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

[NotAYakk]

And there isn't a car which doesn't need fuel. Which doesn't mean that fuel efficiency should be ignored or that a car that goes one mile to the gallon is acceptable. 5e is far worse than its immediate predecessor at this. Or for that matter oD&D.

Sure.

4e by level 30 I can provide a 20x ratio of damage output between naive and optimized characters, near complete immunity to damage by any published monster, almost perfect shutdown of almost every monster visible in an encounter, and other stuff.

Pre-essentials 4e prescribes how magic items are distributed, and leaves no tools here short of artifacts with enough scope to balance it.

I cannot produce infinite simulacrum wish chains in 4e. You can get close. But the combat engine? The 5e combat engine and the 4e combat engine are not that much different in over optimization issues.

In under optimization, in my experience 5e is better than 4e; a default, unopimized 5e character is closer to a reasonable baseline in 5e than it was in 4e by late game. There are exceptions (Ranger is a big one, or Warlock who never gets around to taking AB).

Unopimized 4e characters made level 30 4e nearly unplayable. Lack of DPS would make any challenging 4e monster take forever to kill; if you had monsters that died fast enough, their damage output would be anemic against unoptimized 4e characters.

Part of this is the reduced number of customization points in 5e. In 4e, a level 30 PC has close to 30 Player-chosen customization points, and often finding one that is 10% better than an unoptimized one is usually possible. 1.1^30 is 17x more effective, and it happens when building 4e characters.

(In 4e, you have 18 feats. If each feat adds ~3 damage per tap that is ~54 damage per tap. Then you go for high-tap powers, damage-per-tap items, extra-tap items and paths/destinies, etc. A feat that ups your damage by 3 isn't a top notch feat that breaks the game (weapon focus for example), but if you can find 18 feats that are that good (or do something equally good) you diverge away from the baseline.)

In 5e, you have 5 ASI/feats and 1 subclass pick; few other choices "stack" like they do in 4e (even spell picks). Doing stuff like multiclassing can expand this (which is why MC is important for optimization; it isn't that MC is powerful, it is just that it gives more things to optimize).

Now, I've played a 5e character that is optimized next to an unoptimized ranger, and the ranger did have issues. But next to a relatively unoptimized fighter? Far less of a problem. And it wasn't hard for the DM to fix the gap.

I've seen the same problem in 4e, and by paragon (teen levels) the unoptimized character (barbarian) was unusable.

 

[FallenRX]

This idea only works in an environment where reaching high level as a spellcaster is, in fact, actually difficult--where it is not merely "you are weak and must wait to grow strong," but "you are weak and may not survive to grow strong."

Problem is, that hasn't been a fundamental assumption of D&D since at least 3e, and possibly earlier.

This is one of the things I'm referring to when I say that the designers do things intentionally, but do not do them with the intent to create imbalance. "It sucks to constantly lose your character at low level!" is a perfectly valid thought in isolation. "Spellcasters can have their phenomenal cosmic power at high level even though others don't and still be balanced by rarely getting to high level, and by non-spellcasters getting awesome worldly rewards that give them powers a spellcaster simply cannot mimic, like armies and territory and money" is also a perfectly valid thought in isolation. "Domain management is tedious and doesn't end up doing very much for many players, so let's make that an optional rule" is likewise perfectly valid in isolation.

But when you combine these together, you get, "Spellcasters can have phenomenal comic power at high level even though others don't and still be balanced." Because the first thought cancels out "by rarely getting to high level," and the third thought cancels out "by non-spellcasters getting awesome worldly rewards." And that thought is simply incorrect.

With the exception of 4e, D&D has been a long and steady history of taking away both explicit and implicit benefits given to non-spellcasting characters, and giving great power and few, easily-avoided limitations to characters focused on spellcasting ("full spellcasters.") Now, admittedly, if we had jumped straight from 3e to 5e, this wouldn't be true, but we didn't. We jumped from 3e to 4e, and then 4e to 5e. So the pattern remains true. Relative to the previous edition, every edition except 4e has taken power and benefits away from non-spellcasting characters and given power and benefits and fewer restrictions to spellcasting characters. 5e gave less power and fewer benefits, removing fewer restrictions than was the case for 2e arising out of 1e or 3e arising out of 2e. But it still kept up that trend.

I'd argue it holds up still not because of difficulty more like any DnD game ends or fizzles out before they ever get to high level regardless, the gap only really appears around level 12/13

 

[Justice and Rule]

Yeah, people are very much underestimating the burgeoning subculture of 'balance is bad' in D&D and basically only D&D.

