D&D 5E New D&D WotC survey! On classes.

[DEFCON 1]

I feel the "solution" for fun gaming, is for designers to strive for equally balanced options. If one option is underpowered then make it more powerful or else relocate it to a lower level where it becomes competitive with other options there. And if one option is overpowered then make it less powerful or else relocate it to a higher level where it becomes more comparable with other options there. By balancing options, "choices"

Balancing options "solves" every aspect of D&D.

And "balancing" combat options that work as being balanced for every single player out there is statistically impossible.

You know this. As do I. As does everybody. It cannot be done. Because something that is balanced for how YOU play D&D will not be balanced for someone else.

The BEST WotC can do is get in the ballpark of "balance". Or at least get as close to the ballpark as possible so that every player and DM out there can add in whatever house rule they need to actually achieve the balance that their table desires.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But I'm perfectly happy when I don't suck at combat. It's YOU who would be happier if the other players thought that way.

I'm sorry but I can't accept that sucking at combat resolution is somehow, inherently, necessary for me to not only have fun, but to also have narrative fun. There's no reason I need to sacrifice my damage output to have fun in other aspect of the game, it's a false dichotomy that the game stupidly propagate, if you ask me.

If you're telling me that there are classes and/or subclasses in the current game of D&D that actually SUCK for you (as opposed to the hyperbole-less just being "less powerful")... then your miniatures combat board game must be so focused on a razor's edge of combat optimization that you are pretty much SOOL. Because WotC is NEVER going to go that far in the weeds on trying to balance that type of board game.

Hell... there are strategic board games out there designed strictly for that purpose of "balance" between all the options that can't seem to get it to 100%. To think that Dungeons & Dragons could do it? That's insanity!

 

[Faolyn]

But nobody ever wants to play one of those. It's always the same smarmy class clown with the same stats, the same cantrip, the same proficiencies, and the same rapier. So my problem isn't necessarily with the Bard class; it's with the Bard trope. And it's not their fault; the game mechanics for the bard expect a specific way of playing it...and for all the talk about "versatility" and "jack of all trades," there are few incentives to reward deviating from that expectation.

Well, that's just not true. None of the bards that've ever been in any of my games are like this at all. This is just a meme, not reality.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Could we have a summary? What’s wrong with it?

It's kinda two things just stuck together without much synergy or work integrating them. The Cantrip + Weapon Attack looks nice on the surface, but two weapon attacks at levels 7-10 are normally better than a weapon plus a two dice cantrip and three at level 11+ almost always are better than a weapon plus a three dice cantrip. And Eldritch Strike is weird; the EK is unlikely to be casting single target save or suck spells (it would work well if it was a set-up ability where you shredded the enemy's arcane defences for your ally).

As a spellcaster evocation + abjuration isn't a terribly useful collection of schools, especially as you often hit harder than your evocation spells - and if I wanted a fighter/wizard mix I'd probably want either transmutation for self-buffs like fly or illusion to bamboozle the enemy (and can't ultimately see a good reason to restrict the school at all).

If what you want is a wizard who can cast spells it does the job, but all the other class features are bad and 5e design is normally better than this.

 

[Yaarel]

And "balancing" combat options that work as being balanced for every single player out there is statistically impossible.

You know this. As do I. As does everybody. It cannot be done. Because something that is balanced for how YOU play D&D will not be balanced for someone else.

Because we are talking about the aggregate, it is obvious which options are overperforming (for example, Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master) and which options are underperforming (Linguist).

The options dont need to be symmetrically balanced, they can be different mechanics doing different things. But they need to be useful, at least several times during a gaming session, and to be good at what they do. The options need to be comparable and equally desirable in the aggregate.

D&D is largely a combat game, and many gamers pay careful attention to the combat aspects. It is the most well understood aspect of the game. Combat options are the easiest aspect of the game to balance.

It is also possible to silo all combat options, so they dont compete with mechanical options for social and exploratory encounters. Dual-use mechanics such as mobility, useful for both combat and exploration, default to the combat silo. It helps the game to contain combat options and to keep each option extremely balanced alongside comparable options.

