I've just started with 5e, mind if I ask some questions?

[Mighty_Chicken]

So I'm reading some 5e material after years of 3.5 (skipped 4e completely).

I'm liking the system so far (as everyone is saying, it is really elegant and simple) but I have some questions.

First, aren't cantrips a bit overpowered? In Pathfinder, they were at-will but worse than regular attacks. Now they're at-will and seem better than regular attacks... and can scale?

Also: this no scaling numbers thing is the most beautiful with it. I like low-fantasy/E6 and I intent to go with it for my next campaign, but I don't understand well how power builds up in 5e. Remember that talk about olympic medalists and Aragorn being no higher than 5th level? (arguable for Aragorn, I know) How does this relates to 5e? In 3.5 we had that gritty/heroic/wuxia/super-hero scale for levels, what would it be like in 5e?

[Edge of Dreams]

5e cantrips would be overpowered if you tried to put them in Pathfinder, but they're not in Pathfinder, they're in 5e. Casters in 5e get much fewer spells per day and have been significantly toned down in other ways, especially due to the Concentration mechanic that limits multiple simultaneous control/buff/debuff spells. By the math that 5e runs on, Cantrips are just fine.

E6 would work just fine in 5e. Levels 1 through 3 are the most gritty in 5e, but you can still get get yourself killed even up through higher levels no problem. 5th level is a huge breakpoint for almost every class in terms of power due to features like third-level spells and Extra Attack, so setting the cut-off at 6 would be great for letting players get to 5 in a single class and then dip 1 level in something else if they really want to multiclass. 7 or 8 would also be an acceptable cut-off point. Once you get into 9+ you've got 5th level spells (Raise Dead, for example) and other even higher-power abilities coming to play.

[Zevox]

First, aren't cantrips a bit overpowered? In Pathfinder, they were at-will but worse than regular attacks. Now they're at-will and seem better than regular attacks... and can scale?
I can't speak to comparisons with Pathfinder, which I've never played, but no, they're not overpowered. They allow a caster to contribute when their spell slots run out or when the enemy isn't worth using a spell slot on without resorting to weapons they're probably not very good with, but will always be worse than a physical character using their weapons to attack at the same level, and will always be worse than spending an actual spell slot. (Well, okay, at high levels they'll be as good as or sometimes better than very low-level spell slots, but that takes until high levels.)

The only exception is a Warlock with Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast, which actually does keep up with physical fighters - at least one-handed physical fighters. But that's specific to that class, which is deliberately designed to function quite differently from other arcane casters.

[Demonic Spoon]

First, aren't cantrips a bit overpowered? In Pathfinder,

Stop right there.

5e and 3.5/PF are fundamentally different systems based on fundamentally different math. They are completely different games. You should not attempt to make direct comparisons between 3.5/PF and 5e, nor should you look at 5e mechanics through a 3.5e lens.

Anyway, one of the big things in 5e is that "proper" spells are far, far more rare. Casters have fewer spell slots, and non-cantrip spells do not scale with caster level. All spells now scale with the slot you use to cast it.

That means that a full caster gets a few big plays per day - times where they can cast one of their higher level spells and make a big impact. Aside from that, they're reduced to using either very low level spells or cantrips, which are unlimited use now. Cantrips represent a default fallback for casters, a way that they can contribute meaningfully to fights and other situations without overshadowing others.

If you do the math, you'll note that cantrips (Warlocks excepted) are absolutely awful at dealing damage compared to, say, a fighter or a ranger. Let's take the Firebolt cantrip as an example. It's a flat 1-4d10 damage, starting out at average 5.5 and ending at average 22 damage. Now, let's take a sword and board fighter with dueling style, going from 1-20, starting with a +3 Strength mod and ending with a +5. He starts out dealing 4.5 + 2 (dueling) + 3 (STR) = 9.5 damage per round, and ends dealing 4 * (4.5 + 2 + 5) = 46 damage per round. And this is before the fighter gets to use things like action surge or battlemaster maneuvers to ramp up his damage even further.

Cantrips are balanced such that casters always have something useful to do, but generally get outshone by martials except when they can cast their powerful spells.



