25 year veteran DM - Issue with 5e

[Warmonger]

Wizards having same statistical chance to hit with a weapon as a fighter at any level other than 1st makes zero sense. If balance was a concern, I concur. I just offset this ridiculous 5e basis with letting 17th level Fighters cast Wish spells too. There, problem solved. 5e lost what was good about the game. Low level Fighters are supposed to be more deadly than low level wizards and the opposite at high levels. Otherwise the world would be full of wizards. Harry Potter for the mass populace.

[tokek]

30 year veteran DM here - there are positives and negatives to this

I remember the couple of sessions when I tried to get a wizard character going in 1e. I went through 3 character sheets in 2 sessions before I gave up.

After the first they had no backstory and only joke names. Because making them an actual character wasn't worth the effort.

To that extent I think 5e does a lot of things better although there was definitely a certain sort of fun to those throwaway characters and the attitude of "who cares" to the game.

As the game progresses the 5e DM does have to take on the load of making martial characters feel as special as the full casters, or the caster players have to play with restraint to not step on the toes of the martial characters all the time. I'm currently playing in a tier 4 game and it works fine. The trick is of course that after 2 1/2 years of getting to this point the players are invested in the game and don't want to break it with nonsense - so when the wizard player mentioned multiple simulacra they immediately dropped the idea because it would clearly be bad for the game. Also we very powerful magic items.

[stoutstien]

WoTC has not been very good at budgeting features between martial abilities and spells nor would I expect them to be as they haven't shown any indication that they want to. You want to be a full caster with extra attack? It's a single subclass feature that vis delayed a level. If you want the supposedly reciprocal feature for spell it takes either a subclass that is severely delaying it or you have to take a major detour multiclassing.

This doesn't necessarily break anything for 90% of tables who don't compare options with a tab of excel,a probability calculator, and 3 different optimization doom scroll threads open. This is due to the fact that 5e have fairly low variances to begin with so the gap between weapon + FS + high stats VS weapon +high stats is deceptively small. Outside of a few known exploits damage is basically a given range that everyone has regardless of form.

5e has a lot of OSR roots showing in regards to only having minimalist investment in balance and assuming the tables will adjust to fit their needs.

[Theodoxus]

I'm old. I'm old school. I enjoy playing 5E, I don't enjoy running it very much. Unfortunately, my gaming group has shrunk to the point that we have 2 DMs, and the other guy just kind of mixes and mashes rules from every iteration of D&D, on the fly, with really no rhyme or reason outside of 'rule of cool'. If flanking works for a combat, he'll do it, other times he just forgets. OAs against casters and archers? You bet. Until it's not ok... So, after a few weeks of that, I offered to DM - he was clearly getting burnt out from work too, so he acquiesced quickly.

So, this last year of DMing a homebrew campaign mostly virtually due to various illnesses in the group, I have come to loathe being trapped behind bounded accuracy - which is the root cause of your 'Wizards being just as good at melee as Fighters' (though to be completely fair, Fighters get quite a few things that make them much better than Wizards, but yes, "Base Attack Bonus" of Attribute + Proficiency Bonus is identical.)

I'm in the process of creating my own system as a hodge-podge of a number of other games; Fantasy AGE, Worlds without Number, and Adventure Fantasy Game being the primary systems. So, moving away from d20, if I can my players on board - but I'm also making it d20 compatible, there's not a lot of difference on the player facing side between rolling 3d6 and a d20 for tests.

But the big thing is I'm tossing Bounded Accuracy on its ear. I don't need CR 1 critters being a threat at level 10. I like the feel of my players going full Sauron and swiping mass armies out of their way. To that end, Warriors (Fighters, Barbarians and the like) get to add their level to Hit or Dam (or some split between the two). Experts (Rogues, Bards, Monks and the like) get to add their level to Hit only. And Mages (Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards) get to add their level to damage, or subtract their level from the saving throws of their enemies. Another option for Mage players (chosen at 1st level) is to instead allow them to concentrate on spell levels equal to their Mage level. So, a 2nd level Mage could concentrate on two 1st level spells; a 5th level Mage could concentrate on five 1st level spells, or one 1st level and two 2nd level spells, or one 2nd level and one 3rd level spell. I like the idea of going either a blaster route with the bonus to damage or penalty to saves vs being the ultimate support class, buffing allies and debuffing enemies.

So, Fighter types have combat flexibility. Rogue types have precision strikes that don't hit as hard. Wizard types can't hit with weapons nearly as well, but their spells hit harder or are harder to resist - or they're the ultimate team player making martial types true wreaking balls.

I get that homebrew solutions aren't always acceptable, but just the basic +level to combat options isn't a massive overhaul and it makes for some really fun times at the table. F BA in the B.

[stoutstien]

I'm old. I'm old school. I enjoy playing 5E, I don't enjoy running it very much. Unfortunately, my gaming group has shrunk to the point that we have 2 DMs, and the other guy just kind of mixes and mashes rules from every iteration of D&D, on the fly, with really no rhyme or reason outside of 'rule of cool'. If flanking works for a combat, he'll do it, other times he just forgets. OAs against casters and archers? You bet. Until it's not ok... So, after a few weeks of that, I offered to DM - he was clearly getting burnt out from work too, so he acquiesced quickly.

So, this last year of DMing a homebrew campaign mostly virtually due to various illnesses in the group, I have come to loathe being trapped behind bounded accuracy - which is the root cause of your 'Wizards being just as good at melee as Fighters' (though to be completely fair, Fighters get quite a few things that make them much better than Wizards, but yes, "Base Attack Bonus" of Attribute + Proficiency Bonus is identical.)

I'm in the process of creating my own system as a hodge-podge of a number of other games; Fantasy AGE, Worlds without Number, and Adventure Fantasy Game being the primary systems. So, moving away from d20, if I can my players on board - but I'm also making it d20 compatible, there's not a lot of difference on the player facing side between rolling 3d6 and a d20 for tests.

But the big thing is I'm tossing Bounded Accuracy on its ear. I don't need CR 1 critters being a threat at level 10. I like the feel of my players going full Sauron and swiping mass armies out of their way. To that end, Warriors (Fighters, Barbarians and the like) get to add their level to Hit or Dam (or some split between the two). Experts (Rogues, Bards, Monks and the like) get to add their level to Hit only. And Mages (Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards) get to add their level to damage, or subtract their level from the saving throws of their enemies. Another option for Mage players (chosen at 1st level) is to instead allow them to concentrate on spell levels equal to their Mage level. So, a 2nd level Mage could concentrate on two 1st level spells; a 5th level Mage could concentrate on five 1st level spells, or one 1st level and two 2nd level spells, or one 2nd level and one 3rd level spell. I like the idea of going either a blaster route with the bonus to damage or penalty to saves vs being the ultimate support class, buffing allies and debuffing enemies.

So, Fighter types have combat flexibility. Rogue types have precision strikes that don't hit as hard. Wizard types can't hit with weapons nearly as well, but their spells hit harder or are harder to resist - or they're the ultimate team player making martial types true wreaking balls.

I get that homebrew solutions aren't always acceptable, but just the basic +level to combat options isn't a massive overhaul and it makes for some really fun times at the table. F BA in the B.

You look through Godbound yet by KC? It uses a very similar system as WWN that is mostly backwards compatible with the heroic + legate options.

Not my personal cup of tea as I like to go the other direction but it's good at what it set out to do allowing heroes to do stuff like smack somebody with a mountain without becoming unmanageable.

[Keltest]

Wizards having same statistical chance to hit with a weapon as a fighter at any level other than 1st makes zero sense. If balance was a concern, I concur. I just offset this ridiculous 5e basis with letting 17th level Fighters cast Wish spells too. There, problem solved. 5e lost what was good about the game. Low level Fighters are supposed to be more deadly than low level wizards and the opposite at high levels. Otherwise the world would be full of wizards. Harry Potter for the mass populace.

Lower level fighters are more deadly than wizards because they can use bigger weapons and have stats that contribute to using those weapons. In practice, a fighter is going to have a better chance to hit, because of their ability score bonus, as well as deal more damage, because of the bigger weapon die and ability score bonus, than the wizard will. And thats before they get their extra attacks.

It is, theoretically, possible to make a level 1 wizard who can swing a longsword as well as a fighter, but why would you do that?

[stoutstien]

Lower level fighters are more deadly than wizards because they can use bigger weapons and have stats that contribute to using those weapons. In practice, a fighter is going to have a better chance to hit, because of their ability score bonus, as well as deal more damage, because of the bigger weapon die and ability score bonus, than the wizard will. And thats before they get their extra attacks.

It is, theoretically, possible to make a level 1 wizard who can swing a longsword as well as a fighter, but why would you do that?

Subverting the form is a popular goal for players. This is actually 5e strong suit as it's relatively easy to get competent at most things regardless of class so you can do stuff like grappling bards or shanking wizards that function just fine in all but the upper levels of ratcheted play.

[Keltest]

Subverting the form is a popular goal for players. This is actually 5e strong suit as it's relatively easy to get competent at most things regardless of class so you can do stuff like grappling bards or shanking wizards that function just fine in all but the upper levels of ratcheted play.

I have a player who enjoys doing things like that. 99% of the time what happens is his turn comes about, he goes "Aha, I do my gimmick!" and then he's largely ineffective while he amuses himself, and then combat resumes.

He's gotten better about making sure that his gimmick is not so completely at cross purposes with his build that he is not able to actually help, at least.

[stoutstien]

I have a player who enjoys doing things like that. 99% of the time what happens is his turn comes about, he goes "Aha, I do my gimmick!" and then he's largely ineffective while he amuses himself, and then combat resumes.

He's gotten better about making sure that his gimmick is not so completely at cross purposes with his build that he is not able to actually help, at least.

With 5e you have to actively try to make something that doesn't work. It's the idea of keeping up with the Joneses that pulls everything to one side.

[Keltest]

With 5e you have to actively try to make something that doesn't work. It's the idea of keeping up with the Joneses that pulls everything to one side.

True, but you dont have to try very hard either. "Sword wizard" is both pretty bad and easily achievable. If you really try to optimize, you can make it less bad, being a mountain dwarf axe wizard, but youre still doubling down on something your class is actively bad at.

[Theodoxus]

True, but you dont have to try very hard either. "Sword wizard" is both pretty bad and easily achievable. If you really try to optimize, you can make it less bad, being a mountain dwarf axe wizard, but youre still doubling down on something your class is actively bad at.

Until you get Tenser's Transformation. :smallwink:

[Warmonger]

30 year veteran DM here - there are positives and negatives to this

I remember the couple of sessions when I tried to get a wizard character going in 1e. I went through 3 character sheets in 2 sessions before I gave up.

After the first they had no backstory and only joke names. Because making them an actual character wasn't worth the effort.

To that extent I think 5e does a lot of things better although there was definitely a certain sort of fun to those throwaway characters and the attitude of "who cares" to the game.

As the game progresses the 5e DM does have to take on the load of making martial characters feel as special as the full casters, or the caster players have to play with restraint to not step on the toes of the martial characters all the time. I'm currently playing in a tier 4 game and it works fine. The trick is of course that after 2 1/2 years of getting to this point the players are invested in the game and don't want to break it with nonsense - so when the wizard player mentioned multiple simulacra they immediately dropped the idea because it would clearly be bad for the game. Also we very powerful magic items.

Thank you for quick response. I understand your perspective. I run long homebrews (one lasting more than a decade) and in these "epics" the rare wizards that did survive past the high mortality low level challenges (by party bonding and exceptional team work and putting their characters intelligence to the test), enjoyed a prestige that could be similar to that of a Gandalf or Merlin. The trick was to stay dedicated to campaign through thick and thin and from 0 level (yes, that's right, I started the PCs out as zero level children or teens codeveloping backstories individually or in small groups until destiny intertwined their paths to quest and change the worlds/multiverse) through past 20th level characters so that the risk of early level mortality, and interesting but perhaps 'less impactful to combat' investment, would be rewarded if and when they entered mid-level when they could hold their own until ultimately high levels where their words could shatter the fabric of time and space and hearing their names in bards tale or to children's as bed-time stories would invoke awe or terror or wonder. My campaigns moved at very slow experience point acquisition such that there truly is a large separation between 'heroes and adventuring types' and common people of the lands'. Mages are uncommon, but arch wizards (casting 7th level and higher spell levels) are rare to very rare. In a given domain, there may be only dozen or more famous high level fighters and only 1, 2, or perhaps 3 max (if population and arcane school(s) are present) known high level wizards (and/or warlocks). If it's not rare for this demographic, then one has to ask, how does 100-1000 mortals (of characters less than 24years old in 5e level xp progression rate by the way), casting wish or gate a few times a day (or just after that full hit points and spell arsenal restored quick nap affords from snoozing and eating dried figs in a tent in 5e like a first person shooter video game or legend of Zelda save game progression style rules base), make sense and could it even be assessed?
In 5e, for me and my players, there have been so many house rules and homebrew exceptions to enable fantasy realism that it essentially isn't 5e at all. Hybrid of earlier editions with creative solutions to the smorgasbord of broken 5e macro-systems. To each her own I say, though, and I'm thrilled DnD is finally popular even if the rules have lost the true spirit of the game that we old schoolers (former societal outcasts at best, and if growing up in the bible belt, 'devil worshippers' tagged via boomer propaganda which most of us wore like a badge of honor - not unlike Eddie from Stranger Things.......... if you're old enough ...haha.) can attest and remember fondly. I just wish I hadn't purchased nearly all of the 5e books before I actually read them..... That's my bad... but either way, Game on! May all yee die rolls favor crits over fumbles unless the latter builds a better legend.......

