So...choosing a background now opens up feats (which I assume will be in addition to class-based features and traits). Some of these feats mimic class-based skills (like healing, or giving inspiration). Everyone gets inspiration on a 20, which they can use for advantage when they choose to do so. Humans get advantage after a long rest. AND, monsters cannot crit. Not to mention that races now have spells (gnomes, all subraces of elves) or things that may as well be spells (dwarves, orcs). AND, every class can now have spells if they choose a certain feat (in this case, magic initiate).
I realize this is all being play tested, but I do not understand why Crawford et.al. are pursuing this PC power creep. It's insane. Who would want to DM? I have five players, who are five different races with five different racial profiles. Then, they are five different classes with the option for numerous subclasses and specializations. NOW, we are going to add background feats, which will have their own powers and expressions.
So...choosing a background now opens up feats (which I assume will be in addition to class-based features and traits). Some of these feats mimic class-based skills (like healing, or giving inspiration). Everyone gets inspiration on a 20, which they can use for advantage when they choose to do so. Humans get advantage after a long rest. AND, monsters cannot crit. Not to mention that races now have spells (gnomes, all subraces of elves) or things that may as well be spells (dwarves, orcs). AND, every class can now have spells if they choose a certain feat (in this case, magic initiate).
I realize this is all being play tested, but I do not understand why Crawford et.al. are pursuing this PC power creep. It's insane. Who would want to DM? I have five players, who are five different races with five different racial profiles. Then, they are five different classes with the option for numerous subclasses and specializations. NOW, we are going to add background feats, which will have their own powers and expressions.
Right now at least, the backgrounds that open up feats are all in Strixhaven, which is it's own setting in the MTG world where pretty much everyone would be taking the same kind of background. In general a lot of the time DMs like to limit options like this to the world/setting they are going to play in, especially if it's an option that has such clear advantages over other options. Strixhaven in particular seems to be a book that DMs like limit.
Lets look at an example of a broken race/class and how to fix them, the Tabaxi Swashbuckler.
-Tabaxi base movement 30 feet and can use claws to move on walls at 30 feet.
-Tabaxi racial can double their movement but must remain still for one turn to get it back. Tabaxi new movement 60 feet.
-Rogue 2nd level get cunning action, as a bonus action can dash. Tabaxi new movement 120 feet.
-Swashbuckler 3rd level gets fancy footfoot, take an attack against an opponent and they can't make an opportunity attack against them. 120 feet movement and no opportunity attack from one opponent.
If you think that's broken, get a load of this!
- Get a longbow and shoot someone from 150 feet away.
That's it. That's all your tabaxi does - poorly replicate a ranged attack by combining several other resources. Being complicated or synergistic is not the same as being overpowered.
The Tabaxi can move (and thus see and hear) around corners. Not sure the archer would be able to do that.
One of the issues with such one-trick ponies is that if they don't get to do their 'thing' almost every fight, they're going to feel left out. This is why you don't want to send a flying mob after the 'all melee but the guy with Cantrips and the Rogue with a shortbow' party...many will twiddle their thumbs for much of the fight. Being able to move farther than you can reasonably see is suicide in any sort of environment where there might be traps or, worse, casters around.
Tabaxi decides to scout around the corner and dashes 120 feet.
Ambush jumps him. He's hit with Silence so he can't cry out a warning while he steps in the Grease spell or pile of ball bearings or the hallway spike trap.
What if they're in the woods? I'm not sure about you but I certainly am not going to go dashing 120 feet when my Dark vision only covers 60. 60 feet is out of line of sight in many dungeon hallways. You go ahead and race ahead if you want. When you don't come back, my Artificer will make a nice image to remember you by.
So...choosing a background now opens up feats (which I assume will be in addition to class-based features and traits). Some of these feats mimic class-based skills (like healing, or giving inspiration). Everyone gets inspiration on a 20, which they can use for advantage when they choose to do so. Humans get advantage after a long rest. AND, monsters cannot crit. Not to mention that races now have spells (gnomes, all subraces of elves) or things that may as well be spells (dwarves, orcs). AND, every class can now have spells if they choose a certain feat (in this case, magic initiate).