Is it "burgeoning" or simply loud and more reactive?

 

[Oofta]

I’ll assume you are being sincere…

The alternate DMG rule overnerfs wizards at low levels: a 1st level wizard has 3 1st level spells, and if there is combat on 2 consecutive days, he’s used up 2/3rds of his spots just on mage armor.

You’ve modified that by increasing spell durations. But you don’t get to claim that wizards are balanced RAW when a) you are using an alternate rule; and b) that alternate rule doesn’t work and you have to houserule it to make it work.

Once again, I had just as many encounters when long rests were overnight, I didn't change the rule because of wizards I changed it because I prefer a different pace. I play in other games and don't see an issue.

::sigh:: never mind. No matter what I say you'll just change the narrative.

 

[Undrave]

Going the Warlock route where you have two modifiers would be interesting. Pathfinder 2E has something similar with Clerics, where you choose your deity and then whether you are a Cloistered Cleric (more of a spellcaster) or a War Priest (more of a fighter). And really, what would be good there would be to give them different kinds of metamagic dependent on their subclass, which they can use a number of times equal to their proficiency or intelligence modifier. I'm unfamiliar with the masteries from 4E, but if you could explain it I'd be interested.

So implements in 4e, at their simplest, were basically a way for your Spellcaster to get their +X to their attack rolls (since everything in 4e was an attack roll). There was an ‘implement’ keyword that would let you apply the bonus from your magical implement to your power. Non magical implement were available but didn’t really add anything on their own.

Implement were essentially the equivalent of spellcasting focus, you had the wand, the rod, the staff, the holy symbol, the totem, and later the tome (with Magic Tomes containing an extra spell for you!). The same as with weapons, some powers could have extra riders depending on the implement used.

Wizards, however, had a class feature called Arcane Implement Mastery where they could specialize in one of their implements. I don’t have my 4e books but if I remember correctly the base one were Staff of Defense, Orb of Imposition and Wand of Accuracy. Staff of Defense gave you +1 AC while wielding a staff and would let you, once per encounter, gain CON mod to AC for a turn. The Orb of Imposition would let you put your CHA mod as a penalty on a creature’s saving throw (which, in 4e, were a mechanic to determine the duration of an effect, and a saving throw was normally a flat d20 roll against a flat DC of 10 to end any effect with a ‘save ends’ duration) once per encounter. The Wand of Accuracy would, if I recall, let you boost your attack roll on a creature by your DEX mod one per encounter. I think it was Arcane Power that later added the Tome of Binding (buffed Summons) and I could swear there was an Orb mastery for illusionist too...

I liked these because they fed into this 4e design philosophy of having your choice of class feature influence your preferred secondary attribute (which I find makes it way easier to differentiate two characters of the same class) but it softly pushes your Wizard to a specific playstyle. The Staff Wizard can more confidently use close range powers because of their buff to AC and they prefer higher CON (so more HP), while the Wand Wizard prefers single target powers to better use their feature, and so on.

Now wouldn't metamagic defeat the purpose of the sorcerer? Well, maybe... or maybe not. The sorcerer could be the super-generalist, someone who has access to an even broader set of spells, even from spell sets that the Wizard can't normally access depending on the flavor. This would be where the idea of Primal/Arcane/Divine would come into play: like Pathfinder 2, your sorcerer subclass would define your deck. You get a specialist gimmick based around the whole "Uses equal to Proficiency/Main Stat" idea, and the ability to use metamagic more freely through your spell points compared to wizards that have a set number of metamagic usages each day. Thus sorcerers have fewer spells but vary much more than wizards, and they also have a wider variety of combinations for metamagics. If you lock down the wizard with more restrictions, I think the sorcerer becomes more distinct even if you give the wizard a sprinkling of metamagic.

I think the Sorcerer should go back to the NEXT play test version where the more you used your magic, the more your bloodline would manifest (temporarily). I think it’s a really cool concept that would let the Sorcerer finally be more than just the ‘dumber Wizard’. You could have sorcerers who change fighting style as they deplete their Sorcery Points/Spell Slots (I think a Sorcerer should use Spell Points as a basic, instead of slots).

That real issue just isn't fixable without either down-powering magic in general or completely remaking the fighter. Either would have fans up in arms, and WotC wants a simple fighter anyway.

Why always the FIGHTER when the Barbarian is right there?!

 

[Vaalingrade]

Is it "burgeoning" or simply loud and more reactive?

