I tried to think of a way to see this, but I just have to disagree. It is possible to define away everything as "not really a trap" and I can go along with that, but 4e's mechanical balance did not do this.
On the contrary, that's rather the point of mechanical balance. You have a lot of choices, they're quite different, but they're all viable.
But, like 3e rewarding system mastery, that was just an aside, the point is that in 5e the DM can (and
probably should) impose balance, just of an entirely different order. Short of 'gaming the DM' (or getting on his bad side) the player can't really screw up that kind of balance - thus, "no traps."
It is hard to not conclude that while "bounded accuracy" reduces the chance of building a largely ineffectual character, 4e's level based number inflation system does the opposite.
And easy conclusion to jump to, but not valid. The key difference is that the 4e treadmill was across the board. A PC who didn't particularly specialize in a skill still got better at it through the hard-knocks school of adventuring, so could always take a shot. A specialist could be /really/ good, even a little more so than the 12 point spread possible in 5e, though that increases to 18 w/Expertise. (Contrast 4e/5e with 3.5 and potential 23 point spread from ranks alone - and +20 items.)
In 4e, not boosting your primary stats, particularly your attack stat
Is not something you'd contemplate doing, ironically, /unless/ you were an optimizer. It's not like you'd do well dumping your prime requisite in any edition (though, ironically, I've seen a 5e wizard get away with it, that was an odd case at low level).
Playing a fighter with a bow made you a really bad archer, compared to a ranger.
Also just silly. (I get that it was a source of disequilibrium for long-time players, but if you just glance at the fighter class with an open mind, you'd never think to build one as an archer, while the Ranger had a build that was exactly that.) No 'system mastery' required, default builds and examples made it painfully obvious. It'd be easier to make the mistake of arming your high-STR fighter with a bow instead of a javelin in 5e (because you need to paruse the weapons table), than to expect a 4e fighter to be an archer, because the presentation is just that much clearer.
Making character classes that are balanced with each other doesn't preclude "trap options"
It does, on a very basic level. You can play to concept and not automatically taking a hit to versatility/power or be channeled into an unwanted style to remain effective. Of course, that means starting with a concept.
This is probably why "optimizers" had a lot more fun with 4e, the "rewards" of choosing optimally versus sub-optimally were much greater.
Rewards for optimization in 4e were pretty slight compared to 3.x, the nature of a balanced system. But optimization could still get you the exact build you wanted, just not a broken one. There's two sides to the powergaming coin, there's broken builds, but there's also viable builds to concept.
3e or 4e, you built a character, you had a very good idea what it could do. Optimizers liked that, whether they were being lavishly over-rewarded or working on razor thin margins.
I'm confused by this... what edition of D&D allows a player to "dictate" to the DM how effective their character is going to be through mechanical choices you make at chargen & level up?
3e & 4e, certainly. The 'player empowering' editions. Especially if the DM was taken in by the 3.x RAW zeitgeist.
my next question would be... How?
Player picks a class, feats, weapons, spells, makes/buys/ items, etc, and what they do, how they stack up, and how crazy-broken they all turn out to be are all a function of 'RAW.' The DM can 'house rule' (shame! horror!) or pull out the banhammer, but the player had a lot of control over what his character was & could do - and not entirely 'within reason.'
3.5 was the height of the phenomenon (4e balance muted the effects), but it was even true further back, though to an increasingly lesser extent. 2e 'Player Option' supplements opened up some stuff along those lines. Before that, there was always spell choice, spells being a fairly push-button way of evoking specific results for the player.
Of course, the DM could always respond by ratcheting up the challenges faced, even if he wasn't willing to challenge the RAW, thus pushing
relative effectiveness back down.
5e is, if anything, less that way, even than later 2e. Players have choices but, what those choices translate to the PC actually being able to do is very much a matter of DM rulings. Some choices, like spells and class features, are more clearly defined than others, like ability & skill checks, but they're all mere rules subject to the DM rulings.
It's funny, because it's like "nothing has changed, but everything has," just on a matter of clarity, emphasis, and attitude. In reality, a 2e DM could have run strictly 'by the book' or a 3e/4e DM could have over-ridden the rules constantly. Nothing could have stopped them in either case. But they'd've been bucking the trend and common wisdom of the day. By the same token, a 5e DM could empower the heck out of his players with clear house-rules/rulings all clearly spelled out, even irrevocably documented ahead of time, and stick to them no matter what combos they came up with.