I realize this is all being play tested, but I do not understand why Crawford et.al. are pursuing this PC power creep. It's insane. Who would want to DM? I have five players, who are five different races with five different racial profiles. Then, they are five different classes with the option for numerous subclasses and specializations. NOW, we are going to add background feats, which will have their own powers and expressions. Such quality answers will help a lot. There would be more of these. If I don't know something, then I use http://essaypapers.reviews/ for this. Or I'll ask a question on the forum first. But I don't always get what I need on the forum.
So...choosing a background now opens up feats (which I assume will be in addition to class-based features and traits). Some of these feats mimic class-based skills (like healing, or giving inspiration). Everyone gets inspiration on a 20, which they can use for advantage when they choose to do so. Humans get advantage after a long rest. AND, monsters cannot crit. Not to mention that races now have spells (gnomes, all subraces of elves) or things that may as well be spells (dwarves, orcs). AND, every class can now have spells if they choose a certain feat (in this case, magic initiate).
I realize this is all being play tested, but I do not understand why Crawford et.al. are pursuing this PC power creep. It's insane. Who would want to DM? I have five players, who are five different races with five different racial profiles. Then, they are five different classes with the option for numerous subclasses and specializations. NOW, we are going to add background feats, which will have their own powers and expressions. Such quality answers will help a lot. There would be more of these. If I don't know something, then I use http://essaypapers.reviews/ for this. Or I'll ask a question on the forum first. But I don't always get what I need on the forum.
Thanks, I was just thinking about this
WotC are in the business of selling books. A high proportion of their cliens want to play characters as powerful as they can. If a new book does not have options that are more powerful than what is already there they will make less oney.
Outside of that many people who have played a lot find only being able ot take a feat as replacement for an ASI very limiting, I'd like ot have a feat but I als feel I sohuld max out my primary stat ASAP. I know several DMs who give a free feat at level 1 for this reason.
One D&D is different however this is far more than just a new book with extra subclass options and races. It is a rewrite of the core books and while claimed it is compatible with existing 5e books it is essentially a new version, requiring a lot of home brew decisions if you are mixing 5e with One D&D (for example the UA One D&D has eliminated skill checks for grappling what do you do if your 5e character has advantage on such checks? The UA does have quite a few nerfs as well for example rogues are only able to get sneak attack on their turn.
I find that balance is achieved best by overextending the resources of the players. But hem in situations where they will have 4-6 combats/puzzles that will require them to expend resources. Even at level 11 (my current campaign), you can get them down to being on fumes and that's when it becomes a challenge and you get those moments of 'That was awesome". I also INTENTIONALLY rotate in a monster/situation that will purposefully take advantage of at least one of the weaknesses of a member of the group (a certain save, ranged combatants to thwart that barbarian, waves of creatures to keep the wizard from mowing them all down with a single fireball etc).
The chances of there ever being a tabaxi PC in my game is zero, dude. I play with a bunch of guys in their 50s. They have no idea what a tabaxi even is!
I'm running a game for my friends in their late 50's :)
Characters are:
Tabaxi monk
Sea Elf druid
Half elf warlock
Human Barbarian
Human Rogue
Gnome cleric
So I don't think age has anything to do with race choices :)
Low level magic users in 5e are extremely weak compared to pretty much every other edition.
Low level is weak? Have you actually played other editions? They've certainly toned down high level scaling, but low level magic users in prior editions were super pathetic.
Think about the games you DM, you ever noticed campaigns are melees and a cleric more times than the more balanced party? And then the party hits level 5, and one of the players wants to retire their character and pick up a sorcerer? Just saying, its happens a lot. The new super abilities put in for 5E, has greatly boosted melees early on. Its not that wizards are weak, its that they went a wee bit overboard on melees early on. Melee's early on were better than Wizards, looking at Gygax's design philosophy on linear fighters and quadratic wizards, he tried to slow them down because well its a wizard, they should be game breaking at higher levels compared to a guy with an axe. Its just compared to older editions the super hero 5E is a bit over the top.
Just saying that this has never happened in any 5e game I have ever DMed or played. I haven't yet had anyone want to retire their cool battlemaster fighter to get a humdrum sorcerer that can cast fireball at level 5. I haven't ever seen anyone do that even in Adventurer's League play where the player can happily and legally rebuild their character every single level if they really want to.