Best regards,
The Imminent Demilich
- DM WARMONGER

[Warmonger]

I'm old. I'm old school. I enjoy playing 5E, I don't enjoy running it very much. Unfortunately, my gaming group has shrunk to the point that we have 2 DMs, and the other guy just kind of mixes and mashes rules from every iteration of D&D, on the fly, with really no rhyme or reason outside of 'rule of cool'. If flanking works for a combat, he'll do it, other times he just forgets. OAs against casters and archers? You bet. Until it's not ok... So, after a few weeks of that, I offered to DM - he was clearly getting burnt out from work too, so he acquiesced quickly.

So, this last year of DMing a homebrew campaign mostly virtually due to various illnesses in the group, I have come to loathe being trapped behind bounded accuracy - which is the root cause of your 'Wizards being just as good at melee as Fighters' (though to be completely fair, Fighters get quite a few things that make them much better than Wizards, but yes, "Base Attack Bonus" of Attribute + Proficiency Bonus is identical.)

I'm in the process of creating my own system as a hodge-podge of a number of other games; Fantasy AGE, Worlds without Number, and Adventure Fantasy Game being the primary systems. So, moving away from d20, if I can my players on board - but I'm also making it d20 compatible, there's not a lot of difference on the player facing side between rolling 3d6 and a d20 for tests.

But the big thing is I'm tossing Bounded Accuracy on its ear. I don't need CR 1 critters being a threat at level 10. I like the feel of my players going full Sauron and swiping mass armies out of their way. To that end, Warriors (Fighters, Barbarians and the like) get to add their level to Hit or Dam (or some split between the two). Experts (Rogues, Bards, Monks and the like) get to add their level to Hit only. And Mages (Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards) get to add their level to damage, or subtract their level from the saving throws of their enemies. Another option for Mage players (chosen at 1st level) is to instead allow them to concentrate on spell levels equal to their Mage level. So, a 2nd level Mage could concentrate on two 1st level spells; a 5th level Mage could concentrate on five 1st level spells, or one 1st level and two 2nd level spells, or one 2nd level and one 3rd level spell. I like the idea of going either a blaster route with the bonus to damage or penalty to saves vs being the ultimate support class, buffing allies and debuffing enemies.

So, Fighter types have combat flexibility. Rogue types have precision strikes that don't hit as hard. Wizard types can't hit with weapons nearly as well, but their spells hit harder or are harder to resist - or they're the ultimate team player making martial types true wreaking balls.

I get that homebrew solutions aren't always acceptable, but just the basic +level to combat options isn't a massive overhaul and it makes for some really fun times at the table. F BA in the B.

I agree with your bounded accuracy statement.. I cannot help but stay rooted to the idea of fantasy realism, so that was one of the first principles I shed. If my group of tier 1 players ignore the reports of a Great Wyrm lair 10miles to the North and they decide to head due North, they best hope the Great Wyrm is sleeping, otherwise a party of 5 tasty snack then a nap may be in order for VOLOGSORROW the Great Wyrm Shadow Dragon. Every encounter there is an element of mystery and necessity to read the situation lest it may be the last. With the right prior investigation and prudence of risk assessment, the players can more appropriately explore within their means and experience. Also keeps the players honest and realistic with spell choice rather than equipping with blasting arsenal of offensive spells. Teleport could be a much wiser choice than magic jar given a chance of a random encounter with an Apex Predator of mortal wanderers exists as a real condition, albeit perhaps unlikely that were to be the roll of d100 assessed by the known inhabitants and types within. A given domain.
Oh, and mad respect for your creative homebrew rules ideas (though I lean towards more grittier tone) with the +level groupings idea and I especially like the multiple spells/levels concentration idea.. That could open up a lot of creative possibilities and teamwork contingencies. I'll consider some version of that, although I think i would make it half level adj for martial (th or dmg with chosen style/primary weapon), 1/3rd for expert (th or dmg melee or ranged of players choice at each 3levels such that it could be +1shortsword and +2 with short bow for example for a 9th level rogue) and 1/4th for wizards (primarily for the savings throws penalty) but full lvl calculated multiple spells concentration but with quadratic scale stacking cost. My previous solution was to have completely different xp progression scales by class (like earlier DnD editions) but this was still lacking true fantasy realism in my mind.

Best regards,
The Imminent Demilich
- DM WARMONGER

[Warmonger]

Subverting the form is a popular goal for players. This is actually 5e strong suit as it's relatively easy to get competent at most things regardless of class so you can do stuff like grappling bards or shanking wizards that function just fine in all but the upper levels of ratcheted play.

Sorry my former response was intended for different thread.

[Warmonger]

Subverting the form is a popular goal for players. This is actually 5e strong suit as it's relatively easy to get competent at most things regardless of class so you can do stuff like grappling bards or shanking wizards that function just fine in all but the upper levels of ratcheted play.


The "ability scores being offset" part of your argument is a moot point. You can have an 18 strength as chosen for a wizard. Just bc that player decides to make the wizard stronger at another part of his repertoire with intelligence over strength, doesn't lend support to an ability score offset equivalency for combat comparative assessment sake.

Best regards,
The Imminent Demilich
- DM WARMONGER

[Warmonger]

Lower level fighters are more deadly than wizards because they can use bigger weapons and have stats that contribute to using those weapons. In practice, a fighter is going to have a better chance to hit, because of their ability score bonus, as well as deal more damage, because of the bigger weapon die and ability score bonus, than the wizard will. And thats before they get their extra attacks.

It is, theoretically, possible to make a level 1 wizard who can swing a longsword as well as a fighter, but why would you do that?


The "ability scores being offset" part of your argument is a moot point. You can have an 18 strength as chosen for a wizard. Just bc that player decides to make the wizard stronger at another part of his repertoire with intelligence over strength, doesn't lend support to an ability score offset equivalency for combat comparative assessment sake.

Best regards,
The Imminent Demilich
- DM WARMONGER

[Keltest]

The "ability scores being offset" part of your argument is a moot point. You can have an 18 strength as chosen for a wizard. Just bc that player decides to make the wizard stronger at another part of his repertoire with intelligence over strength, doesn't lend support to an ability score offset equivalency for combat comparative assessment sake.

Best regards,
The Imminent Demilich
- DM WARMONGER

And if you do that youve created a fighter with a D4 weapon, a D6 hit die and no armor. Youre looking at one specific small piece of what makes the fighter good at weapon combat and declaring that since the wizard can do OK at it as well in the early levels, the wizard is basically a fighter.

[Sorinth]

I would hate to go back to the days of having a class suck for the first 5-10 levels and then become the most powerful class, or just never get good at combat like the Thief. It's terrible design. Having things be relatively balanced from level 1-20 is way more desirable goal (Even if it falls short) and you don't have to give Fighter's Wish in order to balance things at high level either.

[False God]

So buff fighters.

Give them double proficiency in weapons. Let them apply proficiency to damage. Heck, make everyone a mage-warrior! Fighter HD & Proficiency, Wizard casting! (Mage-Fighter, Holy Knight, Nature's Warrior would, IMO make a good, simple set of flexible classes for a game)

I don't think D&D was designed to make Fighters better at low levels and Wizards better at high levels. The power differential is too great for this to be "feature not a bug". I think the designers simply conceptualize Fighters as "real people" and therefore limited their design vision to the real world, and Wizards as impossible masters of reality and thus their design vision was unchained from reality by default.

[stoutstien]

The "ability scores being offset" part of your argument is a moot point. You can have an 18 strength as chosen for a wizard. Just bc that player decides to make the wizard stronger at another part of his repertoire with intelligence over strength, doesn't lend support to an ability score offset equivalency for combat comparative assessment sake.

Best regards,
The Imminent Demilich
- DM WARMONGER

I'm not saying they're equivalent. I'm saying in broad stokes the difference isn't very large especially at lower levels before values get inflated. A wizard shooting a crossbow or swinging a weapon is relatively the same as casting a cantrip. At this point there isn't enough going on to make fighting styles make that big of a difference.
Baseline damage output is just very accessible as a design point and even certain subclasses are only adding so much.
Mitigation is actually the deciding factor here. alas, they made that even cheaper to get.

[Sorinth]

I'm not saying they're equivalent. I'm saying in broad stokes the difference isn't very large especially at lower levels before values get inflated. A wizard shooting a crossbow or swinging a weapon is relatively the same as casting a cantrip. At this point there isn't enough going on to make fighting styles make that big of a difference.
Baseline damage output is just very accessible as a design point and even certain subclasses are only adding so much.
Mitigation is actually the deciding factor here. alas, they made that even cheaper to get.

At level 1 if a Fighter chooses a fighting style like Archery/Dueling/GWF they'll have almost twice the DPR as a wizard casting a cantrip like Firebolt. So it is in fact quite significant even if the numbers aren't large.

[stoutstien]

At level 1 if a Fighter chooses a fighting style like Archery/Dueling/GWF they'll have almost twice the DPR as a wizard casting a cantrip like Firebolt. So it is in fact quite significant even if the numbers aren't large.

Twice as much of a small numbers is still a small numbers. Most things under CR 2 have tiny HP values and unless you play in a world everyone fights to the death any amount of damage will trigger reaction/morale checks.

This is about relative accuracy not absolute output

[JNAProductions]

Wizards having same statistical chance to hit with a weapon as a fighter at any level other than 1st makes zero sense. If balance was a concern, I concur. I just offset this ridiculous 5e basis with letting 17th level Fighters cast Wish spells too. There, problem solved. 5e lost what was good about the game. Low level Fighters are supposed to be more deadly than low level wizards and the opposite at high levels. Otherwise the world would be full of wizards. Harry Potter for the mass populace.

A Wizard with the same Strength or Dexterity as a Fighter has the same hit chance, assuming they're using a weapon they're proficient in.

But, as was pointed out, a Wizard doesn't natively get the same weapons a Fighter does-so they're doing less damage even with the same stat.
If you DO get proficiency in a Rapier or something, a Fighter can do more damage by taking Dueling.
And even if your DM gives an extra feat at level one (allowing some races of Wizard to get a Fighting Style too) the Fighter has more HP for sure, almost certainly a better AC, and Second Wind to boot.

You can make a Wizard who's good with a weapon. Notably, Bladesinger is a subclass for that. But unlike 3.P, you're not gonna be consistently better than a Fighter, even with Bladesinger. And other subclasses of Wizards will fall behind much, much harder.

[Sorinth]

Twice as much of a small numbers is still a small numbers. Most things under CR 2 have tiny HP values and unless you play in a world everyone fights to the death any amount of damage will trigger reaction/morale checks.

This is about relative accuracy not absolute output

So scenario A,
- A Fighter doing 100 damage vs a Wizard doing 85 is against enemies with 250 HP.
Scenario B,
- A Fighter doing 3 damage a round vs a Wizard doing 1 damage a round against an enemy with 3 HP

You think 15 is greater then 2 therefore the Fighter in Scenario A is stronger compared to the Wizard then in Scenario B? You know that's not true, the absolute numbers don't mean much of everything what matters is how many rounds it takes to make your enemy dead which is why % is a far more accurate comparison then absolute numbers.

[stoutstien]

So scenario A,
- A Fighter doing 100 damage vs a Wizard doing 85 is against enemies with 250 HP.
Scenario B,
- A Fighter doing 3 damage a round vs a Wizard doing 1 damage a round against an enemy with 3 HP

You think 15 is greater then 2 therefore the Fighter in Scenario A is stronger compared to the Wizard then in Scenario B? You know that's not true, the absolute numbers don't mean much of everything what matters is how many rounds it takes to make your enemy dead which is why % is a far more accurate comparison then absolute numbers.

No because NPCs aren't just bags of HP? It's more like 1d8+mod +FS vs 1dX vs ~2-10 HP with variable thresholds of commitment to whatever goal is conflicting the party's. Assuming the world is somewhat aware of relative HP and damage potential low lv combat is deadly for everyone.
A commoner has 1D8 HP and the vast majority of cantrips can potentially one shot that the same as a fighter or a wizard with a crossbow. They don't care if the fighter has less rounds to zero HP than a wizard with the same weapon because death is death. The one that really matters is the relative accuracy and the Gap at this point is not very big.

This changed a little bit once you start seeing NPCs that aren't necessarily within one shot range on a luck/unlucky damage roll.

I like math. math is fun. In regards to actual play math usually ends up taking a backseat

*Bandits are the only one that stick out to me having relatively high HP but poor AC. I'm not sure what the logic behind this is other than maybe if you're going to be dumb you better be tough. Even they are not likely to immediately engage in combat right off the bat due to the risk involved. *

[Pex]

Thank you for quick response. I understand your perspective. I run long homebrews (one lasting more than a decade) and in these "epics" the rare wizards that did survive past the high mortality low level challenges (by party bonding and exceptional team work and putting their characters intelligence to the test), enjoyed a prestige that could be similar to that of a Gandalf or Merlin. The trick was to stay dedicated to campaign through thick and thin and from 0 level (yes, that's right, I started the PCs out as zero level children or teens codeveloping backstories individually or in small groups until destiny intertwined their paths to quest and change the worlds/multiverse) through past 20th level characters so that the risk of early level mortality, and interesting but perhaps 'less impactful to combat' investment, would be rewarded if and when they entered mid-level when they could hold their own until ultimately high levels where their words could shatter the fabric of time and space and hearing their names in bards tale or to children's as bed-time stories would invoke awe or terror or wonder. My campaigns moved at very slow experience point acquisition such that there truly is a large separation between 'heroes and adventuring types' and common people of the lands'. Mages are uncommon, but arch wizards (casting 7th level and higher spell levels) are rare to very rare. In a given domain, there may be only dozen or more famous high level fighters and only 1, 2, or perhaps 3 max (if population and arcane school(s) are present) known high level wizards (and/or warlocks). If it's not rare for this demographic, then one has to ask, how does 100-1000 mortals (of characters less than 24years old in 5e level xp progression rate by the way), casting wish or gate a few times a day (or just after that full hit points and spell arsenal restored quick nap affords from snoozing and eating dried figs in a tent in 5e like a first person shooter video game or legend of Zelda save game progression style rules base), make sense and could it even be assessed?
In 5e, for me and my players, there have been so many house rules and homebrew exceptions to enable fantasy realism that it essentially isn't 5e at all. Hybrid of earlier editions with creative solutions to the smorgasbord of broken 5e macro-systems. To each her own I say, though, and I'm thrilled DnD is finally popular even if the rules have lost the true spirit of the game that we old schoolers (former societal outcasts at best, and if growing up in the bible belt, 'devil worshippers' tagged via boomer propaganda which most of us wore like a badge of honor - not unlike Eddie from Stranger Things.......... if you're old enough ...haha.) can attest and remember fondly. I just wish I hadn't purchased nearly all of the 5e books before I actually read them..... That's my bad... but either way, Game on! May all yee die rolls favor crits over fumbles unless the latter builds a better legend.......