Also: this no scaling numbers thing is the most beautiful with it. I like low-fantasy/E6 and I intent to go with it for my next campaign, but I don't understand well how power builds up in 5e. Remember that talk about olympic medalists and Aragorn being no higher than 5th level? (arguable for Aragorn, I know) How does this relates to 5e? In 3.5 we had that gritty/heroic/wuxia/super-hero scale for levels, what would it be like in 5e?


In terms of power, the big difference between 5e and 3.5/PF is that numbers scale slowly. While level 20 characters in 5e are very powerful, they are not mathematically above CR 1/2 creatures. The big difference I think with 5e is that a kind of creature never goes beneath them. Your defenses never get so high that low-cr stuff literally can't hurt you, as was often the case in 3.5/PF. That means that you could make even mundane orcs, goblins, or kobolds a credible threat to a level 20 party (though you'd need an army of them). I think the theorycrafted highest AC possible in 5e is a level 20 barbarian, who manages to hit 24 - and that's a very special edge case, as the vast majority of characters will be way below that for their career.

Aragorn is a great example - obviously far, far stronger than the orcs he kills, but not above them such that he can wade into an army and not die.

[Mighty_Chicken]

Oh, I miscalculated. I thought most spellcasters would be doing as much damage as fighters, for some reason. I think I should see them in action before jumping to conclusions. I still have the 3.5 mindset that no nerf in the would can take casters from Tier 1 - is this the case? It's ok if it isn't. I can see they got casters reed of geometrical progression, but 5th+ level spells are still miles ahead from anything a fighter can do, right?

Thanks for answering about power levels. I see it's very hard to get to somewhere where high level PCs would be pretty much immune to armies of commoners, right? But as far as "genre" goes, in 3.5 people say that beyond 7th level Low Fantasy starts to lose space very fast to High Fantasy. Would that work the same in 5e? Most E6 players argue the problem lies with 5th+ level spells - suppose I gave no access to 5th+ level spells (just the spell slots) after 9th level, but let the numbers escalate until 20th level. How much power are we talking about here, compared to a similar "low magic clause" applied to 3.5?

[Submortimer]

I think the theorycrafted highest AC possible in 5e is a level 20 barbarian, who manages to hit 24 - and that's a very special edge case, as the vast majority of characters will be way below that for their career.

The ultimate, non-temporary (read: shield spell) AC possible is 29. That's a level 20 barbarian with maxed out dex and Con, with a +3 shield, with Shield of faith. As far as I can tell, there is no way to get any higher than that. That kind of AC puts you about 5 points above a Great Wyrm Red Dragon.

That being said, When you consider that, say, a level 20 ranger with max dex, archery, and a +3 bow has a to hit bonus of +16, You realize that even the edge case on AC doesn't mean a ton, and numbers can still win out the day. You may never get hit by a single hobgoblin again, but when 8 of them surround you, you're going to get hit by criticals, and it's still going to hurt a lot.

[TheOOB]

If you do the math at every level a cantrip deals less damage than a warrior classes attacks, but it's always enough to be relevant, which is actually a theme in 5e. Everyone is always relevant. It's really rare that your attack bonus is too low to possibly hit with an attack, or your so weak you can't survive a single attack. By the same token, even a weak foe can be a threat in numbers.

Casters are still powerful, the most powerful characters in fact, but they are reigned in in several ways. First they have very strict limits on their spells per day, especially high level ones, and spells don't scale up unless cast in higher level slots. A wizard casting a 9th level spell is better than anyone else for 1 round, but that's the only 9th level spell he gets that day. A wizard who's spent most their slots is severely weakened, while a fighter can fight at nearly full power all day. Cantrips are decent so that a castert in that situation doesn't feel useless, a cleric using sacred flame every round is contributing to the fight.

This edition has what people refer to as bounded accuracy, that is, under most circumstances without magic you can expect most attack rolls to range between +2 and +10, and AC will run between 10 and 21. Of course several characters have extra bonuses(class abilities, magic items ect), but those are usually minor (+3 to +5 at the high end), and often cost character resources. So as long as you try to be decent at hitting things, you can hit things.

Saves are a bit of a different story, Once levels start getting high, the assumption is you'll usually pass a save your good at, and fail one your bad at, but it rarely gets so bad the result is a forgone conclusion before the roll(though trying to stunning fist a dragon is...difficult).

[ImSAMazing]

Stop right there.

5e and 3.5/PF are fundamentally different systems based on fundamentally different math. They are completely different games. You should not attempt to make direct comparisons between 3.5/PF and 5e, nor should you look at 5e mechanics through a 3.5e lens.

