Am I missing something?

**Magesmiley** · 2014-07-21, 10:26 AM (ISO 8601)

Ok... I haven't been following the 5e development in too great detail, but went and bought the basic set and looked through it over the weekend.

I have to say that I'm not terribly impressed with the balance between the classes. Particularly with what was done to the wizard, compared to the fighter. I'd actually say why bother playing a fighter at all. This seems even worse than 3rd edition, as even a 1st-level wizard seems to be better choice.

Cantrips that let the wizard do 1d8 ranged attack damage at will for free.
Fireball for 8d6 at 5th level
Armor for wizards by just choosing a particular race.

Maybe I'm missing something. I sure hope that I'm missing something. If I'm not, this is going to go back on my shelf and I'll probably end up sticking with 3rd or moving to Pathfinder.

**Sartharina** · 2014-07-21, 10:49 AM (ISO 8601)

Wizards have fewer spell slots than they used to. At low levels, spells are easier to resist than attacks. Also, 1d20+5 for 1d8 at 60' or so is inferior to 1d20+7 for 1d8+3 at over 300 ft (Bow). It's certainly less than 1d8+5, 2d6(Reroll 1s+2s)+3, or (1d6+3)x2. Also, 1d6 HP is worse than 1d10, and while proficient with armor if you're a dwarf (Sacrificing INT), Fighters get even better armor.

Fighters get not-insignificant healing and double actions every short rest, and more feats/ability score increases. They're pretty front-loaded, but those abilities scale, and other class features augment their core effectiveness.

Wizards get much fewer spells per day than they used to.

**obryn** · 2014-07-21, 10:55 AM (ISO 8601)

It looks like spellcaster supremacy is back, but not to nearly the same degree as it is in 3.x/PF. You'll be going from the frying pan to the fire if you jump that way!

**charcoalninja** · 2014-07-21, 11:00 AM (ISO 8601)

Seriously, you say caster/fighter power discrepency bothers you... so you'll play the system where it's the worst it has ever been?

Don't follow.

**Person_Man** · 2014-07-21, 11:05 AM (ISO 8601)

You are correct.

5E is basically a mix of 2E AD&D, updated "Old School" D&D clones (OSD&D), 3.0, 3.5, and third party 3.5 clones (mainly Pathfinder, but also FATE, Iron Kingdoms, etc) with a few minor additions.

The reasoning was simple:

There's not going to be a true OGL/SRD, because their corporate Hasbro overseers won't allow it, because they never fully committed to an Open Source business model with 3.0/3.5, and instead just created competitors.
The customer base of people who currently play non-4E versions of previous editions of D&D is pretty large.
The customer base of people who play 4E is comparatively smaller.
If they make a truly new edition that was a distinct evolution forward without an OGL/SRD, they'd just further fracture their customer base into even smaller groups.
Therefore, they should make a game which clones the "best parts" of AD&D, OSD&D, 3.5, and Pathfinder, and hope that this will somehow win those customers over.

It'll be very interesting to see whether or not they consider it a success. It will make millions of dollars, because any new edition of D&D is going to sell a lot of core books. But who knows whether or not it will have any staying power, or if they'll just continue to churn out a new edition or half edition every 3ish years, as they've done since 3.0 was released.

**Madfellow** · 2014-07-21, 11:48 AM (ISO 8601)

Let's compare the 5e fighter and wizard to the 3e fighter and wizard, shall we?

The 5e fighter gets EXCLUSIVE access to multiple attacks per round, up to 8 of them at higher levels. With a greatsword, a fighter can deal 16d6 + Str*8 damage in a single turn, and can do this twice before needing to rest for one hour. He also gets to reroll any 1s or 2s on his damage rolls, and his crit range is 18-20, and while he's attacking he can move freely around the battlefield. He can throw all his attacks at different targets, or all on the same target, his choice. And all of those attacks are made with his maximum attack bonus; no diminishing returns like you get in 3e. The 5e fighter also gets free self-healing and the ability to reroll saving throws.