Best regards,
The Imminent Demilich
- DM WARMONGER

This tells me you have a particular tolerance level of PC power and 5E goes above it. For those who know me here, no, I don't think this makes you a tyrannical DM that I like to rant about. It does mean being old school you are set in your ways. You are not wrong for that. By coincidence a player in one of my gaming groups had just quit because the power level was too high for his taste. He's also an old school gamer.

D&D has changed a lot since the olden days of 1E/2E. Not just the obvious of game mechanics but in the things PCs can do just because they want to do it. I started playing D&D with 2E. I know what it was like back then. I enjoyed it then because that's what it was. I could not go back. I won't play a 2E game again. I enjoy the more freeform stuff players can do now.

Some DMs like to complain about PC power because of the need to balance challenges. There is a point to that, but on the more cynical side it's not about the challenge but an appearance of threat to DM authority. As PCs gain levels particular obstacles no longer are - how to cross a chasm with no bridge as a common example. If it takes 2 weeks to get somewhere by walking that's 2 weeks of stuff the DM gets to do. Soon PCs can just get there by flight or teleport in no time at all, so no more random stuff of happenings and it's only about the adventure plot point. Some DMs enjoy/want that journey and are upset it doesn't exist anymore. These DMs cannot or will not adapt their running the game to handle the new perspectives so they blame the game for power creep, being unbalanced, power gamers, min-maxers, munchkins, rollplayers not roleplayers not understanding or accepting the game is running as designed. Low level obstacles are supposed to become obsolete eventually. High level characters should face high level challenges. They're not supposed to still be caravan bodyguards defending against goblin bandits and oh look the bridge is down how do you cross the river?

[Dr.Samurai]

Pex, I’m not sure that’s correct. The OP says wizards are supposed to be stronger at higher levels, and fighters at lower levels. So I don’t think they’re allergic to powerful PCs. It’s more that wizards are just more resilient and powerful from the jump, and that only increases over time.

[Unoriginal]

No because NPCs aren't just bags of HP? It's more like 1d8+mod +FS vs 1dX vs ~2-10 HP with variable thresholds of commitment to whatever goal is conflicting the party's. Assuming the world is somewhat aware of relative HP and damage potential low lv combat is deadly for everyone.
A commoner has 1D8 HP and the vast majority of cantrips can potentially one shot that the same as a fighter or a wizard with a crossbow. They don't care if the fighter has less rounds to zero HP than a wizard with the same weapon because death is death. The one that really matters is the relative accuracy and the Gap at this point is not very big.

A typical Commoner will get one-shot by any PC with 16 STR doing a typical 1+STRmod-damage unarmed strike.




*Bandits are the only one that stick out to me having relatively high HP but poor AC. I'm not sure what the logic behind this is other than maybe if you're going to be dumb you better be tough. Even they are not likely to immediately engage in combat right off the bat due to the risk involved. *

Bandits have the same HPs as Guards or Hobgoblins, but their equipment is way worse. Tribal Warriors are in the same boat.

I don't think 11 HPs is "relatively high", it seems to be the "this is the typical humanoid combat-trained grunt" HP ammount.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

But they aren't.

Yeah they both have a +6 base, but the Wizard has -1 to maybe +1 Str while the Fighter has +4 or +5.

Wizard can also use only very simple weapons and can only manage to connect maybe once in a fight where as the Fighter can connect up to 4 times.

That they start from the base +6 is trivial.

[animorte]

But they aren't.

Yeah they both have a +6 base, but the Wizard has -1 to maybe +1 Str while the Fighter has +4 or +5.

Wizard can also use only very simple weapons and can only manage to connect maybe once in a fight where as the Fighter can connect up to 4 times.

That they start from the base +6 is trivial.
Yeah, but a decent Dexterity (+2 in my experience, yes with casters) with a finesse weapon and proficiency, allows for +4 to attack.

[Unoriginal]

Yeah, but a decent Dexterity (+2 in my experience, yes with casters) with a finesse weapon and proficiency, allows for +4 to attack.

A good chunk of casters don't have proficiency for great finesse weapons without investment, though.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Yeah, but a decent Dexterity (+2 in my experience, yes with casters) with a finesse weapon and proficiency, allows for +4 to attack.

Cool.

So at level 1
Fighter: 1 attack at +5 for either 1d8+5 or 2d6+3
Wizard: 1 attack at +4 for 1d4+2

So at level 5
Fighter: 2 attacks at +7 for either 1d8+6 up to 2d6+4 And with 1DND add in Masteries.
Wizard: 1 attack at +5 for 1d4+2

So at level 11
Fighter: 3 attacks at +8 for either 1d8+7 up to 2d6+5 And with 1DND add in Masteries.
Wizard: 1 attack at +5 for 1d4+2

So at level 18
Fighter: 4 attacks at +11 for either 1d8+7 up to 2d6+5 And with 1DND add in Masteries.
Wizard: 1 attack at +8 for 1d4+2

Truly they are on the same scale.

[Pex]

Pex, I’m not sure that’s correct. The OP says wizards are supposed to be stronger at higher levels, and fighters at lower levels. So I don’t think they’re allergic to powerful PCs. It’s more that wizards are just more resilient and powerful from the jump, and that only increases over time.

Ok. Fair enough.

Let us hope this doesn't turn into another hate on spellcasters thread. :smallyuk:

[animorte]

Truly they are on the same scale.
You are aware that casters have scaling melee cantrips? (that don't even need to rely on Str or Dex)

[JNAProductions]

You are aware that casters have scaling melee cantrips? (that don't even need to rely on Str or Dex)

Okay. But then they’re doing magic, and not using a weapon.

I think a Wizard or other caster SHOULD be better in that area.

[animorte]

Okay. But then they’re doing magic, and not using a weapon.

I think a Wizard or other caster SHOULD be better in that area.
Absolutely agreed

[Mongobear]

Wizards having same statistical chance to hit with a weapon as a fighter at any level other than 1st makes zero sense. If balance was a concern, I concur. I just offset this ridiculous 5e basis with letting 17th level Fighters cast Wish spells too. There, problem solved. 5e lost what was good about the game. Low level Fighters are supposed to be more deadly than low level wizards and the opposite at high levels. Otherwise the world would be full of wizards. Harry Potter for the mass populace.

I think you're missing the part where 1) Wizards arent proficient with nearly as many weapons as a Fighter, and 2) A Wizard putting a high stat in Strength is also sacrificing useful stats elsewhere that actually make them good at being a Wizard.

These 1st level similarities are vastly inaccurate as well when you consider proficiencies, Wizards have at best half of the weapon options, so they cant do things like TWF longswords, Greatsword, Glaive/Halberd, even simple Sword and Shield. They're limited to like, a long stick (staff), a short stick (club), a pointy stick (spear) and a dagger. even if using a ranged/finesse weapon, their weapon options just are very limited, and that fighter can go miles upon miles swinging it better, compared to the confused Wizard wondering why he is trying to stab a Goblin instead of Firebolt'ing it.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

You are aware that casters have scaling melee cantrips? (that don't even need to rely on Str or Dex)

Sure, let's add booming blade in.

It's a weapon attack using their Str or Dex so same lower chance to hit and adds up to 3d8 more damage. It doesn't actually scale with Warriors unless we're talking Locks with EB and AB.

[WaroftheCrans]

I actually went on a minor rant about this topic to my gaming group. I'm not DMing this particular campaign, and its an adventure that you go against the deities of the settings. Our group in particular is a bit underleveled here, but a complaint of mine was that the gods just don't feel powerful enough.

I took a look at the Demon Lords in MToF and MPMM, and had the same problem there. In the abyss, a number of them are easily beatable by a high level party that isn't particularly optimized or prepared for that fight. A low level party that is optimized could similarly dispatch them. Yet that same party is also in grave danger from a day filled with low level monsters.

In previous editions, it felt less bad that high level pcs could take on gods, demons and other cosmic entities. The same pcs were largely immune to mundane threats, and the feats that they could pull off were pretty incredible. In 5e, there just isn't the same heroic feel. Bounded accuracy, and a desire to make big bads like baphomet beatable means that baphomet etc are just jokes. How could they maintain power in the abyss, when their footsoldiers could rise against them and defeat them? You would think they'd be eliminated fairly quickly, and it would be nigh impossible to hold a realm in the abyss.

The problem with bounded accuracy is that it becomes absurd. 1000 commoners should pose no threat to a high level pc who has reached the very zenith of humanoid physical or magical potential, not be consistently able to kill one.


Edit: a side problem I have with 5e is that nothing interesting has happened in any of their main published settings. I'm going to exclude Eberron because that's keith baker, and Exandria because the world is being shaped by actively played campaigns.
In my opinion, the most interesting thing in Forgotten Realms recently is either death curse/soulmonger or Descent into avernus. They lack the same importance and major players as other editions: Give us a cataclysm, or a sundering, kill a Greater Deity, hell, kill mystra again.
I'm starting to feel 5e is just too static for my tastes anymore.

[Keltest]

I actually went on a minor rant about this topic to my gaming group. I'm not DMing this particular campaign, and its an adventure that you go against the deities of the settings. Our group in particular is a bit underleveled here, but a complaint of mine was that the gods just don't feel powerful enough.

I took a look at the Demon Lords in MToF and MPMM, and had the same problem there. In the abyss, a number of them are easily beatable by a high level party that isn't particularly optimized or prepared for that fight. A low level party that is optimized could similarly dispatch them. Yet that same party is also in grave danger from a day filled with low level monsters.

In previous editions, it felt less bad that high level pcs could take on gods, demons and other cosmic entities. The same pcs were largely immune to mundane threats, and the feats that they could pull off were pretty incredible. In 5e, there just isn't the same heroic feel. Bounded accuracy, and a desire to make big bads like baphomet beatable means that baphomet etc are just jokes. How could they maintain power in the abyss, when their footsoldiers could rise against them and defeat them? You would think they'd be eliminated fairly quickly, and it would be nigh impossible to hold a realm in the abyss.

The problem with bounded accuracy is that it becomes absurd. 1000 commoners should pose no threat to a high level pc who has reached the very zenith of humanoid physical or magical potential, not be consistently able to kill one.

Because they can beat up the people who would organize those foot soldiers to rise up against them. Demons fundamentally cannot work together except by threat of force, so a conspiracy of a bunch of his immediate underlings is unlikely.

[stoutstien]

I actually went on a minor rant about this topic to my gaming group. I'm not DMing this particular campaign, and its an adventure that you go against the deities of the settings. Our group in particular is a bit underleveled here, but a complaint of mine was that the gods just don't feel powerful enough.

I took a look at the Demon Lords in MToF and MPMM, and had the same problem there. In the abyss, a number of them are easily beatable by a high level party that isn't particularly optimized or prepared for that fight. A low level party that is optimized could similarly dispatch them. Yet that same party is also in grave danger from a day filled with low level monsters.

In previous editions, it felt less bad that high level pcs could take on gods, demons and other cosmic entities. The same pcs were largely immune to mundane threats, and the feats that they could pull off were pretty incredible. In 5e, there just isn't the same heroic feel. Bounded accuracy, and a desire to make big bads like baphomet beatable means that baphomet etc are just jokes. How could they maintain power in the abyss, when their footsoldiers could rise against them and defeat them? You would think they'd be eliminated fairly quickly, and it would be nigh impossible to hold a realm in the abyss.

The problem with bounded accuracy is that it becomes absurd. 1000 commoners should pose no threat to a high level pc who has reached the very zenith of humanoid physical or magical potential, not be consistently able to kill one.

I know a lot of people like looking at stat blocks and trying to figure out how they interconnect with each other but they just aren't meant to do that. You're not supposed to look at two stat blocks and wonder like why is this guy in charge if the other guy (s) could beat him up and take his lunch money. The stat blocks are literally solely designed for the DM to have an interface with the rest of the players.


Id rather they go the other way and as a baseline it wouldn't become normal for heroes to become neary immortal.
Those rare exceptions are not assumed progression.
1,000 pissed off peasants being able to kill a renegade wizard is better for general world cohesion. You start running into a lot of DC universe logic issues otherwise.

[WaroftheCrans]

Because they can beat up the people who would organize those foot soldiers to rise up against them. Demons fundamentally cannot work together except by threat of force, so a conspiracy of a bunch of his immediate underlings is unlikely.