Anyway, one of the big things in 5e is that "proper" spells are far, far more rare. Casters have fewer spell slots, and non-cantrip spells do not scale with caster level. All spells now scale with the slot you use to cast it.

That means that a full caster gets a few big plays per day - times where they can cast one of their higher level spells and make a big impact. Aside from that, they're reduced to using either very low level spells or cantrips, which are unlimited use now. Cantrips represent a default fallback for casters, a way that they can contribute meaningfully to fights and other situations without overshadowing others.

If you do the math, you'll note that cantrips (Warlocks excepted) are absolutely awful at dealing damage compared to, say, a fighter or a ranger. Let's take the Firebolt cantrip as an example. It's a flat 1-4d10 damage, starting out at average 5.5 and ending at average 22 damage. Now, let's take a sword and board fighter with dueling style, going from 1-20, starting with a +3 Strength mod and ending with a +5. He starts out dealing 4.5 + 2 (dueling) + 3 (STR) = 9.5 damage per round, and ends dealing 4 * (4.5 + 2 + 5) = 46 damage per round. And this is before the fighter gets to use things like action surge or battlemaster maneuvers to ramp up his damage even further.

Cantrips are balanced such that casters always have something useful to do, but generally get outshone by martials except when they can cast their powerful spells.




In terms of power, the big difference between 5e and 3.5/PF is that numbers scale slowly. While level 20 characters in 5e are very powerful, they are not mathematically above CR 1/2 creatures. The big difference I think with 5e is that a kind of creature never goes beneath them. Your defenses never get so high that low-cr stuff literally can't hurt you, as was often the case in 3.5/PF. That means that you could make even mundane orcs, goblins, or kobolds a credible threat to a level 20 party (though you'd need an army of them). I think the theorycrafted highest AC possible in 5e is a level 20 barbarian, who manages to hit 24 - and that's a very special edge case, as the vast majority of characters will be way below that for their career.

Aragorn is a great example - obviously far, far stronger than the orcs he kills, but not above them such that he can wade into an army and not die.
You are totally right.


Oh, I miscalculated. I thought most spellcasters would be doing as much damage as fighters, for some reason. I think I should see them in action before jumping to conclusions. I still have the 3.5 mindset that no nerf in the would can take casters from Tier 1 - is this the case? It's ok if it isn't. I can see they got casters reed of geometrical progression, but 5th+ level spells are still miles ahead from anything a fighter can do, right?

Thanks for answering about power levels. I see it's very hard to get to somewhere where high level PCs would be pretty much immune to armies of commoners, right? But as far as "genre" goes, in 3.5 people say that beyond 7th level Low Fantasy starts to lose space very fast to High Fantasy. Would that work the same in 5e? Most E6 players argue the problem lies with 5th+ level spells - suppose I gave no access to 5th+ level spells (just the spell slots) after 9th level, but let the numbers escalate until 20th level. How much power are we talking about here, compared to a similar "low magic clause" applied to 3.5?
Well, much. But not as much as in 3.5/PF.

[Submortimer]

Oh, I miscalculated. I thought most spellcasters would be doing as much damage as fighters, for some reason. I think I should see them in action before jumping to conclusions. I still have the 3.5 mindset that no nerf in the would can take casters from Tier 1 - is this the case? It's ok if it isn't. I can see they got casters reed of geometrical progression, but 5th+ level spells are still miles ahead from anything a fighter can do, right?

Thanks for answering about power levels. I see it's very hard to get to somewhere where high level PCs would be pretty much immune to armies of commoners, right? But as far as "genre" goes, in 3.5 people say that beyond 7th level Low Fantasy starts to lose space very fast to High Fantasy. Would that work the same in 5e? Most E6 players argue the problem lies with 5th+ level spells - suppose I gave no access to 5th+ level spells (just the spell slots) after 9th level, but let the numbers escalate until 20th level. How much power are we talking about here, compared to a similar "low magic clause" applied to 3.5?

The Tiers don't really function the same way that they used to, which is the effect of three things: the martial classes getting a lot stronger and having a lot more options, spellcasters generally having fewer spells per day, and Concentration.

