revealed paged from 5e (Not impressed)

[Sploggle1]

I have looked over some of the Finalized paged from Dnd 5th, aka next, aka dnd reboot. They were posted on Facebook through https://www.facebook.com/ThePlayersdm and I am far from impressed. These are the reasons why.

Ill start with the monster manual page which got the most complaints.
1. The ogre on the page does not look like a (Dnd) Ogre. It looks like a harry potter ogre.
2. You get no description about the creature other than the picture if it has one. The only description you seem to get is the stats, special abilities, and a sentence describing them. In the older books you at least got things like This is where they dwell, This is the amount you will find of them at a time, This is a detailed discription of how they look, and better pictures.
3. Unaligned? I do not believe in unaligned (Monsters), or npcs, or pcs at that. If wizards wanted to do that they could have just said neutral.
4. 450 xp is a little... way to much for an ogre seeing how its an instant level up in 5e.
5. and truesight 120 ft is a little ridiculous.

Next the Leveling
1. 300xp for second, 900 xp for third, 2,700 for fourth, and 6,500 for fifth is the most random xp chart i have seen in any game.
2. So now you have the option of starting a game at 3rd level. I can see that.
3. my only bitch about the xp is it starts out to low. In one session you could easily jump up to second level, and 3rd if their is enough (Goblins lol) To me this kills the point of having a level 1 character. I like games to where you have to struggle to get to that next level. That makes the game fun, and the campaign last longer. This though with how stupid the xp is for the monsters will be full of short campaigns.

The character sheets:
1. simple and to the point which is nice.
2. Some things are clustered a little strange but it can be worked around.

Arguments against my arguments... so far:

via facebook "The necessary XP almost has exponential growth"
my reply is the same as i said. Sure it triples at level four but that makes it ridiculously easy to get their causing... a short campaign.

That is my personal Ad&d-3.5 fan review of the pages thus far. I think at the moment I will pass on this edition as i did with 4th.

[obryn]

Levels 1-3 are intentionally designed to last 1 session each, which is why the xp chart looks wonky. This is actually one of the biggest promised "modules" though it's not as if I need WotC to tell me how to tweak advancement.

Also, the starter set is not the monster manual. Expect the ogre stats to be the same, but for the mm to have a lot more flavor. This is still more than we got in the 80's basic sets, though.

[Sploggle1]

True true this is only the starter set but overall it shows very questionable things about 5e. Ill have to get a look at the full mm or phb to be fully sure if im going to skip this version. I gotta wait a while for that though lol.

[Sploggle1]

Like you said the xp chart could easily be tweaked which i would do putting it back to 3.0 or 3.5 standards. Yes in most games you could level up stupid fast because of the cr chart mainly. Personally i killed off the cr chart and im using 2e monster xp and rp earned xp. I personally like it when players go "#@$& im level 1" over anything but thats just me lol. Evil dm speaking.

[obryn]

True true this is only the starter set but overall it shows very questionable things about 5e. Ill have to get a look at the full mm or phb to be fully sure if im going to skip this version. I gotta wait a while for that though lol.
Yeah, keep in mind, they're working with, what, 96 pages to present classes, spells, game rules, treasures, and how to play.

Ogre ecology is probably pretty low on the priority list. :smallsmile:

[Sploggle1]

I agree and im not hating on the ogre, just the artwork. More fluff would be nice like i said but hopefully it will be in the full mm.

[pwykersotz]

True true this is only the starter set but overall it shows very questionable things about 5e. Ill have to get a look at the full mm or phb to be fully sure if im going to skip this version. I gotta wait a while for that though lol.

You've actually chosen the easiest things to modify or handwave though. The XP chart is easy enough to switch with another edition to draw out low levels a bit more. 120ft truesight is pretty normal in 3.5 too. I'm not sure about 4e. And of course, unaligned is just the old *I don't give-a-damn* True Neutral. Not liking the art is a shame, that's unlikely to change. But like obryn said, the monster manual should have a lot more flavor.

But yeah, holding judgement for the books is probably the best bet. The main thing that will keep me from switching completely are the vast options for 3.5 which I love playing with. I can see why you prefer it. :smallsmile:

Edit: Partially swordsage'd, that'll teach me to get distracted by the TV mid-reply. :smalltongue:

[rlc]

The experience makes sense up until 4, but is weird for fifth level. But yeah, it's designed so you can gain a level in a single session, which isn't really a big deal for level 1. You'll still need to struggle for the higher levels.
450 exp is only enough experience to go from 1 to 2, but the ogre is (at least supposesly) too tough for level 1, so that's not really important, either.
As for the descriptions, yeah, they were pretty lazy. Let's hope they do better in the rest of the books.

[Envyus]

I agree and im not hating on the ogre, just the artwork. More fluff would be nice like i said but hopefully it will be in the full mm.

Ogre's have looked like this for a while. (Also we never saw a Ogre in Harry Potter.)

Honestly criticizing how the Orge looks is kind of weird most people liked the look.

Levels 1 to 3 are supposed to go fast. I would advise you to learn more about the system before you make threads like this as well.

[Lokiare]

Ogre's have looked like this for a while. (Also we never saw a Ogre in Harry Potter.)

Honestly criticizing how the Orge looks is kind of weird most people liked the look.

Levels 1 to 3 are supposed to go fast. I would advise you to learn more about the system before you make threads like this as well.

This is a good example of a first impression though. Someone who's played other D&D games picks up the new shiny and goes 'eewwww' and puts it back down. If presented properly WotC could minimize this by explaining in side bars about previous editions and what they are trying to accomplish with each. How much do you want to bet they will do this? I give it a 1 in 100 chance.