A 3e wizard at level 20 has 40 spell slots just from being a wizard, plus additional spell slots at each level equal to his Int modifier, which is usually 4. When you add scrolls, wands, and staffs, it's a trivial manner for a 3e wizard to have in excess of 100 spell slots by level 20.

A 5e wizard at level 20 has 20 spell slots, period. No intelligence bonus, no scrolls or wands, just 20 spell slots. And a majority of those are for low-level spells. A level 20 wizard has two 7th-level slots, one 8th, and one 9th. Yes, these spell slots are powerful, but they are also a very limited resource. And no spell of any level is an instant-win button anymore.

Yes, wizards can still do cool things that nobody else can do, but now SO CAN THE FIGHTERS. The difference between fighters and wizards, as it has always been, is that fighters are cool all the time, while wizards are Awesome only some of the time. The difference now is that fighters are much cooler than before, while wizards are far less Awesome. The gap has closed considerably.

WotC playtested these classes meticulously over the course of two years, constantly tweaking and re-tweaking their numbers and abilities to get to where they are today. They were designed to be fun, and to be fun in different ways. They both contribute significantly to the party, but they do so in a unique manner.

**Sartharina** · 2014-07-21, 11:54 AM (ISO 8601)

From an intraclass/weapon balance perspective, I'm really hoping the "Reroll 1s and 2s" applies only to the dice total of a given attack, not the individual die rolls. Greatswords give more reliable damage, but Greataxes would have a higher chance of dealing max damage. Right now, Greataxes are worthless compared to Greatswords because Greatswords reroll damage on a 2-3(Instead of 1-2), with a chance of rerolling on a 4-7.

Unfortunately, Fighters DON'T get advantage on all saving throws - they can reroll a single failed saving throw 1-3 times per day.

**Madfellow** · 2014-07-21, 11:59 AM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Sartharina

Unfortunately, Fighters DON'T get advantage on all saving throws - they can reroll a single failed saving throw 1-3 times per day.

My bad. Still very useful, though.

**Merlin the Tuna** · 2014-07-21, 12:10 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Person_Man

5E is basically a mix of 2E AD&D, updated "Old School" D&D clones (OSD&D), 3.0, 3.5, and third party 3.5 clones (mainly Pathfinder, but also FATE, Iron Kingdoms, etc) with a few minor additions.

Curious what you mean here. The only similarity to Fate I see (and admittedly I've got only a basic understanding of it by way of the Dresden Files RPG) is Inspiration. Which is unfortunately presented as optional, and even more unfortunately looks like a bolted-on afterthought rather than a well-considered mechanic. I'm glad to see it, but wish a little more had been done with it.

But even in a broader sense, I'm not sure how you figure Fate is a 3.5E clone. That just a typo?

Originally Posted by Madfellow

Yes, wizards can still do cool things that nobody else can do, but now SO CAN THE FIGHTERS. The difference between fighters and wizards, as it has always been, is that fighters are cool all the time, while wizards are Awesome only some of the time. The difference now is that fighters are much cooler than before, while wizards are far less Awesome. The gap has closed considerably.

Fighters don't do cool things that nobody else can do. Fighters do boring things that everyone else does, they just do them particularly well.

Incremental progress was made from the spellcaster extravaganza of 3E -- cutting down on spell slots & moving some spells (like Teleport) up to higher levels. But it doesn't fix the fundamental problem that Fighters sit inside of an incredibly rules-heavy yet strategically-simple combat engine and flex large individual numbers, whereas spellcasters have the ability to Actually Do Stuff. It's tantamount to the people who read a few CharOp posts that said Wizards Rule and Fighters Drool and decided to "fix" the problem by giving the Fighter 5000 more damage. The math was not the problem. The problem is that they presented 3 pillars of gameplay - Combat, Exploration, and Social Interaction - and gave the Wizard ways to be a baller in all 3, but left the Fighter useless at 2 and boring-but-effective in the last. 5E's Wizard balls less hard than 3E's, but the nature of the issue has not changed.