Breaking down the classes into tiers now goes a little something like this:

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Since spells like Wish, Miracle, Gate, and True Polymorph still exist, Wizards, Clerics, and Druids still sit comfortably on top of the dog pile. Moon Druids are really the only ones that can comfortably take over the role of a tank/fighter, because of Wild shape, but War and Tempest Clerics can do that fairly decently as well.

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

This is properly the level for Sorcerers and Bards: 9th level spells, but vastly decreased versatility compared to wizards, druids, and clerics.

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Most other classes fit here now, due to both the way that skills and backgrounds work now: Monk, Ranger, Paladin, Rogue, Warlock, Battlemaster/Eldritch Knight Fighter, and Barbarian comfortably rock Tier 3.

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribue to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

Examples: This is pretty much 5e's bottom of the barrel, Champion Fighter. Again, note that this is STILL tier 4: Champion fighters still fight incredibly well, dealing tons of damage and having a bunch of feats/ASI's, Not to mention being the only melee combatants that get any sort of expanded Crit range (and it's not just a crit threat: for a high level champion, they auto hit and crit on an 18, 19, or 20); The issue is only lack of options.

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the rest of the party is weak in that situation and the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

You could argue for Champion fighter down here, but that'd be a losing argument. They aren't good at what they do, they're GREAT at what they do, and that's not a tier 5 class.

Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

Doesn't exist in 5e. There are no "Trap" options.

[TurboGhast]

Caster classes in 5e vary on power a lot more than others on level. They really can only do mind breaking stuff with 5th to 9th level spells, and they don't get a lot of those per day even when they get them. On top of this, casters may be able to use weapons, but they can't outdo the fighter in damage or barbarian in weapon damage sponging, except moon druid via transforming every round.

The caster classes in 5e only seem to get to Tier 2 levels, except moon druid at max level. They can do crazy stuff, but they can't do it constantly, and they can't quite obsolete another member of the party.

[Person_Man]

Cantrips are not overpowered. They are usually (slightly) worse then the at-will weapon attacks that are properly scaled by class abilities (Fighting Style, Extra Attack, etc), and cantrips can't benefit from magic weapons, weapon related Feats, weapon specific spells, etc. The best Cantrip (in terms of damage) is the Warlock's Eldritch Blast modified by Invocations. And even then, it usually falls behind the at-will or at-will-ish damage of archers, who can stack more resources (class abilities, feats, spells, magic items) into improving it. However, cantrips are a very important part of the game. They give casters "something interesting to do" almost every round of combat, and they usually come with an interesting status/kicker effect.

Also, the "almost nothing scales" design principle in 5E is in fact great for system balance up until level 11ish or so, but it makes high level gameplay and the character customization sub-game problematic. I would have preferred that everything scales but everything requires an Action, Reaction, or Concentration. But that would have been a major break from previous traditions, and thus was never going to occur.

[Demonic Spoon]

Oh, I miscalculated. I thought most spellcasters would be doing as much damage as fighters, for some reason. I think I should see them in action before jumping to conclusions. I still have the 3.5 mindset that no nerf in the would can take casters from Tier 1 - is this the case? It's ok if it isn't. I can see they got casters reed of geometrical progression, but 5th+ level spells are still miles ahead from anything a fighter can do, right?


The biggest "balance" complaint people have with regards to casters is that they get shiny, explosive toys at high levels in the form of high level spells and some people think that mundanes are less interesting in that they don't get cool supernatural stuff to compensate. This is a point of contention though - there's no general agreement on this.

In terms of actual "balance" as in being able to be effective in a party: casters can no longer do anything that martials can do, plus more. Summoning is toned town, polymorphing is toned down, and buff spells are toned down, largely by the new concentration mechanic. Some casters (circle of the moon druids) can shift into a more fighter-ish form, but they will always be worse at it than a straight fighter/barbarian/etc.

In general, "tiers" aren't something that anyone uses when discussing 5e interclass balance.


Thanks for answering about power levels. I see it's very hard to get to somewhere where high level PCs would be pretty much immune to armies of commoners, right? But as far as "genre" goes, in 3.5 people say that beyond 7th level Low Fantasy starts to lose space very fast to High Fantasy. Would that work the same in 5e? Most E6 players argue the problem lies with 5th+ level spells - suppose I gave no access to 5th+ level spells (just the spell slots) after 9th level, but let the numbers escalate until 20th level. How much power are we talking about here, compared to a similar "low magic clause" applied to 3.5?