[obryn]

This is a good example of a first impression though. Someone who's played other D&D games picks up the new shiny and goes 'eewwww' and puts it back down. If presented properly WotC could minimize this by explaining in side bars about previous editions and what they are trying to accomplish with each. How much do you want to bet they will do this? I give it a 1 in 100 chance.
I don't think they're going to waste their very limited Starter Set page count on this, since experienced D&D players are not the main target audience for a Starter Kit.

I would be stunned if the PHB didn't have a walk through memory lane, however.

[da_chicken]

I like the shortened XP tables. Everyone knows the game doesn't really start until level 3. You don't have enough resources (HP, spells, gold, equipment, etc.) until level 3. You don't even have enough abilities to have a distinct character class. You're just some vagrants until then looking for work or rumors of easy money.

Plus the short tables reinforce the idea that a little experience teaches you a lot at first, and it doesn't take much to turn a greenhorn into a veteran.

[Fwiffo86]

What was it? 450 for an Ogre?

so.... 112.5 xp per character for a core group of 4 adventurers, which is what the builds are aimed at correct?

Seems perfectly fine to me.

The picture.... needs work.

[Sploggle1]

I also agree the adventure starts at 3rd level but again i like the struggle to get to that point. Sure you get more spells, equipment, exc but it makes the characters have to be smart.
And a rebuttal against the ogre comment. No they looked nothing like that in any edition from 3.5 and back. It looks like they discovered a medieval fast food restaurant to me lol. Just saying. I also should have said it looked like something you would see out of harry potter not what i said.

This is around how they should look. http://www.dotd.com/mm/MM00229.htm

[rlc]

Eh, those ogres look really scrawny. I prefer the new one, hands down.

[Envyus]

And a rebuttal against the ogre comment. No they looked nothing like that in any edition from 3.5 and back. It looks like they discovered a medieval fast food restaurant to me lol. Just saying. I also should have said it looked like something you would see out of harry potter not what i said.

This is around how they should look. http://www.dotd.com/mm/MM00229.htm

Allow me to show you the evolution of the Ogre.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Pm1Bn23l4ew/Tr4urNXWDvI/AAAAAAAAAa0/I-FzOH2M9gM/s1600/ogre+scan.JPG
http://www.dotd.com/mm/ogre.gif
http://img44.xooimage.com/files/3/2/5/ogro-189367b.jpg
http://permanstore4.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/4eogres.jpg
http://www.beastsofwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DD-Ogre.jpg
http://gamesfiends.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/DCmd1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/yIdKV9Z.jpg

[Sploggle1]

Point proven they made the ogre fat lol. The ogre is evolving with America.

But this thred is not about just the ogre which everyone is trying to change it into. Its about the things i did not like about the pages.

[Envyus]

Point proven they made the ogre fat lol.

My point was that it has looked like this since 4th was released.

[obryn]

I looove the Conceptopolis one.

[rlc]

Well, we've kind of covered everything. If you don't like that it doesn't take much experience to gain a level and refuse to play any games where that happens solely for that reason, then you're missing out on a lot of really good games, some of which both have low experience requirements for the first few levels and make you struggle to get there. If you're fine with that, then there's no point in trying to change your mind.

[Envyus]

Plus changing how xp works in this game is one of the easier changes.

[Sploggle1]

And that is what I was getting at. Changing the xp is no biggie. As i said ill have to see the final book before I make a final Decision. From what i saw on the pages it was eh.

[Envyus]

And that is what I was getting at. Changing the xp is no biggie. As i said ill have to see the final book before I make a final Decision. From what i saw on the pages it was eh.

You can check out the basic game on the 3rd as well for free.

[da_chicken]

I looove the Conceptopolis one.

I do, too.

I never liked the 3e one. The waist is wrong. It looks like Sweetums (who is an Ogre, I suppose).

The 1e one looks like it was drawn in high school art (of course). I mean what's wrong with that foot? And how is that proper shading? I mean, it's not beholder bad, but still.

The 4e and 5e ones are clearly inspired by LotR and other fantasy movie monsters, but honestly I think if the old Warcraft II ogres and ogre-magi when I think about them now.

[Envyus]

I do, too.

I never liked the 3e one. The waist is wrong. It looks like Sweetums (who is an Ogre, I suppose).

The 1e one looks like it was drawn in high school art (of course). I mean what's wrong with that foot? And how is that proper shading? I mean, it's not beholder bad, but still.

The 4e and 5e ones are clearly inspired by LotR and other fantasy movie monsters, but honestly I think if the old Warcraft II ogres and ogre-magi when I think about them now.

Speaking of Ogre Magi lets go over the Ogre mage's evolution as well.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/designdev_ogremage1st.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/designdev_ogremage2nd.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SiXPatGsn1w/UgbUCFBQMuI/AAAAAAAABp4/ywbTXVhW3vU/s1600/MM35_PG200.jpg
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Inyssius/NightHaunter.png
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Inyssius/Mage.png
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/017/4/a/ogre_mage_by_conceptopolis-d5rscdu.jpg

No official 5e art for them yet. They are apparently Mike Mearls Favorite monster as well.

[Felhammer]

1. The ogre on the page does not look like a (Dnd) Ogre. It looks like a harry potter ogre.

Harry Potter does not have Ogres, at least not in the films. They had Trolls. The Cave Troll in the first movie does not bare much resemblance to the Next Ogre beyond the fact that they are tall, heavy set and flesh colored.



2. You get no description about the creature other than the picture if it has one. The only description you seem to get is the stats, special abilities, and a sentence describing them. In the older books you at least got things like This is where they dwell, This is the amount you will find of them at a time, This is a detailed discription of how they look, and better pictures.

The description will be in the adventure that is included with the starter set. Ecology will be included in the Monster Manuel.