**obryn** · 2014-07-21, 12:19 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Merlin the Tuna

Incremental progress was made from the spellcaster extravaganza of 3E -- cutting down on spell slots & moving some spells (like Teleport) up to higher levels. But it doesn't fix the fundamental problem that Fighters sit inside of an incredibly rules-heavy yet strategically-simple combat engine and flex large individual numbers, whereas spellcasters have the ability to Actually Do Stuff. It's tantamount to the people who read a few CharOp posts that said Wizards Rule and Fighters Drool and decided to "fix" the problem by giving the Fighter 5000 more damage. The math was not the problem. The problem is that they presented 3 pillars of gameplay - Combat, Exploration, and Social Interaction - and gave the Wizard ways to be a baller in all 3, but left the Fighter useless at 2 and boring-but-effective in the last. 5E's Wizard balls less hard than 3E's, but the nature of the issue has not changed.

Thank you for putting it better than I was going to, which was mostly just Q*bert-esque strings of punctuation.

What's frustrating to me is to see "incremental progress from 3E" as something laudable when there's an entire edition that made a whole lot more progress on this front. (Oh, and let's not forget the Book of Nine Swords for 3e itself.)

**Madfellow** · 2014-07-21, 01:23 PM (ISO 8601)

The problem that WotC faces is that their fandom is split almost down the middle on this issue. A lot of players want fighters to have cool things, but more players want them to be simple so that noobs can learn the game and wizards can still be the flashy guys. Every time WotC has tried to give fighters nice things (the Tome of Battle in 3e and Everything in 4e), they have received considerable backlash from a large and vocal fanbase.

It's like Tony Stark's line from The Avengers. "You don't understand; there is no throne! There is no scenario in which you come out on top!" WotC is stuck in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. If they give fighters nice things, wizards fans raise their voices. If they don't, fighter fans raise theirs. What they've tried to do here is to split the difference and give them just a few nice things, and now EVERYBODY is raising their voices.

People need to face facts, and the fact here is this: most people do not want the same thing you want. It doesn't matter who you are, you are an individual with unique tastes and desires. One company is trying to please a large fanbase coming from myriad different backgrounds. Everyone wants something different out of this game. If you are not receiving 100% of what you want out of this one game, guess what: neither is anybody else. Deal with it.

**Fwiffo86** · 2014-07-21, 01:40 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Madfellow

The problem that WotC faces is that their fandom is split almost down the middle on this issue. A lot of players want fighters to have cool things, but more players want them to be simple so that noobs can learn the game and wizards can still be the flashy guys. Every time WotC has tried to give fighters nice things (the Tome of Battle in 3e and Everything in 4e), they have received considerable backlash from a large and vocal fanbase.

It's like Tony Stark's line from The Avengers. "You don't understand; there is no throne! There is no scenario in which you come out on top!" WotC is stuck in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. If they give fighters nice things, wizards fans raise their voices. If they don't, fighter fans raise theirs. What they've tried to do here is to split the difference and give them just a few nice things, and now EVERYBODY is raising their voices.

People need to face facts, and the fact here is this: most people do not want the same thing you want. It doesn't matter who you are, you are an individual with unique tastes and desires. One company is trying to please a large fanbase coming from myriad different backgrounds. Everyone wants something different out of this game. If you are not receiving 100% of what you want out of this one game, guess what: neither is anybody else. Deal with it.

How's the saying go?

A compromise is a situation in which all parties are unhappy?

**Person_Man** · 2014-07-21, 01:41 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Merlin the Tuna

Curious what you mean here. The only similarity to Fate I see (and admittedly I've got only a basic understanding of it by way of the Dresden Files RPG) is Inspiration. Which is unfortunately presented as optional, and even more unfortunately looks like a bolted-on afterthought rather than a well-considered mechanic. I'm glad to see it, but wish a little more had been done with it.

But even in a broader sense, I'm not sure how you figure Fate is a 3.5E clone. That just a typo?

Clone was a very poor way for me to put it.

The few times I've played FATE or Fudge (which FATE is based off of) has been at conventions. The GMs were either running the Dresdon Files, or running what felt like a very typical D&D game but with simplified math in the theater of the mind. So the 5E default focus on the theater of the mind and simplified math feels like playing FATE or Fudge to me, but without the FATE Points, which are sorta kinda added in through Inspiration Points. Also, FATE and FUDGE are both in the OGL now, so I know DMs who borrow elements from them for their 3.5-sih homebrew games.