It depends on what you mean by power. A level 20 party in 5e can still kill a balor as they could in 3.5/PF, but a balor isn't so far above lower-level creatures. In general, 3.5 parties are way, way stronger. By AC alone, in 3.5 you would have 30-40+ AC towards the end at the minimum, and that would make you unhittable by 5e's math. One major factor is that magic items are not assumed in 5e, and in general they do less to boost your raw numbers. You could run a perfectly good game with no magic items at all, and the system wouldn't break - in fact, that would make it easier on the DM to balance. This is in stark contrast to 3.5/PF where magic items directly affected stats, buying magic items was assumed, and a wealth by level table determined how much magical power any particular party should have (Which by level 20 was a christmas tree of magic items).

E6 in 5e seems unnecessary - high level spells are less abusable and they're otherwise limited by concentration in addition to limited spell slots. You could give them slots and not splels, but I'd worry about making spellcasters be overshadowed in combat.



The ultimate, non-temporary (read: shield spell) AC possible is 29. That's a level 20 barbarian with maxed out dex and Con, with a +3 shield, with Shield of faith. As far as I can tell, there is no way to get any higher than that. That kind of AC puts you about 5 points above a Great Wyrm Red Dragon.


OP: the distinction being made here is that he's including magic items from the DMG and a spell, where I was assuming no magic items or spells up. Yes, with a very specific legendary magic shield and a concentration spell up, you could hit 29, but even then as you mentioned, you don't fall off the d20. With no magic, the theoretical max is 24. The practical cap for most characters that don't have the barbarian capstone is much lower.

[Person_Man]

OP: the distinction being made here is that he's including magic items from the DMG and a spell, where I was assuming no magic items or spells up. Yes, with a very specific legendary magic shield and a concentration spell up, you could hit 29, but even then as you mentioned, you don't fall off the d20. With no magic, the theoretical max is 24. The practical cap for most characters that don't have the barbarian capstone is much lower.

To agree with and expand upon this point:

Any class can get to 17 or 18 AC with a modest investment.
Any non-Monk with a Shield can get 19 or 20 AC.
Monk with max Dex/Wis can get to 20 AC.
Fighter or Ranger with Shield and Defensive Style can get 21 AC.
Barbarian with max Dex/Con and a Shield can get 22 AC (or 24 from their capstone at level 20)
Cleric with heavy armor, a Shield, and Shield of Faith can temporarily get 22 (with Concentration).
Paladin with heavy armor, Defensive Fighting Style, a Shield, and Shield of Faith can temporarily get 23 (with Concentration).
Defensive Duelist Feat or Shield spell or Haste spell (with Concentration) can push it up higher temporarily.
Magic items can push it up by another +1 to +9, but are entirely dependent on DM fiat, and most require Attunement. Players can only Attune 3 magic items at a time (though weaker items don't require it). So even if you have a Monty Haul DM, choosing to use AC improving magic items usually means giving up the use of other magic items.


Enemy Str and Dex are not limited to 20 (unlike PCs). So in most cases, even when fighting against a PC with optimized AC, the enemy will retain a reasonable chance to-hit. (Though its still very worthwhile to invest in AC from a player's perspective).

The above it much, much better then 3.X and the half editions, where the proper amount of optimization basically allowed you to hit or avoid attacks 95% of the time.

[SharkForce]

as someone who thinks high level casters are just flat-out stronger than high-level non-casters in 5e, i will go so far as to say that there pretty much is no such thing as a tier 1 class equivalent from 3.x D&D. i will also go so far as to say that there really aren't any tier 5 classes. pretty much everything falls into tier 2-4, which is to say, enough of a difference to be visible, but not so much of a difference as to make any player feel like they may as well have just not shown up. if you have a tier 1 in the game, it's probably because they're abusing the rules. if you have a tier 5 in the game, it's probably because they are supernaturally bad at character optimization.

and even the stronger classes will find that there are times where they have a harder time contributing as much as the weaker ones. a wizard will be amazing more often than the fighter, (though the fighter may not notice that the encounter is being made simple by the wizard's CC rather than the fighter's damage output), but there will also be times where the fighter gets to remind you that you didn't just bring him along to deal with enemies that aren't worth a spell slot.

then, when you add backgrounds in, that means that any class can have pretty much any skill... and they can train in more given time and money. with the result that no class is ever required to be completely helpless in a certain situation; you can build a fighter with social skills, or even "thief" skills if you want. obviously, once chosen, they're locked in (so if you decided in advance that you just don't want to be competent in social situations, that specific character might not be good in those situations... but it isn't a limitation of the class, it is a limitation of the character).