Folks mostly play the characters they want because the character is fun to play (even the optimized and min/max ones). Once they have invested time making the character, very few want to retire them even when this choice is readily available.
One of my favorite characters is a level 12 rogue/5 warlock in tier 4 and I don't really care that the wizard next to me can cast wish - the character is fun to play and contributes (and I tend to be a min/max, optimized sort of player much of the time - I figure a character that is out risking their life adventuring is likely to be good at it if they are one of the ones that survives).
Feline agility is a free action. Swashbuckler allows you to make an attack and an opportunity attack can't be made against the character. Dual wielding attacks as a swash allows them to move through two characters with no chance of reprisal. Its a broken mix, haven't you DM'd it before?
Yes I have DMed it. No it isn't broken.
If you think that is broken how do you deal with a Sharpshooter/crossbow expert doing far more damage than the tabaxi rogue from 120' without ever needing to get close enough?
How about a sorcer/hexblade warlock multiclass using agonizing blast + quickened agonizing blast (perhaps with hex or hexblade's curse) also doing more damage than the rogue, and also from 120' or farther if they have the invocation that extends the range?
How about a paladin, with multiple attacks and multiple smites also doing more damage though admittedly in melee so you might be able to swing back though they are liable to have a high AC and decent hit points compared to the rogue.
Tabaxi swashbuckler rogue is far from broken. (Personally, the only "broken" things I have found in 5e are abusing Simulacrum and the coffee-lock concept which I just nope to start with). In addition, feline agility requires the rogue to remain not moving at all for a turn to reset. So this neat little trick only happens once every 2 turns which makes it even less useful.
P.S. Lol sorry - just catching up on this thread and found I had a few comments :)
That's what I ended up doing with my most recent campaign: squuueeeezzzzeeeeeee them until all they had was bravery and really, really stupid, desperate, and awesome ideas. It was fun. A lot of work.
I am in the final 3rd of my second 5e campaign (the first was a bastardized version of Hoard of the Dragon Queen, the second is a bastardized version of Descent Into Avernus). In the first campaign, by 5th level, the characters' powers and abilities were completely out of control. The last time I DMd was 2nd edition, so I was doling out magic items like Santa Claus, and I really, really came to regret it. By the end of the campaign, the superheroes heroes were 9th level, and I could not wait to be done.
So, lesson learned. Going into campaign 2, I made the following changes:
-slow level progression
-gritty realism for HP recovery
-'low magic' i.e. magic items, especially powerful one, are few and far between.
This has made the game better, but...they are now 4th level, and already incredibly powerful. Like, really powerful. The offensive cantrips. The endless variations of class/subclass (features and traits). So. Much. Stuff.
I am curious if others have had this same experience, and how they dealt with it. I have been a DM/GM for more than 40 years. I know how to play, how to design, and how to wing it when necessary. I love a lot of things about 5e, but this seems like a feature, not a bug.
I couldn't agree more. 5E is extremely skewed to be player-advantaged, which I feel is what has attracted so many more people to the game. Personally, its not my cup of tea. I actually run a game that is about 40% 5E - pretty much all the base rules and lore - and 60% homebrew to increase immersion and gritty realism.
A few things I do:
1. Leveling is milestone and very slow. When the party reaches a level milestone, they need to take three long rests before they can actually level up. That way they aren't just suddenly more powerful and learned overnight.
2. Magic items are RARE. I have even removed the "magic" from +1 Weapons and Armor. Instead these are Mastercraft works - which provide the +1 benefit but are not actually suffused with magic. So +1 weapons do not overcome resistance or immunity and +1 armor does not grant magic resistance. Also, only Masterwork weapons (+1) can be enchanted to eventually become magic weapons. Also, magic items cannot be purchased! Meaning, there are no magic item shops with rare and exquisite things just lying on the shelves. All magic items are in places that only adventurers can get to.
3. Exhaustion is immersive. I implement saves against exhaustion very frequently to account for realism. When the party has an egregious battle, traverse difficult terrain, have to climb or swim, are exposed to excessive heat or cold weather, or become too intoxicated, they must save against exhaustion. You'd be surprised just how much this effects the game - and in a fun and survival-based way.