But by the same tokens, the demons hate those on top. All it would take is 3-5 molydei who decide they don't want to deal with baphomet anymore. They won't work together after they topple him, probably killing each other, which fits with the concept of the abyss where its just continual fighting for a place on top. However, the demon lords are supposed to be significantly stronger, able to force those under them to respect them out of fear. I just don't see it.

(IME 2 Molydei would be able to topple baphomet, but for the fact that he has maze)

Edit for not double posting:

Id rather they go the other way and as a baseline it wouldn't become normal for heroes to become neary immortal.
Those rare exceptions are not assumed progression.
1,000 pissed off peasants being able to kill a renegade wizard is better for general world cohesion. You start running into a lot of DC universe logic issues otherwise.

My issue is that anything can just be defeated by throwing a small untrained army at it. Sometimes this makes narrative sense, sometimes it doesn't. Short of things with immunities to BPS, you just have to marginally increase the number of commoners. They will hit, and they will kill. Most aoes aren't really big enough to hit more than 100 of them.

[Keltest]

But by the same tokens, the demons hate those on top. All it would take is 3-5 molydei who decide they don't want to deal with baphomet anymore. They won't work together after they topple him, probably killing each other, which fits with the concept of the abyss where its just continual fighting for a place on top. However, the demon lords are supposed to be significantly stronger, able to force those under them to respect them out of fear. I just don't see it.

(IME 2 Molydei would be able to topple baphomet, but for the fact that he has maze)

Sure. They fight each other, then Baphomet comes in and stomps whoever wins, assuming that one or more of them dont betray the others as an attempt to get goodwill from Baphomet. To put it bluntly, they never get to the part where they all gang up on Baphomet.

Plus, he has other minions too. Its not like each demon lord is able to personally fight their personal armies to the death and come out on top.

[stoutstien]

The issue is that anything can just be defeated by throwing a small untrained army at it. Sometimes this makes narrative sense, sometimes it doesn't. Short of things with immunities to BPS, you just have to marginally increase the number of commoners. They will hit, and they will kill. Most aoes aren't really big enough to hit more than 100 of them.

Besides you have to feed, arm, organize, and keep them from breaking rank the second body parts fly. It turns into very much a"who's going to bell the cat?"

In reality the biggest threat is somebody who's seeking revenge or whatnot and go about it subtlety. Wizard's become paranoid hermits for a reason.

[Unoriginal]

I actually went on a minor rant about this topic to my gaming group. I'm not DMing this particular campaign, and its an adventure that you go against the deities of the settings. Our group in particular is a bit underleveled here, but a complaint of mine was that the gods just don't feel powerful enough.

I took a look at the Demon Lords in MToF and MPMM, and had the same problem there. In the abyss, a number of them are easily beatable by a high level party that isn't particularly optimized or prepared for that fight. A low level party that is optimized could similarly dispatch them. Yet that same party is also in grave danger from a day filled with low level monsters.

In previous editions, it felt less bad that high level pcs could take on gods, demons and other cosmic entities. The same pcs were largely immune to mundane threats, and the feats that they could pull off were pretty incredible. In 5e, there just isn't the same heroic feel. Bounded accuracy, and a desire to make big bads like baphomet beatable means that baphomet etc are just jokes. How could they maintain power in the abyss, when their footsoldiers could rise against them and defeat them? You would think they'd be eliminated fairly quickly, and it would be nigh impossible to hold a realm in the abyss.

The problem with bounded accuracy is that it becomes absurd. 1000 commoners should pose no threat to a high level pc who has reached the very zenith of humanoid physical or magical potential, not be consistently able to kill one.


Edit: a side problem I have with 5e is that nothing interesting has happened in any of their main published settings. I'm going to exclude Eberron because that's keith baker, and Exandria because the world is being shaped by actively played campaigns.
In my opinion, the most interesting thing in Forgotten Realms recently is either death curse/soulmonger or Descent into avernus. They lack the same importance and major players as other editions: Give us a cataclysm, or a sundering, kill a Greater Deity, hell, kill mystra again.
I'm starting to feel 5e is just too static for my tastes anymore.

How did Julius Caesar control Europe's most impressive armies when he couldn't fight off a bunch of old men?

Even in epic fantasy, it is extremely rare for a single individual to be able to fight all of their subordinates at once and win.

And Baphomet has a lot more power than what is covered in the statboock, too (for example, transforming humanoids into Minotaurs, or stalemating a minor god in a mental duel for a follower of said god), but those aren't "combat powers". It's like asking why Zariel can physically force a whole city into Hell or reforge an artifact with her will alone but can't make a smaller building appear just above a PC to crush them or reforge a PC's magic items into uselessness when the PC fight her.

Also worth noting that planar rulers have powers over the plane they control, so Baphomet's goons jumping him on his home turf will go pretty badly.

[KorvinStarmast]

My issue is that anything can just be defeated by throwing a small untrained army at it. Which is why certain leaders maintain armies. :smallwink:

[Dr.Samurai]

In my opinion, it is kind of doofy that a party can take out an archdevil but a large enough group of level 1 orcs can still threaten them. Wow, cool edition bro...

[Keltest]

In my opinion, it is kind of doofy that a party can take out an archdevil but a large enough group of level 1 orcs can still threaten them. Wow, cool edition bro...

I mean, how large a group are we talking about? Because high level parties have a lot of force multipliers.

[KorvinStarmast]

In my opinion, it is kind of doofy that a party can take out an archdevil but a large enough group of level 1 orcs can still threaten them. Wow, cool edition bro...
*Phone Rings*
Hello? Yes...Yes... (Puts hand over mouthpiece)
Boromir called, and he'd like a word with Dr Samurai...

[Theodoxus]

Kinda like the warlock thread taking about getting rid of pact magic because 'experiment done'; bounded accuracy should probably do the same. But I think splitting the tiers into 3 instead of 4 would work best.

So, levels 1-7 would be tier 1, where BA is grounded and stuff that threatens at level 1 is still a challenge in sufficient numbers at level 7. But level 8 is where things go into 'low heroic' mode. By the second ASI, the characters should be starting to stretch BA to the breaking point, gaining abilities that just stomp tier 1 baddies into the dirt. Then, 14+ would be 'high heroic', third tier that sends parties out into the multiverse to deal with crazy stuff.

Tiers 1 and 2 are the meat and potatoes of D&D where the vast majority of campaigns live. Tier 3 just breaks BA completely and is a different mindset than the earlier tiers. Current 5E adventures (and converted adventures from before) would still work for tier 1 and lower tier 2, so remain 'backwards compatible'. And since most top out in the 10-14 range, would be viable without much, if any, reworking.

I don't want to go back to Magic Item Xmas Tree hell, but maybe granting an extra attunement slot at 8th and 14th levels, and allowing for +4 and +5 items at those level recommendations too, would help with the problem.

[diplomancer]

*Phone Rings*
Hello? Yes...Yes... (Puts hand over mouthpiece)
Boromir called, and he'd like a word with Dr Samurai...

I laughed. To be fair, Gandalf did say that the Balrog was "a foe beyond any of you".

On the other hand, Merry and Eowyn killed the Witch-King (and both of them together are probably less powerful warriors than Boromir alone).

For myself, I don't see anything wrong with "armies are more powerful than small groups of social misfits", even if these social misfits CAN kill a dragon.

[Dr.Samurai]

*Phone Rings*
Hello? Yes...Yes... (Puts hand over mouthpiece)
Boromir called, and he'd like a word with Dr Samurai...
I laughed out loud, and resisted the temptation to start a thread derail about what level the uruk-hai are compared to regular orcs :smallamused:.

I don't want to go back to Magic Item Xmas Tree hell, but maybe granting an extra attunement slot at 8th and 14th levels, and allowing for +4 and +5 items at those level recommendations too, would help with the problem.
I think part of the issue is that martials might be expected to get powerful weapons earlier than people expect. Which is in line with a lot of myths as well.

But in our last three modules my character has randomly found sentient weapons/shield to fight with in combat; I practically always have a traveling companion speaking to me telepathically by cirtue of gear. And I sometimes wonder if the "Very Rare/Legendary/Artifact" tags make DMs think that these items shouldn't be seen until much higher levels, when in fact the game assumes the martials will be sporting these items regularly.

[Segev]

::cough:: I'm going to be "That Guy," here: to those who hate bounded accuracy, what do you like about 5e over 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e? It seems to me that those systems do what it is you're upset at 5e for not doing. That doesn't mean there's no reason to use 5e instead of them, but I am not sure what it is that makes 5e worth modding rather than just using systems that are still D&D but honor the conceits you're looking for.

[Dr.Samurai]

3rd edition was great, but certainly had it's share of issues. I mean... movement and attacking are so much simpler and cleaner in 5e than in 3.5.

But, my friends and brother play 5e, so that's what I play lol. If they were still playing 3.5, or 4th, I'd be playing those instead.

EDIT: I should add that the complaint I just made about killing an archdevil but being threatened by orcs also just doesn't come up very often. So it's not really a major reason to not play with the edition. I just find that D&D, especially when it comes to martials, doesn't do the fantasy justice.

Boromir was brought up, and LotR is often cited as a low-level example of fantasy. But even in this "low-power" example, the Fellowship mow through the uruk-hai at Amon Hen. There's no way martials in D&D are going to mow through orcs the way they do.

[Theodoxus]

::cough:: I'm going to be "That Guy," here: to those who hate bounded accuracy, what do you like about 5e over 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e? It seems to me that those systems do what it is you're upset at 5e for not doing. That doesn't mean there's no reason to use 5e instead of them, but I am not sure what it is that makes 5e worth modding rather than just using systems that are still D&D but honor the conceits you're looking for.


3rd edition was great, but certainly had it's share of issues. I mean... movement and attacking are so much simpler and cleaner in 5e than in 3.5.

But, my friends and brother play 5e, so that's what I play lol. If they were still playing 3.5, or 4th, I'd be playing those instead.

This is probably 75% of it. The other 25% is fiddly numbers and massive splatbook bloat.

I've never ever been a fan of "let me spend 5 minutes calculating all the different bonuses and penalties from 17 different sources and I'll let you know my final attack bonus..."

I'm also not a fan of "Well, my race is from book 1, my class from book 3, my alternate class features is from book 7, I grabbed two feats from book 12 and my weapon comes from book 52. Oh, and it took me about 2 weeks of both personal research and help from two different websites to build the exact character I wanted to play."

So, yeah, 5E is where it's at. It just doesn't need to worry about making sure level 20 toons can be smacked around by a horde of goblins. Just sayin'.

[Unoriginal]

But by the same tokens, the demons hate those on top. All it would take is 3-5 molydei who decide they don't want to deal with baphomet anymore. They won't work together after they topple him, probably killing each other, which fits with the concept of the abyss where its just continual fighting for a place on top. However, the demon lords are supposed to be significantly stronger, able to force those under them to respect them out of fear. I just don't see it.

(IME 2 Molydei would be able to topple baphomet, but for the fact that he has maze)

Pretty sure part of why Molideuses are so tough is because they're directly empowered by their Demon Princes.

A Molideus who think the top demon around should be cast down will find out how conditional those gifts are.



My issue is that anything can just be defeated by throwing a small untrained army at it. Sometimes this makes narrative sense, sometimes it doesn't. Short of things with immunities to BPS, you just have to marginally increase the number of commoners. They will hit, and they will kill. Most aoes aren't really big enough to hit more than 100 of them.

Been a while since I heard the hectoPeasant complain...

https://loginportal.funnyjunk.com/comments/Well+i+can+tell+you+that+a+5e+beholder+is+_899fc4e ecc19bb890e37a4177ef5b295.jpg

[Snails]

Wizards having same statistical chance to hit with a weapon as a fighter at any level other than 1st makes zero sense.

It is also true that a 20th level Eldritch Knight or character who took a 1 level Wizard dip has the same chance "to hit" with his Charm Person or Chromatic Orb, as the 20th level Archwizard has with his True Polymorph or Blade of Disaster.

It is not generally a problem, because the Fighter tends to hit so much harder, much as the Archwizard does when his spell lands. Plus stat contention tends to get in the way of equality of hit bonuses and save DCs.

In theory, I suppose it possible that the elf Bladesinger Wizard rolls an 18 for his Str, and he is the one who gets to wield the Vorpal longsword pulled out of the cold now truly dead deathknight's hands. To the degree such is a possibility, well, I think this is supposed to be a Good Thing about rolling stats and the potential for the game to wander outside the usual lines.



Low level Fighters are supposed to be more deadly than low level wizards and the opposite at high levels. Otherwise the world would be full of wizards. Harry Potter for the mass populace.

As for the commonality of wizards, it is equally easy to be any class for a Player Character.. That is not an expectation we have for NPCs. Most NPCs are within a stone's throw of their MM stat bloc, and have no realistic aspirations of being better than that.

[Snails]

3rd edition was great, but certainly had it's share of issues. I mean... movement and attacking are so much simpler and cleaner in 5e than in 3.5.

But, my friends and brother play 5e, so that's what I play lol. If they were still playing 3.5, or 4th, I'd be playing those instead.

I love 3e. I would not say it is any one thing that is bad. 3e is chock full of good stuff. In fact, it has way too much good stuff, and the accumulated weight of good stuff became too much, certainly for casual players.

[JNAProductions]

I love 3e. I would not say it is any one thing that is bad. 3e is chock full of good stuff. In fact, it has way too much good stuff, and the accumulated weight of good stuff became too much, certainly for casual players.

I contest that. It had a LOT of filler content-there's how many spells? how many feats? how many classes and Prestige Classes?
And then, how many see use?

[False God]

I love 3e. I would not say it is any one thing that is bad. 3e is chock full of good stuff. In fact, it has way too much good stuff, and the accumulated weight of good stuff became too much, certainly for casual players.

