D&D (2024) Wow, 5.5e characters are STRONG!

[UngeheuerLich]

I whipped up a few premade characters for an event this weekend. Until I did, it hasn't sunk in how much PCs are being buffed. All the changes in the playtest packets have been relatively small, but they really add up.

Races are stronger. Backgrounds are stronger. Classes are stronger. Subclasses are stronger. Spells are stronger. And weapons for martial characters are a lot stronger. (I don't think I fully realized that weapon masteries kind of sort of make any martial character into a battlemaster fighter, except with infinite superiority dice).

You put all that together, and 5.5e characters are strong like Diddy Kong. Perhaps especially at lower levels. Honestly, unless 5.5e monsters get buffed, we'll have to rethink what balanced encounters are.

Don't forget: we might see some nerfs from the UA. Because everytime they tried to be conservative with new abilities, or bringing the best one down instead of lifting the wors ones up, it got downvoted to oblivion.
So even if everything gets a little power up, they can say: it is not our fault.

That said, it was necessary to either buff martial characters or nerf casters a bit in their versatility. They can still easily adjust monsters for 2024 and the worst that can happen is that 2024 punch a bit above their 2014 level. Which we could adept to if we were adamant in not upgrading the DM side of things.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Debatable that it is more powerful than full casters - but yes, that's the point. The rogue, ranger, and monk can now hang with the paladin. And the sorcerer should be able to hang with the wizard.

The game was not that unbalanced if you did not go for total optimization.

Even a rogue and a monk and a ranger could be useful for a party and fun to play for a wide level range, as long as the strongest classes did not optimize too much and as long as there were notnunlimited long rests.

I really believe though that all the upgrades for rogues and monks and rangers are necessary and really helpnclosing the gap between optimizers and non optimizers. Now casters actually have to work a bit for staying ahead of the monk, especially in combat. And I could see days, where the wizard will be glad that the monk is around and not another wizard.

 

[Neonchameleon]

they are fun in RP, but in combat, especially in melee they are bad.

Low AC, low HPs.

Depends a lot on the rest of the party and the way the rogue fights. But yes, they are bad

Now, new Vex and Nick masteries do help, as you can Disengage as Bonus action and still have two chances to land sneak attack.
Before that, only viable DPS way for rogue is elf with elven accruracy and exploiting Aim Bonus action as much as possible and possibly staying 150ft away from melee.

I'm not sure you are right there; rogues used to be able to do hide-as-bonus-action shenanigans. But Vex changes the equation in good ways, allowing them to get options while getting advantage.

people use it because it's the only option, not because it's good.

Don't forget that it's also fun. But it is indeed the only bard damaging cantrip (other than the terrible True Strike), while bards can't make weapon attacks with Charisma. Therefore caster bards are more or less forced into Vicious Mockery or a warlock dip. Meanwhile in OneD&D bards get to True Strike for decent cha-based melee or ranged damage (but not multiattack level) giving themselves another option.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've made a LOT of Playtest characters (and played with them). My impression is that 2014 characters go from 1-5, power-wise, while 1D&D ones go from 2-4 (with 2's being rare). They knocked the top and bottom off.

So, I mean, if you compare a 2014 two or three to a 1D&D four (which is easy to make - easier than a 2014 four) then you're gonna see it as power-creep.

But if you compare a 2014 FIVE to a 1D&D THREE (which is also easy enough to make) then you'll see it as a nerf. OTOH, if you compare the average character, you pretty much wind up with three-and-a-half either way, and feel that it's pretty much the same.

And yeah, 1D&D playtest classes are NOT going to wind up in the 2024 PHB with no changes whatsoever. UAs have always had nerfs before going to print. Sometimes nerfs that make them totally pointless. I hope THAT won't happen!

I think we're going to be fine. Especially when the monsters match their CRs more effectively (and less effectively on the overclocked monsters!)

 

[Upper_Krust]

Think PCs are strong? Just wait until you see the Monster Manual.