4. I also modified the crit rules a bit. For example, undead can only be crit with radiant damage or weapons steeped in (expensive) holy oil. Constructs can only be crit with bludgeoning or thunder damage. Its a mechanic I call "Fear the Lifeless" as these creatures do not have any vital organs to hit.
I've also added a bunch more custom skills to increase immersion - such as cooking, street smarts, spellcraft, fitness, appraise, culture, combat tactics, etc.
Every time someone says 5e is unbalanced, I discover that either:
1) They are house ruling.
2) They are playing the monsters really, really STUPID.
3) They are playing a module where the author did not make good choices. Like for example not having the monsters do any thinking whatsoever.
Bro I think that the fact that one of my players who's a Samurai Fighter Elf with the Automatic Rifle used Fighting Spirit, Action Surge and Sharpshooter somehow dealt 103 damage at level 5 is enough to assume that this game is nerdy and doesn't make any sense.
Every time someone says 5e is unbalanced, I discover that either:
1) They are house ruling.
2) They are playing the monsters really, really STUPID.
3) They are playing a module where the author did not make good choices. Like for example not having the monsters do any thinking whatsoever.
Bro I think that the fact that one of my players who's a Samurai Fighter Elf with the Automatic Rifle uses Fighting Spirit, Action Surge and Sharpshooter somehow deals 103 damage at level 5 is enough to assume that this game is nerdy and doesn't make any sense.
A fourth reason is that the DM made decisions to make the game unbalanced.
Firearms is an optional rule in D&D and their is no cost given for the more powerful firearms like an automatic rifle. In the same way that by giving a low level player certain magic items makes it unbalanced the same applies to a the more powerful firearms. Having said that what makes an automatic rifle powerful is the burst fire feature where reasonablely good rolls would enable you to deal a lot of damage to multiple targets but it looks as if you are talking about single target damage,.
PCs will normally not be proficient with an automatic rifle, though "characters can use the training rules in the Player’s Handbook to acquire proficiency". The PHB says training in a language or tool takes 250 days but your DM might allow additional training options so I will assume the same applies to training in an automatic rifle. Having a pause in the campaign so that players can take nearly a year is training has to be something the DM sets up, normally the level of urgency to stop the big bad prevents this. I have yet ot play in a campaign where such training is possible. The player could not take the weapon master feat to get proficiency as that only applies to smple and martial weapons not firearms.
If the player is not proficient an automatic rifle sharpshooter doesn't apply and the reduction in chance to hit is probably more than the extra damage compared to a heavy crossbow. So it looks as if the samurai does have proficiency.
So this fighter has given up 250 days to training to take advantage of a lucky find of an automatic rifle. That is the DMs choices.
A samuria is a burst damage build so what can they do with a more normal ranged weapon of a crossbow (I'll make it a +1 as by level 5 they might have picked one up). Against a low AC target that only misses on a natural 1, on average damage with advantage is 10. So sharpshooter and actions surge makes that 80 on their turn they might roll high on the damage to increase that but it is more likely they will miss on one or more attacks. They can only do this once per short rest and 3 times a day. The rest of the time they are only making 2 attacks with a straight roll.
Other classes with "burst damage are similar, a wizard can do an average of 28 damage to any number of low dex enemies in a 20ft radius circle, a 5th level paladin on rolling a crit can smite for an average of 50 damage with a single attack, 60 if they have GWM. Other PC like rogues can not nova but can do decent damage every round. As long as there are enough encounters per day it is pretty balanced.
Every time someone says 5e is unbalanced, I discover that either:
1) They are house ruling.
2) They are playing the monsters really, really STUPID.
3) They are playing a module where the author did not make good choices. Like for example not having the monsters do any thinking whatsoever.
Bro I think that the fact that one of my players who's a Samurai Fighter Elf with the Automatic Rifle uses Fighting Spirit, Action Surge and Sharpshooter somehow deals 103 damage at level 5 is enough to assume that this game is nerdy and doesn't make any sense.
A fourth reason is that the DM made decisions to make the game unbalanced.
