binding.

Or a non-action to command everything you get with summon monster. Which gets you multiple bodies, who can far out-damage the poor pet over the course of an adventuring day (especially with the 8 hour durration.)

Or a non-action to command the things you can get with literally every summoning spell, except those very few you need to take bonus actions for.

Which begs the question, "WHY DOES THE PET COST AN ACTION EVERY SINGLE ROUND?"

If it was just a bonus action each round, or an action once and then it continues to try and finish the task goven to the best of its abilities, or hell, even the best of both worlds, if it was a bonus or non-action to command it and it continued to do the job until complete or given new orders (like literally every other minion in the game), then I could see why the beastmaster would be worth the investment of character creation tools and the potential power of the subclass. Having a competent companion that can perform its actions without draining you of yours is always a strong option, and one that would fit the ranger nicely. But the ranger did not get that. Instead, he got a melee-based critter that is close to ~65% of his damage potential on any given action, who has HP almost equivalent to that of a wizard who needs non-stop cheerleader action to even chase after a squirrel, and the cheerleadering makes it so the ranger cannot do anything but walk behind the animal until level 5.

This is why no one likes the beastmaster. Not because it has a weak companion (in fact, the companion itself gives the ranger some good beef to his actions), but because it has the single worst method of commanding the companion out of every character that can get one, period. Not only that, but given the caliber of the creatures that can be summoned, summonera can get something just as strong (if not stronger) at high levels for very few in-character resources, 0 of them being an entire subclass with the associated feature slots.

Is the reason for the hating clear now, or...?



Well, mostly that you can combo the class features with spells (like volley with lightning arrow, or swift quiver with collosus slayer), much, much more effectively with hunter than with your action-stealing puppy.

Mearls has gone on record saying he would let the DM decide appropriate pet actions.

[Sartharina]

I'm looking for results that match up to my hypothesis. This is called the scientific method. You don't look for every other result except the one you hypothesized. You look for the one you did. If very few are found then we can safely say our theoretical models are inaccurate and go about trying to correct them.You actually do look for other results other than the one you hypothesized - to do otherwise is to corrupt the survey/experiment with confirmation bias.

[Rummy]

In the game that I DM and the game that I play in, casters are mostly outshone buy mundanes, but have more spectacular novas. This is low levels (1-5), so these results are to be expected with the whole quadratic thing. We did have one fight where the Evoker cleared the room with a fireball followed with a shatter, like in your example. We also had three fights where the barbarian dominated and four fights where everyone traded misses while the ranger, and his uber accurate bow, killed off all the baddies.

[Gnomes2169]

Lokaire, rule number 1 for testing a hypothoses when it comes to testing people's experiences: Keep the results you are looking for a secret, otherwise the people that have results matching what you want will show up in a disproportional amount as they will be accepted, and people that do not have results that agree with your hypothesis will not add their conflicting results, because they will feel more isolated. Basic sociology. Basic enough that if I was practicing basic psychology, I would immediately be able to call out the poll as a push poll that was only trying to conform people to/ confirm a personally held bias towards a partucular subject, which is in no way a scientific way to go about testing anything.

Basically, a RL equivalent of the poll in question would be a published study examining if college males are wild, uncontrolled, alcoholic hoodlums only interviewing the jocks who live in frats that have a party (featuring loud music and copious amounts of alcohol) every weekend. I choose this example because *Looks at the book Guyland* You have a result you are looking for because you targeted only one demographic of your target population, and ignored the rest (which is likely the more sizable demographic in the population).

This is not how you science.

Secondly: You need to ask what kind of factors go into each person's groups. What kinds of DM do they have? What is their campaign? Did they allow feats/ multiclassing/ variant human? Their party makeup? What kinds of enemies are they fighting, how often, and how many at a time? What was the level of the party/ adventure? What was your character? What is your system experience? (Yes, that one is incredibly important, as it will influence bias one way or another) As it stands, your question is basically as useful as asking a guy who has played blackjack, "Did someone else ever get a royal flush while you were playing?"

Thirdly: Did Mearls&Co steal and eat you baby or something? Maybe they fed your space baby to a space dingo? Because you are spending a lot of time and energy trying to get unsympathetic people to hate 5e, when you could happily ignore it and go back to your 4e (which is dead, btw, but is no fault of 5e or Mearls&Co). So could you stop, please? As an honest request to save your time and ours, please, do not pay attention to the system you do not like, and save yourself some time, money and headaches for the next few years.

And fourth and finally: (back on the subject of the poll itself) If you had made the question fair and not a push poll, the results would be called into question unless you divided them by group. Because what one table has, another will not. there are quite a few cases where the rules lawyering relies on uncertain, immersion breaking RAW being ruled in favor of casters or other groups that might be tollerated at one table by one DM, but not at another by a more strict DM/ players who will murder you for being a powergaming munchkin, and the poll should take that into account when sorting the results (which, going back to point 2, is why the first question should be What kind of DM/ Players are at the table with you?).

This would make the poll more useful for players and game designers alike, as it is both more accurate and more relevent to each table. If it is found that at the more loose tables that X is a problem, but at strict ones that X is not (via interpretation, not DM fiat rewriting RAW), then the problem is case-by-case and should only be watched for at the more lax tables. If, however, Y is a problem at strict and lax tables, then Y is a problem to bring to the game designers that they need to address, as it negatively impacts all games of the appropriate level, and is a likely candidate for errata (the ranger's animal companion, for example).

As it stands, this "poll" does not meet the criteria it needs to be useful for players or game designers, and is only likely to attract a flame war or become a complaints thread... Which is actually a shame, as it could be much, much more useful if it was handled a bit more objectively and took important variables into account.



Mearls has gone on record saying he would let the DM decide appropriate pet actions.

True, but RAW, the companion sucks and is likely up for day-one errata. :P

[archaeo]

Is the reason for the hating clear now, or...?

Nope! But I'm just going to start a new thread to defend the Beast Master, so I can leave Lokiare's "DAE Hate 5e" thread to, uh, trying to find objective reasons to hate 5e, I guess.

[Gnomes2169]

Nope! But I'm just going to start a new thread to defend the Beast Master, so I can leave Lokiare's "DAE Hate 5e" thread to, uh, trying to find objective reasons to hate 5e, I guess.

I have the monster manual and the PHB. I will find entirely mundane critters that do a better animal companion than the animal companion, and find the lowest level that you can get them with summon monster. And you will be able to command them with a bonus or non-action. Your tears will be delicious. :smalltongue:

[Steel Mirror]

:: Real Life experience:

"Archery" fighting style with the sharpshooter feat is potentially more damaging than a Great Weapon Fighter. Since he's got +2 in all his attacks, using the sharpshooter feat is not so demanding, if you add battlemaster accuracy maneuver, his penalties ae gone. Add hunter's Mark, colossus slayer and sneaks attack and the result is a bow cannon that no barbarian can hope to compare.

Causing as much damage from a distance with arrows when compared to a superstrong guy with a greataxe just feels wrong, I already houseruled sharpshooter to lose 5 on attack and gain 5 on damage, instead of 10.I'm curious what the build on that bow cannon is, in terms of actual levels and ability scores. That much multiclassing will delay a second attack for quite some time, which means the single classed fighter might catch up at level 5 without too much issue (or the barbarian, if that is your standard of comparison). What was the PC's build?

[Sartharina]

Lokaire, rule number 1 for testing a hypothoses when it comes to testing people's experiences: Keep the results you are looking for a secret, otherwise the people that have results matching what you want will show up in a disproportional amount as they will be accepted, and people that do not have results that agree with your hypothesis will not add their conflicting results, because they will feel more isolated. Basic sociology. Basic enough that if I was practicing basic psychology, I would immediately be able to call out the poll as a push poll that was only trying to conform people to/ confirm a personally held bias towards a partucular subject, which is in no way a scientific way to go about testing anything.You either get the people wanting to confirm it, or the people wanting to firmly debunk it. Either way - you end up with biased and agenda-driven reporting.

[Shining Wrath]

You either get the people wanting to confirm it, or the people wanting to firmly debunk it. Either way - you end up with biased and agenda-driven reporting.

And thus, every 25 page Internet debate was spawned as group A runs headlong into group B, and the immovable opinion collides with the irresistible bias.

[Surrealistik]

Well, the theory says spellcasters should easily be invalidating martial characters. All the examples so far have martial characters outshining casters.

...Except for my example.

Dead in Thay isn't exactly high level play by the way; we were level 5-7.

[Sartharina]

...Except for my example.

Dead in Thay isn't exactly high level play by the way; we were level 5-7.

Your example came after my post.

[pwykersotz]

I think people assume I have a tone, when I don't actually have any tone at all. I normally speak in a completely neutral tone which gets misinterpreted as being negative, when in fact it is just being realistic. Its sad, but not any individuals fault as they have been taught that everything must be positive or its bad and that anything that is a criticism is evil.

Alas, our intentions mean little and the perceptions of others mean a lot when it comes to effective communication. I have an abnormal reaction where when I'm surprised my face contorts instinctively to a look that resembles disgust. The fact that other people read it that way is not their fault. Similarly, people perceive you have a tone because you DO. It may not be your intention to convey it, but it is nevertheless conveyed. The only way to resolve the issue is for you to figure out what part of your neutral intentions are causing the trouble and change them.

There are a lot of critics on these forums. We come here to debate and discuss. The idea that 'criticism is evil' is not what drives our fairly unified perception of your posts. But you're smart, I'm sure you can get to the root of it. I mean that sincerely.

Vowtz:
What conditions did the Octopus win under? I assume it was a creature of at least CR 4 since that's the level the Moon Druid can turn into it. As for the Dragon, if you can get hurled 100 feet up in the air to grapple a dragon at level 4, that's a game I want to be a part of. :smallbiggrin:

The 8 wolves thing is crazy though. There needs to be rules for mass combat. Something to the effect of "When 3 or more creatures attack another, instead of individual attacks take average damage, multiply it by the number of attacks, multiply by 5% for each point of difference between attack bonus and AC. This is the damage done. Then roll 1d10. If the result is 1-3, cut the damage in half. If the result is 4-7, do not modify the damage. If the result is 8-10, add 50% to the damage. If the attack has a condition that requires a check or save, the check from the multiple attackers is done with advantage, or the save is done with disadvantage." Still too much math at the table, but still faster than rolling each time. Then again, this does fit the power disparity criteria of the thread.

[Surrealistik]

Your example came after my post.

Just sayin'.

[Gnomes2169]

...Except for my example.

Dead in Thay isn't exactly high level play by the way; we were level 5-7.

Well, to be fair... Dead in Thay HEAVILY favors casters and the use of magic. That being said, yes, spellcasters did do exceedingly well in your game, even for the setting you were given. I'm guessing that they got a bit lucky too, and that bluff wasn't needed to keep the kobolds from guessing you weren't what you were pretending to be... which it should have been, since illusions do nothing to change your memories, speech patterns or voice. :smalltongue:

[LaserFace]

Nope, just following the scientific method. The theory crafting we've done on these forums is the hypothesis. Seeing if they bear out in play is the result.



Actually its completely scientific. Verifying a hypothesis. If no one posts stories of disparity, then the hypothesis is wrong. Its really as simple as that.

What is the experiment? Each individual's D&D game? People are going to have to be a lot more detailed in what's happening than your initial post implies. Otherwise, it's just a platform for anybody to complain about perceived imbalances, and other people to say "look, do you see? All these people can't be wrong!" when really I have no reason to believe anyone here is an authority on D&D 5E. You're trying to claim this is scientific but haven't stated boundaries of discussion, or ways to even determine if the people posting here have bothered reading the rules, much less understand ways a DM distributes challenges among members in a group. Read some of the above posters on how to do this a better way.



