EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
I think you'd probably find 4e somewhat eye-opening, if you feel 5e is "overpowered." 5e is very much the svelte, more even-tempered sibling of 3e: it's shed most of the egregiously overpowered parts of 3e, and made up for at least some of the let-downs (e.g. the 5e Fighter is far and away better than the 3e Fighter, though not as much as I'd personally like.)
Here's the question I have to ask, before anyone launches into an attempt to fix the alleged profusion of "overpowered" stuff in 5e:
If almost everything is "overpowered," don't you think you need to re-calibrate your power assumptions?
For instance, damage scales up because damage-and-HP is where WotC shoved the scaling growth that they'd siphoned out of hit and defense values. The "cost" of Bounded Accuracy is modifying the amount of damage characters do. Coming into this with 3e or pre-3e perspectives, things are going to seem GONZO because the math expectations have gone through something like 20-30 years of changes.
When you start calling almost everything overpowered, take a deep breath, clear your head, and start checking your intuitions. Your intuition is what is telling you "No that cannot be right," but intuition doesn't hold up well when editions change. You have to go back to the drawing board and confirm your intuitions, correcting them where they no longer hold. Does Fighter damage scale well vs. enemy HP? Does it grow exponentially faster, or does it seem to not keep up? That's the kind of checking you need to do before you leap on something as "overpowered." It might actually slot just fine into the context of the new edition, filling exactly the position it should fill so that people don't fall behind.
Is it actually that "crazy"? Grabbing Barbarian levels pushes off your extra attacks, and may even deny you the 4th attack--so you may be trading a small early boost for a large later drop! Also, see the below stuff.
So...the three classes that get Fighting Styles are all doing "overpowered" damage in the same field(s)? That seems like they're all on an even keel then, and the only reason they'd be "overpowered" is that monsters weren't designed to keep up with any of them.
Some particulars, though: Remember that all the cool stuff you're talking about the Paladin doing requires spell slots, and you don't really get THAT many of them. A spell spent on a buff is a spell that can't be used for Smiting--so it better be worth the damage lost! Etc. That said, the save-bonus aura is generally considered a little crazy, since save bonuses are so hard to come by and a maxed Charisma is better than or equal to Proficiency with all saves until the highest levels (17+)...and it stacks! So I agree that the Paladin has some big stuff, but the *damage* part of it isn't as incredible as you might think.
Rangers I haven't heard much talk about and haven't really investigated so I can't comment on. Barbarians are all about the high-risk, high-reward melee. They put themselves in danger, to do a lot of damage. Similarly, Rage is powerful, but comes with
Yet by multiclassing, you lose out on high-level spells from both classes. Again, multiclassing often works to give you a boost early on but a penalty later--especially since ABIs are class-level-based rather than character-level-based.
This doesn't sound so much "overpowered" as "finally good." Which is something it inherited from 4e: Bards were great in that edition--not overpowered, just a no-less-good choice than any other Leader--and 5e's designers clued in on some of that.
Yeah, the Moon Druid is pretty powerful...at specific levels for Wild Shape, and has to make up for that levelling off by being exploitative (IMO) with summons and other such shenanigans.
Something to remember: Wizards are not proficient with Con saves, and Con saves are necessary for maintaining Concentration in combat, even if you're well-defended. Wizards should pretty much always stay far away from melee. And it really is worth remembering that you never get more than 1 spell of levels 6-9 each day. Those lower-level spells are still strong because you really cannot rely on your high-level spells to carry you!
This...doesn't sound overpowered. It sounds like it's fun and capable. Does that make things "overpowered" now?
Mulitclassing comes with costs. You can't multiclass unless you meet stat prerequisites. If you do multiclass, you delay your access to certain major features: only Fighters get a third or fourth attack, and multiclassing more than a couple level dip guarantees you can't get the fourth attack. Further, ABIs/Feats are tied to the level in a particular class, not character level, so you sacrifice stat points unless your MCing carefully balances that.
In general, the opinion (at least right now) is that multiclassing is a weak option unless you have a very specific goal in mind.
I find this kinda funny, since Clerics aren't just healers. In fact, they're by far one of the most flexible classes in the game, able to be a pure-caster, a fighter with solid spell support, a healer, a minion-mancer...the Cleric has a lot of good things going for it. (In fact, you could say that other than Smite Evil, the Paladin is an a la carte version of selected Cleric traits--so the Paladin is supposed to be generally well-rounded, while the Cleric focuses on one specific thing or another.) They may not be "abusable," but they're very strong.
Dueling is (ironically) the sword-and-board style, since by RAW it doesn't prevent you from having a shield in the off hand. It's not meant for improving damage really. You're right about TWF though; early on it's strong because it's an extra attack, but it becomes progressively weaker as other extra attacks come in.
I haven't heard anyone complain that Rogues fall much behind. Don't forget that Sneak Attack damage can be done at range! Also, if you're worried that "everyone standing in the open swinging at creatures" is a problem, you should probably try to vary the terrain. Terrain strongly influences tactics, tactics strongly influence what's "powerful" or not.
Moon Druid+Monk can get silly because Monk abilities work while you're shapeshifted. The Paladin save aura is probably amazing, though relatively short-range until high level (only 10' radius) so it encourages 'bunching up.' Monks may be a bit Ki starved at certain levels. Clerics are no longer 'zillas, but their damage doesn't fall much behind a Fighter's for a while and especially not for a Cleric of War--so they've got good spells *and* decent damage and armor.
Conversely, Warlocks and Battlemaster Fighters are sensitive to the number of short rests per day; IMO extremely so. If you have a short rest before every encounter, they'll probably start to outshine others. But even the recommended 2 short rests per day seems to leave them a bit shortchanged. That is, the rules say you should have 6-8 encounters per day (and, despite assertions to the contrary, these are never stated or AFAIK even implied to be non-combat encounters, at least not in the Basic docs), so the BM has to make 4 dice last for 2-3 combats, which is a good 6-12 rounds, while the Warlock often has only 2-3 spell slots to spread over that range. Additionally, most BM maneuvers scale very little (if at all) with level, so while they may be powerful early on, they can seem a little lackluster 10 levels later.