Firearms is an optional rule in D&D and their is no cost given for the more powerful firearms like an automatic rifle. In the same way that by giving a low level player certain magic items makes it unbalanced the same applies to a the more powerful firearms. Having said that what makes an automatic rifle powerful is the burst fire feature where reasonablely good rolls would enable you to deal a lot of damage to multiple targets but it looks as if you are talking about single target damage,.
PCs will normally not be proficient with an automatic rifle, though "characters can use the training rules in the Player’s Handbook to acquire proficiency". The PHB says training in a language or tool takes 250 days but your DM might allow additional training options so I will assume the same applies to training in an automatic rifle. Having a pause in the campaign so that players can take nearly a year is training has to be something the DM sets up, normally the level of urgency to stop the big bad prevents this. I have yet ot play in a campaign where such training is possible. The player could not take the weapon master feat to get proficiency as that only applies to smple and martial weapons not firearms.
If the player is not proficient an automatic rifle sharpshooter doesn't apply and the reduction in chance to hit is probably more than the extra damage compared to a heavy crossbow. So it looks as if the samurai does have proficiency.
So this fighter has given up 250 days to training to take advantage of a lucky find of an automatic rifle. That is the DMs choices.
A samuria is a burst damage build so what can they do with a more normal ranged weapon of a crossbow (I'll make it a +1 as by level 5 they might have picked one up). Against a low AC target that only misses on a natural 1, on average damage with advantage is 10. So sharpshooter and actions surge makes that 80 on their turn they might roll high on the damage to increase that but it is more likely they will miss on one or more attacks. They can only do this once per short rest and 3 times a day. The rest of the time they are only making 2 attacks with a straight roll.
Other classes with "burst damage are similar, a wizard can do an average of 28 damage to any number of low dex enemies in a 20ft radius circle, a 5th level paladin on rolling a crit can smite for an average of 50 damage with a single attack, 60 if they have GWM. Other PC like rogues can not nova but can do decent damage every round. As long as there are enough encounters per day it is pretty balanced.
Every time someone says 5e is unbalanced, I discover that either:
1) They are house ruling.
2) They are playing the monsters really, really STUPID.
3) They are playing a module where the author did not make good choices. Like for example not having the monsters do any thinking whatsoever.
Bro I think that the fact that one of my players who's a Samurai Fighter Elf with the Automatic Rifle uses Fighting Spirit, Action Surge and Sharpshooter somehow deals 103 damage at level 5 is enough to assume that this game is nerdy and doesn't make any sense.
A fourth reason is that the DM made decisions to make the game unbalanced.
Firearms is an optional rule in D&D and their is no cost given for the more powerful firearms like an automatic rifle. In the same way that by giving a low level player certain magic items makes it unbalanced the same applies to a the more powerful firearms. Having said that what makes an automatic rifle powerful is the burst fire feature where reasonablely good rolls would enable you to deal a lot of damage to multiple targets but it looks as if you are talking about single target damage,.
PCs will normally not be proficient with an automatic rifle, though "characters can use the training rules in the Player’s Handbook to acquire proficiency". The PHB says training in a language or tool takes 250 days but your DM might allow additional training options so I will assume the same applies to training in an automatic rifle. Having a pause in the campaign so that players can take nearly a year is training has to be something the DM sets up, normally the level of urgency to stop the big bad prevents this. I have yet ot play in a campaign where such training is possible. The player could not take the weapon master feat to get proficiency as that only applies to smple and martial weapons not firearms.
If the player is not proficient an automatic rifle sharpshooter doesn't apply and the reduction in chance to hit is probably more than the extra damage compared to a heavy crossbow. So it looks as if the samurai does have proficiency.
So this fighter has given up 250 days to training to take advantage of a lucky find of an automatic rifle. That is the DMs choices.
A samuria is a burst damage build so what can they do with a more normal ranged weapon of a crossbow (I'll make it a +1 as by level 5 they might have picked one up). Against a low AC target that only misses on a natural 1, on average damage with advantage is 10. So sharpshooter and actions surge makes that 80 on their turn they might roll high on the damage to increase that but it is more likely they will miss on one or more attacks. They can only do this once per short rest and 3 times a day. The rest of the time they are only making 2 attacks with a straight roll.