It wasn't a great comparison on my part. The larger message I was trying (and obviously failed) to communicate was "the designers took a bunch of elements from previously popular D&D-ish RPGs instead of developing a new RPG."

**Dienekes** · 2014-07-21, 01:44 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Madfellow

The problem that WotC faces is that their fandom is split almost down the middle on this issue. A lot of players want fighters to have cool things, but more players want them to be simple so that noobs can learn the game and wizards can still be the flashy guys. Every time WotC has tried to give fighters nice things (the Tome of Battle in 3e and Everything in 4e), they have received considerable backlash from a large and vocal fanbase.

It's like Tony Stark's line from The Avengers. "You don't understand; there is no throne! There is no scenario in which you come out on top!" WotC is stuck in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. If they give fighters nice things, wizards fans raise their voices. If they don't, fighter fans raise theirs. What they've tried to do here is to split the difference and give them just a few nice things, and now EVERYBODY is raising their voices.

People need to face facts, and the fact here is this: most people do not want the same thing you want. It doesn't matter who you are, you are an individual with unique tastes and desires. One company is trying to please a large fanbase coming from myriad different backgrounds. Everyone wants something different out of this game. If you are not receiving 100% of what you want out of this one game, guess what: neither is anybody else. Deal with it.

Unfortunately, when you're trying to get customers, the tagline "No one is getting what they want. Deal with it." is unlikely to make a particularly strong incentive to buy their product.

**Tholomyes** · 2014-07-21, 02:30 PM (ISO 8601)

Remember, we've only seen the Basic rules. We are going to see a more complex fighter, who is actually interesting to play. LFQW may still be a thing somewhat, but it looks like it'll be much less than it used to be, and fighters have an option which isn't just auto-attack every round.

My feeling is basically a wait and see approach. It could easily end up being another version of D&D I just ignore in favor of better designed systems, but I think there's potential. I'll probably still need to house-rule things a bit, to fix up bad math and make things fit my playstyle, but I think writing it off based on the basic game, which, by definition, is probably not going to appeal to the people who want more interesting fighters and more options for complexity, is not the best approach.

**Craft (Cheese)** · 2014-07-21, 02:34 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Madfellow

The problem that WotC faces is that their fandom is split almost down the middle on this issue. A lot of players want fighters to have cool things, but more players want them to be simple so that noobs can learn the game and wizards can still be the flashy guys. Every time WotC has tried to give fighters nice things (the Tome of Battle in 3e and Everything in 4e), they have received considerable backlash from a large and vocal fanbase.

It's like Tony Stark's line from The Avengers. "You don't understand; there is no throne! There is no scenario in which you come out on top!" WotC is stuck in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. If they give fighters nice things, wizards fans raise their voices. If they don't, fighter fans raise theirs. What they've tried to do here is to split the difference and give them just a few nice things, and now EVERYBODY is raising their voices.

Hey guys, remember when the tagline for 5E was "Modularity to customize the game to your group's needs!"

I do. Sadly in practice Wizards is taking only token stabs at modular game design, and where they're actually trying to respond to the concerns of the fanbase (e.g. Multiclassing, Battlemaster) they don't seem to actually understand what the problems are or how to solve them.

**huttj509** · 2014-07-21, 03:58 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese)

I do. Sadly in practice Wizards is taking only token stabs at modular game design, and where they're actually trying to respond to the concerns of the fanbase (e.g. Multiclassing, Battlemaster) they don't seem to actually understand what the problems are or how to solve them.

Sadly, in practice, the DMG isn't out yet.

**Morty** · 2014-07-21, 04:08 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Madfellow

The problem that WotC faces is that their fandom is split almost down the middle on this issue. A lot of players want fighters to have cool things, but more players want them to be simple so that noobs can learn the game and wizards can still be the flashy guys. Every time WotC has tried to give fighters nice things (the Tome of Battle in 3e and Everything in 4e), they have received considerable backlash from a large and vocal fanbase.