The other two pillars of the game, social and explorative, are less well understood. The social mechanics are making baby steps. The hesitancy is to ensure the mechanics dont override player agency to roleplay out a social scene. But social mechanics exist, and can be siloed and compared to each other to ensure they are equally useful and appealing.

The exploratory silo is mainly various kinds of searching and finding, including searching the unknown. This too has mechanical options that can be siloed and compared to each other to ensure the options are comparably useful and appealing.

Mechanically the central pillar of the game is combat. It is the most distracting, but is the easiest to silo and balance.

The BEST WotC can do is get in the ballpark of "balance". Or at least get as close to the ballpark as possible so that every player and DM out there can add in whatever house rule they need to actually achieve the balance that their table will play at.

The ballpark is enough. The designers tend to be good about nerfing powerful options, but sometimes hit too hard, and are extremely negligent about powering up underpowered options.

Correcting and calibrating in BOTH directions, up and down, is necessary to ensure "choices" are actually choices. When options are equally powerful, they become able to serve the needs of both mechanical prowess and narrative prowess.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's kinda two things just stuck together without much synergy or work integrating them. The Cantrip + Weapon Attack looks nice on the surface, but two weapon attacks at levels 7-10 are normally better than a weapon plus a two dice cantrip and three at level 11+ almost always are better than a weapon plus a three dice cantrip. And Eldritch Strike is weird; the EK is unlikely to be casting single target save or suck spells (it would work well if it was a set-up ability where you shredded the enemy's arcane defences for your ally).

As a spellcaster evocation + abjuration isn't a terribly useful collection of schools, especially as you often hit harder than your evocation spells - and if I wanted a fighter/wizard mix I'd probably want either transmutation for self-buffs like fly or illusion to bamboozle the enemy (and can't ultimately see a good reason to restrict the school at all).

If what you want is a wizard who can cast spells it does the job, but all the other class features are bad and 5e design is normally better than this.

I'd agree with all of this, and add that, I think it's bit off to use up one of the PHB subclasses for Fighter (and Rogue) with what is essentially a multiclass combo, rather than a particularly interesting expression of the Fighter. It's like Wizards are so important to D&D, that they need to bleed into the subclasses of other classes. That'd be fine, I think, in post-PHB books, but it seems messed-up in the PHB (I know there's precedent with junk like the Arcane Archer in 3E, but that's not a good reason at all).

I think in any future PHB, the subclasses of a class should be focused on making entertaining visions of what that class can be, not a crummy version of a multiclass. The EK is just not a good design, doesn't have a good spell list, and whilst it can be effective, to do so requires pretty specific spell choices, and making those choices requires a degree of system mastery that I think relatively few players possess. As you point out, the Cantrip + Weapon Attack option is rarely going to be a good idea, but to most players, who aren't system masters, it's going to look like one. Not cool. Equally, because they have this weird and slightly perverse selection of spells, non-system-master players (i.e. most players) are likely to pick spells which are actually not a good idea at all.

All classes and most subclasses in 5E can benefit from system mastery to a degree, but the EK benefits from it far more than most (the AT issues are much smaller).

 

[Undrave]

And "balancing" combat options that work as being balanced for every single player out there is statistically impossible.

You know this. As do I. As does everybody. It cannot be done. Because something that is balanced for how YOU play D&D will not be balanced for someone else.

The BEST WotC can do is get in the ballpark of "balance". Or at least get as close to the ballpark as possible so that every player and DM out there can add in whatever house rule they need to actually achieve the balance that their table desires.

My best ballpark is where the DM can have zero idea what their player are bringing to the table and it doesn't matter. Every time someone says something along the way of "the DM should adjust the pace of the game so class that recharge on long rest/short rest don't overshadow the other recharge schedule" that's a fail in my mind. 'Anti-Magic Zones' shouldn't be a thing that needs to exist. And a DM shouldn't have to micro-manage every damn level up to make sure the PCs don't break the game.