You've got a tough sea to sail if you don't think anything in 3E was bad.

[diplomancer]

Boromir was brought up, and LotR is often cited as a low-level example of fantasy. But even in this "low-power" example, the Fellowship mow through the uruk-hai at Amon Hen. There's no way martials in D&D are going to mow through orcs the way they do.

They do in the movies. In the books, Aragorn doesn't fight one single orc, Boromir does impressively against orcs (but less impressively against the Uruk-Hai, who use the clever tactic of using bows to fight the melee specialist warrior instead of rushing him), and Legolas and Gimli we don't rightly know, except that they've fought a few stragglers.

And this is relevant and not just a piece of Tolkien trivia because the movies might have been influenced by D&D and other fantasy games, but the books weren't. I actually remember a friend of mine saying, after the movie, about the moment when Aragorn smiles as he turns to fight about 50 orcs, "that was a D&D moment". :D

A pre-bounded accuracy D&D moment ;)

[Segev]

I am inclined to agree that the one big thing that 5e does that would be hard to go back to 3e on is how movement works.

[Mongobear]

Boromir was brought up, and LotR is often cited as a low-level example of fantasy. But even in this "low-power" example, the Fellowship mow through the uruk-hai at Amon Hen. There's no way martials in D&D are going to mow through orcs the way they do.

This is just blatantly false.

I have personally played a Berserker Barbarian, using GWM, and with the 'Cleave Through' optional rule in the DMG, and around 9th level, literally solo'd a 50+ strong army of Orcs plus their chieftain in under two minutes. Pretty much as "movie moment accurate" as you can get. I just Raged, and waded through them swinging wildly the whole time. The rest of the party did very little by way of helping with killing, at most they threw a few support spells like Bless/Heroism, because their entire focus was on and entire second army of Drow across the cavern, sort of an X vs Y vs Z scenario.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

have personally played a Berserker Barbarian, using GWM, and with the 'Cleave Through' optional rule in the DMG, and around 9th level, literally solo'd a 50+ strong army of Orcs plus their chieftain in under two minutes.

A little curious on the details.

Assuming bog standard Monster Manual Orc we are looking at an AC of 13 and 15 HP.

Assuming level 9 and 20 Str we're looking at 2 attacks at +9 for 2d6+5 damage. Change in GWM and you have 2 attacks at +4 for 2d6+15 Damage.

So the 15 is one Orc and the 2d6 is damage onto another. But the rules say it only carries through if you hit an undamaged orc and kill it.

So. We're talking a 55% chance to hit and essentially kill 2 orcs and deal 4d6 damage to a third which should hopefully kill it. In an average of 10 rounds of combat you will hit 11 times, 1 of which will be a Crit. So you'll take out on average 17-18 of them.

Meanwhile, if we go real generous and assume 20 Con and Dex for an AC of 20 with HP around 123 HP. The orcs will be able to pile in and be able to make 8 attacks assuming just the great axes at +5 for 9 damage. So 25% to hit. So in that same 10 rounds you're going to get hit 20 times on average with 4 Critical hits for 216 Damage.

That is not taking into account tactics, weapons other than great axes (crossbows perchance?) Or the Orc Chieftan themselves.

[JNAProductions]

It's also not taking into account terrain, or morale.

[Dr.Samurai]

This is just blatantly false.
It pains my heart when someone challenges a point with an anecdote and then people come in and challenge the anecdote with rules and probabilities. Because I don’t like to see someone’s awesome moment get picked apart and dissected for the point in a forum discussion.

So I will leave it at your moment of extraordinary luck must have been awesome and I hope to have a similar experience one day 😎.

[Unoriginal]

It's also not taking into account terrain, or morale.

Morale is waaaaay too often overlooked. Sometime a fight will go too fast for the enemies to realize they're lethally outmatched, or they will be too fanatical/enraged/afraid of failure's consequences/mind-controlled/non-sapient to have self-preservation, but most sapient enemies should suffer morale breaks when things go wrong (or if they're convinced things are going wrong).

Really don't get the "All NPCs will fight to the death so long as they can swing a weapon as if they were programmed murder robots (unless they have an objective that requires them not fighting)" style of hostile encounters people online seem to describe as prevalent.

[diplomancer]

Morale is waaaaay too often overlooked. Sometime a fight will go too fast for the enemies to realize they're lethally outmatched, or they will be too fanatical/enraged/afraid of failure's consequences/mind-controlled/non-sapient to have self-preservation, but most sapient enemies should suffer morale breaks when things go wrong (or if they're convinced things are going wrong).

Really don't get the "All NPCs will fight to the death so long as they can swing a weapon as if they were programmed murder robots (unless they have an objective that requires them not fighting)" style of hostile encounters people online seem to describe as prevalent.

Yes, this was one of the many things that made fighting Undead scary back in the day.

They. Do. Not. Run. Away.

Now, no one runs away, and it's not that big of a deal, because being attacked is not as scary unless at very low levels, due to HP inflation.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Morale is waaaaay too often overlooked. Sometime a fight will go too fast for the enemies to realize they're lethally outmatched, or they will be too fanatical/enraged/afraid of failure's consequences/mind-controlled/non-sapient to have self-preservation, but most sapient enemies should suffer morale breaks when things go wrong (or if they're convinced things are going wrong).

Really don't get the "All NPCs will fight to the death so long as they can swing a weapon as if they were programmed murder robots (unless they have an objective that requires them not fighting)" style of hostile encounters people online seem to describe as prevalent.

It also nicely neuters the hectopeasant argument/objection. They're unlikely to stay a coherent force long enough.

[stoutstien]

It also nicely neuters the hectopeasant argument/objection. They're unlikely to stay a coherent force long enough.

Yep. No idea why they did add a simple moral system besides the fact someone would try to cheese it...

[Dr.Samurai]

It may be because caster magic might force morale checks pretty easily and overwhelm encounters even more quickly.

[stoutstien]

It may be because caster magic might force morale checks pretty easily and overwhelm encounters even more quickly.

Eh. It means that either the encounter needs to go that way to not waste table time doing blow by blow for 2 hours or spell casting needs more coherent limits to prevent the "but magic" effect.

Both would be nice.

[deljzc]

I think D&D missed an opportunity to teach DM's about when to have NPC's/Monsters retreat or surrender when they made the Mines of Phandelver module as a beginners guide to 5th Edition.

Many of those early encounters are with other humans. And maybe a more detailed way of handling interactions would have been appropriate instead of just one sentence like "when 3 guys die, the 4th will surrender". I also agree that the degree in which low level D&D is now dominated by what I would consider as high-magic throws a kink into how "afriad" monsters/NPC's are of PC's and how quickly they realize they are overmatched.

It is a difficult thing for both DM's and PC's to learn how to hanlde, particularly with the alignment system and the move to reject labeling any "race" as inherantly evil.

[Unoriginal]

It may be because caster magic might force morale checks pretty easily and overwhelm encounters even more quickly.

There is no reason for magic to force morale checks more easily or more often than any other thing in the D&D world.

Even fear-causing magicks aren't a guaranteed "cause the enemies to flee" effect (though they do usually the enemies to fight worse when they can look at the source of their fear and make them unable to get closer).

[diplomancer]

There is no reason for magic to force morale checks more easily or more often than any other thing in the D&D world.

Even fear-causing magicks aren't a guaranteed "cause the enemies to flee" effect (though they do usually the enemies to fight worse when they can look at the source of their fear and make them unable to get closer).

Yeah, when pretty much everyone can use magic, "they have magic!" should not be particularly alarming. Older editions had different assumptions about that, though, if I remember correctly. Maybe they hadn't yet worked out the implications of the game's assumptions about party composition and how that might relate to the game world. Raistlin being a magic-user was definitely scary even to his companions (well, that and his cheery personality and general moral outlook).

[Mongobear]

A little curious on the details.

Assuming bog standard Monster Manual Orc we are looking at an AC of 13 and 15 HP.

Assuming level 9 and 20 Str we're looking at 2 attacks at +9 for 2d6+5 damage. Change in GWM and you have 2 attacks at +4 for 2d6+15 Damage.

So the 15 is one Orc and the 2d6 is damage onto another. But the rules say it only carries through if you hit an undamaged orc and kill it.

So. We're talking a 55% chance to hit and essentially kill 2 orcs and deal 4d6 damage to a third which should hopefully kill it. In an average of 10 rounds of combat you will hit 11 times, 1 of which will be a Crit. So you'll take out on average 17-18 of them.

Meanwhile, if we go real generous and assume 20 Con and Dex for an AC of 20 with HP around 123 HP. The orcs will be able to pile in and be able to make 8 attacks assuming just the great axes at +5 for 9 damage. So 25% to hit. So in that same 10 rounds you're going to get hit 20 times on average with 4 Critical hits for 216 Damage.

That is not taking into account tactics, weapons other than great axes (crossbows perchance?) Or the Orc Chieftan themselves.

I may have been a little off on the character level, but I was at least 9th level, maybe as high as 11th. It has been like 6-7 years since this happened.

Berserker Barbarian, so after the first round, I effectively always had 3-4x Attacks. Was using a +1 Great Axe, Adamantine Breastplate, and a Belt of Strength (whichever one made it a 21).

We entered into a massive cavern, with the remains of an old Dwarven outpost in the center, to our immediate right, about 100 yards, another large opening was filling with a large Orc force (over 200 total) and across the cavern another 300 or so yards, a small force of Drow (~50) were settled in behind some walls and on roof tops.) My character was basically the Orc equivalent of Goblin Slayer, so before we could even formulate a plan, I was already halfway across the cave heading to the Orcs. They sent the 50ish towards me/the party and the rest after the Drow fortified outpost. My party followed me part of the way, and buffed me with a few spells, Heroism, Bless, and Haste, then veered off to focus more on the Drow since they were likely a larger threat.

When I finally made contact with the Orcs, it was in a ruined section of buildings, so there were tightly packed walls around me, funneling them all into a 15 foot wide 'hallway' that to get deeper into, they had to provoke opportunity attacks, or take a much wider path around behind the buildings (after the first few rounds, this started to happen). Between Frenzy BA attack, Cleave Through, Opportunity attacks, and GWM + Reckless, I was killing at least 3-5 Orcs a round, and was never taking much damage because of Rage + Crit immunity.

Once the majority of the chaffe was dead, the cheiftan finally got to me, and we fought for a few rounds, but a string of lucky crits ended him in like 2 rounds, which broke the remaining few Orcs, and they ran off. I came out of it all at ~40% hp.

Sure, technically speaking, I didn't face them "alone" because I had outside buffs, but without them, it wouldve just taken longer. (as far as taking damage/losing HP, I had a belt full of Healing pots, so I couldve easily recovered somewhat had I dipped too low.)

[KorvinStarmast]

::cough:: I'm going to be "That Guy," here: to those who hate bounded accuracy, FWIW, I like bounded accuracy from both sides of the screen. I am disappointed that the original D&D morale thing wasn't pulled back into the game...but that's a separate rant. I use my own OD&D tools for that, and they work.

So, yeah, 5E is where it's at. It just doesn't need to worry about making sure level 20 toons can be smacked around by a horde of goblins. Just sayin'. Archers. Spell casters ought to fear them. Put 8 Orc Archers in the trees with 10-12 orcs rushing the party, and see how the squishy PCs' get nervous ... :smallbiggrin:

... the moment when Aragorn smiles as he turns to fight about 50 orcs, "that was a D&D moment". :D

A pre-bounded accuracy D&D moment ;) OK, sure. :smallcool: Also, video games and CRPG/ARPGs on the PC/Apple were a thing that the audience was familiar with.

Morale is waaaaay too often overlooked. Yep.

Yes, this was one of the many things that made fighting Undead scary back in the day.

They. Do. Not. Run. Away.

Now, no one runs away, and it's not that big of a deal, because being attacked is not as scary unless at very low levels, due to HP inflation. Yep.

It also nicely neuters the hectopeasant argument/objection. They're unlikely to stay a coherent force long enough. If you look in chain mail, levies and peasants have a much worse moral rating than armored infantry. (Using a 2d6).

It may be because caster magic might force morale checks pretty easily and overwhelm encounters even more quickly. Fear spell, or cause fear spell, fear wand, etc. Or a dragon's fear aura ...

I think D&D missed an opportunity to teach DM's about when to have NPC's/Monsters retreat or surrender when they made the Mines of Phandelver module as a beginners guide to 5th Edition.
Yes.
But in most fantasy video games, do the enemy ever lose a morale check, or do they just keep on coming? They tend to keep on coming, though some will retreat and maneuver depending on the AI for them.

I recall that the Fallen in Diablo will run away when one dies (or was that in Diablo II?) and certain other monsters in one of the Diablo games would flee (I am thinking illusion weavers? Inviso slashers) if they take damage from the front...) Oh, yeah, and the Succubi in Diablo would flee if you got to close, since they wanted to whack you from range.

[tokek]

In my opinion, it is kind of doofy that a party can take out an archdevil but a large enough group of level 1 orcs can still threaten them. Wow, cool edition bro...

In most situations a high level party can fight orcs all day without really being threatened and slowly carve through them until their leaders are killed and their morale breaks. The thing is that in melee the orcs really should never be able to get more than a few into range at a time and their ranged weapon is very limited even in unrealistically ideal circumstances.

XP should be your main balancing mechanism. Lets say the party could take on a pit fiend, so that's 500 orcs instead. Sounds like it would be a threat but only so many can be close enough to shoot effectively and even fewer can be close enough to melee attack. Coordinating 500 troops is not easy, kill a few leaders and the whole bunch start to lose cohesion (make morale checks as per the rules on a leader being killed). I'd say the martial can carve through them enough to kill the leader then cause most of them to break and run and then cut a load of them down while they rout.