It's like Tony Stark's line from The Avengers. "You don't understand; there is no throne! There is no scenario in which you come out on top!" WotC is stuck in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. If they give fighters nice things, wizards fans raise their voices. If they don't, fighter fans raise theirs. What they've tried to do here is to split the difference and give them just a few nice things, and now EVERYBODY is raising their voices.

People need to face facts, and the fact here is this: most people do not want the same thing you want. It doesn't matter who you are, you are an individual with unique tastes and desires. One company is trying to please a large fanbase coming from myriad different backgrounds. Everyone wants something different out of this game. If you are not receiving 100% of what you want out of this one game, guess what: neither is anybody else. Deal with it.

That, of course, is not what's happening. What is happening is that the people who prefer the old division of non-magic characters being simple and repetitive, with complexity being reserved for magicians, are being catered to in full. They do get 100% of what they want from the game, with the baseline Fighter being only capable of hitting things a lot and the cleric and wizard retaining their old versatiliy. The other 'group', inasmuch as we can make such divisions, will quite likely be given some scraps of their preferred style. Unless the information about the Battlemaster fighter sub-class turns out to be false and they're much more complex than that, or other non-magical classes are far better than the playtests made them look. No matter which way you look at it, one playstyle is being favoured.

**akaddk** · 2014-07-21, 04:31 PM (ISO 8601)

Now that a feat list is out I'm more convinced than ever that the fighter will be just fine as it is. These feats are packed with power and punch and versatility as well as allowing a great deal of customisation. The fighter gets two more feats than the wizard. Sure, not at 1st-level, but the progression is a lot faster. The fighter gets one at 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16 & 19 whereas the wizard gets one at 4, 8, 12, 16 & 19. So by 6th-level he's already one feat ahead and by 14th-level he's two feats ahead.

Feats being optional means that a base game will see a discrepancy the higher you go up, but even then I don't think it's as profound as people think. Using feats I think helps in a big way to balance things out. I still think Wizards probably get one feat too many in the grand scheme of things but even that won't really be noticed until about 19th-level.

Regardless, 5e is meant to be a "living" game so by all means let WotC know what you think about it when they put out their surveys. Discuss it on the WotC boards as well. Most importantly, play the game as it is now and actually get a feel for how it plays at the table. I truly believe that theorycrafting is the biggest and most detrimental thing to have entered the hobby and that it creates far more problems than it solves. Play experience is the only true measure of a system.

**Psyren** · 2014-07-21, 04:36 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by akaddk

Now that a feat list is out I'm more convinced than ever that the fighter will be just fine as it is. These feats are packed with power and punch and versatility as well as allowing a great deal of customisation.

Am I missing something? All I see are the names of the feats, not what they do.

And call me crazy, but the one they describe - Lucky - seems like it might as well say "you are immune to disadvantage." I'm wondering if there is going to be some kind of daily limit or activation on that.

**da_chicken** · 2014-07-21, 04:47 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by huttj509

Sadly, in practice, the DMG isn't out yet.

So much this.

Basic = Beginner

PHB = Intermediate

DMG = Advanced

**Sartharina** · 2014-07-21, 04:48 PM (ISO 8601)

Originally Posted by Morty

That, of course, is not what's happening. What is happening is that the people who prefer the old division of non-magic characters being simple and repetitive, with complexity being reserved for magicians, are being catered to in full. They do get 100% of what they want from the game, with the baseline Fighter being only capable of hitting things a lot and the cleric and wizard retaining their old versatiliy. The other 'group', inasmuch as we can make such divisions, will quite likely be given some scraps of their preferred style. Unless the information about the Battlemaster fighter sub-class turns out to be false and they're much more complex than that, or other non-magical classes are far better than the playtests made them look. No matter which way you look at it, one playstyle is being favoured.

Actually, a nonmagical character is capable of doing anything physically possible. The only reason spells have more rules for them is because magic isn't something we interact with in the normal world, and thus needs rules defining what it is and what it can do, instead of merely providing a framework for resolving actions a player wants to take.