I think people assume I have a tone, when I don't actually have any tone at all. I normally speak in a completely neutral tone which gets misinterpreted as being negative, when in fact it is just being realistic. Its sad, but not any individuals fault as they have been taught that everything must be positive or its bad and that anything that is a criticism is evil.

I am speaking figuratively, not about the tone of your actual voice. You've set this up with an example of perceived disparity through This Wizard Is Blowing Up More Things Than Fighters. Does it mean anyone can say when a Wizard Blows Up More Things Than The Fighter, this is a sign there's some kind of bad thing happening? Why is it bad? Did either player do the best action available to them? Did the DM unconsciously favor one group member over another?

You haven't set up parameters for where a Fighter should be doing this or that, why that's what is expected of the Fighter, why he should out-perform anyone else in a scenario. I haven't seen a metric by which you can say that a disruptive form of "disparity" actually exists. Are you going to toss out people who are basically nondescript with the details? I'd guess not, because you seemed to be running a tally already.

I'm saying your initial post should probably be a little more detailed, because it really looks to me like you're itching to justify some nay-saying, and who gives a damn about the rest. This isn't because I've given you a comically villainous voice in my head, I'm saying this because I see no other information available from what you've put forward.



Are they doing this because they have an unspoken social contract to not ruin each others fun? Because players new to the game might not understand what will ruin each others fun and cause havoc.

Half the players haven't even played D&D before. The most experienced player - with whom I've played 3.x, 4E, as well as GURPS and other RPGs with - is running a Valor Bard, does basically the same as everyone else. Nobody is holding back for the enjoyment of the rest of the party; they're doing the best they can to just play well as an effective team.

[Surrealistik]

Well, to be fair... Dead in Thay HEAVILY favors casters and the use of magic. That being said, yes, spellcasters did do exceedingly well in your game, even for the setting you were given. I'm guessing that they got a bit lucky too, and that bluff wasn't needed to keep the kobolds from guessing you weren't what you were pretending to be... which it should have been, since illusions do nothing to change your memories, speech patterns or voice. :smalltongue:

Dead in Thay only specifically favours casters so far as certain skills (Arcana) go and getting safe rests (Rope Trick, Leomund's Tiny Hut); Conjure and the Darkness + Eldritch Blast combo putting martial classes completely to shame has exactly nothing to do with that.

Further, what kobolds?

[HasLogic]

I'm just going to come right out and say it.

Dedicated spellcasters can outdo whatever I do as a "mundane" melee character mechanically; However, I am a far superior player so I make up for it by being the better player. I am a very capable strategist and am able to come up with great tactics on the fly. As such I have had little problem outshining the casters.

Let them blow up a whole town or city with a spell. I'll be the guy sitting on the thrown in charge of the kingdom, ruling all of them, by the time I am done.

so to balance spellcasters, every marshal character must be a better player? and not be the type who ever wants to play a spellcaster?



Thus invalidating the whole damn point of the thread by falsifying data? :smallconfused:

Only according to your theorycrafting and models. So far, it hasn't been true in play, thus invalidating your point. What now?


Well, the theory says spellcasters should easily be invalidating martial characters. All the examples so far have martial characters outshining casters. Also - you're looking for Bad Data by only fishing for results that conform to your expectations (Regardless of whether it's an outlier or not) from a nonrepresentative sample, and excluding/not requesting information that contradicts it.

please show your studies that show this, I assume you have 100's of examples? I would be very interested to see this data for myself

also when your looking to prove a system is broken, it does not mater if it works right sometimes, only that it does in fact break. even if players sufficiently oblivious as to not see the game is broken 1/2 the time the game is still broken, and that is still a problem for half the players.




Fortunately, the math of 5e is such that the numbers are almost never 'against' you.
sure it is, I am a level 18 fighter and I want to be just as important as my friend the level 18 wizard in an important fight. the math is way against me there


Yeah, I'm with Sartharina on this one, Lokiare. You've been arguing in bad faith since the beginning. You often have what I consider to be valuable insights to make, but you cover them in so much bias that they're hard to pick out. If your whole mission is to rain on parades instead of creating helpful discussion, that just makes it trolling, which is sad because I know you're better than that.

that is one possbility sure, another is that you are so bias that you can not see it.

also when looking for problems with a system it is never helpful to point out the things the system got right, it is helpful to find issues with it.



You missed my point. Dnd isn't entirely a numbers game. It's about RP as well. Play to your character's strength and don't focus on the weaknesses. NPCs in the world that you play in typically relate to the mundane, non-magical characters more because they're like them and within the scope of their imagination/reality. They can't necessarily relate to the all powerful wizard but they can to the knight. This is power. This is power that mundane characters have over the spellcaster. It's something I rarely see brought up.

What's more impressive to an npc, a wizard killing the big evil monster that has been terrorizing their town with a single spell or the lone "knight" (I use this term to represent any mundane class) who strolls in, goes toe to toe with it, and after struggling, comes out on top? It's ALWAYS the latter because that's what people relate to. That's what's impressive. That's what is remembered.

How often is the king of a kingdom a "mundane" compared to a spellcaster? Quite freaking often. That's not for no reason.

I would wager that as much as mundanes have a weakness for not possessing magic they have a strength...

...for not possessing magic!

and in your campain that kind of meta-balance might work fine, so long as you ignore the obvious questions about how a non-caster would become a king.

but we are talking about the system in general, not how you personalty play and have your NPCs act. the game also needs to work in settings where if you don't have magic you are seen as little more then an animal. or ones where no one takes an adventurer seriously if they don't have magic.


He can only do it a few times per day, and he'll most likely get wrecked without you to protect him.

even if its only one time per day its is not acceptable for a character to be undone by one spell. and of course you can rest so the "only once a day" becomes "almost every fight"

and of course he could just hire a guard or 10, way cheaper then a fighter of his level.

and of course if i was the fighter I would want to be more then the wizard's bodyguard who handles the easy fights that are not worth a spell. I want to be just as powerful and important as him.


You actually do look for other results other than the one you hypothesized - to do otherwise is to corrupt the survey/experiment with confirmation bias.

unless your hypothesis was "the system can break in this fashion" then all you look for is the breaking, the system might be fine some of the time but that does not matter in the slightest.

if my hypothesis was "some people like to swim at 5am" then I would look for people who swim at 5am, not people who don't have a pool or those who do not swim. anyone who did not swim at 5am would not matter, and could not provide me with useful data.

[pwykersotz]

that is one possbility sure, another is that you are so bias that you can not see it.

also when looking for problems with a system it is never helpful to point out the things the system got right, it is helpful to find issues with it.

{{Scrubbed}}

To the first point, my bias is certainly possible. But Lokiare has displayed an unwillingness to compromise his viewpoint far beyond me or just about anyone else that I've seen. I've read every single post in the 5e forums...from the lovers to the haters everyone has shown more objectivity.

To the second point, that's the entire problem. When LOOKING FOR PROBLEMS. However, when seeking to judge something as worthy or not worthy, it is helpful to make a list of both good things and bad. The world is a dark place when to judge somethings potential you simply make a list of what is wrong based on your own subjective expectations (or the subjective expectations of others) and then find every way in which they were not fulfilled. Lokiare is trying to prove that 5e is broken to the point that it is not worth playing except for a very narrow style of play. That requres more than a list of flaws.

[Slipperychicken]

and of course he could just hire a guard or 10, way cheaper then a fighter of his level.


Are there even hireling rules in 5e yet?

[HasLogic]

Are there even hireling rules in 5e yet?

even if there are not its hard to believe any DM would charge more for 10 level 3 guards then an equal share of the treasure.




To the first point, my bias is certainly possible. But Lokiare has displayed an unwillingness to compromise his viewpoint far beyond me or just about anyone else that I've seen. I've read every single post in the 5e forums...from the lovers to the haters everyone has shown more objectivity.

certainly possible, but again you are missing a more likely reason. Have you given him enough logic or facts to change? those are the only two reasons anyone should ever change their minds, I would never trust anyone who changed their minds for any other reason, even if they agreed with me.

I have always found him to be logical in regards to 5e, as opposed to people who ignore the math of the system, or say that the math is wrong without pointing to where it is wrong.



To the second point, that's the entire problem. When LOOKING FOR PROBLEMS. However, when seeking to judge something as worthy or not worthy, it is helpful to make a list of both good things and bad. The world is a dark place when to judge somethings potential you simply make a list of what is wrong based on your own subjective expectations (or the subjective expectations of others) and then find every way in which they were not fulfilled. Lokiare is trying to prove that 5e is broken to the point that it is not worth playing except for a very narrow style of play. That requres more than a list of flaws.

why would it? If say a car is broken and not safe to drive, I however only find one situation where that is the case. When you go over 40 the car blows up. I would hardly need to know what happens when its going uphill at 20mph. all I need to show is that it breaks under conditions that it must work under to be functional.

he does not need to show that most of the rules do not work in 5e, only that enough do not work under conditions that they must work under. that places where the rules work DOES NOT MATTER, so long as he can show that places where they do not work are large enough.

[Lokiare]

Lokaire, rule number 1 for testing a hypothoses when it comes to testing people's experiences: Keep the results you are looking for a secret, otherwise the people that have results matching what you want will show up in a disproportional amount as they will be accepted, and people that do not have results that agree with your hypothesis will not add their conflicting results, because they will feel more isolated. Basic sociology. Basic enough that if I was practicing basic psychology, I would immediately be able to call out the poll as a push poll that was only trying to conform people to/ confirm a personally held bias towards a partucular subject, which is in no way a scientific way to go about testing anything.

Basically, a RL equivalent of the poll in question would be a published study examining if college males are wild, uncontrolled, alcoholic hoodlums only interviewing the jocks who live in frats that have a party (featuring loud music and copious amounts of alcohol) every weekend. I choose this example because *Looks at the book Guyland* You have a result you are looking for because you targeted only one demographic of your target population, and ignored the rest (which is likely the more sizable demographic in the population).

This is not how you science.

Secondly: You need to ask what kind of factors go into each person's groups. What kinds of DM do they have? What is their campaign? Did they allow feats/ multiclassing/ variant human? Their party makeup? What kinds of enemies are they fighting, how often, and how many at a time? What was the level of the party/ adventure? What was your character? What is your system experience? (Yes, that one is incredibly important, as it will influence bias one way or another) As it stands, your question is basically as useful as asking a guy who has played blackjack, "Did someone else ever get a royal flush while you were playing?"

Thirdly: Did Mearls&Co steal and eat you baby or something? Maybe they fed your space baby to a space dingo? Because you are spending a lot of time and energy trying to get unsympathetic people to hate 5e, when you could happily ignore it and go back to your 4e (which is dead, btw, but is no fault of 5e or Mearls&Co). So could you stop, please? As an honest request to save your time and ours, please, do not pay attention to the system you do not like, and save yourself some time, money and headaches for the next few years.

And fourth and finally: (back on the subject of the poll itself) If you had made the question fair and not a push poll, the results would be called into question unless you divided them by group. Because what one table has, another will not. there are quite a few cases where the rules lawyering relies on uncertain, immersion breaking RAW being ruled in favor of casters or other groups that might be tollerated at one table by one DM, but not at another by a more strict DM/ players who will murder you for being a powergaming munchkin, and the poll should take that into account when sorting the results (which, going back to point 2, is why the first question should be What kind of DM/ Players are at the table with you?).

