D&D 5E Is the imbalance between classes in 5e accidental or by design?

[payn]

Was the playtest input too much?

 

[Oofta]

Perfect balance is an illusion when you have a game infinitely more complex than tic-tac-toe. One table may be well balanced, another may favor wizards, another short rest classes, yet another fighters and rogues will shine. At some levels some classes will feel more powerful, some players will simply be more effective at running whatever you hand them. Different classes have different roles, different strengths and weaknesses.

There are just too many factors to take into consideration, too many ways of looking at "balance". I find all of the different classes I've had a chance to play enjoyable. Are the people at the table enjoying themselves and having fun? Is there enough variety to satisfy different styles of play, while allowing for variety? Nothing is ever going to be perfect but I think the answer is yes.

 

[DarkCrisis]

D&D never has and never will have "balance".

 

[Vaalingrade]

Possibly because some fans talk about balance in such a way as to require scare quotes.

 

[NotAYakk]

So, in the recent thread "Are Wizards really all that?", fellow user @ECMO3 claims that:

• Yes, the Wizard is 'all that', it's the most powerful class in the game
• It was designed that way
• The game is better like that

Putting aside the first and third statement, we got into a major argument over the second one.

I argued that any imbalance was accidental, that there is nothing in the books to indicate that one class is more powerful than the other, especially not to someone who just picks up the book as a newbie and that if the classes WERE designed to be stronger or weaker than each other, the lack of conveyance is a bad design, and that the CR encounter building system would include adjustments per-class (and that WOTC wouldn't have tried to fix the Ranger multiple time if it was fine that it was weaker). ECMO3 argues that the fluff clearly puts the Wizard above the others (Supreme magic user and all that guff) and, furthermore, anyone can tell from the mechanics, and also that there is no indication in the book that all classes should be considered equal.

It got me curious how the rest of the board falls on this issue, because I've never seen anybody else with the same view as ECMO3

4e attempted to make the Martial types and the Spellcaster types balanced.

To that end, Martial types gained many cool things they could do to impact the game narrative beyond "I swing a sword and deal HP damage", and resource management to limit their tool use.

On the other hand, Spellcaster types had their world-altering abilities filed away (wish, etc), and their game narrative impact abilities reduced to something similar to what the Martial PCs had.

Both had access to similar non-combat engines (skill challenges, rituals) that could be used to enact larger world-scale-altering effects, but neither had them by fiat.

There was a massive backlash. 5e was (in part) a response to that backlash.

Fighters where intentionally reduced back towards dealing HP damage and losing narrative control, and spellcasters where intentionally given back world-scale-altering abilities.

The champion fighter in 5e only has "I hit and damage it" fiat abilities. The BM has very limited non-"I hit and damage it" fiat abilities.

The wizard regained wish, demiplane, clone, magic jar, and abilities of similar scale.

The math work in 4e (AC/ATK/HP/Damage/etc) was retained in 5e with a fresh coat of paint and covered with OD&D seasoning.

...

The thing to watch out for is the assumptions of wizard supremacy.

What is going on is that the Wizard and Fighter both start out at roughly the same level of competence, but the Wizard is more amenable to a higher level of optimization. The Fighter, when optimized, does more damage; the Wizard, when optimized, rewrites the game narrative.

BUT: If you pick relatively random abilities, subclasses, spells for each, you won't usually even see this effect.

I mean, for every wish spell, there is a weird spell; a 9th level AOE 22 damage per turn fear spell.

 

[Undrave]

Define "balance".

Because something like DPR or even a broader "combat effectiveness" only addresses 1 of the 3 pillars of RPGs. Besides, I worry more about "fun" than "balance".

For the purpose of this thread, balance would mean that a party’s overall performance is not impacted by what classes compose that party. A party of different character classes should have, on average, just as easy a time at an adventure than a different party of different classes.

Let’s say we have two parties of equally experienced players tackling a published adventure. Party 1 is a Fighter, a Rogue, a Sorcerer and a Cleric. Would the adventure be easier for Party 2 if the Sorcerer was a Wizard? What if the Fighter was a Bladesinger? What if the Cleric was a Paladin? Or a Bard instead? What if Party 2 was just composed of three Wizards?

Would the DM have to go out of their way to make the adventurer more difficult for Party 2? What if a third party shows up with a Fighter, a Rogue, a Monk and a Ranger, will the DM have to adjust the adventure to make it easier for Party 3?

To me, balance means that the DM doesn’t need to worry about what class his party brings to the table, nor do they need to micro manage their resources (“Do you have enough guano left for that spell?”) and they can just focus on making the game fun and memorable. The DM should be confident that an adventure for four characters of level 5 to 8 will work for their group without any mechanical overhaul on their part as long as the group fits the presented criteria. Maybe the party will have to go at it in an unorthodox way, but they’ll have a shot at victory regardless.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So, in the recent thread "Are Wizards really all that?", fellow user @ECMO3 claims that:

• Yes, the Wizard is 'all that', it's the most powerful class in the game
• It was designed that way
• The game is better like that

Putting aside the first and third statement, we got into a major argument over the second one.

back in the day (at least 2e but most likely pre 2e) there was a power fantasy of the 'smart knowledge obsessed guys being better then physical guys'

the first games were based on war games, and fighting man was a general or 'hero' and wizards were artillery... so yeah, a tank is better then a general.

I may be wrong but I hope that no one at WotC looks at spells and thinks "yeah, thats balanced with a third attack"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but they certainly did not try to make it stronger than in previous editions. The casters in 3.X had tremendeously power, 5e is clearly trying to reign them in.

yes, 3.0 and 3.5 wizards (and clerics and druids) got a power boost from 2e over the martial classes.
4e reigned it in
5e took MAJOR steps back from 4e, but didn't get all the way back to 3e

 

[Undrave]

The thing to watch out for is the assumptions of wizard supremacy.

What is going on is that the Wizard and Fighter both start out at roughly the same level of competence, but the Wizard is more amenable to a higher level of optimization. The Fighter, when optimized, does more damage; the Wizard, when optimized, rewrites the game narrative.

BUT: If you pick relatively random abilities, subclasses, spells for each, you won't usually even see this effect.

I mean, for every wish spell, there is a weird spell; a 9th level AOE 22 damage per turn fear spell.

Sooo… don’t let the optimizers play Wizard?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well they obviously had a stab at it when compared with 3.5 but shied away from the one size fits all of 4E. The actual internal drivers of what made them settle on 5E are probably multi factorial.

ironically between Essentials updates and the new monster rules for spellcasters you can see a glimer of where you could build a balance