Even if you have to charge them across wide open grassy gaps just dodge. The chance of a crit goes to 1/400 and most of them are in each other's way so with half cover its only crits that even hit. Even that is up against the very limited range of a javelin and they can barely hit high level party AC from outside 30'.

Its not a total walkover. The party would have to play moderately smart vs 25k in xp of orcs and work out a plan to win. But I don't really doubt that a high level party could do it and I don't even think they need to use many AOE things if they don't want to. A high level party can focus fire on chosen targets so much better than any army of orcs - and the morale rules then mean that the orcs fall apart. Or you kill half of each orc unit and then the rest of that unit have to check morale - because the chances they have taken down any of the high level characters yet are pretty much zilch.

Honestly? Sounds like an interesting challenge that works quite unlike a normal encounter and would make a party think outside their usual options and approaches.

[Keltest]

I recall that the Fallen in Diablo will run away when one dies (or was that in Diablo II?)

All four of them in fact. Its their iconic thing. 3 and 4 added bigger fallen that rally them and temporarily disable that.

[Theodoxus]

I don't know about anyone else, but my players don't leave anything alive. Too many movies and TV shows where the bad guy(s) get back up and stab you in the back the moment they get a chance (just watched the season finale of a show in Netflix where this exact thing happened, so it's still prevalent).

My players don't tend towards murder-hoboism; they very rarely start a fight - but by god, they will end it, with prejudice. Not even with a 'last witness' survivor. (They don't really care about their reputation, even if it might make intelligent foes rethink attacking in the future.)

If I used morale, they'd just kill those who surrender to avoid potential future attacks, and hunt down any who tried to escape. "Double Tap" tends to end up being the group moniker.

[stoutstien]

All four of them in fact. Its their iconic thing. 3 and 4 added bigger fallen that rally them and temporarily disable that.

I forget what they call those little pygmy things that would run away too. Super annoying to take out if you were a bear druid

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yep. No idea why they did add a simple moral system besides the fact someone would try to cheese it...

Personally, I think instead of a morale "system" (which will tend to be one-size-fits-none), having more discussion of morale in the DMG and specific examples in adventures would be good.

Because not all orcs are the same, nor are all bandits. These orcs may have low morale, those orcs may be fighting for their families and be more or less unbreakable. These bandits may not care about magic, while those bandits may find it incredibly scary.

But it's something you can do in an adventure (because you have the details right there), and you can do much better with discussions around what might trigger morale checks and what might modify them in the DMG.

Personally, for things that suffer morale, I tend to go with either a DC 10 or 15 flat check, triggered when things start to go wrong and then every turn thereafter, including "our charismatic leader just got wasted". With situational stuff being advantage/disadvantage. Failure means they'll try to run if it seems safe or possibly surrender. In any case, their focus is on survival at that point, not killing people. Which doesn't mean they won't attack--if you corner them and don't let them flee, they'll fight, but only until there's a clear path. And if things start to turn the other way, they may recover morale.

[Unoriginal]

I don't know about anyone else, but my players don't leave anything alive. Too many movies and TV shows where the bad guy(s) get back up and stab you in the back the moment they get a chance (just watched the season finale of a show in Netflix where this exact thing happened, so it's still prevalent).

My players don't tend towards murder-hoboism; they very rarely start a fight - but by god, they will end it, with prejudice. Not even with a 'last witness' survivor. (They don't really care about their reputation, even if it might make intelligent foes rethink attacking in the future.)

If I used morale, they'd just kill those who surrender to avoid potential future attacks, and hunt down any who tried to escape. "Double Tap" tends to end up being the group moniker.

I'm... not seeing a problem with that?

Morale breaking doesn't mean the ones fleeing won't get pursued and killed by the ones who are winning.

Of course if the PCs become known for pursuing fleeing enemies and killing those who surrenders, enemies are less likely to have their morale break in a way that helps the PCs. Never push an opponent in a corner without escape route, because then they will fight with everything they have and more.

[Keltest]

I forget what they call those little pygmy things that would run away too. Super annoying to take out if you were a bear druid

Flayers.

Also, not me playing a bear druid right now...

[Warmonger]

I would hate to go back to the days of having a class suck for the first 5-10 levels and then become the most powerful class, or just never get good at combat like the Thief. It's terrible design. Having things be relatively balanced from level 1-20 is way more desirable goal (Even if it falls short) and you don't have to give Fighter's Wish in order to balance things at high level either.

The Wish comment was me being sarcastic.

[stoutstien]

Personally, I think instead of a morale "system" (which will tend to be one-size-fits-none), having more discussion of morale in the DMG and specific examples in adventures would be good.

Because not all orcs are the same, nor are all bandits. These orcs may have low morale, those orcs may be fighting for their families and be more or less unbreakable. These bandits may not care about magic, while those bandits may find it incredibly scary.

But it's something you can do in an adventure (because you have the details right there), and you can do much better with discussions around what might trigger morale checks and what might modify them in the DMG.

Personally, for things that suffer morale, I tend to go with either a DC 10 or 15 flat check, triggered when things start to go wrong and then every turn thereafter, including "our charismatic leader just got wasted". With situational stuff being advantage/disadvantage. Failure means they'll try to run if it seems safe or possibly surrender. In any case, their focus is on survival at that point, not killing people. Which doesn't mean they won't attack--if you corner them and don't let them flee, they'll fight, but only until there's a clear path. And if things start to turn the other way, they may recover morale.

Yea I do mean a system as more of a guidelines type reference point compared to a locked in table or something.

Also auto correct is a bugger.

[Dr.Samurai]

Sorry, typing from phone. Not sure if other posts have been made since I hit “Reply”. But if a warrior cutting down some orcs is sufficient for a morale check, and that would presumably occur over 2 or 3 turns, then a fireball or some other strong AoE should have a similar impact in less time.

I don’t think this is a “magic can do things that martials can’t” but rather if it’s killing enemies that causes morale checks, and magic can do that more quickly, then presumably you’d see more morale checks, no?

[stoutstien]

Sorry, typing from phone. Not sure if other posts have been made since I hit “Reply”. But if a warrior cutting down some orcs is sufficient for a morale check, and that would presumably occur over 2 or 3 turns, then a fireball or some other strong AoE should have a similar impact in less time.

I don’t think this is a “magic can do things that martials can’t” but rather if it’s killing enemies that causes morale checks, and magic can do that more quickly, then presumably you’d see more morale checks, no?

Morale isn't a logic puzzle. Each group/faction/situation/ is different. You can't say spells deal more wider damage so it more impactful on morale because proximity is a factor.

Which is why throughout history artillery fire takes a lot longer to break it compared to an actual charge even if the actual damage dealt is the opposite. Usually the prior is used to soften/ weaken so the later is possible.

Magic in a lot of ways is like artillery fire. It sucks but running away isn't really useful as the threat is "far" where hat fighter carving up your line is "near"

[Unoriginal]

Sorry, typing from phone. Not sure if other posts have been made since I hit “Reply”. But if a warrior cutting down some orcs is sufficient for a morale check, and that would presumably occur over 2 or 3 turns, then a fireball or some other strong AoE should have a similar impact in less time.

I don’t think this is a “magic can do things that martials can’t” but rather if it’s killing enemies that causes morale checks, and magic can do that more quickly, then presumably you’d see more morale checks, no?

No, because it's not just killing enemies that causes morale to break. And even when the killing is the reason for the morale break, it's not just a question of how many got killed.

It's easier/faster to kill five Hobgoblins with an AoE than with sword strikes, sure. But it's easier/faster to kill an Hobgoblin Captain with sword strikes than with an AoE.

For most combatant groups, having the person in charge get killed will impact morale more than fellow grunts getting killed.

Then there are many other factors that get into play. An hulking brute showing off by grabbing a soldier and bloodily tearing said soldier' arms off with nothing their bare hands could very much affect the morale more than 5 soldiers dying in a burst of fire, even if objectively the fire was more deadly, because the tearing-the-arms-off is a much more gruesome display and strikes fear on a much more personal level.


Morale isn't a logic puzzle. Each group/faction/situation/ is different. You can't say spells deal more wider damage so it more impactful on morale because proximity is a factor.

Which is why throughout history artillery fire takes a lot longer to break it compared to an actual charge even if the actual damage dealt is the opposite. Usually the prior is used to soften/ weaken so the later is possible.

Magic in a lot of ways is like artillery fire. It sucks but running away isn't really useful as the threat is "far" where hat fighter carving up your line is "near"

All of this is very true.

[diplomancer]

No, because it's not just killing enemies that causes morale to break. And even when the killing is the reason for the morale break, it's not just a question of how many got killed.

It's easier/faster to kill five Hobgoblins with an AoE than with sword strikes, sure. But it's easier/faster to kill an Hobgoblin Captain with sword strikes than with an AoE.

For most combatant groups, having the person in charge get killed will impact morale more than fellow grunts getting killed.

Then there are many other factors that get into play. An hulking brute showing off by grabbing a soldier and bloodily tearing said soldier' arms off with nothing their bare hands could very much affect the morale more than 5 soldiers dying in a burst of fire, even if objectively the fire was more deadly, because the tearing-the-arms-off is a much more gruesome display and strikes fear on a much more personal level.


Not to mention that in a world where D&D magic is common, people will know that casters can't cast spells all day long. That they cast a spell and killed a bunch of people with it in no way indicates they can do it again. With a Martial mowing down a bunch of foes? You know very well that if he reaches you he can do it to you.

That wouldn't make much difference to untrained monks, but it definitely would to trained warriors.

[Dr.Samurai]

Nothing that you guys are saying seems that relevant to me though.

Proximity... eh, the casters are not that far behind the front-line relatively speaking. If you can get out of range of spells or behind cover/break line of sight, I can see why some would run.

If it's not just about dealing damage... then how are the frontliners causing morale checks?

Yes, everyone knows magic is a thing, but so is violence.

Killing the chieftain? The caster, with better range, will have a better shot of taking the chieftain out.

In the example given, one lone barbarian is wading through orcs and cutting them down two a turn. The point was brought up that this doesn't factor in morale.

How is one barbarian killing two orcs at a time, going to force a morale check, but a wizard killing 15 orcs at a time or polymorphing the chieftain into a toad isn't?

Someone made a comment that I agree with; the game doesn't really explain this concept well for DMs to expect and utilize. I suspect for DMs using a morale system, the casters will expect their magic to force a morale check at least as often, and likely more, than the non-casters. And given how people feel about magic and spells, the DMs will likely oblige them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Nothing that you guys are saying seems that relevant to me though.

Proximity... eh, the casters are not that far behind the front-line relatively speaking. If you can get out of range of spells or behind cover/break line of sight, I can see why some would run.

If it's not just about dealing damage... then how are the frontliners causing morale checks?

Yes, everyone knows magic is a thing, but so is violence.

Killing the chieftain? The caster, with better range, will have a better shot of taking the chieftain out.

In the example given, one lone barbarian is wading through orcs and cutting them down two a turn. The point was brought up that this doesn't factor in morale.

How is one barbarian killing two orcs at a time, going to force a morale check, but a wizard killing 15 orcs at a time or polymorphing the chieftain into a toad isn't?

Someone made a comment that I agree with; the game doesn't really explain this concept well for DMs to expect and utilize. I suspect for DMs using a morale system, the casters will expect their magic to force a morale check at least as often, and likely more, than the non-casters. And given how people feel about magic and spells, the DMs will likely oblige them.

I don't see morale as being part of the caster vs martial solution, really. It's part of the "handling large swarms of things" fantasy.

[Dr.Samurai]

I don't see it as part of the solution either.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't see it as part of the solution either.

I think I should be clear--I'm saying that it's orthogonal to caster vs martial. Just unrelated.

[Dr.Samurai]

Sure. My point wasn't to put them against each other in the context of Morale checks.

But when someone wondered why it wasn't included as part of core... I just think that you'd see a lot of caster players asking the DM if their magical attacks triggered a morale check.

I'm not saying it should, or they'd be right, or whatever. I just think if you have a morale system in place, and casters are dropping mobs left and right with magic, there will likely be expectations that might get frustrating for both the DM, and for the players that think they should have enemies fleeing more often than not.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure. My point wasn't to put them against each other in the context of Morale checks.

But when someone wondered why it wasn't included as part of core... I just think that you'd see a lot of caster players asking the DM if their magical attacks triggered a morale check.

I'm not saying it should, or they'd be right, or whatever. I just think if you have a morale system in place, and casters are dropping mobs left and right with magic, there will likely be expectations that might get frustrating for both the DM, and for the players that think they should have enemies fleeing more often than not.

Yeah. I think that if you had a Morale system, it should be in the DMG not player facing. And I don't feel comfortable with a hard-and-fast "system" for this since it's so darn variable/context sensitive.

And IIRC, there is some (but not enough) discussion in the DMG about morale.

[stoutstien]

Nothing that you guys are saying seems that relevant to me though.

Proximity... eh, the casters are not that far behind the front-line relatively speaking. If you can get out of range of spells or behind cover/break line of sight, I can see why some would run.

If it's not just about dealing damage... then how are the frontliners causing morale checks?

Yes, everyone knows magic is a thing, but so is violence.

Killing the chieftain? The caster, with better range, will have a better shot of taking the chieftain out.

In the example given, one lone barbarian is wading through orcs and cutting them down two a turn. The point was brought up that this doesn't factor in morale.

How is one barbarian killing two orcs at a time, going to force a morale check, but a wizard killing 15 orcs at a time or polymorphing the chieftain into a toad isn't?