This would make the poll more useful for players and game designers alike, as it is both more accurate and more relevent to each table. If it is found that at the more loose tables that X is a problem, but at strict ones that X is not (via interpretation, not DM fiat rewriting RAW), then the problem is case-by-case and should only be watched for at the more lax tables. If, however, Y is a problem at strict and lax tables, then Y is a problem to bring to the game designers that they need to address, as it negatively impacts all games of the appropriate level, and is a likely candidate for errata (the ranger's animal companion, for example).

As it stands, this "poll" does not meet the criteria it needs to be useful for players or game designers, and is only likely to attract a flame war or become a complaints thread... Which is actually a shame, as it could be much, much more useful if it was handled a bit more objectively and took important variables into account.

True, but RAW, the companion sucks and is likely up for day-one errata. :P


You either get the people wanting to confirm it, or the people wanting to firmly debunk it. Either way - you end up with biased and agenda-driven reporting.

My response to this is that I don't have a million dollars to do a double blind study on the subject through a polling company that cannot be disputed.

Also I quoted HasLogic's posts because they are exactly right. I don't have to take into account where the game works. Only show that it breaks down in common play.


so to balance spellcasters, every marshal character must be a better player? and not be the type who ever wants to play a spellcaster?

please show your studies that show this, I assume you have 100's of examples? I would be very interested to see this data for myself

also when your looking to prove a system is broken, it does not mater if it works right sometimes, only that it does in fact break. even if players sufficiently oblivious as to not see the game is broken 1/2 the time the game is still broken, and that is still a problem for half the players.

sure it is, I am a level 18 fighter and I want to be just as important as my friend the level 18 wizard in an important fight. the math is way against me there

that is one possbility sure, another is that you are so bias that you can not see it.

also when looking for problems with a system it is never helpful to point out the things the system got right, it is helpful to find issues with it.

and in your campain that kind of meta-balance might work fine, so long as you ignore the obvious questions about how a non-caster would become a king.

but we are talking about the system in general, not how you personalty play and have your NPCs act. the game also needs to work in settings where if you don't have magic you are seen as little more then an animal. or ones where no one takes an adventurer seriously if they don't have magic.

even if its only one time per day its is not acceptable for a character to be undone by one spell. and of course you can rest so the "only once a day" becomes "almost every fight"

and of course he could just hire a guard or 10, way cheaper then a fighter of his level.

and of course if i was the fighter I would want to be more then the wizard's bodyguard who handles the easy fights that are not worth a spell. I want to be just as powerful and important as him.

unless your hypothesis was "the system can break in this fashion" then all you look for is the breaking, the system might be fine some of the time but that does not matter in the slightest.

if my hypothesis was "some people like to swim at 5am" then I would look for people who swim at 5am, not people who don't have a pool or those who do not swim. anyone who did not swim at 5am would not matter, and could not provide me with useful data.

Exactly. All I have to show is that the broken bits are common enough to ruin the average game.


{{Scrubbed}}

To the first point, my bias is certainly possible. But Lokiare has displayed an unwillingness to compromise his viewpoint far beyond me or just about anyone else that I've seen. I've read every single post in the 5e forums...from the lovers to the haters everyone has shown more objectivity.

To the second point, that's the entire problem. When LOOKING FOR PROBLEMS. However, when seeking to judge something as worthy or not worthy, it is helpful to make a list of both good things and bad. The world is a dark place when to judge somethings potential you simply make a list of what is wrong based on your own subjective expectations (or the subjective expectations of others) and then find every way in which they were not fulfilled. Lokiare is trying to prove that 5e is broken to the point that it is not worth playing except for a very narrow style of play. That requres more than a list of flaws.

{{Scrubbed}}

I've shown an unwillingness to compromise unless I am swayed with facts, quotes, or math. I repeat: someones emotional appeal filled with logical fallacies is not going to sway me. Only facts, quotes, or math will sway me. And I have been swayed when someone has shown me when I am wrong in the past on this very forum.


even if there are not its hard to believe any DM would charge more for 10 level 3 guards then an equal share of the treasure.

certainly possible, but again you are missing a more likely reason. Have you given him enough logic or facts to change? those are the only two reasons anyone should ever change their minds, I would never trust anyone who changed their minds for any other reason, even if they agreed with me.

I have always found him to be logical in regards to 5e, as opposed to people who ignore the math of the system, or say that the math is wrong without pointing to where it is wrong.

why would it? If say a car is broken and not safe to drive, I however only find one situation where that is the case. When you go over 40 the car blows up. I would hardly need to know what happens when its going uphill at 20mph. all I need to show is that it breaks under conditions that it must work under to be functional.

he does not need to show that most of the rules do not work in 5e, only that enough do not work under conditions that they must work under. that places where the rules work DOES NOT MATTER, so long as he can show that places where they do not work are large enough.

Well the hiring guards thing is beside the point. A caster can get minions in many ways such as using summoning spells or raising undead. If they raise dead they don't even have to worry about hitting their allies with spells.

The point being we've already seen in play where a two spell combo invalidated other characters abilities to contribute over the course of an entire adventure.

I'm looking forward to hearing more. Feel free to chime in about not seeing this happen too if you must but please don't turn this into an argument thread.

[INDYSTAR188]

Regarding the Ranger companion, I've offered to let the Ranger in the group I'm running have both paths - but, the animal companion has to be directed every round. Otherwise, I houseruled that the pet could keep attacking on its own until directed otherwise.

Interesting anecdote - in the game I was playing in, the DM allowed a Bard to have a mastiff, using Handle Animal to direct the dog, and let it attack/defend itself once per enemy; completely overshadowing the Ranger ability. The Ranger in that game went Hunter though, so the Bard wasn't stepping on toes. I did think it quite funny.

As for the OP question, my real life examples of disparity are with multiclassing. Our 1st level Druid took a level of Monk at 2nd level, to gain unarmored defense and multiple attacks. He literally had to cheat (by conning the DM) with spamming multiple bonus attacks (TWF, Martial Attack and Flurry) to be as effective as anyone else in combat. The Ranger (archery spec'd) easily outdid his damage, especially when Colossus was activated (the Ranger typically got the killing blows on weakened opponents). The Rogue was the real damage dealer, being ranged with two dice of sneak, and a lucky d20 that crited quite often. 6d6+8 was nothing to sneeze at (to the point that I was regularly opting to Commander's Strike the Rogue because even 3d6+4 was better than my d8+5.

So yeah, the uberness of a monk/druid combo doesn't come online for quite some time. I would assume any low level multiclass is going to be less effective than a straight class in most circumstances - at least if you MC before 4th level.

I'm getting ready to DM a game and one of the players is going Rogue. Could you please explain how your player was dealing 6d6 damage an attack and at what level? I know she has 2d6 SA and another from the shortbow.

[Xetheral]

Exactly. All I have to show is that the broken bits are common enough to ruin the average game.

(Emphasis added.)

To show that broken bits are common, or that they affect the average game, finding examples isn't enough. To show commonality you need to find the rate of occurrence of those examples, and to affect the average game that rate needs to approach 50%.

One can't demonstrate what you're trying to show via a request for examples on a forum, as that medium will never allow you to gather the necessary rate data.

[Cambrian]

[E]ven if its only one time per day its is not acceptable for a character to be undone by one spell. and of course you can rest so the "only once a day" becomes "almost every fight" Except a wizard casting fireball is not invalidating another character. In fact one player occasionally doing something strong and trivializing an encounter is not problem (especially in 5th now that multiple encounters are easy to fit into a night).

If we want to discuss how martial/mundane compare to magic-users we can't be getting bogged down by non issues like Fireball.

A reminder: 3rd ed. did not have a problem with a caster occasionally solving an encounter with a single spell. 3rd ed had the problem that the Wizard could summon a better fighter, stack defensive buffs to be better defended, and still barely have tapped into their potential.

If a Fireball solves an encounter then it was probably not very difficult or it used one of the most valuable spell slots. The example is as much an issue as one in which a Fighter wins initiative, charges the most threating creature present, and drops it using an action surge. Is there disparity in there too?

What I want to see is more reports of play. My guess/hope is that despite casters being more versatile, the limits on their powers requires responsible use and creates a reliance on non-casters to carry the party between the big spell effects. That being said...

Is anyone else worried that 5th will be difficult to discuss given how drastically different one table experience could be from another? The modular rules, DM rulings, and dependence on things like the number of short rests per day, all contribute to make a very unique set of circumstances. The DMG will certainly exacerbate the issue with all the optional components. Not sure what method there is to address this... Any ideas?


even if there are not its hard to believe any DM would charge more for 10 level 3 guards then an equal share of the treasure.And equally not hard to assume most level 3 guards going into a level appropriate adventure (for the wizard) would turn and run because who cares how much your paid if you won't be alive to spend it. They're supposed to be people, with self preservation instincts-- not summoned creatures or cattle.

My response to this is that I don't have a million dollars to do a double blind study on the subject through a polling company that cannot be disputed.

Also I quoted HasLogic's posts because they are exactly right. I don't have to take into account where the game works. Only show that it breaks down in common play.Well by all means do what you want, but you should probably edit out any reference to science because what you're discussing deviates from the controlled process of the scientific method. And you don't need millions of dollars to not frame the discussion.


Exactly. All I have to show is that the broken bits are common enough to ruin the average game.But if all you look for is the broken bits then how would you know what an average game is? By framing the data you're looking for you also remove the ability to infer what an average game is. As I hinted above my gut feeling is "5th" is too varied to draw universal conclusions about and the variables will create far too much "noise" in any data.

[Naanomi]

Wait... the example had the fighter run out and draw attention to himself, gathering the targets around him to help teammates deal with them more efficiently; something the Wizard alone couldn't do? Isn't that part of the fighter's role, one he did very well in coordination with the rest of his party?

Anyways... in my home campaign and the campaign of some of my friends; both have a Beastmaster (widely regarded as the lowpoint) who are both having fun and contributing positively to the party as a whole without feeling 'outclassed' by the Full Casters in their party. Might that mean they are mechanically weaker still in some aspects? Perhaps. But it seems to be of little consequence to the goals from either an Entertainment or Gaming perspective.

[Inevitability]

I'm getting ready to DM a game and one of the players is going Rogue. Could you please explain how your player was dealing 6d6 damage an attack and at what level? I know she has 2d6 SA and another from the shortbow.

I believe he is referring to the fact that the rogue crits often, and his post makes it seem a bit like the rogue's crit damage is his standard damage. Could've been better formulated.

[Inevitability]

Also, a real example of disparity: buy an elephant with your Level-1 starting wealth. See how it can kill pretty much everything you encounter.

[Kurald Galain]

To show that broken bits are common, or that they affect the average game, finding examples isn't enough. To show commonality you need to find the rate of occurrence of those examples, and to affect the average game that rate needs to approach 50%.

One can't demonstrate what you're trying to show via a request for examples on a forum, as that medium will never allow you to gather the necessary rate data.

Indeed.

I can see where this goes now.

"Dear WOTC, hereby I am enclosing REAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF that your recent game is broken. I trust that you will fix this at the earliest opportunity, because SCIENCE!

Sincerely, forum user #24601, MSc PhD"

:smalltongue:

[Cambrian]

Also, a real example of disparity: buy an elephant with your Level-1 starting wealth. See how it can kill pretty much everything you encounter.Or alternatively watch your starting wealth wander off while ignoring your commands. But don't worry, I'm sure nothing bad would happen if you attempted to discipline it. :smallwink:

This is a RPG not a board game. Part of the DM's responsibility is policing the game-- being selective with who sits at the table is the easiest method.

[Inevitability]

Or alternatively watch your starting wealth wander off while ignoring your commands. But don't worry, I'm sure nothing bad would happen if you attempted to discipline it. :smallwink:

Speak with Animals (cast as a ritual) + Animal Friendship. Nature domain Clerics can do it at first level. Enjoy your obedient slaughterphant for the rest of the day.