3. Unaligned? I do not believe in unaligned (Monsters), or npcs, or pcs at that. If wizards wanted to do that they could have just said neutral.

Unaligned is a simpler name for True Neutral.



4. 450 xp is a little... way to much for an ogre seeing how its an instant level up in 5e.

Levels 1 and 2 are D&D with training wheels. They have expedited leveling.

[/QUOTE]

[Daremonai]

"Unaligned" is absolutely needed as an alignment. With Good, Evil, Lawful and Chaotic you pretty much know what you're getting, but how else do you differentiate between the radically different "committed to neutrality" and "don't really care" stances? In previous editions (except 4e, of course), they would both have been marked True Neutral.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm so glad that they kept the concept of level 1 and 2 being training wheels and allowing us to kick them off rather quickly.

I've been playing d&d since 2e, I'm tired of always starting at level one and taking (out of game) months to get to level 3 or whatever where I actually have stuff to do just because a DM thinks that is the starting line for all games. There has got to be other veteren players who agree with me on this...

Random Thought Alert:

So that if level 3 is the new level 1, could a lot of these CR 1+ monsters be in fact designed to challenge them and not level 1 or 2 PCs? Seems a bit silly but things could fall into place.

Anything CR 1 and less could be for level 1 and 2 but still usable whenever the PCs get higher level... Hmm..

[Person_Man]

3. Unaligned? I do not believe in unaligned (Monsters), or npcs, or pcs at that. If wizards wanted to do that they could have just said neutral.

In earlier editions, "True Neutral" referred to both "believes in balance between all things" (1E/2E Druids) and "morally blank slate" (animals, unintelligent creatures, etc). It was always confusing, especially to new DMs who were looking through the monster manual. And thus it makes sense to have a distinction between True Neutral and Unaligned.



5. and truesight 120 ft is a little ridiculous.

They've probably just consolidated Blindisight, Blindsense, and True Seeing into Truesight for the sake of simplicity.

Also, they are trying their best to balance out fun reality altering magic that has broken games in the past without entirely removing it. (Which was something many people didn't like about 4E, where 90% of abilities were #W + Ability score damage + minor keyword effect). This includes things like Greater Invisibility or Greater Displacement. So it makes sense that they'd nerf those spells (or only keep their weaker versions) and give more creatures immunity to it.




2. So now you have the option of starting a game at 3rd level. I can see that.

3. my only bitch about the xp is it starts out to low. In one session you could easily jump up to second level, and 3rd if their is enough (Goblins lol) To me this kills the point of having a level 1 character. I like games to where you have to struggle to get to that next level. That makes the game fun, and the campaign last longer. This though with how stupid the xp is for the monsters will be full of short campaigns.

Starting 1st level hit points have returned to the traditional 4-14ish range. Which means that most 1st level characters can be killed in 1 or 2 hits. Which means that unlucky players could die on the first round of their first combat prior to making any decisions or rolling any dice. Also, all non-casters once again start with just 1ish real ability.

Some players really like starting at this newb/apprentice/recruit phase. Others hate it. Others like the idea, but honestly don't want their character to die so capriciously. So they explicitly tell players "Hey it's ok to start at 3rd level if you prefer." And the amount of xp required to move out of this dangerous newb phase is very minimal.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Random question, I probably missed something after all.

Would it be possible to set the game up now where the player, and not the DM, got to decide if the PC started at first, second, or third level?

That way if there was a new person, boom level 1 but if a veteren is at the table they could choose for level 2 or 3? Heck this could be reversed since the veteran may want a challenge while the new player may want to be a bit tougher.

There doesn't seem to be that big of a difference between 1 and 3 and any threat for a level 1 PC seems to still be a threat to a level 3 PC ... Even though that level 3 PC will have more HP.


The level 1 PC can catch up in terms of level quite quickly even if they will be behind in XP. Or allow them to gain a +% more increase of XP until they are caught up.

Would something like this be worth it?

[Millennium]

"Unaligned" is absolutely needed as an alignment. With Good, Evil, Lawful and Chaotic you pretty much know what you're getting, but how else do you differentiate between the radically different "committed to neutrality" and "don't really care" stances? In previous editions (except 4e, of course), they would both have been marked True Neutral.
I'm inclined to agree, but I'd argue that there actually needs to be a third point. You've got "Balanced" which actively commits to a balance between the endpoints of his axis (the stereotypical druid), "Unaligned" which represents a state of non-commitment (most people), and "Innocent" for things that don't have the capacity to understand the conflict in the first place (most non-sentient beings, young children, and so on).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Some more stuff from 5e that I haven't seen on the boards just yet...

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140630

[1337 b4k4]

The level 1 PC can catch up in terms of level quite quickly even if they will be behind in XP. Or allow them to gain a +% more increase of XP until they are caught up.

Would something like this be worth it?

Other than having to be careful to avoid taking damage, bounded accuracy should mean that disparate level parties are much more viable in 5e than they have been in previous editions. Even in those, I don't think a 2 level difference was that much of a handicap (though to be fair, I never played in a disparate level party in those editions)

[da_chicken]

Random question, I probably missed something after all.

Would it be possible to set the game up now where the player, and not the DM, got to decide if the PC started at first, second, or third level?

That way if there was a new person, boom level 1 but if a veteren is at the table they could choose for level 2 or 3? Heck this could be reversed since the veteran may want a challenge while the new player may want to be a bit tougher.

There doesn't seem to be that big of a difference between 1 and 3 and any threat for a level 1 PC seems to still be a threat to a level 3 PC ... Even though that level 3 PC will have more HP.


The level 1 PC can catch up in terms of level quite quickly even if they will be behind in XP. Or allow them to gain a +% more increase of XP until they are caught up.

Would something like this be worth it?