Someone made a comment that I agree with; the game doesn't really explain this concept well for DMs to expect and utilize. I suspect for DMs using a morale system, the casters will expect their magic to force a morale check at least as often, and likely more, than the non-casters. And given how people feel about magic and spells, the DMs will likely oblige them.

It depends. That's why you need situational reference points which is probably why it doesn't get discussed in forum form and why it's something that is easily overlooked.

Just like the flip side and how just because two potentially hostile forces meet it doesn't always mean combat. Drawing a sword is it's own failure for most non PC level NPCs(and even some PCs).

[Unoriginal]

Killing the chieftain? The caster, with better range, will have a better shot of taking the chieftain out.

Ah, yes, the caster will automatically, always, no matter what, have a better shot at taking the chieftain out than the lowly martials who are just here to watch the caster be better than them at everything.

I'm frankly disappointed, Dr.Samurai. Not that you have any reason of caring about my opinion, but still.




Maybe I should just leave this forum for good. Would probably be better for everyone.

[Dr.Samurai]

Unoriginal... not sure why you feel you have to leave this forum.

I missed a lot of posts I now realize when I posted from my phone earlier, but did you see where MongoBear mentioned that he murdered like 40 orcs before the chieftains finally got to him? My comment was in imagining the chieftains behind the other orcs, outside of melee range for many rounds, but within caster range.

It's not a general remark that casters are always going to be better suited to a situation than martials. But if the martial is wading through an army, it stands to reason that the caster will likely reach the backline before the martial does.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Unoriginal... not sure why you feel you have to leave this forum.

I missed a lot of posts I now realize when I posted from my phone earlier, but did you see where MongoBear mentioned that he murdered like 40 orcs before the chieftains finally got to him? My comment was in imagining the chieftains behind the other orcs, outside of melee range for many rounds, but within caster range.

It's not a general remark that casters are always going to be better suited to a situation than martials. But if the martial is wading through an army, it stands to reason that the caster will likely reach the backline before the martial does.

Casters don't have better range, most of the time. Better than melee, but much much worse than actual ranged[1]. And frankly, unless you're a Nuclear Wizard or other very specific builds, their single target damage output is fairly poor and highly resource intensive.

I have yet to see casters do better against single targets as casters (not as paladins dumping smites) than a good martial.

[1] the longest ranged spell[2] is 120 ft, and the single-target damage spells tend to be 60 or 90 ft. Ranged with a longbow is 320 ft, and...basically forever with sharpshooter.
[2] ok, there are a couple very special, high level ones with higher ranges. But they're generally aoe.

[tokek]

Killing the chieftain? The caster, with better range, will have a better shot of taking the chieftain out.



Looks at Ranger/Rogue with sharpshooter Longbow who can out-range all the casters in his party put together

Casters are not better snipers than martial characters. Martial characters are generally better at single target focus kills, ranged martial characters do that at range.

[Unoriginal]

Unoriginal... not sure why you feel you have to leave this forum.

Have to? I don't have to. I want to.

As to why? Because I've spent years here trying to present provable things in good faith and I'm tired being told I'm wrong anyway or that it's "not relevant".


My comment was in imagining the chieftains behind the other orcs, outside of melee range for many rounds, but within caster range.

"My comment was me imagining a situation that advantaged the caster at the detriment of melee range martial, regardless of the fact that the situation involved the orc leader fighting the PC in melee and the fact that casters are worse at taking out bosses in most other situations."



It's not a general remark that casters are always going to be better suited to a situation than martials.

It absolutely was a general remark that casters are always going to be better suited at taking out the leader than martials.


Casters don't have better range, most of the time. Better than melee, but much much worse than actual ranged[1]. And frankly, unless you're a Nuclear Wizard or other very specific builds, their single target damage output is fairly poor and highly resource intensive.

I have yet to see casters do better against single targets as casters (not as paladins dumping smites) than a good martial.

[1] the longest ranged spell[2] is 120 ft, and the single-target damage spells tend to be 60 or 90 ft. Ranged with a longbow is 320 ft, and...basically forever with sharpshooter.
[2] ok, there are a couple very special, high level ones with higher ranges. But they're generally aoe.


Looks at Ranger/Rogue with sharpshooter Longbow who can out-range all the casters in his party put together

Casters are not better snipers than martial characters. Martial characters are generally better at single target focus kills, ranged martial characters do that at range.

Ah, but you forgot that facts don't matter unless they make the caster win.

[Dr.Samurai]

Folks... people... my peeps... everyone just take a breath for a second lol.

Sharpshooters are not going to take down mobs of orcs unless they are a Hunter Ranger using Volley.

If we think about a melee warrior mowing down orcs and start talking about morale checks and chieftains... the chieftains in the example given that spawned this discussion were on the backline. The barbarian was not going to reach those chieftains for several rounds. A caster that can cast a spell that reaches the backline can take out the chieftain.

If we're saying that can cause a morale check, then casters can do it too, and they can do it sooner.

And it doesn't have to be in 1 turn. The martial needs several turns to take down enough enemies anyways. A polymorph, or banishment, or whatever else can do the trick. Or one AoE followed by a single target damage spell. I've no idea.

There's no reason to push back on this so much. If you're saying a level 9 (or perhaps 11 as Mongo said) caster can't take someone out on the backline, I don't really know what to say. And if a martial doing that can cause a morale check, I don't know why a caster doing it wouldn't.

[Dr.Samurai]

Have to? I don't have to. I want to.

As to why? Because I've spent years here trying to present provable things in good faith and I'm tired being told I'm wrong anyway or that it's "not relevant".
I think you're taking things to harshly.

I think in order to contest my comment, someone would have to demonstrate that casters can't have the same or more impact on a battle as a martial. And I don't see that claim being proven. It's not saying that casters are better than martials, I should hope by now people would know where I stand on that.

But casters lay down lots of damage, or debilitating effects, or both, and can do so from further away, etc. The idea that it takes a guy with a sword to cut orcs down 2 at a time for them to break and run doesn't make sense to me.

"My comment was me imagining a situation that advantaged the caster at the detriment of melee range martial, regardless of the fact that the situation involved the orc leader fighting the PC in melee and the fact that casters are worse at taking out bosses in most other situations."

It absolutely was a general remark that casters are always going to be better suited at taking out the leader than martials.
This is absurd Unoriginal. Believe what you want lol, there's no need to try and reason with someone that's going to take this stance.

[Unoriginal]

Yeah, right.

Honestly, I give up.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Range is going to go to the Archer, but there are some casting options that hit at long range and would be good for single targets.

Fighter takes the lead with up to 4 attacks at essentially wherever range with up to a +8 for 1d8+15. Then the possibility of Action Surge. An Archer who wanted to take out an enemy commander could possibly drop 8d8+120 damage, which, yeah. That takes the cake. Either 64-124 or 248-368

Ranger is next with Swift Quiver and would be in the same position. But only with the spell, otherwise we're looking at 2 attacks and either way no Action Surge, so 2d8+30-4d8+60. Either 32-46 or 64-124. (Bard can do the same with magical secrets)

After that we have a Rogue, best case scenario if they really want single target damage we're looking at +8 for 1d8+10d6+15. So 26-83

Warlock is probably next with 4 attacks at +11 for 4d10+20. 24-60

It's kind of telling that the only caster that reliably snipes or hits at range is the one most often compared to a magical archer vs an actual caster. And they're only able to match the worst of the three ranged options.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Folks... people... my peeps... everyone just take a breath for a second lol.

Sharpshooters are not going to take down mobs of orcs unless they are a Hunter Ranger using Volley.

If we think about a melee warrior mowing down orcs and start talking about morale checks and chieftains... the chieftains in the example given that spawned this discussion were on the backline. The barbarian was not going to reach those chieftains for several rounds. A caster that can cast a spell that reaches the backline can take out the chieftain.

If we're saying that can cause a morale check, then casters can do it too, and they can do it sooner.

And it doesn't have to be in 1 turn. The martial needs several turns to take down enough enemies anyways. A polymorph, or banishment, or whatever else can do the trick. Or one AoE followed by a single target damage spell. I've no idea.

There's no reason to push back on this so much. If you're saying a level 9 (or perhaps 11 as Mongo said) caster can't take someone out on the backline, I don't really know what to say. And if a martial doing that can cause a morale check, I don't know why a caster doing it wouldn't.

There are many possible triggers. Some favor some sides. Others don't really care.

Trigger 1: More than X% attrition. For weak mobs, AoE definitely is better here.
Trigger 2: Leader dies. In some cases, ranged martial or ranged casters are better than melee martials. In other cases, not so much (leading from the rear vs reading from the back).
Trigger 3: Supposed allies turn on you. Mu.
Trigger 4: A big strong enemy appears and takes down the boss in single combat[1]. Generic casters will generally do worse, since that's cheating.
Trigger 5: A big scary spell is cast. Casters gonna do way better.
Etc.

There are cases where casters will often, but not always do better. There are cases where martials will do much better. Etc.

But oddly, only the ones where casters are superior ever get brought up as valid.

[1] Orcs, in particular, don't respect casters. They respect strength. And various other fictional circumstances favor the "duel" style vs just raw damage output.

[Dr.Samurai]

There are many possible triggers. Some favor some sides. Others don't really care.

Trigger 1: More than X% attrition. For weak mobs, AoE definitely is better here.
Trigger 2: Leader dies. In some cases, ranged martial or ranged casters are better than melee martials. In other cases, not so much (leading from the rear vs reading from the back).
Trigger 3: Supposed allies turn on you. Mu.
Trigger 4: A big strong enemy appears and takes down the boss in single combat[1]. Generic casters will generally do worse, since that's cheating.
Trigger 5: A big scary spell is cast. Casters gonna do way better.
Etc.

There are cases where casters will often, but not always do better. There are cases where martials will do much better. Etc.

But oddly, only the ones where casters are superior ever get brought up as valid.

[1] Orcs, in particular, don't respect casters. They respect strength. And various other fictional circumstances favor the "duel" style vs just raw damage output.
I don't often see morale checks brought up, so I can't speed to which ones are thought of as valid. I was never making the claim here that a warrior mowing down enemies shouldn't trigger a morale check. I think that and Cleave would be awesome!

I generally agree with your comments here as well, on the triggers.

But... I feel like we've all engaged in various threads and we see how casters are handled at various tables. I had no idea that my comment would trigger such a reaction.

[tokek]

Folks... people... my peeps... everyone just take a breath for a second lol.

Sharpshooters are not going to take down mobs of orcs unless they are a Hunter Ranger using Volley.



I was replying on taking out an orc chieftain. That is exactly what a sniper Ranger/Rogue build does. I would argue that a Samurai, Battle Master or Kensei monk build does it just as well as might a well built rogue.

A ranged martial can take out a key enemy. Its what they do. They do it better than casters - single target focus damage is what they are good at.

I'm also leaving this discussion of dumb fictional caster supremacy that does not reflect any experience I have of the game. Enjoy having the last word on everything.

[Dr.Samurai]

I was replying on taking out an orc chieftain. That is exactly what a sniper Ranger/Rogue build does. I would argue that a Samurai, Battle Master or Kensei monk build does it just as well as might a well built rogue.

A ranged martial can take out a key enemy. Its what they do. They do it better than casters - single target focus damage is what they are good at.
I agree with all of this.

I'm also leaving this discussion of dumb fictional caster supremacy that does not reflect any experience I have of the game. Enjoy having the last word on everything.
I know that I'm alone here, and so I should have a sense of reflection because I'm getting multiple charged responses to what I'm saying.

But I'm not saying anything to warrant these types of reactions.

If Morale were a core system, I suspect that we would get threads titled something like "Help, wizard keeps breaking enemy morale" and "How do I stop caster from getting monsters to flee". And the threads would describe how the caster took out 4 mooks at one time and the DM rolled for morale and the enemies broke and ran. And we'd get various incarnations of this over and over again, and every now and then we'd get some about a PAM/GWM barbarian, or a sharpshooter ranger taking out high priority targets and breaking morale.

And all you fine people would have to explain to DMs all the reasons that this wouldn't necessarily break morale.

That was my point. It was a throw away thought that "if the system was core, given the impact of casters, you'd have a lot of DMs dealing with morale issues". There's no need to take anything personally, get heated, or flex on me about martials. I play martials exclusively lol.

Sorry for the conversation.

[Segev]

Morale these days seems to be a DM determination. It is like any other RP decision: when does the NPC decide that discretion is the better part of valor and retreat to try to save its life?

[diplomancer]

Morale these days seems to be a DM determination. It is like any other RP decision: when does the NPC decide that discretion is the better part of valor and retreat to try to save its life?

Which I think is what it should be... but the game could definitely talk more about the subject with DMs. Perhaps doing something like Alignment. All Alignment is now actually "suggested" Alignment. You can give a "suggested" Morale index to a monster, and make it clear that DMs are free to change it as they want (so that even an obnoxious metagaming player can't come out and say "MM says that Morale index of this monster is 3, it should be running away now"). And this index, like alignment, is not tied to any particular mechanic; even if a description is given somewhere, it's just an indication of the general tenor of an NPC.

[Theodoxus]

Which I think is what it should be... but the game could definitely talk more about the subject with DMs. Perhaps doing something like Alignment. All Alignment is now actually "suggested" Alignment. You can give a "suggested" Morale index to a monster, and make it clear that DMs are free to change it as they want (so that even an obnoxious metagaming player can't come out and say "MM says that Morale index of this monster is 3, it should be running away now"). And this index, like alignment, is not tied to any particular mechanic; even if a description is given somewhere, it's just an indication of the general tenor of an NPC.

That's fair, and probably the most anyone would reasonably expect - this isn't Warhammer 40K.