[Steel Mirror]

Also, a real example of disparity: buy an elephant with your Level-1 starting wealth. See how it can kill pretty much everything you encounter.But elephants only scale linearly. By around level 7 or so the quadratic pixies called in by Conjure Woodland Beings overpowers them in pretty much every situation, yet another reason why 5E reinforces the old disparity between mundane animals and their spellcasting fair folk party members. :smallbiggrin:

[archaeo]

Why do you assume anyone that disagrees with you is a sock puppet? That boggles my mind. Is your ego so big that you can't consider that you may actually be wrong and that several people might not agree with you? That can really hinder the discussion if its true.

I think it hardly requires an enormous ego to realize that HasLogic is captpike.


I've shown an unwillingness to compromise unless I am swayed with facts, quotes, or math. I repeat: someones emotional appeal filled with logical fallacies is not going to sway me. Only facts, quotes, or math will sway me. And I have been swayed when someone has shown me when I am wrong in the past on this very forum.

One of the key issues with your argument is your unwillingness to accept non-optimized playstyles as a valid argument about 5e. "Disparities" only really begin to present themselves at the highest level of play, when optimizers have eked out every possible mechanical advantage. Below that, however, these disparities disappear.

You won't be swayed, however, because your particular playstyle requires optimization; you have even said, in the past, that to do anything less than play a fully optimized character would be an insult to the characterization. I would broadly agree that in order to have fully optimized characters in a tactical combat game, 5e would have to be radically redesigned.

But that doesn't really matter, does it? Even if we all agreed with you, you'd still be mad, because Mearls broke his "promise" about catering to every playstyle, and you feel left out of the big D&D tent. As a result...well, what is the result, here? Are you just here to keep anyone from getting fooled into liking 5e, or something?


please don't turn this into an argument thread.

I think you do not recognize the degree to which you poisoned the well, as it were, with your OP.

[Cambrian]

Speak with Animals (cast as a ritual) + Animal Friendship. Nature domain Clerics can do it at first level. Enjoy your obedient slaughterphant for the rest of the day.That doesn't make the animal fight for you-- it makes it perceive you as a friend.

Animal Friendship:
This spell lets you convince a beast that you mean it no harm. Choose a beast that you can see within range. It must see and hear you. If the beast’s Intelligence is 4 or higher, the spell fails. Otherwise, the beast must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be charmed by you for the spell’s duration. If you or one of your companions harms the target, the spells ends.

Speak with Animal:
You gain the ability to comprehend and verbally communicate with beasts for the duration. The knowledge and awareness of many beasts is limited by their intelligence, but at minimum, beasts can give you information about nearby locations and monsters, including whatever they can perceive or have perceived within the past day. You might be able to persuade a beast to perform a small favor for you, at the DM’s discretion.

[edit: added SwA for clarity]

[archaeo]

That doesn't make the animal fight for you-- it makes it perceive you as a friend.

It's also worth noting that the only animals you can explicitly buy are labeled as mounts, suggesting that you're purchasing something that was trained as a beast of burden, not as a fighter, with the exception of the warhorse, a fairly pricey investment at 600 gp. Likewise, animal handling checks are given examples of controlling mounts or calming down dangerous animals, not getting them to fight themselves.

I would suspect that the quickest you can get a random animal you find to fight for you is the level 4 dominate beast spell. It would be much more useful for the Druid to cast conjure animal in most situations instead, one imagines.

[Fwiffo86]

why would it? If say a car is broken and not safe to drive, I however only find one situation where that is the case. When you go over 40 the car blows up. I would hardly need to know what happens when its going uphill at 20mph. all I need to show is that it breaks under conditions that it must work under to be functional.

he does not need to show that most of the rules do not work in 5e, only that enough do not work under conditions that they must work under. that places where the rules work DOES NOT MATTER, so long as he can show that places where they do not work are large enough.

A more accurate analogy would be if the car stopped working when approaching speeds in excess of 100 mph. Since the majority of vehicles are not actually designed with this speed in mind, they often malfunction in one way or another. Just as using high end/super optimized examples are not the intended "usual and reasonable" use of the game.

A broken system would break in as low as 25-30% of usual and reasonable non-optimized play without the intent of attempting to break the rules or find specific flaws with it.

However, since it is by definition a roleplaying game, the math can only account for at most 50% of the game's entirety and many of the mathematical flaws have roleplaying counters built into them that optimizers willingly ignore.

[HasLogic]

Except a wizard casting fireball is not invalidating another character. In fact one player occasionally doing something strong and trivializing an encounter is not problem (especially in 5th now that multiple encounters are easy to fit into a night).

if said fireball outdoes a fighter then yes it does, who need a fighter when you can use one spell and outdo him in the only area he can be said to be OK at? (damage)

incidentally I was talking about meteor swarm.



If a Fireball solves an encounter then it was probably not very difficult or it used one of the most valuable spell slots. The example is as much an issue as one in which a Fighter wins initiative, charges the most threating creature present, and drops it using an action surge. Is there disparity in there too?

if the fighter was going full out and easily killed everything in two turns, and the wizard was going full bore and unable to do anything to help then yes it would but that is not happening.



And equally not hard to assume most level 3 guards going into a level appropriate adventure (for the wizard) would turn and run because who cares how much your paid if you won't be alive to spend it. They're supposed to be people, with self preservation instincts-- not summoned creatures or cattle.
Well by all means do what you want, but you should probably edit out any reference to science because what you're discussing deviates from the controlled process of the scientific method. And you don't need millions of dollars to not frame the discussion.

even if you do hire guards instead of summoning stuff, and you use no mind control or anything like that and you are entirely honest there are still ways. in a world with a high mortality rate, where getting gray hair is rare. Offering people a couple years of pay to do a week of work, even if there is only a 3/4 chance you will return would be a good deal for enough people.

go to the third world and offer people 10 thousand dollars if they play russian roulette once, I bet you will have takers.



But if all you look for is the broken bits then how would you know what an average game is? By framing the data you're looking for you also remove the ability to infer what an average game is. As I hinted above my gut feeling is "5th" is too varied to draw universal conclusions about and the variables will create far too much "noise" in any data.

you look at what parts of the system would see common use, given a true study is not possible. for example the way the saves scale will see common use. I don't need to do a study to know that that system will have a heavy impact on most games.



One of the key issues with your argument is your unwillingness to accept non-optimized playstyles as a valid argument about 5e. "Disparities" only really begin to present themselves at the highest level of play, when optimizers have eked out every possible mechanical advantage. Below that, however, these disparities disappear.

You won't be swayed, however, because your particular playstyle requires optimization; you have even said, in the past, that to do anything less than play a fully optimized character would be an insult to the characterization. I would broadly agree that in order to have fully optimized characters in a tactical combat game, 5e would have to be radically redesigned.

But that doesn't really matter, does it? Even if we all agreed with you, you'd still be mad, because Mearls broke his "promise" about catering to every playstyle, and you feel left out of the big D&D tent. As a result...well, what is the result, here? Are you just here to keep anyone from getting fooled into liking 5e, or something?


when using one common playstyle breaks the game, it does not matter that others do not. if my care only blows up when I drive over 60, it is still broken if I only drive 40mph.


A more accurate analogy would be if the car stopped working when approaching speeds in excess of 100 mph. Since the majority of vehicles are not actually designed with this speed in mind, they often malfunction in one way or another. Just as using high end/super optimized examples are not the intended "usual and reasonable" use of the game.

A broken system would break in as low as 25-30% of usual and reasonable non-optimized play without the intent of attempting to break the rules or find specific flaws with it.

However, since it is by definition a roleplaying game, the math can only account for at most 50% of the game's entirety and many of the mathematical flaws have roleplaying counters built into them that optimizers willingly ignore.

you can not counter a mechanical problem with an RP fix. RP changes too much from one table to another.

also I would hardly call people who optimize to be so few as to be ignorable, nor is it ok to sell a broken game and say its ok because most people don't play by the rules anyway.

[Cambrian]

if said fireball outdoes a fighter then yes it does, who need a fighter when you can use one spell and outdo him in the only area he can be said to be OK at? (damage)What a fighter lacks in versatility they make up in innate defense and durability and get martial benefits like feats or more stat increases. Most importantly a Fighter never runs out- there's athleticism that can perform a variety of tasks that would require a limited spell slot. Innately up to 4 attacks per round every round. Action Surge for the odd burst and Second Wind to help sustain themself. With backgrounds theres limitless variety in usefulness now and fighters are no longer unskilled meatsacs. A caster is limited by spells unless a DM is making the adventuring day too short.


if the fighter was going full out and easily killed everything in two turns, and the wizard was going full bore and unable to do anything to help then yes it would but that is not happening.I don't know what to say... A wizard spending a limited ability can out-perform a Fighter not using one of their limited abilities while performing a task in which casters are particularly capable. In exchange for that ability the Fighter gets better sustained output and other benefits.


even if you do hire guards instead of summoning stuff, and you use no mind control or anything like that and you are entirely honest there are still ways. in a world with a high mortality rate, where getting gray hair is rare. Offering people a couple years of pay to do a week of work, even if there is only a 3/4 chance you will return would be a good deal for enough people.

go to the third world and offer people 10 thousand dollars if they play russian roulette once, I bet you will have takers.I'm not suggesting that finding them wouldn't be possible-- probably not even difficult. I'm suggesting that they are not likely reliable when things look rough. They might want that fortune but when their lives are on the line it remains to be seen if they stand their ground. Hired swords are are held only by coin and they're free to reconsider the situation at any time.

[Lokiare]

Except a wizard casting fireball is not invalidating another character. In fact one player occasionally doing something strong and trivializing an encounter is not problem (especially in 5th now that multiple encounters are easy to fit into a night).

It is when they can do it to every encounter (average 6 per day according to Mearls) by level 3. At higher levels they not only have enough spells to trivialize encounters, they also start trivializing social situations and exploration situations. By the highest levels they have enough spell slots that it is unlikely they will run out in any given day.


If we want to discuss how martial/mundane compare to magic-users we can't be getting bogged down by non issues like Fireball.

Except the wizard can cast fireball every encounter (average 6 per day) by level 8. By level 6 they can cast it 3 times per day and then use other 1st and 2nd level spells to trivialize the other 3 encounters that day.


A reminder: 3rd ed. did not have a problem with a caster occasionally solving an encounter with a single spell. 3rd ed had the problem that the Wizard could summon a better fighter, stack defensive buffs to be better defended, and still barely have tapped into their potential.

If we are talking about all casters then the necromancer wizard, bard, and druid can all summon things to replace the fighter. The necromancer wizard can do this and still cast fireball. Remember a fighter is only worth about 8-10 SSU in combat.


If a Fireball solves an encounter then it was probably not very difficult or it used one of the most valuable spell slots. The example is as much an issue as one in which a Fighter wins initiative, charges the most threating creature present, and drops it using an action surge. Is there disparity in there too?

It doesn't have to 'solve' the encounter only trivialize it. If the only fun the fighter player has is mopping up after the wizard, for many play styles this is a problem. If the fireball takes out 3/4 of the enemies hit points, then even the wizard can mop up with a few rounds of cantrips or follow up with a damaging area spell that is lower level, which they can easily do all day every day after level 7 or so.


What I want to see is more reports of play. My guess/hope is that despite casters being more versatile, the limits on their powers requires responsible use and creates a reliance on non-casters to carry the party between the big spell effects. That being said...

I would like to see less arguing and more examples of play also. That would be helpful.