I would be disinclined to allow players to mix. I would make the group choose and make them stick to it. Our group uses group leveling, however.

Otherwise, I see nothing wrong with starting players at level 3 if you're concerned about survivability, but saying they have 0 XP so they don't outlevel the module. 5e's flat math pretty much means this will work.

[obryn]

Other than having to be careful to avoid taking damage, bounded accuracy should mean that disparate level parties are much more viable in 5e than they have been in previous editions. Even in those, I don't think a 2 level difference was that much of a handicap (though to be fair, I never played in a disparate level party in those editions)
Yeah, I know that level disparities worked out pretty well in pre-3e D&D. Seems like they would probably be okay in 5e, too, but I'll want to see it in action first.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I would be disinclined to allow players to mix. I would make the group choose and make them stick to it. Our group uses group leveling, however.

Otherwise, I see nothing wrong with starting players at level 3 if you're concerned about survivability, but saying they have 0 XP so they don't outlevel the module. 5e's flat math pretty much means this will work.

Hmmm I like it.

Even if some started at lower than 3rd level, starting everyone at 0xp (regardless of starting evel) would be an interesting way of running it.

So as everyone gains XP (assuming at or close to the same rate) they will hit level 4 at the same time. The lower leveled players will level up and such at 2 and 3 while the third level person will just gain XP...

This could work for my groups where some HATE 1st-2nd level but other like it.

[rlc]

Although I'd still prefer the adventure to be written and put together well enough that the first two levels are still pretty fun.

[A Stray Cat]

To avoid premature character death while maintaining the first level start, why not pre-roll 2nd or 2nd and 3rd level hp to be used as a safety net?

[Lokiare]

Other than having to be careful to avoid taking damage, bounded accuracy should mean that disparate level parties are much more viable in 5e than they have been in previous editions. Even in those, I don't think a 2 level difference was that much of a handicap (though to be fair, I never played in a disparate level party in those editions)

The difference in 2E (which I've played avidly while it was the latest edition) was less over the course of several levels than the difference between a fighter and wizards abilities. For instance HP was 1d10+con mod(ability -10 then divided by 3-4 ish) for fighters. For Wizards it was 1d4(+ con mod up to +2 I think). So a 3rd level fighter and a 3rd level wizard had (assuming a con mod of +2 for each) fighter: 22, wizard: 13. So if you had a fighter that was level 1 they could start with the wizards level 3 hp (or be 1 point below it) and due to attack modifiers and whatnot being very slow they could keep up and you stopped getting hp around level 10 or so. 5E is different though. Hp doesn't stop as you level and the difference is more pronounced. So the level gap will be much smaller. Especially since everything scales on hp instead of other stats.


I would be disinclined to allow players to mix. I would make the group choose and make them stick to it. Our group uses group leveling, however.

Otherwise, I see nothing wrong with starting players at level 3 if you're concerned about survivability, but saying they have 0 XP so they don't outlevel the module. 5e's flat math pretty much means this will work.


Yeah, I know that level disparities worked out pretty well in pre-3e D&D. Seems like they would probably be okay in 5e, too, but I'll want to see it in action first.

The problem is the scaling of the game is a bad as 3E and 4E. They just moved it all to the hp side. So you'll still have all the problems of different leveled characters in those games.

[obryn]

The problem is the scaling of the game is a bad as 3E and 4E. They just moved it all to the hp side. So you'll still have all the problems of different leveled characters in those games.
Scaling with HP is a lot less troublesome than scaling with the d20.

[Lokiare]

Scaling with HP is a lot less troublesome than scaling with the d20.

Not really, it just takes away things you can vary from other stats. Then you end up with each character having to take or deal a certain amount of damage (unless of course you are a caster in which case you tell the laws of physics to go self fornicate and the rules to bugger off).

[Envyus]

Not really, it just takes away things you can vary from other stats. Then you end up with each character having to take or deal a certain amount of damage (unless of course you are a caster in which case you tell the laws of physics to go self fornicate and the rules to bugger off).

Could you wait till tomorrow when you will actually be able to read the spells before you can say they break the game.

[Lokiare]

Could you wait till tomorrow when you will actually be able to read the spells before you can say they break the game.

I don't have to. They flat out told us that the spells weren't going to change much and as I pointed out in another post even just fireball, which is unlikely to change, requires the fighter to have 3-4 attacks per round by level 5 and wield a d12 weapon. The writing is on the wall.

[Fwiffo86]

MATH TIME!!!!


Wizard
Fireball is 3rd level, base cast damage is 6d6 (6*3.5) is 3.5*6 = 21 average damage.
assuming 25% chance to resist for half damage
21*.75=15.75 average damage

Fighter

2 attacks = 1d12 + 3 (6.5+3) = 9.5
assuming 75% chance to hit... (.75*.75=.5625)
gives us 56ish% chance to land both blows
(9.5*.75) = 7.12 + (9.5*.56=5.32) = 12.44 average damage


15.75 vs 12.44

AND THE WIZARD WINS!!! at least until he runs out of fireballs, then his average damage becomes zero for this example of fireball vs claymore.Assuming you are talking about a single target, yeah, a d12 is pretty close but you only need two attacks. So you are partially on target.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

MATH TIME!!!!


Wizard
Fireball is 3rd level, base cast damage is 6d6 (6*3.5) is 3.5*6 = 21 average damage.
assuming 25% chance to resist for half damage
21*.75=15.75 average damage

Fighter

2 attacks = 1d12 + 3 (6.5+3) = 9.5
assuming 75% chance to hit... (.75*.75=.5625)
gives us 56ish% chance to land both blows
(9.5*.75) = 7.12 + (9.5*.56=5.32) = 12.44 average damage


15.75 vs 12.44

AND THE WIZARD WINS!!! at least until he runs out of fireballs, then his average damage becomes zero for this example of fireball vs claymore.Assuming you are talking about a single target, yeah, a d12 is pretty close but you only need two attacks. So you are partially on target.