[Bard1cKnowledge]

5e is all about character customization. I have a Walrock that I play like a rouge and has a crippling fear of fire. Sure I get fewer slots, but she makes up for it in evocations and pact boons

*pick pact of the tome, you get extra spells/can trips*

[ruy343]

Oh, I miscalculated. I thought most spellcasters would be doing as much damage as fighters, for some reason. I think I should see them in action before jumping to conclusions. I still have the 3.5 mindset that no nerf in the would take casters from Tier 1 - is this the case? It's ok if it isn't. I can see they got casters reed of geometrical progression, but 5th+ level spells are still miles ahead from anything a fighter can do, right?
?

5e takes the lower levels for casters and makes them more fun by allowing them to use cantrips instead of a crossbow or some other form of mundane damage.

5e takes the higher levels for casters and makes them more fun by preventing the caster from using too many high-level spells that could break the game. Thus, they must think in every situation, and they don't need to just do the same things over and over.

I think that 5e took the best of both worlds from 3.5e (where the majority of the system comes from) and 4e (where a lot of the changes come from). 4e was an interesting experiment in balancing a game, and Wizards took what they learned from that and applied it to a more 3.5/3.P system. The key innovation of 5e was in balancing the later spell levels with more uses for lower-level spell slots and a reduced power overall in many of the abilities/effects, as well as reducing the number of high-level spells that could be cast.

Give it a shot: play a caster and see what you think!

[Slipperychicken]

5e takes the lower levels for casters and makes them more fun by allowing them to use cantrips instead of a crossbow or some other form of mundane damage.

I came here to say this, really. Decent, scaling cantrip damage allows most casters to ditch the crossbow.

[Submortimer]

To agree with and expand upon this point:
*snip*


Aha! You are correct! it really doesn't factor into the OP's question, but (using only items from the DMG), You could hit 31.

20 barbarian, 20 dex, 24 con, Magic Shield, Shield of faith, Cloak of Resistance, Ring of protection.
10 + 5 + 7 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 1 = 31 AC.

It's crazy, not likely to EVER come up in play, and highly dependant on the DM and the rest of the party playing along, but fun theory-crafting nonetheless.

[Sigreid]

Aha! You are correct! it really doesn't factor into the OP's question, but (using only items from the DMG), You could hit 31.

20 barbarian, 20 dex, 24 con, Magic Shield, Shield of faith, Cloak of Resistance, Ring of protection.
10 + 5 + 7 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 1 = 31 AC.

It's crazy, not likely to EVER come up in play, and highly dependant on the DM and the rest of the party playing along, but fun theory-crafting nonetheless.

Well, if we want to get really crazy the barbarian could add another 8 if the DM created a magical gumdrop world where the stat enhancement books fell from the sky like raindrops; but at that point you knew the drug you were taking.

[squab]

I came here to say this, really. Decent, scaling cantrip damage allows most casters to ditch the crossbow.

I hate playing low level casters in 3.5/PF because you basically need a crossbow to do something useful in combat every round. So I really like the whole "useful cantrip" thing 5th ed has going on.

[Zevox]

I hate playing low level casters in 3.5/PF because you basically need a crossbow to do something useful in combat every round. So I really like the whole "useful cantrip" thing 5th ed has going on.
Agreed, "low-level Sorcerer/Wizard" no longer translating to "crossbowman with a few spells" is a much-appreciated benefit of 5e cantrips. As is all the fun of having the non-combat "flavor" cantrips be unlimited use: makes the characters feel more like real magic-users during general play and social situations, rather than mainly feeling that way when they're tossing fireballs around the battlefield.

[eleazzaar]

I love what they have done with cantrips in 5e. Others have already explained why it is OK.


Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Since spells like Wish, Miracle, Gate, and True Polymorph still exist, Wizards, Clerics, and Druids still sit comfortably on top of the dog pile....

But all the full casters have access to one of those spells and/or Shapechange, so that's really not a reason to put them on top of the dogpile. Not that I disagree they are probably still on the top, but the margin by which they are on top is an aweful lot smaller than it was in 3.5.