Is anyone else worried that 5th will be difficult to discuss given how drastically different one table experience could be from another? The modular rules, DM rulings, and dependence on things like the number of short rests per day, all contribute to make a very unique set of circumstances. The DMG will certainly exacerbate the issue with all the optional components. Not sure what method there is to address this... Any ideas?

Yes, I agree. It will be difficult to discuss. Though we can dismiss any examples that involve the DM house ruling to change the rules and focus on those that stay RAW. Even then there will be a fair bit of DM fiat involved such that one DM might make a player roll a hard skill check while another allows the player to take the action automatically.


And equally not hard to assume most level 3 guards going into a level appropriate adventure (for the wizard) would turn and run because who cares how much your paid if you won't be alive to spend it. They're supposed to be people, with self preservation instincts-- not summoned creatures or cattle.

Except we can outfit them with decent armor and shields and tell them to go total defense (or whatever the 5E equivalent is, can't remember at the moment) and form a wall around the wizard. They only need to buy the wizard a round or two and they can easily survive that.

Also there are rules for hiring mercenaries in the PHB along with a price list on page 159.


Well by all means do what you want, but you should probably edit out any reference to science because what you're discussing deviates from the controlled process of the scientific method. And you don't need millions of dollars to not frame the discussion.

Actually all we have to prove is that it doesn't work in some instances to disprove the idea that 5E isn't broken. We can further get more information on the ratio of non-disparity to disparity examples. A rough estimate that we can base some of our theory crafting on. For instance if no one ever has a problem with necromancers raising armies of undead, it might not be a problem.


But if all you look for is the broken bits then how would you know what an average game is? By framing the data you're looking for you also remove the ability to infer what an average game is. As I hinted above my gut feeling is "5th" is too varied to draw universal conclusions about and the variables will create far too much "noise" in any data.

There is no average game. Every game will be different because the amount of DM fiat involved. The best we can do is to look for where it breaks and point that out for errata or to fix in the next edition that will come out in 2 years.


Indeed.

I can see where this goes now.

"Dear WOTC, hereby I am enclosing REAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF that your recent game is broken. I trust that you will fix this at the earliest opportunity, because SCIENCE!

Sincerely, forum user #24601, MSc PhD"

:smalltongue:

Uh no. How about we just point out the flaws to the development team so they can fix them in 6E in 2 years? I think that would be much better. See all we have to do is find flaws and then point them out. The developers are responsible after that.


I think it hardly requires an enormous ego to realize that HasLogic is captpike.

You seem to be bordering on egomania here. HasLogic might be captpike but to say that they are absolutely without a doubt captpike every time they post is bordering on insanity. Not only that have you run their respective posts through a program that correlates writing styles? because that would be the only way to tell. Also has captpike stopped posting? That's another thing to check.

Again, trying to say everyone that disagrees with you is the same person is bordering on a mental problem.


One of the key issues with your argument is your unwillingness to accept non-optimized playstyles as a valid argument about 5e. "Disparities" only really begin to present themselves at the highest level of play, when optimizers have eked out every possible mechanical advantage. Below that, however, these disparities disappear.

Proof please. There are a few examples in this thread that already show a disparity between casters and non-casters at low levels.So we can already falsify your statement just in this thread.


You won't be swayed, however, because your particular playstyle requires optimization; you have even said, in the past, that to do anything less than play a fully optimized character would be an insult to the characterization. I would broadly agree that in order to have fully optimized characters in a tactical combat game, 5e would have to be radically redesigned.

I agree here. There are some play styles that don't give a care at all to disparity. There are also many play styles that do. The problem with this statement is that you don't need 'fully' optimized characters, just a character that picks the right spell randomly from a list such as fireball for levels 5 to 7 where they will trivialize encounters around those levels.

My concern is that they could have made a 2E/3E style game and balanced it in a way that a fully optimized character is only 10%-20% better than a character designed to be incompetent. Meaning the average character would only be 5%-10% worse than an optimized character. Instead they threw any semblance of balance out for the "rule of cool". Which any game developer knows is a trap and bad design.

For instance their idea was to create a necromancer that could summon an army of undead. This could have been done in a balanced way by making each undead have 1 hit point and attack with the wizards attack bonus and deal 1d4 damage. Then they could have let the wizard summon 1d4 of these things per spell slot level. Maybe throw a rule in there for creating a skeleton mob for every 6 of them you get which hits for 4d6 or something.

The point is they could have easily balanced the game and still had it play like 2E/3E, but they intentionally avoided that (or worse yet attempted to do it but were incompetent, take your pick).


But that doesn't really matter, does it? Even if we all agreed with you, you'd still be mad, because Mearls broke his "promise" about catering to every playstyle, and you feel left out of the big D&D tent. As a result...well, what is the result, here? Are you just here to keep anyone from getting fooled into liking 5e, or something?

That's part of it. I want to stop someone who won't enjoy the game from dropping $100 on 5E when all the books are out.

I also want to make sure that I'm correct. Which is why I want to see examples of these disparities in play.

Lastly I'm hanging around even though my interest is nearly gone, in the hopes they will fix all this with optional modules when the DMG comes out. Some kind of magical module that will balance this mess of an edition.


I think you do not recognize the degree to which you poisoned the well, as it were, with your OP.

What? I simply asked for examples of disparity in play. How is that poisoning the well. I'll tell you what. Draft me an OP that conveys the same information but is not 'poisoning the well' and I'll replace the OP with your post.


A more accurate analogy would be if the car stopped working when approaching speeds in excess of 100 mph. Since the majority of vehicles are not actually designed with this speed in mind, they often malfunction in one way or another. Just as using high end/super optimized examples are not the intended "usual and reasonable" use of the game.

Actually we are asking people if the car stops working under any circumstances and to report their stories about what they were doing when it happened.


A broken system would break in as low as 25-30% of usual and reasonable non-optimized play without the intent of attempting to break the rules or find specific flaws with it.

However, since it is by definition a roleplaying game, the math can only account for at most 50% of the game's entirety and many of the mathematical flaws have roleplaying counters built into them that optimizers willingly ignore.

Actually the system is going to account for much more than 50% unless the DM is doing back flips to twist the game world in such a way as to void the breaking points of 5E.

"There aren't any corpses, this world has microscopic ethereal bacteria that eats them in a matter of seconds once they die"

"Every creature you encounter has resistance to fire damage."

"The world is riddled with anti-magic zones. Its not my fault dungeons, castles, and adventure sites always appear in them."

[Lokiare]

What a fighter lacks in versatility they make up in innate defense and durability and get martial benefits like feats or more stat increases. Most importantly a Fighter never runs out- there's athleticism that can perform a variety of tasks that would require a limited spell slot. Innately up to 4 attacks per round every round. Action Surge for the odd burst and Second Wind to help sustain themself. With backgrounds theres limitless variety in usefulness now and fighters are no longer unskilled meatsacs. A caster is limited by spells unless a DM is making the adventuring day too short.

Unfortunately the wizard isn't as limited as you think. The DM rules PDF and Mearls articles state that the normal adventuring day is 6 average encounters. This means by level 3 a wizard can trivialize every encounter of the day on average. By level 5 they can trivialize every encounter of the day twice over. By level 7 or so they can trivialize everything all day long.


I don't know what to say... A wizard spending a limited ability can out-perform a Fighter not using one of their limited abilities while performing a task in which casters are particularly capable. In exchange for that ability the Fighter gets better sustained output and other benefits.

Unfortunately the wizards 'limited ability' can be used in nearly all of the (average 6) encounters of the day. So its not all that limited.

The problem is the increasing number of spell slots that casters get as they level at 1st and 2nd level its limited enough that your statement is true, but by level 3 and beyond they have enough slots to trivialize every encounter.

They could have designed 5E in a way that vancian casters can cast a number of spell levels equal to half their level minimum 1. At which point they might actually run out of encounter trivializing slots at some point in the day. It would allow flexibility too. A caster could just cast 1st level spells every other round of every encounter all day and it wouldn't be broken. My point here is they sacrificed good design for tradition which is never a good thing.


I'm not suggesting that finding them wouldn't be possible-- probably not even difficult. I'm suggesting that they are not likely reliable when things look rough. They might want that fortune but when their lives are on the line it remains to be seen if they stand their ground. Hired swords are are held only by coin and they're free to reconsider the situation at any time.

I would assume that some of them have morals and/or experience and wouldn't run away. It might be a nice RP session for the players to find some experienced mercenaries and negotiate a price, but the result would be the same. They would stay the entire fight and defend the caster as well as or even better than a fighter since they would have the numbers advantage.

[archaeo]

You seem to be bordering on egomania here. HasLogic might be captpike but to say that they are absolutely without a doubt captpike every time they post is bordering on insanity. Not only that have you run their respective posts through a program that correlates writing styles? because that would be the only way to tell. Also has captpike stopped posting? That's another thing to check.

Again, trying to say everyone that disagrees with you is the same person is bordering on a mental problem.

Wait. You're telling me that I'm insane if I think a formerly banned user (which you'd know, if you'd bothered to check) has come back with a new username and posts with a very similar writing style with exactly the same obsessions and opinions? And where, exactly, have I done this before? I seem to recall disagreeing with numerous people on this forum without accusing them of anything at all!

I find being accused of "egomania," "insanity," and possessing "mental problems" to be incredibly insulting.


Proof please. There are a few examples in this thread that already show a disparity between casters and non-casters at low levels.So we can already falsify your statement just in this thread.

I'm sorry, but a handful of player reports does not a "falsification" make. Nothing has been controlled for here; there are so many random variables at play that it will require a great deal more playtime and DM experience to actually figure out any objective truths about the system. For someone constantly asking for "facts," you certainly seem to accept data that agrees with your point of view uncritically.


I agree here. There are some play styles that don't give a care at all to disparity. There are also many play styles that do.

Note the use of "some" and "many" here, as if you had some kind of data backing up your assumption about the D&D playerbase. You know, the one that WotC spent two years exhaustively researching in an open playtest. Not that any of them were asking for "disparity," of course, but they certainly were asking for a version of D&D that seems to be performing quite well, thus far.


The problem with this statement is that you don't need 'fully' optimized characters, just a character that picks the right spell randomly from a list such as fireball for levels 5 to 7 where they will trivialize encounters around those levels.

Uh? Fireball does 8d6 damage, for an average of 28 damage spread over a 20' radius sphere. At level 7, that Wizard can cast Fireball a total of 4 times per day; once, it does 9d8 damage.

Meanwhile, as the encounter building rules suggest, "adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day." At level 7 for a party of 4, that's 3,000 XP for a medium encounter and 4,400 for a hard encounter. A quick look through the Monster Manual shows any number of encounters that would be entirely appropriate for this group of adventurers that would either a) outright tank the fireball (A Stone Giant would probably still have more than 100 HP remaining, and falls short of "medium") or b) arrive in large enough numbers that a single fireball would be unlikely to toast even a majority of them, assuming they don't show up in neat formation and don't mingle themselves in with your party before your initiative comes up.

That's one encounter. Now, you have 5-7 more that day. You have 3 spell slots remaining above level 2, and 7 below that. I hope you picked the right spells in case one of those encounters can't just be "trivialized," not to mention what goes on between those encounters.


What? I simply asked for examples of disparity in play. How is that poisoning the well. I'll tell you what. Draft me an OP that conveys the same information but is not 'poisoning the well' and I'll replace the OP with your post.

Sure!

"How are people finding the balance between caster and martial characters at their table? While I suspect the balance may be tilted toward the casters, I'm interested in seeing what other people have experienced. Please provide any information that may help explain the disparity, including the character builds involved, the encounters they've faced, and any DM rulings that may have impacted the PCs' effectiveness."