What about taking into account if the fighter crits or fire being resisted? I'm not sure about 5e but fire has pretty much been the most resistable element in the game.

[Fwiffo86]

What about taking into account if the fighter crits or fire being resisted? I'm not sure about 5e but fire has pretty much been the most resistable element in the game.

Just doing the math for the most common occurrence of these damage types. I'm sure there is more math to do, but I was just running some basic math for generalization comparison.

[Lokiare]

MATH TIME!!!!


Wizard
Fireball is 3rd level, base cast damage is 6d6 (6*3.5) is 3.5*6 = 21 average damage.
assuming 25% chance to resist for half damage
21*.75=15.75 average damage

Fighter

2 attacks = 1d12 + 3 (6.5+3) = 9.5
assuming 75% chance to hit... (.75*.75=.5625)
gives us 56ish% chance to land both blows
(9.5*.75) = 7.12 + (9.5*.56=5.32) = 12.44 average damage


15.75 vs 12.44

AND THE WIZARD WINS!!! at least until he runs out of fireballs, then his average damage becomes zero for this example of fireball vs claymore.Assuming you are talking about a single target, yeah, a d12 is pretty close but you only need two attacks. So you are partially on target.


What about taking into account if the fighter crits or fire being resisted? I'm not sure about 5e but fire has pretty much been the most resistable element in the game.


Just doing the math for the most common occurrence of these damage types. I'm sure there is more math to do, but I was just running some basic math for generalization comparison.

Nice try but the released PDF says fireball is 8d6 damage. Also you didn't account for the caster having 2 fireballs memorized at 5th. You also didn't account for the other 7 daily spells they have prepared and you didn't take into account the average adventuring day (4 average encounters of 5 rounds average). Once you do that you realize that unless the party is having a long day, the Fighter needs quite a few more attacks per round.

[Envyus]

Nice try but the released PDF says fireball is 8d6 damage. Also you didn't account for the caster having 2 fireballs memorized at 5th. You also didn't account for the other 7 daily spells they have prepared and you didn't take into account the average adventuring day (4 average encounters of 5 rounds average). Once you do that you realize that unless the party is having a long day, the Fighter needs quite a few more attacks per round.

The Fighter is better single target. The Wizard is for big groups.

[Lokiare]

The Fighter is better single target. The Wizard is for big groups.

The Wizard is better all around. They have single target spells and damage over time spells that are better than the fighter. For instance Flaming Sphere deals 2d6 dex save for half every round to any creature adjacent to it. It also grants the Wizard a bonus action to move it around so they can still be casting cantrips every round. That right there equals more damage than the fighter over the course of an encounter especially at lower levels before the fighter gets multiple attacks. Run the math on that and see how it comes out. Assume the Wizard is moving the sphere next to at least 1 target each round with 2+ targets happening sometimes. Multiply that by 3 then add that to the 2 fireball damages. Then throw a level 1 spell cast 4 times on top of that. The math will show the fighter needing 4+ attacks per round with a d12 weapon by level 5 to keep up, even in single target combat over the course of an average adventuring day.

[Envyus]

The Wizard is better all around. They have single target spells and damage over time spells that are better than the fighter. For instance Flaming Sphere deals 2d6 dex save for half every round to any creature adjacent to it. It also grants the Wizard a bonus action to move it around so they can still be casting cantrips every round. That right there equals more damage than the fighter over the course of an encounter especially at lower levels before the fighter gets multiple attacks. Run the math on that and see how it comes out. Assume the Wizard is moving the sphere next to at least 1 target each round with 2+ targets happening sometimes. Multiply that by 3 then add that to the 2 fireball damages. Then throw a level 1 spell cast 4 times on top of that. The math will show the fighter needing 4+ attacks per round with a d12 weapon by level 5 to keep up, even in single target combat over the course of an average adventuring day.

Flaming Sphere is a concentration spell. Meaning they can be knocked out of it.

[obryn]

The Fighter is better single target. The Wizard is for big groups.
Sadly, the math does not bear this out. At least not for Evokers. Assuming Potent Cantrip was supposed to apply to attack rolls (since there are no saves for cantrips), here's an optimized fighter and an optimized evoker at level. (Not my work.)

Fighter (great weapon, greatsword)
65% chance to hit for 8.32 damage = 5.408
5% chance to hit for 16.17 damage = 0.8085
= 6.2165
x 2 attacks
= 12.433

Wizard
65% chance to hit for 15 damage = 9.7529
30% chance to hit for 9.5 damage = 2.85
5% chance to hit for 29.5 damage = 1.475
= 14.0779

... And the Wizard has some serious evocation spells over and beyond this, too.

[Envyus]

Sadly, the math does not bear this out. At least not for Evokers. Assuming Potent Cantrip was supposed to apply to attack rolls (since there are no saves for cantrips), here's an optimized fighter and an optimized evoker at level. (Not my work.)

Fighter (great weapon, greatsword)
65% chance to hit for 8.32 damage = 5.408
5% chance to hit for 16.17 damage = 0.8085
= 6.2165
x 2 attacks
= 12.433

Wizard
65% chance to hit for 15 damage = 9.7529
30% chance to hit for 9.5 damage = 2.85
5% chance to hit for 29.5 damage = 1.475
= 14.0779

... And the Wizard has some serious evocation spells over and beyond this, too.

You sure. The Fighter will have gotten two ability score improvements by this point. If a Mountain Dwarf is being played that's +7 to hit. While a Wizard will have +5 to hit at best.