Other classes with "burst damage are similar, a wizard can do an average of 28 damage to any number of low dex enemies in a 20ft radius circle, a 5th level paladin on rolling a crit can smite for an average of 50 damage with a single attack, 60 if they have GWM. Other PC like rogues can not nova but can do decent damage every round. As long as there are enough encounters per day it is pretty balanced.
I know all of those things, but the game feels like it's made to ensure that players are always winning. I know it's technically a roleplaying game and that fights aren't the main content of the game, but at the end of the day my players are just minmaxers who are always whining if I even try to make them feel weak. They just don't like when something is challenging.
I know all of those things, but the game feels like it's made to ensure that players are always winning. I know it's technically a roleplaying game and that fights aren't the main content of the game, but at the end of the day my players are just minmaxers who are always whining if I even try to make them feel weak. They just don't like when something is challenging.
I think it is a group thing rather than a rules thing.
Sure min maxers can make PCs much more powerful than those which follow wotc recommendations (eg if playing a wizard put your highest stat in intelligence) and little more but the dm can just up the monsters abilities to compensate. Power creep is also a thing and anoptimized pc is far more powerful now than when the phb was the only sourcebook. Many (most) published adventures have encounters at level one where a direct confrontational approach will lead to a tpk unless the dm takes actions to avoid it, and at level 1 what an optimizer can do is limited.
Many players want to concentrate on the roleplay and want there character to be heroes for whom combat is easy, they become attached to their chapters and pc death would be no fun for them. Others like myself want combat to be a challenge and there to be a risk of pc death or the party having to run away. Get too realistic and you work on the principle in every combat their is a winner and a loser so 50% of the time the party should lose, They might try and succeed to run away but in such a context you are probably talking a tpk every 3 or 4 battles and I do not think anyone would have fun with that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
EVEN MORE POWERFUL
So...choosing a background now opens up feats (which I assume will be in addition to class-based features and traits). Some of these feats mimic class-based skills (like healing, or giving inspiration). Everyone gets inspiration on a 20, which they can use for advantage when they choose to do so. Humans get advantage after a long rest. AND, monsters cannot crit. Not to mention that races now have spells (gnomes, all subraces of elves) or things that may as well be spells (dwarves, orcs). AND, every class can now have spells if they choose a certain feat (in this case, magic initiate).
Read 'em and weep
I realize this is all being play tested, but I do not understand why Crawford et.al. are pursuing this PC power creep. It's insane. Who would want to DM? I have five players, who are five different races with five different racial profiles. Then, they are five different classes with the option for numerous subclasses and specializations. NOW, we are going to add background feats, which will have their own powers and expressions.
Right now at least, the backgrounds that open up feats are all in Strixhaven, which is it's own setting in the MTG world where pretty much everyone would be taking the same kind of background. In general a lot of the time DMs like to limit options like this to the world/setting they are going to play in, especially if it's an option that has such clear advantages over other options. Strixhaven in particular seems to be a book that DMs like limit.
The Tabaxi can move (and thus see and hear) around corners. Not sure the archer would be able to do that.
One of the issues with such one-trick ponies is that if they don't get to do their 'thing' almost every fight, they're going to feel left out. This is why you don't want to send a flying mob after the 'all melee but the guy with Cantrips and the Rogue with a shortbow' party...many will twiddle their thumbs for much of the fight. Being able to move farther than you can reasonably see is suicide in any sort of environment where there might be traps or, worse, casters around.
Tabaxi decides to scout around the corner and dashes 120 feet.
Ambush jumps him. He's hit with Silence so he can't cry out a warning while he steps in the Grease spell or pile of ball bearings or the hallway spike trap.
What if they're in the woods? I'm not sure about you but I certainly am not going to go dashing 120 feet when my Dark vision only covers 60. 60 feet is out of line of sight in many dungeon hallways. You go ahead and race ahead if you want. When you don't come back, my Artificer will make a nice image to remember you by.
Thanks, I was just thinking about this
WotC are in the business of selling books. A high proportion of their cliens want to play characters as powerful as they can. If a new book does not have options that are more powerful than what is already there they will make less oney.
Outside of that many people who have played a lot find only being able ot take a feat as replacement for an ASI very limiting, I'd like ot have a feat but I als feel I sohuld max out my primary stat ASAP. I know several DMs who give a free feat at level 1 for this reason.