But don't change the OP; why bother, at this point? This is just "5e argument thread, mark 80." May as well embrace it.

Of course, why would you listen to me? I'm an insane egomaniac! :smallannoyed:

[Fwiffo86]

Actually we are asking people if the car stops working under any circumstances and to report their stories about what they were doing when it happened.


1 - You were not the poster I was addressing. I was providing a more exact example for the situation rather than a car the blows up when you exceed 40 mph.


you can not counter a mechanical problem with an RP fix. RP changes too much from one table to another.

also I would hardly call people who optimize to be so few as to be ignorable, nor is it ok to sell a broken game and say its ok because most people don't play by the rules anyway.

2 - The RP counter to necromancers having a large quantity of of animated corpses is that it will be noticed, and dealt with by authorities attacking the undead army, lack of "permission" to animate the local graveyard, other "characters" not being ok with desecrating the dead (despite if the necromancer thinks its ok or holy). These are just a few examples already explored on these forums. I have no doubt others exist.

The possibly "broken" necromancer option is so far, the only out of the box, does not require optimization to figure out, option available to players who in regular and usual use, will have it, that I have noticed. Do not attempt to point out how X spell does more damage than Y sword swinger. That is not a flaw. It is by design, and is not broken. Despite what you may think.

3 - I don't think optimizers are ignorable. But they are hardly using the game in its "usual and reasonable" design. By definition they are using the game in the same way that someone who adds a Nitrous kit to their vehicle for racing does (despite the fact that normal racing does not use them).

Unrelated but interesting....

Does everyone remember that you can only benefit from a long rest only once per 24 hours? So multiple long resting is possible, but an unlikely choice for players?

[Finieous]

If D&D were a tactical combat game or wargame, much of the mechanical balance would come down to scenario design. Even with a point-buy mechanic, units would not be "balanced" against each other in a vacuum. Since D&D is a roleplaying game, that kind of mathematical balance on the page is even more chimerical. DMs will need to design adventures based on the composition and capabilities of their party -- the rules themselves won't (can't) do it for him or her automagically.

What I really like about 5E so far is that this necessary task has been made enormously simpler for the DM compared to 3.x. You still have to do it, but you have a much easier time of it. In short, if your 7th-level wizard is "trivializing" all six to eight encounters a day, the problem is your encounter design. You're doing it wrong.

Unfortunately, since my experiences don't match your premise, they won't provide a useful data point for you. This is, as others have pointed out, an odd way to pursue your "scientific" project, but I wish you the best. :smile:

[MustacheFart]

so to balance spellcasters, every marshal character must be a better player? and not be the type who ever wants to play a spellcaster?

You need to change your name to HasNoLogic. Where did I say that every marshal character should "not be the type who ever wants to play a spellcaster"? That doesn't even make any damn sense. If they want to play a spellcaster then...what in the hell are they playing a martial character for? Go play a spellcaster. If you want to dip into spellcasting on your martial character then go for it.

With your infinite logic (sarcasm) you've obviously went WAY past my point.

Let me spell it out for you real slow like: PEOPLE ARE ALREADY OVER-INFLATING THE DISPARITY BETWEEN SPELLCASTERS AND MARTIAL CHARACTERS IN 5TH ED. IF YOU ARE A SMART PLAYER SUCH A DISPARITY IS LESS OF A BIG DEAL.

That's all I was saying. Basically, don't make a mountain out of a molehill. I am getting pretty tired of people lacking the ability to read or contriving some fictitious argument that doesn't make sense from what others say because they don't have any wherewithal to make a legitimate argument themselves.


and in your campain that kind of meta-balance might work fine, so long as you ignore the obvious questions about how a non-caster would become a king.

but we are talking about the system in general, not how you personalty play and have your NPCs act. the game also needs to work in settings where if you don't have magic you are seen as little more then an animal. or ones where no one takes an adventurer seriously if they don't have magic.


First, it's campaign not campain. Please have the logic to utilize spell-check before you post. What are the obvious questions about how a non-caster would become a king? Are you trying to imply that one cannot become a king without magic? If so, then the education system of your area has failed you since history as well as YEARS AND YEARS of literature would state otherwise. I went on the assumption that anyone would catch my analogy but I suppose if you only "read" picture books then it may fall short.



even if its only one time per day its is not acceptable for a character to be undone by one spell. and of course you can rest so the "only once a day" becomes "almost every fight"

If you have a DM who allows the party a full rest after every fight then that is a problem with the DM not the system.


and of course he could just hire a guard or 10, way cheaper then a fighter of his level.

Who says those guards are loyal and trustworthy? Who says they won't try to extort more money? Who says they're available. You can't base your argument off a ridiculous extreme that may not even be available.


and of course if i was the fighter I would want to be more then the wizard's bodyguard who handles the easy fights that are not worth a spell. I want to be just as powerful and important as him.

And if I was the wizard I would blast you in the face with one of my "every fight" spells for being annoying.




unless your hypothesis was "the system can break in this fashion" then all you look for is the breaking, the system might be fine some of the time but that does not matter in the slightest.

if my hypothesis was "some people like to swim at 5am" then I would look for people who swim at 5am, not people who don't have a pool or those who do not swim. anyone who did not swim at 5am would not matter, and could not provide me with useful data.

That is just illogical. It's called a basis for comparison. You can't simply look at an outlier alone to determine the cause of the outlier. You're basically saying "Oh it breaks 2% of the time. It's crap! FIX IT! NERF IT! AAAHHHHH!" Get real.


I've played non-magical characters and magical characters over the years. I've had tons of fun playing both. I am very good at playing both as I consider myself a very good player. That said, in ALL of my years I have never felt apathetic or useless or outclassed on any one of my non-magical characters. Maybe it's luck. Maybe I'm blind to it. OR, maybe I like playing a character that doesn't rely on magic or shortcuts--a character that has weaknesses and must overcome them to triumph. The struggle is what makes it fun. At least it does to me that is.

I sure as hell was not using magic when I beat the big ol' dragon by myself on my barbarian as everyone else fled including spellcasters. I also was not using magic when I was riding its corpse down a river of lava, standing in triumph. Yep, I felt outclassed there!

That's just one of many examples. I simply cannot imagine a player who possesses such an opinion on the disparity sitting down at a table to play a martial character. Are you going to roll up a martial character just to complain. As soon as you sit down for the first session are you thinking "Man there's three other spellcasters. My fighter is going to suck."

[Lokiare]

Wait. You're telling me that I'm insane if I think a formerly banned user (which you'd know, if you'd bothered to check) has come back with a new username and posts with a very similar writing style with exactly the same obsessions and opinions? And where, exactly, have I done this before? I seem to recall disagreeing with numerous people on this forum without accusing them of anything at all!

I find being accused of "egomania," "insanity," and possessing "mental problems" to be incredibly insulting.

{{Scrubbed}}


I'm sorry, but a handful of player reports does not a "falsification" make. Nothing has been controlled for here; there are so many random variables at play that it will require a great deal more playtime and DM experience to actually figure out any objective truths about the system. For someone constantly asking for "facts," you certainly seem to accept data that agrees with your point of view uncritically.

Actually a single player report is all that's needed to falsify your statement. You have been refuted. Just accept that and move on. There is some form of caster/non-caster disparity at low levels. That's been proven, first in theory, now in experience. The next question is whether its common enough to trash the edition over.


Note the use of "some" and "many" here, as if you had some kind of data backing up your assumption about the D&D playerbase. You know, the one that WotC spent two years exhaustively researching in an open playtest. Not that any of them were asking for "disparity," of course, but they certainly were asking for a version of D&D that seems to be performing quite well, thus far.

They didn't 'exhaustively' research anything in their play test, except maybe how not to get useful information. They even made the mistake of thinking the underlying numbers don't affect the feel of the game. As if a fighter dealing 600 DPR versus a wizard dealing 5 DPR isn't going to have a different feel from a fighter dealing 5 DPR versus a wizard dealing 600 DPR. Basically I and others have pointed out how much of a train wreck the public play test and surveys were. It was a mess. They weren't asking for anything. They asked the wrong questions and professionals that work with surveys pointed it out over and over on their own forums, but they didn't listen.

I think the problem here is that people are giving them too much credit. I mean Mearls failed upward by being the last man standing in a nasty series of layoffs, yet everyone thinks he's somehow an awesome Godlike developer, rather than the lucky/charismatic individual he actually is.


Uh? Fireball does 8d6 damage, for an average of 28 damage spread over a 20' radius sphere. At level 7, that Wizard can cast Fireball a total of 4 times per day; once, it does 9d8 damage.

Does that include one short rest per day to regain 3 levels of spells? Also at 8th they can cast it 6 times per day.


Meanwhile, as the encounter building rules suggest, "adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day." At level 7 for a party of 4, that's 3,000 XP for a medium encounter and 4,400 for a hard encounter. A quick look through the Monster Manual shows any number of encounters that would be entirely appropriate for this group of adventurers that would either a) outright tank the fireball (A Stone Giant would probably still have more than 100 HP remaining, and falls short of "medium") or b) arrive in large enough numbers that a single fireball would be unlikely to toast even a majority of them, assuming they don't show up in neat formation and don't mingle themselves in with your party before your initiative comes up.

That's one encounter. Now, you have 5-7 more that day. You have 3 spell slots remaining above level 2, and 7 below that. I hope you picked the right spells in case one of those encounters can't just be "trivialized," not to mention what goes on between those encounters.

You missed the part where you multiply xp values for extra monsters. If you have 2 monsters you multiply the xp value of the monsters by 1.5. If you have 3-6 you multiply it by 2. This means that if you want more than 2 monsters to challenge the party they are going to be of extremely low level so that the wizard can use a low level spell to take care of them. They still have the higher level slots for the rest of the encounter.

The other point is the Wizard can prepare both fireball and flaming sphere and choose to cast flaming sphere out of their 3rd level slot when they find out they are up against a stone giant. Thus still trivializing the encounter. I'm sure if we look through the book we can find a much better spell for single target enemies. Grease, Web, etc...etc...

People used to complain about the Schrodinger's wizard, but WotC went and built it right into the game. "You might not have that spell prepared.", "Yep, I do since I no longer tie one spell to one spell slot. I can pick all the spells that I really want and have them prepared just in case."


Sure!

"How are people finding the balance between caster and martial characters at their table? While I suspect the balance may be tilted toward the casters, I'm interested in seeing what other people have experienced. Please provide any information that may help explain the disparity, including the character builds involved, the encounters they've faced, and any DM rulings that may have impacted the PCs' effectiveness."

But don't change the OP; why bother, at this point? This is just "5e argument thread, mark 80." May as well embrace it.

Of course, why would you listen to me? I'm an insane egomaniac! :smallannoyed:

That sounds good thanks, I'll change it out and put my original post in a spoiler.

That's the flaw in many peoples logic on these forums. They assume that you can ignore any information as long as the source is suspect. Not realizing its a basic tenet of logic to refute the argument rather than the arguer. It wouldn't matter if you were one of those lunatics that think we've never been to the moon or that think welfare doesn't cost tax money and impoverish a nation. I would still have to take your information into account. If everyone did this (which is known as a part of critical thinking) the world would be a better place.

[Gnaeus]

Actually a single player report is all that's needed to falsify your statement. You have been refuted. Just accept that and move on. There is some form of caster/non-caster disparity at low levels. That's been proven, first in theory, now in experience. The next question is whether its common enough to trash the edition over.

It has not been proven either in theory or in experience. Your theory proofs have never been worth the time it took you to write them, much less the time it took us to read them. They have all been rebutted more than adequately.