[obryn]

Both will have identical to hit bonuses, since they both have 20's.

Things get a little better when the fighter gets his 3rd attack. But keep in mind, this is at will for the wizard and on top of his other spells.

[Envyus]

Both will have identical to hit bonuses, since they both have 20's.

Things get a little better when the fighter gets his 3rd attack. But keep in mind, this is at will for the wizard and on top of his other spells.

How did they both get 20's at level 6 that does not appear to be possible with the rules right now.

[obryn]

How did they both get 20's at level 6 that does not appear to be possible with the rules right now.
Sure it is. Start with a 16. Two stat bumps for +2 each. Or roll stats.

The Cantrip, btw, is Fire Bolt. At 10th it's 2d10. 3d10 @ 11th.

Evokers add their Int modifier and do half damage on a miss. So...

[Envyus]

Sure it is. Start with a 16. Two stat bumps for +2 each. Or roll stats.

The Cantrip, btw, is Fire Bolt. At 10th it's 2d10. 3d10 @ 11th.

Evokers add their Int modifier and do half damage on a miss. So...

The Wizard only gets it's second stat bump at level 8. I did forget that stat bumps are +2 however.

[Arzanyos]

Also, according to Basic, point buy can only get you to a 15 at the start. And the fighter should have a 10% chance for a critical.

[ngc7293]

Just wanted to add an Ogre that I didn't see. It is from Dragon Magazine #119 (http://annarchive.com/files/Drmg119.pdf). The cover title is the REAL reason the Romans left Britain.

[obryn]

Also, according to Basic, point buy can only get you to a 15 at the start. And the fighter should have a 10% chance for a critical.
Human and high elf get you +1, here.

Yes, crit chances should increase. The Wizard still wins the dpr race, since that kicks the fighter up somewhere around 0.8.

[Envyus]

Will say on next page.

[Envyus]

Human and high elf get you +1, here.

Yes, crit chances should increase. The Wizard still wins the dpr race, since that kicks the fighter up somewhere around 0.8.

They still can't get to 20 before 8th level while the Fighter Will have by 6th.



Just wanted to add an Ogre that I didn't see. It is from Dragon Magazine #119 (http://annarchive.com/files/Drmg119.pdf). The cover title is the REAL reason the Romans left Britain.


That's not an Ogre. That's the Demon Prince Kostchtchie. (He is associated with Frost Giants above all else)

[da_chicken]

Sadly, the math does not bear this out. At least not for Evokers. Assuming Potent Cantrip was supposed to apply to attack rolls (since there are no saves for cantrips), here's an optimized fighter and an optimized evoker at level. (Not my work.)

Fighter (great weapon, greatsword)
65% chance to hit for 8.32 damage = 5.408
5% chance to hit for 16.17 damage = 0.8085
= 6.2165
x 2 attacks
= 12.433

Wizard
65% chance to hit for 15 damage = 9.7529
30% chance to hit for 9.5 damage = 2.85
5% chance to hit for 29.5 damage = 1.475
= 14.0779

... And the Wizard has some serious evocation spells over and beyond this, too.

Interestingly, Potent Cantrip doesn't do anything at all. It only affects cantrips with saving throws, but none of the cantrips require saving throws anymore. That's a pretty obvious error, though, with pretty obvious intent.

However, assuming this is level 10th level, this doesn't seem right to me. It's not an optimized Fighter at all. It's a Str 10 Fighter.

Look: Assuming the Fighter has Great Weapon style, they're rolling 2d6, rerolling 1s and 2s once. If my math is right, that means each d6 has a 2/36 chance each of rolling a 1 or 2, and an 8/36 chance each of rolling a 3-6. That means the d6 deals 4.167 (4 1/6) damage on average, meaning the greatsword alone deals 8.33 (8 1/3). An optimized Fighter at level 10 will have 20-21 Str (16 or 17 + 2 + 2), meaning damage is 13.33 not 8.32, and the Fighter will also have Improved Crit, so will enjoy a 10% crit chance and will deal 21.66 damage, not 16.17. (If we're giving the Wizard two of her path features, the Fighter gets his, too.)

The 10th level Wizard with Firebolt will deal 2d10+5 (16) on a hit, and half (8) on a miss, and 4d10+5 (26) on a crit. [Edit: The crit should be 27... so add 0.05 to the damage.]

So, if both the Fighter and the Wizard need an 8 or better to hit (they should, without magic, both have a +9 to hit):

Fighter:
35% @ 0
55% @ 13.33
10% @ 21.66

0.55 * 13.33 + 0.10 * 21.66 ~= 9.5

Two attacks, so: ~19 damage on average

Wizard:
35% @ 8
60% @ 16
5% @ 26

0.35 * 8 + 0.6 * 16 + 0.05 * 26 = 13.7

If we look at level 11, the Fighter gets +1 attack, the Wizard gets +1d10 damage.

Fighter now deals 9.5 * 3 = 28.5

Wizard deals 10.75 miss/21.5 hit/38 crit:

0.35 * 10.75 + 0.6 * 21.5 + 0.05 * 38 ~= 18.6

So, yes, at level 10 when the Wizard picks up a path feature that specifically enhances cantrips, her cantrips get a lot better. But not better than a Fighter.

Oh, and of course we're not including magic weapons at all.

[Envyus]

Just learned something.


"There will be cantrips with saving throw in the PHB."

So the evoker just a has a useless class feature for basic. I think one of the first things that will be patched into the PDF will be having some saving throw cantrips.

[da_chicken]

You have a link for that quote?

I suppose it makes sense because people were so vehemently against damage on a miss. I like damage on a miss!