If you're telling me that there are classes and/or subclasses in the current game of D&D that actually SUCK for you (as opposed to the hyperbole-less just being "less powerful")... then your miniatures combat board game must be so focused on a razor's edge of combat optimization that you are pretty much SOOL. Because WotC is NEVER going to go that far in the weeds on trying to balance that type of board game.

Hell... there are strategic board games out there designed strictly for that purpose of "balance" between all the options that can't seem to get it to 100%. To think that Dungeons & Dragons could do it? That's insanity!

You're misunderstanding my points. My points are that
1) just because I enjoy the combat mechanics doesn't mean I'm not having fun AND it doesn't mean I can't engage with the narrative and have fun with that aspect.

2) Just because a class is 'good at combat' should have no bearing on their ability to engage with elements outside of combat (AKA Fighter syndrome). Every class should bring something (doesn't have to be the same thing) to all three pillars of play, BEYOND the basic baseline of skills and proficiencies. All class should have class features that impact all three pillars of play in some unique way so that you can FEEL like your class choice actually matters 24/7.

 

[Undrave]

I'd agree with all of this, and add that, I think it's bit off to use up one of the PHB subclasses for Fighter (and Rogue) with what is essentially a multiclass combo, rather than a particularly interesting expression of the Fighter. It's like Wizards are so important to D&D, that they need to bleed into the subclasses of other classes. That'd be fine, I think, in post-PHB books, but it seems messed-up in the PHB (I know there's precedent with junk like the Arcane Archer in 3E, but that's not a good reason at all).

And considering the Wizard has 8 friggin' subclass in the book, it's pretty egregious. And then the SCAG adds the Arcane Domain Cleric...

Wizard bias strikes again...

 

[niklinna]

D&D is largely a combat game, and many gamers pay careful attention to the combat aspects. It is the most well understood aspect of the game. Combat options are the easiest aspect of the game to balance.

The other two pillars of the game, social and explorative, are less well understood. The social mechanics are making baby steps. The hesitancy is to ensure the mechanics dont override player agency to roleplay out a social scene. But social mechanics exist, and can be siloed and compared to each other to ensure they are equally useful and appealing.

More specifically, D&D devotes vastly more rules and play time to resolving combat than to resolving other activities (when it tries to use rules for the latter at all). As for balance, I've played plenty of other games that offer cool non-combat mechanics that are pretty well balanced and/or tunable (in terms of power level, detail, and player spotlight time). Powered by the Apocalypse & Forged in the Dark are just two (similar) ways of going about it.

But that's getting rather far afield, and into "what makes D&D, D&D?" territory. I suspect WotC aren't interested in that scope of change.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not familiar...I'll see if I can track it down at the library.

It's a bit edge-lordy, as it's meant to be Schwalb's Alt 5e (with some of his designs that didn't go through) and Warhammer Fantasy. There is a generic version that's in the works in playtest - Tales of the Weird Wizard - which is his sort of ode to Gygaxian fantasy.

The general gist of the class system is that there are 10 levels. At levels 1, 2, 5, and 8, the PC gains benefits from their Novice path. At levels 3, 6, and 9, the PC gains benefits from their Expert path. At levels 7 and 10, the PC gains benefits from their Master path. At level 0 and 4, the PC gains benefits from their Ancestry.

There are four Novice paths: Magician, Priest, Rogue, Warrior.

Expert paths are more advanced versions: e.g., Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Fighter, Ranger, Thief, Wizard, etc.

Master paths are even more specialized versiosn: e.g., Illusionist, Mage Knight, Executioner, Aeromancer, Gladiator, etc.

But the the thing is, a PC can build these however they like. Wanna be a Priest/Wizard/Cavalier? Or a Warrior/Cleric/Necromancer? Go for it?

The resolution system is also easy. For ability checks, it's just beating a 10 on a d20 roll. Advantage/Disadvantage get reworked into Banes and Boons, which are 1d6s that are added or subtracted from the roll.