To prove it through experience you would have to show that there are more instances of caster dominance than there are of non-caster dominance, which you have not remotely done. Then you would have to show that this imbalance was actually the result of the system, as opposed to anything else which could be skewing the results, such as table rules favoring casters, incredibly short adventuring days, a possible bias for experienced players from other editions towards casters which thereby led to the typical caster player having more gaming expertise/rules mastery than the typical muggle, etc. You have shown no desire to control for any of those things, so all you can prove is an incredible disregard of any understanding of science, survey methodology, and the truth in general.

[Z3ro]

The next question is whether its common enough to trash the edition over.

Less than three months, without even all the core rulebooks out, and we're talking about throwing out the entire edition. No overreaction here. Sorry WotC, I know you spent two years and millions of dollars on this, but wizards are slightly better than fighters, better start over!

[Kurald Galain]

Less than three months, without even all the core rulebooks out, and we're talking about throwing out the entire edition. No overreaction here. Sorry WotC, I know you spent two years and millions of dollars on this, but wizards are slightly better than fighters, better start over!

As proven by SCIENCE! :smallbiggrin:

[Lokiare]

It has not been proven either in theory or in experience. Your theory proofs have never been worth the time it took you to write them, much less the time it took us to read them. They have all been rebutted more than adequately.

I don't know what world you are in, but in this world my proofs haven't been refuted because when new information is brought forward I alter the proof to accommodate it. You know, like a good logical examination of a subject should.

Second I could care less if you read them. I put them out there for others that do care and are willing to point out flaws or try to refute them.

A single post in this thread pointed out caster disparity versus non-casters and that's all that's needed to refute the statement that there is no disparity in low level play. Yes, there is and all it takes is one instance. As I said before its a matter of degree. In 4E there are several disparities between specific classes and builds, but they require insane levels of optimization and would almost never show up in play, which is fine. If 5E turns out the same way then 5E might be a decent game to trudge through while I wait 2 years for 6E.


To prove it through experience you would have to show that there are more instances of caster dominance than there are of non-caster dominance, which you have not remotely done. Then you would have to show that this imbalance was actually the result of the system, as opposed to anything else which could be skewing the results, such as table rules favoring casters, incredibly short adventuring days, a possible bias for experienced players from other editions towards casters which thereby led to the typical caster player having more gaming expertise/rules mastery than the typical muggle, etc. You have shown no desire to control for any of those things, so all you can prove is an incredible disregard of any understanding of science, survey methodology, and the truth in general.

I would only have to show that it is common and I'm not trying to convince everyone on the planet that 5E is broken. I'm trying to get a feel for the theory crafting and how it relates to play. I also welcome new players to TTRPGs in general to give their views. We've received several posts in other threads about confused players of 4E that tried 5E out and found the disparity undesirable. That is what we are trying to do here get stories. Not argue things that have been argued in other threads.


Less than three months, without even all the core rulebooks out, and we're talking about throwing out the entire edition. No overreaction here. Sorry WotC, I know you spent two years and millions of dollars on this, but wizards are slightly better than fighters, better start over!

They did not spend millions of dollars on this game. I would be surprised if they spent more than $1,000 on the entire process. They literally used a free company to do their survey and they hosted the files on their own servers which were already paid for by the main company. Everything else falls under the regular costs for producing a new edition and gets allotted by the parent company to pay for it in the hopes they will get a return on investment.

Wizards are more than 'slightly' better than fighters. They are superior in every way to fighters except they fall slightly behind in single target damage.

[Steel Mirror]

I would be surprised if they spent more than $1,000 on the entire process.:smallconfused:

As to examples of a disparity in play, I can only speak of the first few levels, because that is all I have played, so this is a limited window on the game to be sure. Our group has a warlock of Great Cthulu (Agonizing Blast to spam Eldritch Blasts), a barbarian with a big axe, a divination wizard, and a shadow monk. The monk and the barbarian easily outshine the warlock and wizard in most combat situations. It's not even always a matter of numbers; the barb and the monk just have more options, and more ways to exercise their creativity by exploiting the battlefield and forcing their opponents into disadvantageous positions. The warlock is pretty cool, and deals great damage especially when she novas, but she gets outshined in combat just by virtue of a lack of options. The wizard at least is fun to play, but prefers to drop debuffs and illusions and the like, or improving rolls of allies.

You can't really draw any conclusions from that as to the whole game, but from our experience at least, mundanes are firmly in the lead in the arms race. :smallbiggrin:

[Phoenix_Kensai]

The other point is the Wizard can prepare both fireball and flaming sphere and choose to cast flaming sphere out of their 3rd level slot when they find out they are up against a stone giant. Thus still trivializing the encounter. I'm sure if we look through the book we can find a much better spell for single target enemies. Grease, Web, etc...etc...

I think you're overestimating spells here, Lokiare. A level 3 flaming sphere inflicts 3d6 damage on a failed save, or an average of 10.5 damage. Assuming the stone giant fails every save (even with its +5 bonus) and you maintain concentration through its attempts to bash your head in, a level 3 flaming sphere will take an average of 12 rounds to kill it. The spell doesn't even last that long.

Grease only affects a 10-foot square and knocks the giant prone when it starts its turn there or enters the area (again, assuming a failed save), so that'd maybe keep it away from you for a turn or two at most, if you're lucky, and does nothing to stop it from chucking boulders instead. Web would be a little better, but allows a Dexterity save to avoid it and a Strength save as an action to break free - both of which the giant is good at. And, again, there's nothing to stop it from crushing the wizard under a pile of rocks rather than stumbling through the magical maze of hazards. Stone giants aren't stupid.

I'm not convinced that a level 7 wizard can trivialize one encounter like this with a single spell, much less six.

[Fwiffo86]

I am more inclined to think that unlimited resources trump limited resource, but the limited resources should be superior when used.

That being said, we are talking about one round of combat right? You cannot judge anything by a single instance. All they prove is that it can happen. Not that this is the "regular and usual" use of the ability/spell/scenario.

Everyone is arguing fringe cases that require someone to actually look for them. By definition, they are illogical and pointless. Yes they happen. Are they the defining subject of how the game is played? No. Anyone who argues otherwise is ill informed.

Maybe the disparity is only in the theorycrafter's head. After all, no one here has definitive proof. No one here actually worked on the decision making process for what will be in the game or not.

[archaeo]

You and others claimed that I was captpike because we both used logic to refute you. You are now accusing this other poster of the same thing. I'm sorry if saying you might have a problem insults you. I just call them as I see them. Something is going on if you feel that everyone that logically refutes you is just one person. People having the same views does not mean they are the same poster.

You are confusing me with someone else. And then a non-apology apology, continuing to accuse me of being mentally disabled?

I think I'm done speaking with you.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: Stop posting insults to other posters. If you suspect someone of being a banned poster returned, report the post and tell a mod why. DO NOT accuse other posters of insanity. That is flaming and WILL result in action.

[Lokiare]

So we have a handful of examples of any kind posted in this thread.

So the only information we can gather is that very few people on these forums have actually played a game. I'm looking for a game on the Fantasy Grounds forums, but so far no luck. When I finally get into a game I'm going to report my experience here in detail.

I'm setting up Fantasy Grounds now to run several test encounters in 5E. If you want to join me for the next several hours you can find the connection info here: http://steamcommunity.com/app/252690/discussions/0/616189742673982282/

Bring fully created characters. The first encounter is going to a level 3 encounter.

The background is that you were told that you could find {work/fun/adventure/rewards} in the town of Bells Rest. So you have decided to travel there and see what you could find. Bell's Rest is a small town of only around a hundred residents that eke out a living farming the side of a mountain using terraced farms. Due to the harsh weather and terrain and their meager farming results they are generally left alone by bandits and other humanoids. They have been putting out a number of fliers indicating that they are looking for the help of 'stalwart' and 'brave' adventurers, but the information is vague and without details.

[Lokiare]

So not a single person wants to actually test out the theory crafting? If I'm wrong respond to this thread and we can set up a time to run several test encounters that I'm in the process of building.

I use fantasy grounds, but I have access to roll20 also. I'm game for being a player or a DM or rotating out.

[EvilAnagram]

Yeah, I'm in grad school, and I work. I'm lucky I get to play as much as I do.

[Jakinbandw]

I'll take the bait. I'm on roll20. Will you be GMing? How will we be creating characters? Dice rolling or point buy? What level should our characters be?

[MaxWilson]

Except the wizard can cast fireball every encounter (average 6 per day) by level 8. By level 6 they can cast it 3 times per day and then use other 1st and 2nd level spells to trivialize the other 3 encounters that day.

Wait, what? Say you're looking at a hobgoblin patrol with 1 leader and 10 grunt hobgoblins. You can conjecture an encounter where you catch them off guard in the middle of a tactical huddle and blow them all away with a single Fireball. You can just as easily conjecture an encounter where they're nicely dispersed along the road you're travelling (say 1 hobgoblin behind a boulder every 20 feet or so, on both sides of the road). Not only will your Fireball only take out 3 hobgoblins in this case, but they're pelting your wizard with arrows for 450 feet of pain (7 rounds of sprinting--albeit they're firing at disadvantage for long range) before your wizard even gets into range to cast that fireball. And they're behind cover, with +5 to their AC and Dex saves.

In that situation Fireball is much worse at solving your problem than, say, a Sharpshooter fighter who can pick those goblins off from 600 feet while ignoring range penalties and cover while the rest of your party closes the distance (with or without Invisibility). The Sharpshooter can't do much if the hobgoblins retreat behind cover into their pillbox, which is exactly when you want to pull out Fireball and nuke them. There's a niche for both.

[MaxWilson]

Wizards are more than 'slightly' better than fighters. They are superior in every way to fighters except they fall slightly behind in single target damage.

This would be somewhat true if 5E still had spells with the same range as 2E. I think Fireball used to be 100 yards + 10 yards/level. Nowadays it's 150 feet (2.5 rounds of movement) vs 600 feet for a longbow. If you want to be good at ranged combat you HAVE to use technology (i.e. stuff made out of stuff) and not magic.

I'm also not convinced about the "slightly behind" part. At the highest tiers, it's not hard for a party to construct a fighter who is putting out 40-50 points of damage against armored targets per round, every round (Bless alone = 5 attacks at +6+d4 to hit and 1d8+15 damage, no magic items required, so 19.5 damage 2 or 3 times a round depending on armor) at a cost of 1 gold every 5 rounds (20 arrows = 1 gp). Meanwhile the wizard is doing 4d10 most rounds (22 damage at +11 to hit, probably about 16 damage/round overall) unless he spends spell slots which can boost that. To me those look like very different roles, complementary even. Conjurer summons a horde of 16 smoke mephites who harass the enemy while the sniper picks off the enemy leader(s) with his bow-gun. The wizard will deal with mobs of mooks, and the fighter can spike to double damage (100-ish) using action surge, twice.

Now all you need is an archdruid on top to tank the big guys with temporary Mammoth hit points.

[Lokiare]

I'll take the bait. I'm on roll20. Will you be GMing? How will we be creating characters? Dice rolling or point buy? What level should our characters be?

Point buy because the randomness of the dice rolls can confuse the results. We can take turns running each other through the same scenarios if you want. Lets do characters that start at level 1 and work our way up, feats included.

I've already gotten a player on Fantasy Grounds to try out an encounter with 5 level 3 characters going against a town guard possessed by an intellect devourer. It ended in a TPK and I even gave the player several chances through skill checks to understand the situation and what was going on. By the time the characters managed to take down the guard the Intellect Devourer had taken out the Cleric and possessed its body. With the ability to heal itself several times as a bonus action, AC 16 from splint armor and shield it was very very bad. The ability to heal itself was the deciding factor. Even after the Wizard nova'd it after it healed itself it was only down by 5 hit points.


