I see this assertion by 4e fans....
[sblock="Two old edition warriors going off topic, again"]
often but my experience with the game pointed to a totally different conclusion, when it cam to versatility and breadth of utility... magic was still king in 4e.
I think maybe you read a little too much into what I said. There's no question that, even though martial classes got plenty of 'exploits' (powers), even more than the most-prolific casters (wizard) got spells until Essentials, anyway, the range of things arcane spells, or even just wizard spells did, particularly in regards to AEs and named damaged types, but also in terms of attacking the full range non-AC defenses, and variety of utilities, was not only quite different (giving the lie to all those 'classes samey' and 'fighters cast spells' claims of the edition war), was certainly greater. In 3.x Class Tier terms, the Fighter went from Tier 5 to Tier 3-4, while the Wizard came down from Tier 1 to high Tier 3.
In context of D&D editions, yeah, 'neatly balanced' describes that, but, to be fair, only in contrast to the profound, if unintentional, imbalances of the TSR era, and the intentional rewards for system mastery of 3.x/PF. In the broader context of RPGs, or even games in general, 'neatly' would be pushing it. 'Barely adequate' might even be a little charitable.
Rituals along with the spells a wizard or cleric got still allowed them to do things a fighter could only dream of.
More than dream, since Ritual Caster was a 'small' 3e/4e-style feat, so surprisingly accessible with little opportunity cost, and MP2 also introduced somewhat equivalent, though still clearly fewer/narrower, different (consumed surges instead of components), and arguably inferior 'Martial Practices.'
Sure in 4e he was the king of combat (DPR, maneuvers, etc.)
Nope. The 4e fighter was a strong defender, arguably at some points the 'best,' though that was a dubious title held by a narrow margin, and a secondary striker, his DPR appropriately lagged that of actual full strikers like the Ranger. The Slayer, though, was a striker on a defender chassis, so rather like the Barbarian in combat ability. Ultimately, 4e was 'too balanced' (by D&D standards) to point to one class as 'king' of combat.
but arguably he's still the king of combat in 5e as well (DPR, maneuvers, etc.).
The 5e design goal/advertising-claim for the Fighter is 'best at fighting' which is understood to mean fighting with weapons, and without magic. 'Best' in that sense just means that no one can prove a claim of being better. And the Monk, for instance, if free to better at fighting without weapons than the fighter.
The 5e fighter, though, is unquestionably strongly focused on DPR, being right up there, if not, depending on the analysis, slightly ahead of, the other heavy-hitters like the Raging Barbarian or Smiting Paladin or Blasting Warlock.
EDIT: To clarify I don't consider having an equal number of fiddly bits equal to achieving balance...
Absolutely agreed. Fiddly bits (needless complexity) are irrelevant. A class with a flow chart of a dozen potential modifiers that, in the end, always shake out to no more than +4, for instance, is in no way superior to a class that just gets a +4 all the time.
Parity of resources, which is what you were probably trying to refer to in the context of 4e, OTOH, is a foundation that makes balance easier to achieve and more robust, though it's still hardly sufficient in itself. Just as balance, itself, is hardly sufficient to make a decent game, just one quality of a game that can help it to suck less.
[/sblock]
...
As to 5e it put it's own limitations in place for spells that limit spell power far more than say 3e
3e was not the absolute height of spell power (that'd've been high-level AD&D), nor the absolute nadir of limitations to 'balance' said power (that'd have to be 4e & 5e, really). 5e spells are far more powerful and slots more numerous & flexible than in 4e, when they were still noticeably more versatile than corresponding martial abilities. 5e spells face fewer actual limitations than in any previous edition, the trend line on that is pretty steep and consistently down.
[sblock="RANT: Casting just keeps getting easier..."]In the early game, spells faced tremendous limitations on their use. You had to be standing upright, with both hands free, not moving,
concentrating, with all the components at hand, speak loudly enough to be clearly heard, be able to hear what you were saying (deafness carried a chance of spell failure), and if you cast in melee, you were (though there were two different, contradictory rules for it), likely to be attacked in the act of casting, and, if hit, the spell failed and the memory of it was lost. Spells that required concentration had most the same requirements as concentration when casting, and said concentration was automatically broken by any damage, at all (and potentially other things as well).