We live in hope that WotC sort out the chronic under-powered (supposedly high CR) monsters that have blighted every book they have released for the past decade. Fizban's Treasury of Dragons & Glory of the Giants don't fill me with confidence they have a handle on high-level play. Hopefully they get it right with the 5.5E Monster Manual.

 

[Yaarel]

Well, no.

The one real boost is the Feat at first Level...but every book publisjed aince Mythinc Odysseys of Theros in 2020 haa had thoae as standard, over three years now.

Weapon Masteries are functionally juat "Martial Cantrips," which are nice but not a huge boost.

Classes and Species are on the same balance measure as before.

I agree with the above assessment.

Note, some species are stronger, such as Dragonborn, but this is errata to bring them upto the standard of other species.

Some species have traits shuffle around a bit, after the score improvements relocate to the background section instead of the species section.

But 2024 is more about robustly balancing the species compared to each other, than an actual increase of the species design space.

 

[Nightfly]

(Variant) Humans do not keep "the extra first level feat". Humans used to have access to some of the most powerful feats in the game (e.g. Polearm Master, Great Weapon Fighter, or War Caster). They now get the extra inspiration to make up for the fact that they are restricted to the sort of feats like Skilled or Tough that no one ever took. The weakest variant humans are significantly more powerful but the strongest are actively slightly weaker.

That's a really good point. The best feats in 5e (5.0e?) have been removed, changed, or have level requirements now, so a free 1st level feat isn't what it used to be. I concede the point.

Also, having 2 feats instead of 1 isn't the same as having 1 instead of 0. I think a lot of people who went variant human weren't necessarily "power gaming", but instead needed a feat to make their character concept work. If backgrounds give free feats, that may not be the case.

The rogue, ranger, and monk can now hang with the paladin. And the sorcerer should be able to hang with the wizard.

Agree! As I said, 5.5 characters being more powerful isn't a bad thing. Balance is good! Fixing underpowered options like Four Elements Monk is good! On the whole, I'm very pro-5.5e. I'm just surprised that some people doubt that the characters, as currently presented in the playtest, are stronger on the whole. I think they clearly are.

honestly, what i wanna know is how you came to this conclusion. how did the session go? what did the characters do? how badly did your monsters get stomped?

It wasn't massively different, but there were times when the changes were very noticeable. For one, there was much more healing before a character got to 0 HP. That was great to see. Cure Wounds heals for a dozen HP on average now and that really stands out.

The biggest thing was the weapon masteries. Twice, slow on a longbow shot made a monster lose an attack. Sap was really nasty and caused some whiffs (granted, we were at a level with no multi-attack). Graze felt a little icky, honestly. When a monster was reduced to 3 hit points, a greatsword attack auto-killed it even when the attack roll was a natural 1. I didn't have any philosophical complaint about damage-on-a-miss going in, and I've played under that concept before in 4e and 13th Age, but seeing it in action in 5e felt strange. I'm not even sure Graze is good compared to the other masteries, but realizing that an attack would kill a critter no matter what felt weird.

I can only report on what happened in one session, so I can't tell you how good the new monk is, or how Cleave and Topple work in play, or many other things. But the PCs did indeed seem stronger, even given that they were probably weren't optimized as well as they could have been.

 

[Charlaquin]

if a literal cantrip isn't your idea of a minor effect, i actually don't know what i could possibly tell you.

Not even the whole cantrip! Just the rider effect from it.

 

[Charlaquin]

As a reminder, almost everything will be tuned down when published

Well, it’ll all get playtested internally and may get adjusted depending on the results of that playtest. Judging by how unearthed arcana material typically compares to its published version, I expect fairly minimal changes if any to most things, and a few way-out-of-left-field significant departures.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm just surprised that some people doubt that the characters, as currently presented in the playtest, are stronger on the whole. I think they clearly are.

Mathematically, they are not more effective. They are more exciting, that's the design priority: increasing satisfacrion.