I don't have a lot of experience with high level 5e, but it looks to me that Tier 1, as defined (above in blue) doesn't exist in 5e-- at least not until they get access to a maximum of 1 9th level spell per day.

[Submortimer]

I love what they have done with cantrips in 5e. Others have already explained why it is OK.



But all the full casters have access to one of those spells and/or Shapechange, so that's really not a reason to put them on top of the dogpile. Not that I disagree they are probably still on the top, but the margin by which they are on top is an aweful lot smaller than it was in 3.5.

I don't have a lot of experience with high level 5e, but it looks to me that Tier 1, as defined (above in blue) doesn't exist in 5e-- at least not until they get access to a maximum of 1 9th level spell per day.

I'm actually pretty inclined to agree with you. That being said, there are a few things to consider:

- Wizards can still access all of the spells on their list, given enough time to study, as can clerics and Druids. This gives them a much higher level of potential versatility than both the bard and the sorcerer.
- Bards do not have access to things like wish, gate, time stop, etc.
- While Druids do not have access to most of those spells, They can Onion at level 20 for nigh invulnerability, and still have access to their full (quite powerful) spell list.

I do agree that, compared to their 3.5/pathfinder breatheren, wizards, clerics and druids are now on the low end of Tier 1, and more than likely Tier 2; this fits with the design intention of bringing the high end down while making the low end more fun.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

- Bards do not have access to things like wish, gate, time stop, etc.

They do, actually. They just have to pick only two extremely over-powered ninth level spells to learn from other classes' spell lists. At least, if I remember what level you get your last Magical Secrets ability at. It's 18, right? I'm pretty sure that's going to let you grab ninth level spells.

Having to settle for two is admittedly a step down from the flexibility of wizards or clerics. But you can grab Wish, Gate, Timestop, Meteor Swarm, or Mass Heal if you want it.

[PoeticDwarf]

So I'm reading some 5e material after years of 3.5 (skipped 4e completely).

I'm liking the system so far (as everyone is saying, it is really elegant and simple) but I have some questions.

First, aren't cantrips a bit overpowered? In Pathfinder, they were at-will but worse than regular attacks. Now they're at-will and seem better than regular attacks... and can scale?

Also: this no scaling numbers thing is the most beautiful with it. I like low-fantasy/E6 and I intent to go with it for my next campaign, but I don't understand well how power builds up in 5e. Remember that talk about olympic medalists and Aragorn being no higher than 5th level? (arguable for Aragorn, I know) How doeis this relates to 5e? In 3.5 we had that gritty/heroic/wuxia/super-hero scale for levels, what would it be like in 5e?

cantrips aren't as strong as normal attacks (some weapons do at lv. 1 2d6+3 best attack cantrip like 1d10. Later it's for attacks 4d6+8 when cantrip is no more than 2d10 except for warlock

[Mighty_Chicken]

Thanks for the answers so far. Another question: what does an advantage or disandvantage means statistically? From what I gather from my feel lazy musings, it's a bell curve instead of a linear bonus, right? It seems advantages are more positive the more likely you were to succeed in the first place - if you needed a 20 in the dice, your chance only improves 5% (the same as a +1 linear bonus), but if you needed a smaller result it further boosts your chance.

Did anyone make a graphic or a table?

Second question: what is clearly imbalanced so far? For example, seems to me 5e's Heat Metal is too powerful: no save and 2d8 damage per round!

[Geodude6]

Moon druids

Also warlocks to a lesser extent


On the other end there's the Beastmaster Ranger which is probably the weakest archetype in the game.

[GiantOctopodes]

Thanks for the answers so far. Another question: what does an advantage or disandvantage means statistically? From what I gather from my feel lazy musings, it's a bell curve instead of a linear bonus, right? It seems advantages are more positive the more likely you were to succeed in the first place - if you needed a 20 in the dice, your chance only improves 5% (the same as a +1 linear bonus), but if you needed a smaller result it further boosts your chance.

Did anyone make a graphic or a table?

Second question: what is clearly imbalanced so far? For example, seems to me 5e's Heat Metal is too powerful: no save and 2d8 damage per round!