3e softened all that: you only needed one hand and the ability to speak and feats could eliminate those requirements, could be crouching behind cover or even prone, and/or moving including riding a fast-moving mount, material components were consolidated into the spell component pouch, concentration allowed a check that you could buff up the wazoo, you could also use concentration to avoid an AoO, but being hit by said AoO only caused you to lose the spell if you failed another concentration check, a concentration check could even allow you to cast while grappled. (3e also made save DCs scale with slot level, while simultaneously making some saves worse for most characters, but that's not strictly-speaking a relaxed limitation, nor would more slots or metamagic or liberal item creation be).
4e further simplified and softened limitations on casting, let's say 'net' - for instance, AoOs could no longer be avoided with a concentration check, which would seem like tightening a restriction, but, AoOs were only provoked by Range & Area spells, which were no different, in that, from all other range/area attacks. So it was a limitation, but not only on spells, nor on all spells. Concentration checks were no longer required, if you were hit while casting your spells still went off if you were still able (alive, not stunned or anything), again, just like any other attack. Concentration as a duration was changed to 'Sustain,' which required an action, usually minor, sometimes even Standard. You still needed just one hand & the ability to speak, you could be under any condition that didn't actually prevent you from taking the required action type and still cast. Components were further consolidated into implements. Rituals were broken out and no longer used the same resource pool as attacks. (Of course, there were far fewer slots, and they were locked-in, even wizards, who could prepare, had very limited selection and couldn't take the same spell 'twice,' and spells were far less powerful. But those are less strictly limitations.)
5e further softened the limitations on casting, though it did increase the overall complexity some: You still need only one hand, can consolidate material components down to a 'focus,' and can cast in any circumstance or condition that doesn't deny you the required action type. Spells provoke no AoO. Sustain was returned to Concentration, required only for a select few spells, took no action at all, and could be maintained with a check even when damaged. (And of course, spells powered up and slots far more numerous - and all casters are freak'n spontaneous, which is huge.)[/sblock]
Really... you think one of the design goals of 5e was to achieve the feel of imbalance in previous editions?
Yes.
Was that the imbalance of OD&D, BD&D, AD&D, 3e or 4e? Which one was it trying to emulate, and according to your views succeeded at?
The /feel/ of the classic game in general (so everything but 3e & 4e), including that feel contributed by the failure of it's many baroque balancing mechanisms. (But, without so much complexity, since 'simplicity' & 'fast combat' were also goals.)
ON-TOPIC ALERT! Among those imbalances was the notorious 5MWD, favoring daily-use spells & abilities. By balancing daily abilities with at-will abilities over the course of a 6-8 encounter day("Ungowa Timba, ungawa!"
), 5e has re-captured that feel, handily.
What's more, by changing from Encounter to Short-Rest recharge abilities for most classes, it's softened the blow to the traditional at-will-only classes like the fighter. The imbalance is there to deliver it's feel, but it's lessened because virtually anyone can nova, if only to a small degree.
So, IMHO, yes, it's succeeded admirably. Many people comment on how much 5e feels like 2e or AD&D, for instance. I get a 1e vibe off it, myself, probably because I didn't play a lot of 2e, and when I ran it, it was with my own collection of 1e variants adapted to it.
[sblock="Elephant? What elephant?"]
And if this was it's goals why nerf the power of certain spells and why implement concentration to limit spells?
Spells 'nerfed' relative to 3e were profoundly powered-back-up compared to 4e, so 'nerfed' is misleading.
More broadly, 5e restored spells to power levels more
suggestive of the classic game, though less prone to wild exploitation 3e's intentional rewards for system mastery. They're also back to natural language descriptions that freely mix fluff and 'crunch' which give the DM some latitude to interpret them in less or more powerful ways (and players some room to buck for the latter, of course).
Concentration is much less onerous in 5e than in the classic game, but it does bring back a hint of the flavor, (though not much of the downsides of requiring concentration on actual casting) of concentration requirements in the classic game. Concentration checks, OTOH, are more reminiscent of 3e.
Universal spontaneous casting, OTOH, while certainly a fat power-up for casters relative to every prior edition, does not have 'classic feel' as a rationale. I suppose it could be considered a bookkeeping 'simplification,' though, like many things 4e did to simplify and improve the game, I've seen it confuse the heck out of long-time and returning players.
How is giving out XP and letting players keep track of it individually to determine when they level up... "wildly complicated to actually use"?
"...use
in design" is what I said. Not the players' use, but the designers' or variant-authoring DMs' use.
[/sblock]