Plus then, I can ignore it like I do the insanity rules. :smallwink:

[stoutstien]

I agree with all of this.

I know that I'm alone here, and so I should have a sense of reflection because I'm getting multiple charged responses to what I'm saying.

But I'm not saying anything to warrant these types of reactions.

If Morale were a core system, I suspect that we would get threads titled something like "Help, wizard keeps breaking enemy morale" and "How do I stop caster from getting monsters to flee". And the threads would describe how the caster took out 4 mooks at one time and the DM rolled for morale and the enemies broke and ran. And we'd get various incarnations of this over and over again, and every now and then we'd get some about a PAM/GWM barbarian, or a sharpshooter ranger taking out high priority targets and breaking morale.

And all you fine people would have to explain to DMs all the reasons that this wouldn't necessarily break morale.

That was my point. It was a throw away thought that "if the system was core, given the impact of casters, you'd have a lot of DMs dealing with morale issues". There's no need to take anything personally, get heated, or flex on me about martials. I play martials exclusively lol.

Sorry for the conversation.

Generally Martials *do* get an edge when it comes to this less tangible stuff if nothing but because in a reality where wizards are real the guy with a sword has some 'energy' that puts off some serious bad vibes. A wizard tossing a fireball is dangerous where a guy willing to chop his way through enemies to get you for no reason past you had the audacity to not agree with him is insane.

[WaroftheCrans]

::cough:: I'm going to be "That Guy," here: to those who hate bounded accuracy, what do you like about 5e over 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e? It seems to me that those systems do what it is you're upset at 5e for not doing. That doesn't mean there's no reason to use 5e instead of them, but I am not sure what it is that makes 5e worth modding rather than just using systems that are still D&D but honor the conceits you're looking for.

I know the thread has since moved on, but I don't absolutely hate bounded accuracy, i find myself agreeing with the other commenter who wishes bounded accuracy was divided by tier, with higher teirs essentially escaping bounded accuracy.

That being said, for the sake of this, I'll just say I do absolutely hate bounded accuracy. The reasons I would be sticking with 5e over 3.5 or pathfinder are as follows:

Actions in combat: They're a lot more straightforward and even make more sense at times. I don't have to tell others, no, you can only take a 5 foot step now, or you cant attack since you moved 10 feet. I don't have to explain how the can't use a quickened spell and an opportunity attack this turn or a myriad of other action interactions. Every single turn, there's up to 4 things they can do, and none of them are mutually exclusive. You can walk, action, bonus action, and reaction.

Accessibility: D&D 5e has a surge of popularity, people are willing to learn it, people can learn it easily and then they stick with it. Even getting people to learn and play 2e pathfinder is hard ime. 3.5 has its whole ivory tower design, where its very easy to be suboptimal, which gets to my second point.

Optimization: I personally love optimization, but I've quit doing it at my tables largely, because when I'm a player if I optimize for damage for instance, the enemies then have to scale to my damage, and if i'm taken out, combat can become impossible. In 3.5 and pathfinder, optimization is a huge part of it, and the differences in optimization are huge. If one player is less competent at optimizing they might be actively a detriment to the party, and with the millions of sources for 3e, its very hard to know exactly what is optimal and what isn't. There are more active trap options for 3e than there are for 5e. Even 5e's so called trap options tend to be ok.

Some of these advantages of 5e are related to bounded accuracy, but I believe you could achieve a similar result by bounding things other than accuracy. In other words making sure all player options fall into a certain bounds of effectiveness has been a side effect of bounded accuracy for 5e, but it can be achieved just by good balance.

(Also, I do enjoy 3.5 still, but sadly the group that I play 3.5 with rarely meets anymore, we all live very far apart, and play maybe a one shot every year or so.)

[diplomancer]

That's fair, and probably the most anyone would reasonably expect - this isn't Warhammer 40K.

Plus then, I can ignore it like I do the insanity rules. :smallwink:

Yeah, it also gives DMs the freedoms to ignore it completely if they want to.

[Dr.Samurai]

Generally Martials *do* get an edge when it comes to this less tangible stuff if nothing but because in a reality where wizards are real the guy with a sword has some 'energy' that puts off some serious bad vibes. A wizard tossing a fireball is dangerous where a guy willing to chop his way through enemies to get you for no reason past you had the audacity to not agree with him is insane.
Agreed, especially if there's proximity. Because an enemy might see a caster killing his comrades and think "If I can just reach him I can take him out", whereas a warrior wading through other enemy combatants is very clearly a physical threat.

I think my current DM has handled it very well in our game. Most of my games have enemies fight to the death, which is always a bit odd.

But in this game, the enemies do react to immediate and brutal violence in more expected ways. If we take out several and/or severely injure others, the enemy may retreat, depending on circumstances.

My hulking armored knight led the way through a troglodyte warren and none of them dared even approach us, just backing away into the darkness or pressed against the cavern walls to avoid us after they saw us kill these marauding giant lizards.

I think it'd be difficult to give any sort of specific guidance for DMs. But a section just mentioning how enemies react or could react generally might be helpful. It may already be in the DMG.

[stoutstien]

Agreed, especially if there's proximity. Because an enemy might see a caster killing his comrades and think "If I can just reach him I can take him out", whereas a warrior wading through other enemy combatants is very clearly a physical threat.

I think my current DM has handled it very well in our game. Most of my games have enemies fight to the death, which is always a bit odd.

But in this game, the enemies do react to immediate and brutal violence in more expected ways. If we take out several and/or severely injure others, the enemy may retreat, depending on circumstances.

My hulking armored knight led the way through a troglodyte warren and none of them dared even approach us, just backing away into the darkness or pressed against the cavern walls to avoid us after they saw us kill these marauding giant lizards.

I think it'd be difficult to give any sort of specific guidance for DMs. But a section just mentioning how enemies react or could react generally might be helpful. It may already be in the DMG.

Aye. One of the reasons the 2E DMG is so good is it takes the time to break stuff like this down. 5e is a system that has massive potential for engaging play but it's turned into players chasing damage because "dead is better" and casters circumventing troupe based limitations because they have to stay in front.
I haven't given up on it by any means but I am enjoying funneling players to things like WWN with the simple promise that you can do your cool thing and not worry about the details.

[Lord Torath]

Edit: a side problem I have with 5e is that nothing interesting has happened in any of their main published settings. I'm going to exclude Eberron because that's keith baker, and Exandria because the world is being shaped by actively played campaigns.
In my opinion, the most interesting thing in Forgotten Realms recently is either death curse/soulmonger or Descent into avernus. They lack the same importance and major players as other editions: Give us a cataclysm, or a sundering, kill a Greater Deity, hell, kill mystra again.
I'm starting to feel 5e is just too static for my tastes anymore.See, and I, personally, want a static setting. I want the PCs to be the movers and shakers of the setting, not the "uber cool, angsty NPCs". Which is not to say that the plot lines should all wait for the PCs to finish their current adventure before advancing. It's fine to have Big Bads with plots that stay in motion. But if you've got some Big Bads in your setting, let the PCs take them down. Don't have NPCs or the Good Gods, or anyone else stop the threat. Let the PCs do it. I'm looking at you, Expanded and Revised Dark Sun (and Prism Pentad)!



Which I think is what it should be... but the game could definitely talk more about the subject with DMs. Perhaps doing something like Alignment. All Alignment is now actually "suggested" Alignment. You can give a "suggested" Morale index to a monster, and make it clear that DMs are free to change it as they want (so that even an obnoxious metagaming player can't come out and say "MM says that Morale index of this monster is 3, it should be running away now"). And this index, like alignment, is not tied to any particular mechanic; even if a description is given somewhere, it's just an indication of the general tenor of an NPC.

That's fair, and probably the most anyone would reasonably expect - this isn't Warhammer 40K.See, I would have suggested Battlesystem instead of 40k.


Aye. One of the reasons the 2E DMG is so good is it takes the time to break stuff like this down. 5e is a system that has massive potential for engaging play but it's turned into players chasing damage because "dead is better" and casters circumventing troupe based limitations because they have to stay in front.
I haven't given up on it by any means but I am enjoying funneling players to things like WWN with the simple promise that you can do your cool thing and not worry about the details.I really do like how 2E gives all sorts of things that can force morale checks, but you can also have bonuses/penalties to morale based on the state of mind of the monsters. Are they defending their home? Have they been promised resurrection and/or wealth to their families if they stand firm? You don't need to have things spelled out as specific modifiers in a checklist the DM needs to go down, but having some guidance on when 'monsters' typically turn and run is helpful.

[Joe the Rat]

I suppose we could just leave it to third party bloggers to address issues of morale and tactics...
[eyes bookshelf]

Going waaaay back to Leadership (or Name Level adventuring for us of a certain vintage), I still feel like swarm rules are a foundation to generate functional squad "creatures". My last iteration for combat units made two attacks, an automatic hit based on what 4 could hit, and an additional double-damage attack. Once you got halfway to Break in damage, you switch to two regular-strength attacks. Break damage is what it takes to disperse the squad - a percentage of total hp, depending on what sort of morale (hey!) the unit has.

[Mongobear]

Just... There are a LOT of people taking my little anecdote way out of context, and making assumptions on how the fight happened that just aren't how it happened in reality.

Yes, a Mage could have dropped some AoE, or a "sniper" could have picked off the cheiftain before he ever got to my Barbarian, but it didn't play out that way. They rest of the party at large was more focused on the 200+ other Orcs as well as the entrenched Drow while I broke off on my little Genocidal Orc Rage vendetta. 3 of my party mates tossed out a few buffs, but their focus otherwise was entirely on the much larger threat of the main force of both sides.

I also was using terrain to my advantage to funnel them into tight spaces, and was cleaving them down in pairs every swing. With little to no recourse for my own safety. I was single-mindedly focused on making Orcs dead, that was it. In the assumptions previously in the thread, the guy at range likely wouldnt have been able to see most of the Orcs because of said terrain, blocking line of sight, while I was right into the thick of things, face to face with them. For a caster to even to have attempted to do what I did, they wouldve had to be similarly close by to the Orcs, and likely would have gotten overrun quite handedly.

[WaroftheCrans]

See, and I, personally, want a static setting. I want the PCs to be the movers and shakers of the setting, not the "uber cool, angsty NPCs". Which is not to say that the plot lines should all wait for the PCs to finish their current adventure before advancing. It's fine to have Big Bads with plots that stay in motion. But if you've got some Big Bads in your setting, let the PCs take them down. Don't have NPCs or the Good Gods, or anyone else stop the threat. Let the PCs do it. I'm looking at you, Expanded and Revised Dark Sun (and Prism Pentad)!

The implementation that I would like to see is them writing adventures that actually have impact. Defeat larloch, kill vecna, whatever you want. Anyone can play the adventure module, and be the mover and shaker in that world, and in the official setting write up you can just call it "a group of adventurers" like they did for ToA, or just say that the setting npcs finished it for the official purpose. In your iteration, you know the group of adventurers included a gnome barbarian named dave, his edgy wizard friend, a rogue wanted for theft in every locale, or whoever else the pcs run. With the static settings, no one is a mover or shaker. Its static.

For those purposes, replace every mention of elminster with "a group of adventurers" and it's an easy fix.

[Lord Torath]

The implementation that I would like to see is them writing adventures that actually have impact. Defeat larloch, kill vecna, whatever you want. Anyone can play the adventure module, and be the mover and shaker in that world, and in the official setting write up you can just call it "a group of adventurers" like they did for ToA, or just say that the setting npcs finished it for the official purpose. In your iteration, you know the group of adventurers included a gnome barbarian named dave, his edgy wizard friend, a rogue wanted for theft in every locale, or whoever else the pcs run. With the static settings, no one is a mover or shaker. Its static.

For those purposes, replace every mention of elminster with "a group of adventurers" and it's an easy fix.Ah! Gotcha. Yes, I completely agree with you there.

[Montesquieu P.]

Before there were Thieves (Monks, Paladins, Rangers, Bards, Psychics, & boatloads more....);

Before the weapons were class differentiated, differentially bonused (and without Maneuvers....);

Before there were any but the basic spells (or spell points, slot-mechanics, almost all magical items)....

...at first level, everybody was a 'just starting out towards (not in) a specialty'. A civilian with the barest modicum of familiarity with his/her/its class basics.

What you hoped to be, depended as much on the luck of your dice for the first few levels, as your intentions; you could start as any class irrespective of the numbers. But if you died (and mostly, PCs did for all but the 'Monty Hall' games) because your numbers were poor for your choices -- you died. And you rolled a new character. Fighters could have 4 HP at 4th Level -- with incredibly bad luck, yes, and stupidity for not retiring and finally taking one better-than-average hit. Wizards could smack down mid-level baddies if the target missed its save and the wizard got creative with the coup-de-grace.

...but parties of adventurers who played to their respective characters' strengths, and to protect/avoid their fellow adventurers' weaknesses, did better than the glory hounds, soloists, egotists, and just plain unthinking players.

And we learned. Including, about the weaknesses of this new game system. Guess what? The creators did, too -- and it changed. Back and forth between the poles of 'fun', 'realism', 'stupidity-tested', and 'playable by most'.

We competed. (Still got my trophy for tactical canniness from Dundragon III!) We made our own "better" games and settings. Some went pro; some founded other, competing systems (Hi, Steve P.!, Nicolai S.!); many dropped out. And the entire concept of RPGs, and of D&D and all its variants, spread from Wisconsin and Minnesota and Illinois across the US and the world.

Because we found it worth doing, sharing, and growing. Congratulations, all of us. (Even Shiggy the Ever-Dying, with the 'magic slate' tombstone.)