One D&D is different however this is far more than just a new book with extra subclass options and races. It is a rewrite of the core books and while claimed it is compatible with existing 5e books it is essentially a new version, requiring a lot of home brew decisions if you are mixing 5e with One D&D (for example the UA One D&D has eliminated skill checks for grappling what do you do if your 5e character has advantage on such checks? The UA does have quite a few nerfs as well for example rogues are only able to get sneak attack on their turn.
I started playing Dungeon Crawl Classics. Problem solved.
I find that balance is achieved best by overextending the resources of the players. But hem in situations where they will have 4-6 combats/puzzles that will require them to expend resources. Even at level 11 (my current campaign), you can get them down to being on fumes and that's when it becomes a challenge and you get those moments of 'That was awesome". I also INTENTIONALLY rotate in a monster/situation that will purposefully take advantage of at least one of the weaknesses of a member of the group (a certain save, ranged combatants to thwart that barbarian, waves of creatures to keep the wizard from mowing them all down with a single fireball etc).
I'm running a game for my friends in their late 50's :)
Characters are:
So I don't think age has anything to do with race choices :)
Just saying that this has never happened in any 5e game I have ever DMed or played. I haven't yet had anyone want to retire their cool battlemaster fighter to get a humdrum sorcerer that can cast fireball at level 5. I haven't ever seen anyone do that even in Adventurer's League play where the player can happily and legally rebuild their character every single level if they really want to.
Folks mostly play the characters they want because the character is fun to play (even the optimized and min/max ones). Once they have invested time making the character, very few want to retire them even when this choice is readily available.
One of my favorite characters is a level 12 rogue/5 warlock in tier 4 and I don't really care that the wizard next to me can cast wish - the character is fun to play and contributes (and I tend to be a min/max, optimized sort of player much of the time - I figure a character that is out risking their life adventuring is likely to be good at it if they are one of the ones that survives).
Yes I have DMed it. No it isn't broken.
If you think that is broken how do you deal with a Sharpshooter/crossbow expert doing far more damage than the tabaxi rogue from 120' without ever needing to get close enough?
How about a sorcer/hexblade warlock multiclass using agonizing blast + quickened agonizing blast (perhaps with hex or hexblade's curse) also doing more damage than the rogue, and also from 120' or farther if they have the invocation that extends the range?
How about a paladin, with multiple attacks and multiple smites also doing more damage though admittedly in melee so you might be able to swing back though they are liable to have a high AC and decent hit points compared to the rogue.
Tabaxi swashbuckler rogue is far from broken. (Personally, the only "broken" things I have found in 5e are abusing Simulacrum and the coffee-lock concept which I just nope to start with). In addition, feline agility requires the rogue to remain not moving at all for a turn to reset. So this neat little trick only happens once every 2 turns which makes it even less useful.
P.S. Lol sorry - just catching up on this thread and found I had a few comments :)
That's what I ended up doing with my most recent campaign: squuueeeezzzzeeeeeee them until all they had was bravery and really, really stupid, desperate, and awesome ideas. It was fun. A lot of work.
I couldn't agree more. 5E is extremely skewed to be player-advantaged, which I feel is what has attracted so many more people to the game. Personally, its not my cup of tea. I actually run a game that is about 40% 5E - pretty much all the base rules and lore - and 60% homebrew to increase immersion and gritty realism.
A few things I do:
1. Leveling is milestone and very slow. When the party reaches a level milestone, they need to take three long rests before they can actually level up. That way they aren't just suddenly more powerful and learned overnight.
2. Magic items are RARE. I have even removed the "magic" from +1 Weapons and Armor. Instead these are Mastercraft works - which provide the +1 benefit but are not actually suffused with magic. So +1 weapons do not overcome resistance or immunity and +1 armor does not grant magic resistance. Also, only Masterwork weapons (+1) can be enchanted to eventually become magic weapons. Also, magic items cannot be purchased! Meaning, there are no magic item shops with rare and exquisite things just lying on the shelves. All magic items are in places that only adventurers can get to.