[obryn]

Look: Assuming the Fighter has Great Weapon style, they're rolling 2d6, rerolling 1s and 2s once. If my math is right, that means each d6 has a 2/36 chance each of rolling a 1 or 2, and an 8/36 chance each of rolling a 3-6. That means the d6 deals 4.167 (4 1/6) damage on average, meaning the greatsword alone deals 8.33 (8 1/3). An optimized Fighter at level 10 will have 20-21 Str (16 or 17 + 2 + 2), meaning damage is 13.33 not 8.32, and the Fighter will also have Improved Crit, so will enjoy a 10% crit chance and will deal 21.66 damage, not 16.17. (If we're giving the Wizard two of her path features, the Fighter gets his, too.)
I think there's 4 chances of getting a 1 or 2 here; the cases are 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2.

The probability gets crazy, but i think calling it "somewhere around 8" is perfectly fair.

Nevertheless, cool deal - I agree, it looks like the fellow who did the math didn't account for Strength bonus to damage.

[Envyus]

You have a link for that quote?

I suppose it makes sense because people were so vehemently against damage on a miss. I like damage on a miss!

http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4107146 Plaugescared the D&D forums guide's comment. It's the closest to an official answer we currently have.

[Lokiare]

Interestingly, Potent Cantrip doesn't do anything at all. It only affects cantrips with saving throws, but none of the cantrips require saving throws anymore. That's a pretty obvious error, though, with pretty obvious intent.

However, assuming this is level 10th level, this doesn't seem right to me. It's not an optimized Fighter at all. It's a Str 10 Fighter.

Look: Assuming the Fighter has Great Weapon style, they're rolling 2d6, rerolling 1s and 2s once. If my math is right, that means each d6 has a 2/36 chance each of rolling a 1 or 2, and an 8/36 chance each of rolling a 3-6. That means the d6 deals 4.167 (4 1/6) damage on average, meaning the greatsword alone deals 8.33 (8 1/3). An optimized Fighter at level 10 will have 20-21 Str (16 or 17 + 2 + 2), meaning damage is 13.33 not 8.32, and the Fighter will also have Improved Crit, so will enjoy a 10% crit chance and will deal 21.66 damage, not 16.17. (If we're giving the Wizard two of her path features, the Fighter gets his, too.)

The 10th level Wizard with Firebolt will deal 2d10+5 (16) on a hit, and half (8) on a miss, and 4d10+5 (26) on a crit. [Edit: The crit should be 27... so add 0.05 to the damage.]

So, if both the Fighter and the Wizard need an 8 or better to hit (they should, without magic, both have a +9 to hit):

Fighter:
35% @ 0
55% @ 13.33
10% @ 21.66

0.55 * 13.33 + 0.10 * 21.66 ~= 9.5

Two attacks, so: ~19 damage on average

Wizard:
35% @ 8
60% @ 16
5% @ 26

0.35 * 8 + 0.6 * 16 + 0.05 * 26 = 13.7

If we look at level 11, the Fighter gets +1 attack, the Wizard gets +1d10 damage.

Fighter now deals 9.5 * 3 = 28.5

Wizard deals 10.75 miss/21.5 hit/38 crit:

0.35 * 10.75 + 0.6 * 21.5 + 0.05 * 38 ~= 18.6

So, yes, at level 10 when the Wizard picks up a path feature that specifically enhances cantrips, her cantrips get a lot better. But not better than a Fighter.

Oh, and of course we're not including magic weapons at all.

Magic items aren't assumed (unless you follow the suggested random treasure tables then you're swimming in them.).

You are also comparing all of the fighters features and traits (i.e. basic attacks) against just the cantrips of the wizard. Throw in something like Flaming Sphere (2d6 damage every round save for half) plus cantrips (because controlling the sphere is now a bonus action) and you'll see what I'm talking about. Also go with the number of expected rounds of combat in a day (which is what the rules say should happen) and see how the damage shakes out over the course of a day. You'll find the fighter falls far and away behind. Shoot, right now the Wizard is doing 65% of the fighters damage with cantrips alone. It doesn't stack up well if the wizard starts throwing dailies around.

[Envyus]

Magic items aren't assumed (unless you follow the suggested random treasure tables then you're swimming in them.).

You are also comparing all of the fighters features and traits (i.e. basic attacks) against just the cantrips of the wizard. Throw in something like Flaming Sphere (2d6 damage every round save for half) plus cantrips (because controlling the sphere is now a bonus action) and you'll see what I'm talking about. Also go with the number of expected rounds of combat in a day (which is what the rules say should happen) and see how the damage shakes out over the course of a day. You'll find the fighter falls far and away behind. Shoot, right now the Wizard is doing 65% of the fighters damage with cantrips alone. It doesn't stack up well if the wizard starts throwing dailies around.

If the Wizard gets hit Flaming sphere turns off on a failed save.

[Lokiare]

If the Wizard gets hit Flaming sphere turns off on a failed save.

Sure, but at level 10 they can cast it 2x per encounter and why would the wizard get hit at all? They are in the back row possibly hiding around the corner stepping out just long enough to direct their flaming sphere and cast a cantrip before ducking back behind cover while the rest of the party is in melee with the things.

[da_chicken]

I think there's 4 chances of getting a 1 or 2 here; the cases are 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2.

The probability gets crazy, but i think calling it "somewhere around 8" is perfectly fair.

Yes, those are the cases. It's actually pretty simple if you do it this way: Always roll two dice. If the first die is 1 or 2, use the value from the second die. If the first value is 3-6, ignore the second die. This has the same results as re-roll on a 1 or 2 without having to do all the math in our heads, even if it's not practical to do in a real game with a greatsword.