Sure, there are many links to the anydice function set floating around, here it is:

http://anydice.com/program/1203/graph

Note that it is deceptively impactful. Many people just look at the differences in averages (10.5 normally, 13.82 with advantage, 7.17 with disadvantage) without looking at the other changes. In addition to a tightened standard deviation (4.71 vs 5.77, meaning there is less variance in the results), it has a huge impact in the way the numbers actually play out for any target amount. For example, with disadvantage, you have a 25% chance of rolling an 11 or higher (put another way, a 75% chance of rolling an 11 or lower) while normally, you'd have a 50% chance, and with advantage, you have a 75% chance. If you need a 13 to hit, normally you'd hit 40% of the time, with advantage, it's 64% of the time (more than 50% more often), and with disadvantage, you only hit 16% of the time (less than half as often).

In addition, crits are nearly twice as common with advantage, and natural 1s are virtually impossible to achieve (9.75% chance, or 19/400 for crits, .25% chance, or 1/400 chance for natural 1s). With disadvantage, the opposite is true. So basically, those with advantage succeed on their rolls *much* more often, and fail on their rolls much less often, than would seem to be indicated. Assigning advantage or disadvantage to a roll is highly impactful, and hugely influences the expected outcome. Use it, and use it often, but use it wisely.

In terms of what is clearly imbalanced, the Moon Druid's 20th level ability is clearly imbalanced, and should you ever play with a moon druid in a normal campaign that reaches that level, may need to adjust that. So are Wish, Miracle, and True Polymorph, but that shouldn't come as any surprise. Heat Metal is even better than you think (disadvantage on all attack rolls and checks!) but it's highly situational. Against enemies using full plate, sure, it's absolutely fantastic. Against a guy with 20 daggers, meh, forcing him to drop one won't do much of anything. When it is useful, it's *very* useful, granted, and it's one of my favorite spells of this edition because it can never be wasted except by the caster, you don't have to worry about successful saves turning your spell into nothing at all. But unbalanced, I don't feel so, and that's coming from the perspective of a Rogue, not a Druid. Maybe my full plate wearing cleric teammate would disagree :smallsmile:

[Anlashok]

Clearly imbalanced? There are a few archetypes that are considered at issue on the low end (elemental monk, beast master, champion). Some people will tell you they suck but even the people who like them can usually admit that there's at least some design issues there.

On the high side, I'd just say ninth level casting in general gets pretty icky, but compared to 3.5 and even Pathfinder it's barely even noticeable by comparison.

5e is all about character customization.
Not... really.

[DemonSlayer6]

For example, seems to me 5e's Heat Metal is too powerful: no save and 2d8 damage per round!

Except that "heat metal" is very circumstantial. You need enemies to be wearing or wielding metal. They can drop any metal weapon (hence doing 2d8 damage for only one round). And 2d8 is decent damage but not amazing for a 2nd-level spell.

In fact, Heat Metal explicitly claims "the creature must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or drop the object if it can." Which would mean an enforced 2d8 dealt once because it's probably gonna drop its weapon anyway once it gets to being its turn.

Of course, it was epic against the one thing...where we dumped coins onto some odd creature and then heated the coins. But still, one time and no others...that would make it not as powerful as it might seem to be.

[Slipperychicken]

Heat Metal is for creatures in metal armor, who are essentially forced to take the damage because removing the armor would take 5-10 minutes.

[coredump]

Thanks for the answers so far. Another question: what does an advantage or disandvantage means statistically? From what I gather from my feel lazy musings, it's a bell curve instead of a linear bonus, right? It seems advantages are more positive the more likely you were to succeed in the first place - if you needed a 20 in the dice, your chance only improves 5% (the same as a +1 linear bonus), but if you needed a smaller result it further boosts your chance.

Not quite.
The biggest boost is when you need to roll an 11 to hit (50% chance), at which time it is equivalent to a +5/-5 on the roll. As you move in either direction, the chance gets smaller.
By the time you get to needing an 8 or a 14, then adv/disadv is equivalent to a +/-4.55 on the roll.
By 5 and 17, it is +/- 3.2 on the roll.




Second question: what is clearly imbalanced so far? For example, seems to me 5e's Heat Metal is too powerful: no save and 2d8 damage per round!In the right circumstance, Heat Metal is pretty much a 'You Lose' button for the bad guy. But it is of limited use against anyone not wearing metal armor. And pretty useless if no metal armor or weapon.