3. Exhaustion is immersive. I implement saves against exhaustion very frequently to account for realism. When the party has an egregious battle, traverse difficult terrain, have to climb or swim, are exposed to excessive heat or cold weather, or become too intoxicated, they must save against exhaustion. You'd be surprised just how much this effects the game - and in a fun and survival-based way.
4. I also modified the crit rules a bit. For example, undead can only be crit with radiant damage or weapons steeped in (expensive) holy oil. Constructs can only be crit with bludgeoning or thunder damage. Its a mechanic I call "Fear the Lifeless" as these creatures do not have any vital organs to hit.
I've also added a bunch more custom skills to increase immersion - such as cooking, street smarts, spellcraft, fitness, appraise, culture, combat tactics, etc.
Don't be afraid to dial up the encounters!
Bro I think that the fact that one of my players who's a Samurai Fighter Elf with the Automatic Rifle used Fighting Spirit, Action Surge and Sharpshooter somehow dealt 103 damage at level 5 is enough to assume that this game is nerdy and doesn't make any sense.
A fourth reason is that the DM made decisions to make the game unbalanced.
Firearms is an optional rule in D&D and their is no cost given for the more powerful firearms like an automatic rifle. In the same way that by giving a low level player certain magic items makes it unbalanced the same applies to a the more powerful firearms. Having said that what makes an automatic rifle powerful is the burst fire feature where reasonablely good rolls would enable you to deal a lot of damage to multiple targets but it looks as if you are talking about single target damage,.
PCs will normally not be proficient with an automatic rifle, though "characters can use the training rules in the Player’s Handbook to acquire proficiency". The PHB says training in a language or tool takes 250 days but your DM might allow additional training options so I will assume the same applies to training in an automatic rifle. Having a pause in the campaign so that players can take nearly a year is training has to be something the DM sets up, normally the level of urgency to stop the big bad prevents this. I have yet ot play in a campaign where such training is possible. The player could not take the weapon master feat to get proficiency as that only applies to smple and martial weapons not firearms.
If the player is not proficient an automatic rifle sharpshooter doesn't apply and the reduction in chance to hit is probably more than the extra damage compared to a heavy crossbow. So it looks as if the samurai does have proficiency.
So this fighter has given up 250 days to training to take advantage of a lucky find of an automatic rifle. That is the DMs choices.
A samuria is a burst damage build so what can they do with a more normal ranged weapon of a crossbow (I'll make it a +1 as by level 5 they might have picked one up). Against a low AC target that only misses on a natural 1, on average damage with advantage is 10. So sharpshooter and actions surge makes that 80 on their turn they might roll high on the damage to increase that but it is more likely they will miss on one or more attacks. They can only do this once per short rest and 3 times a day. The rest of the time they are only making 2 attacks with a straight roll.
Other classes with "burst damage are similar, a wizard can do an average of 28 damage to any number of low dex enemies in a 20ft radius circle, a 5th level paladin on rolling a crit can smite for an average of 50 damage with a single attack, 60 if they have GWM. Other PC like rogues can not nova but can do decent damage every round. As long as there are enough encounters per day it is pretty balanced.
I know all of those things, but the game feels like it's made to ensure that players are always winning. I know it's technically a roleplaying game and that fights aren't the main content of the game, but at the end of the day my players are just minmaxers who are always whining if I even try to make them feel weak. They just don't like when something is challenging.
I think it is a group thing rather than a rules thing.
Sure min maxers can make PCs much more powerful than those which follow wotc recommendations (eg if playing a wizard put your highest stat in intelligence) and little more but the dm can just up the monsters abilities to compensate. Power creep is also a thing and anoptimized pc is far more powerful now than when the phb was the only sourcebook. Many (most) published adventures have encounters at level one where a direct confrontational approach will lead to a tpk unless the dm takes actions to avoid it, and at level 1 what an optimizer can do is limited.
Many players want to concentrate on the roleplay and want there character to be heroes for whom combat is easy, they become attached to their chapters and pc death would be no fun for them. Others like myself want combat to be a challenge and there to be a risk of pc death or the party having to run away. Get too realistic and you work on the principle in every combat their is a winner and a loser so 50% of the time the party should lose, They might try and succeed to run away but in such a context you are probably talking a tpk every 3 or 4 battles and I do not think anyone would have fun with that.