So, we get:

1,1 = 1
1,2 = 2
1,3 = 3
1,4 = 4
1,5 = 5
1,6 = 6
2,1 = 1
2,2 = 2
2,3 = 3
2,4 = 4
2,5 = 5
2,6 = 6
3,1 = 3
3,2 = 3
3,3 = 3
3,4 = 3
3,5 = 3
3,6 = 3

4-6 on the first die are the same as 3. Now, 6 * 6 = 36 combinations. From the list above, two results are 1 so 2/36. 2 is the same so 2/36. Eight results are 3 so 8/36. 4-6 are the same so 8/36 for each of those. We can double check our math with 8*4 + 2*2 = 32 + 4 = 36 and it looks like we have all our combinations accounted for.

[pwykersotz]

Sure, but at level 10 they can cast it 2x per encounter and why would the wizard get hit at all? They are in the back row possibly hiding around the corner stepping out just long enough to direct their flaming sphere and cast a cantrip before ducking back behind cover while the rest of the party is in melee with the things.

It would be pretty silly of a GM to only allow enemies to attack the front line. I mean, it's true that the Wizard will get hit less by staying back, but it just needs to happen at the wrong time to make his life that much harder.

[Envyus]

Sure, but at level 10 they can cast it 2x per encounter and why would the wizard get hit at all? They are in the back row possibly hiding around the corner stepping out just long enough to direct their flaming sphere and cast a cantrip before ducking back behind cover while the rest of the party is in melee with the things.

Because most things with average intelligence will want to get rid of the annoying wizard and his fire rock. So they would probably use ranged attacks. Plus the fact that the Wizard needs to be protected already helps out this game in terms of lowering how effective Wizards are.

[Felhammer]

Sure, but at level 10 they can cast it 2x per encounter and why would the wizard get hit at all? They are in the back row possibly hiding around the corner stepping out just long enough to direct their flaming sphere and cast a cantrip before ducking back behind cover while the rest of the party is in melee with the things.

Enemy Wizard casts an AOE near the PC Wizard. Hulking giant ignores the other PCs and makes a b-line for the Wizard. Enemy rogue sneaks up on the Wizard from behind and sneak attacks him. Enemy Archer readies an action to attack the wizard as soon as he is within sight. Enemy spellcaster summons a monster next to the PC Wizard. Enemies retreat to negate the Wizard's obvious tactical advantage.

There are a thousand ways for even reasonably intelligent creatures to defeat such a blatant tactic.

[TheOOB]

The wizard is better than the fighter, while their spells last. The fighter can use their full number of attacks all day, and even get some lasting healing ability. Wizards get less spells than in previous editions(no bonus spells for high ability score, less higher level spell slots), and spells scaling is gone, which means a wizard will only be able to unleash the big guns a couple of times per a day.

It's all burst vs sustained damage.

And besides, from the looks of it you're still doing it wrong if you focus on damage as a wizard, just doing it less wrong.

[Kurald Galain]

They still can't get to 20 before 8th level while the Fighter Will have by 6th.
Actually, the odds of starting with an 18 right at level one (assuming a +1 racial bonus) are 30%. That's pretty common. If you can find a +2 race (which we already have for fighters, and there will no doubt be more races later), then those odds go up to 56%, with a 10% chance of starting with a 20 right at level one.

So it will be a common situation to have people in the party with maxed or near-maxed primary


The wizard is better than the fighter, while their spells last.
So, 15-minute adventuring day?

[Envyus]

Actually, the odds of starting with an 18 right at level one (assuming a +1 racial bonus) are 30%. That's pretty common. If you can find a +2 race (which we already have for fighters, and there will no doubt be more races later), then those odds go up to 56%, with a 10% chance of starting with a 20 right at level one.
?

I am assuming that point buy or the array will be used.

[Kurald Galain]

I am assuming that point buy or the array will be used.

And why would you assume that? The PDF lists rolling as the main method, and players have a strong incentive to want to roll for stats, because they'll get better results that way.

[Jeraa]

And why would you assume that? The PDF lists rolling as the main method, and players have a strong incentive to want to roll for stats, because they'll get better results that way.

Well, rolling is the main method for creating stats in 3.X and Pathfinder as well, but point buy is still very popular with them.

And if there is some Living World sanctioned play stuff for 5e like there is for Pathfinder (Pathfinder Society) and like I think there was for 3.X (though I am not sure about that), point buy will probably be the required method for stat generation.

[Kurald Galain]

Well, rolling is the main method for creating stats in 3.X and Pathfinder as well, but point buy is still very popular with them.
The difference is that in 3E/PF/4E, point buy gives you the stats you want more reliably than rolling does; whereas in 5E, rolling gives you the stats you want more reliably than point buy does.


And if there is some Living World sanctioned play stuff for 5e like there is for Pathfinder (Pathfinder Society) and like I think there was for 3.X (though I am not sure about that), point buy will probably be the required method for stat generation.
That's a good point, although 5E organized play so far seems to be big on honor code (even though experience with earlier organized play systems show that doesn't work so well).

[Sartharina]

I also agree the adventure starts at 3rd level but again i like the struggle to get to that point. Sure you get more spells, equipment, exc but it makes the characters have to be smart.It can still be a struggle to get to 3rd level. In order to gain experience, you have to overcome challenges. Low-level characters lack the ability to overcome said challenges. You gain 0 XP for being dead, running away, or otherwise failing to overcome a challenge.

[rlc]

So basically, opinions on the early game are split between some people saying it's too easy, some saying it's too hard and some saying it's just right. Goldilocks, anyone?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So basically, opinions on the early game are split between some people saying it's too easy, some saying it's too hard and some saying it's just right. Goldilocks, anyone?

Weirdly enough my last game had three dwarves who were (of course) super hairy. They called themselves the "Three Bears"... And now I run into your comment.

[rlc]

I was one of them