Wait, what? Say you're looking at a hobgoblin patrol with 1 leader and 10 grunt hobgoblins. You can conjecture an encounter where you catch them off guard in the middle of a tactical huddle and blow them all away with a single Fireball. You can just as easily conjecture an encounter where they're nicely dispersed along the road you're travelling (say 1 hobgoblin behind a boulder every 20 feet or so, on both sides of the road). Not only will your Fireball only take out 3 hobgoblins in this case, but they're pelting your wizard with arrows for 450 feet of pain (7 rounds of sprinting--albeit they're firing at disadvantage for long range) before your wizard even gets into range to cast that fireball. And they're behind cover, with +5 to their AC and Dex saves.

In that situation Fireball is much worse at solving your problem than, say, a Sharpshooter fighter who can pick those goblins off from 600 feet while ignoring range penalties and cover while the rest of your party closes the distance (with or without Invisibility). The Sharpshooter can't do much if the hobgoblins retreat behind cover into their pillbox, which is exactly when you want to pull out Fireball and nuke them. There's a niche for both.

Yeah, the DM can fix anything by twisting and warping the world around the players and tying it into knots. The wizard can also just wait for a forest, valley, or a decent set of rocks. Or even just wait for them to set up camp and then get them all at once.


This would be somewhat true if 5E still had spells with the same range as 2E. I think Fireball used to be 100 yards + 10 yards/level. Nowadays it's 150 feet (2.5 rounds of movement) vs 600 feet for a longbow. If you want to be good at ranged combat you HAVE to use technology (i.e. stuff made out of stuff) and not magic.

I'm also not convinced about the "slightly behind" part. At the highest tiers, it's not hard for a party to construct a fighter who is putting out 40-50 points of damage against armored targets per round, every round (Bless alone = 5 attacks at +6+d4 to hit and 1d8+15 damage, no magic items required, so 19.5 damage 2 or 3 times a round depending on armor) at a cost of 1 gold every 5 rounds (20 arrows = 1 gp). Meanwhile the wizard is doing 4d10 most rounds (22 damage at +11 to hit, probably about 16 damage/round overall) unless he spends spell slots which can boost that. To me those look like very different roles, complementary even. Conjurer summons a horde of 16 smoke mephites who harass the enemy while the sniper picks off the enemy leader(s) with his bow-gun. The wizard will deal with mobs of mooks, and the fighter can spike to double damage (100-ish) using action surge, twice.

Now all you need is an archdruid on top to tank the big guys with temporary Mammoth hit points.

People like to complain about a featureless plain when its in the wizards favor but will use the exact same arguments against the wizard when its not.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, the DM can fix anything by twisting and warping the world around the players and tying it into knots. The wizard can also just wait for a forest, valley, or a decent set of rocks. Or even just wait for them to set up camp and then get them all at once... People like to complain about a featureless plain when its in the wizards favor but will use the exact same arguments against the wizard when its not.

Any sane game world will have multiple type of terrain, and intelligent opponents will behave appropriately for their terrain. It's not exactly irrational for hobgoblins to spread themselves out in skirmish formation, you know. If I were a hobgoblin leader using bows with 150/600 range it would in fact be my SOP for travelling. For orcs and goblins, not so much, they'll probably be in a mob.

If your creatures always travel in tight formations and ignore cover and range, it's no wonder you see wizards as overpowered--your whole game world is in their sweet spot.

[Fwiffo86]

I've already gotten a player on Fantasy Grounds to try out an encounter with 5 level 3 characters going against a town guard possessed by an intellect devourer. It ended in a TPK and I even gave the player several chances through skill checks to understand the situation and what was going on. By the time the characters managed to take down the guard the Intellect Devourer had taken out the Cleric and possessed its body. With the ability to heal itself several times as a bonus action, AC 16 from splint armor and shield it was very very bad. The ability to heal itself was the deciding factor. Even after the Wizard nova'd it after it healed itself it was only down by 5 hit points.


Two questions:
1 - "With the ability to heal itself several times as a bonus action" Where did this come from? Did the ID suddenly gain an ability that it/or the cleric didn't have, and where did that come from?

2 - Detailed logs of your encounter decisions, hp totals per round, (per action preferred), rolls, abilities used (and their origins), etc. Otherwise we cannot validate your claims.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

it kinda sounds like you were letting the ID conduct psychic attacks while it was controlling the guard...?

[Cambrian]

Why are level 3 characters fighting intellect devourer? Are we assuming DMs are illiterate and can't read the very specific description talking about how they are only created and used by illithids?

[MeeposFire]

Two questions:
1 - "With the ability to heal itself several times as a bonus action" Where did this come from? Did the ID suddenly gain an ability that it/or the cleric didn't have, and where did that come from?

2 - Detailed logs of your encounter decisions, hp totals per round, (per action preferred), rolls, abilities used (and their origins), etc. Otherwise we cannot validate your claims.

I would imagine the devourer had the cleric use healing word on itself. It heals 1d4+level HP and is a bonus action.

[Gnomes2169]

I would imagine the devourer had the cleric use healing word on itself. It heals 1d4+level HP and is a bonus action.

Problem is, it doesn't have the wisdom score to cast healing word. (It needs at least 12 to cast level 2 spells. It has 11.) Also, at level 3 a Wizard or Fighter can nova a hell of a lot harder that what can be healed with 1d4+1, so it has to be something else...

[hawklost]

Problem is, it doesn't have the wisdom score to cast healing word. (It needs at least 12 to cast level 2 spells. It has 11.) Also, at level 3 a Wizard or Fighter can nova a hell of a lot harder that what can be healed with 1d4+1, so it has to be something else...

Healing Word is a first level spell, not second.

Other than that, the Cleric would still only be able to do that 4 times (total at best of (1d4+3) x 4 = 28hp) assuming the Cleric had not used any first level spells that day.

The Cleric would also have had to take 2d10 damage from the ID initially so he would be an average of 11 hp down before Party had to attack. Using a +2 to con, he would have only had a total of 23 hp to begin with (average rolls) so he would be down half his HP in the before the party even has to fight him. At 13 HP even if he uses his spells to heal himself up to full (which would require him to use a lvl 1 slot), he would have a hell of a time surviving 4 other lvl 3 characters.

A Rogue would do 1d8+2d6 + Dex damage against him or about 4.5+7+3 = 14.5 on a hit
A Fighter would do 1d10 + Str damage or about 5.5 + 3 = 8.5 on a hit
A Barb would do 1d12 + str damage or about 6.5 + 3 = 9.5 on a hit
A Wizard would do 1d8 (w/ Advantage) or 3d4+3 auto hit on a hit or 4.5 (high chance to hit) or 10.5 damage

Each of the members should have at least a +5 in their stat so they would have a 50% chance to hit him. Any two of those members would knock the Cleric to 0 in a round. So there really isn't any huge chance of him surviving more than 1 round of combat against the party unless they got really bad rolls.

If the Cleric used stronger heals to stay up, he would not be able to attack and would die from the party just beating him down, even if he attacked, he at best, could take out 1 member each round (if even that).

[Ferrin33]

Problem is, it doesn't have the wisdom score to cast healing word. (It needs at least 12 to cast level 2 spells. It has 11.) Also, at level 3 a Wizard or Fighter can nova a hell of a lot harder that what can be healed with 1d4+1, so it has to be something else...

Where does it say that in 5e? I didn't read anywhere that you need to have a minimum ability score to cast any spell. Could you give me a page number?

[Ghost Nappa]

Where does it say that in 5e? I didn't read anywhere that you need to have a minimum ability score to cast any spell. Could you give me a page number?

I just re-read the chapter on spellcasting and I believe you're right. I don't see any mention of a score having to be a certain value to use spells.

Wizards have a similar thing though (PHB p. 114) where they can prepare a number of spells equal to their Wizard Level + INT. This appears to be the normal restriction as there a similar number of such things for the Paladin (p. 84), and Druid (p. 66).

[Gnomes2169]

Where does it say that in 5e? I didn't read anywhere that you need to have a minimum ability score to cast any spell. Could you give me a page number?


I just re-read the chapter on spellcasting and I believe you're right. I don't see any mention of a score having to be a certain value to use spells.

Wizards have a similar thing though (PHB p. 114) where they can prepare a number of spells equal to their Wizard Level + INT. This appears to be the normal restriction as there a similar number of such things for the Paladin (p. 84), and Druid (p. 66).

Huh, seems you don't need a minimum casting score for spell levels in this edition... Well, it's not like anyone cared in any edition before, buuuuut this is a change from 3.x

[Fwiffo86]

Where does it say that in 5e? I didn't read anywhere that you need to have a minimum ability score to cast any spell. Could you give me a page number?

I don't believe you need a min score anymore. But old habits die hard.

[Shining Wrath]

You DO need a minimum score to multi-class, so that does put some limits on multi-class gishing.

This is pretty important news for Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters, though. If you roll abilities and do poorly you can put a minimal score in INT and still have some access to magic. You could have a pretty flavorful character, actually, who is a prime physical specimen but learned some magic, too, and pulls it out when people least expect it.

[Fwiffo86]

You DO need a minimum score to multi-class, so that does put some limits on multi-class gishing.

This is pretty important news for Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters, though. If you roll abilities and do poorly you can put a minimal score in INT and still have some access to magic. You could have a pretty flavorful character, actually, who is a prime physical specimen but learned some magic, too, and pulls it out when people least expect it.

Especially if the spells you choose do not requires save throws or rolls to hit. I've got a greatsword lock that went this way.

[Geoff]

How are people finding the balance between caster and martial characters at their table? I suspect the balance may be tilted toward the casters, I'm interested in seeing what other people have experienced. On the surface, it seems familiar from many years of playing 3.x and AD&D: At low levels, fighters are important because of their hps, AC (Heavy Armor feat if they can get it), and consistent damage, Rogues for their skills - while casters provide the occasional burst of awesome from their too-few spells, made up for with general squishiness, or are less squishy but spend all their spells on healing. (Except the poor Bard that is squishy and has to blow spells on healing - but is good at skills, like the Rogue.)


Actual experience. Well, I've done Horde of the Dragon Queen, Solkol Keep, and Defiance in Flan, so far.

HotDQ: TPK. Tried again, only this time the clerics (two of them, because we'd realized there's no way but magic to bring a dropped character back into the fight) waited for people to drop before casting Cure Wounds instead of casting Healing Word as soon as someone was wounded - and, the Wizard cast Sleep instead of plinking with cantrips. Between keeping more of the party up and owning one of the (way too many) early town encounters, we blew through where before we were ganked. Similarly, "fighting" the dragon (basically annoyed it enough to leave) almost all of the damage that drove it away came from Magic Missile.

Solkol Keep: Fortunately weren't all 1st level for this one: the Cleric was able to Turn Undead, which made the only hard fight in the whole thing a piece of cake.

Defiance in Flan: Flan's pacing was the polar opposite of HotDQ: long rest after each of five 1-hr mini-scenarios that were all pretty easy, even for a 1st level party. Once that became obvious, spells were cast a lot more readily, leading to lots of comatose goblins and a barn burning down.


One thing I can't get over is the contrast between HotDQ, the Encounters scenario, which threw multiple hard fights at you in one session, and expected you to go on another half-dozen missions the same night, all without a long rest, maybe without even a short one, and the two AL scenarios, which had only a couple of fights and easily allowed resting. I'd expect the opposite: the newbie-intro Encounters stuff to be the softballs, and the Adventurer's League to be more challenging.