No, it's been growing over the past decade or so since it first showed up.

I didn't say it was a good thing. I mean I'm from the South and kudzu is also burgeoning.

 

[Justice and Rule]

So implements in 4e, at their simplest, were basically a way for your Spellcaster to get their +X to their attack rolls (since everything in 4e was an attack roll). There was an ‘implement’ keyword that would let you apply the bonus from your magical implement to your power. Non magical implement were available but didn’t really add anything on their own.

Implement were essentially the equivalent of spellcasting focus, you had the wand, the rod, the staff, the holy symbol, the totem, and later the tome (with Magic Tomes containing an extra spell for you!). The same as with weapons, some powers could have extra riders depending on the implement used.

Wizards, however, had a class feature called Arcane Implement Mastery where they could specialize in one of their implements. I don’t have my 4e books but if I remember correctly the base one were Staff of Defense, Orb of Imposition and Wand of Accuracy. Staff of Defense gave you +1 AC while wielding a staff and would let you, once per encounter, gain CON mod to AC for a turn. The Orb of Imposition would let you put your CHA mod as a penalty on a creature’s saving throw (which, in 4e, were a mechanic to determine the duration of an effect, and a saving throw was normally a flat d20 roll against a flat DC of 10 to end any effect with a ‘save ends’ duration) once per encounter. The Wand of Accuracy would, if I recall, let you boost your attack roll on a creature by your DEX mod one per encounter. I think it was Arcane Power that later added the Tome of Binding (buffed Summons) and I could swear there was an Orb mastery for illusionist too...

I liked these because they fed into this 4e design philosophy of having your choice of class feature influence your preferred secondary attribute (which I find makes it way easier to differentiate two characters of the same class) but it softly pushes your Wizard to a specific playstyle. The Staff Wizard can more confidently use close range powers because of their buff to AC and they prefer higher CON (so more HP), while the Wand Wizard prefers single target powers to better use their feature, and so on.

Ah, that's a neat (if small) way of customizing your character.

I think the Sorcerer should go back to the NEXT play test version where the more you used your magic, the more your bloodline would manifest (temporarily). I think it’s a really cool concept that would let the Sorcerer finally be more than just the ‘dumber Wizard’. You could have sorcerers who change fighting style as they deplete their Sorcery Points/Spell Slots (I think a Sorcerer should use Spell Points as a basic, instead of slots).

Hahaha... So PF2E did this with the Oracle, but it ended up pretty complicated because when you use your Oracle powers you have a "curse" that activates and gives you both a boon and a bane with it, and the more you activate the more severe both get. That's the simplest way of putting it and it could definitely use a bit of simplification and elegance.

That sort of thing would be very novel for 5E and I'd absolutely like to see how it plays out, especially for a Wild Mage. The idea that using more magic would make more random things happen is a great way to implement that sort of crazy magic.

Why always the FIGHTER when the Barbarian is right there?!

No, it's been growing over the past decade or so since it first showed up.

I didn't say it was a good thing. I mean I'm from the South and kudzu is also burgeoning.

Oh no, I understand what you meant, I just wasn't sure it matched my experience. But who knows.

 

[Gadget]

I kind of agree with the OP, in that wizards were not consciously designed to be the most powerful. WOTC was under tremendous pressure to 'get it right' with 5e and appease the majority of gamers while trying to be newbie friendly and bring in hoards of new players. It succeeded, but they had some design parameters to adhere to:

• Cut down on the jargon and make it 'intuitive' while using 'natural language' to have the story of classes & abilities come out. They may have at least partially succeeded here, but it also limited the tools to restrain and contain the magic users in a more precise and interesting manner.
• They had all the weight and baggage of previous editions to satisfy to try and 'feel like D&D' (something that 4e was lambasted for not doing). This means you had all the expectations of Wizards (and other spell casters) being able to do largely what they've always done. You have first level spells doing things and imposing conditions that even higher level spells are hesitant to do (incapacitate, basically restrain with Tasha's, etc.) due to this tradition.
• They wanted to remove cumbersome restrictions and let people have fun and enjoy their character's abilities, which led to the semi-Vancian spell-casting and spell interruption, casting in armor, etc. being implemented or reduced. They tried to balance based on past complaints by introducing Concentration, no bonus spell slots for high ability scores, no auto-scaling spells, but it did not quite work out. Still I remember the early days of 5e, when many--no doubt returning to the fold from 3.x or Pathfinder--complained bitterly about how wizards were "nerfed" and no longer worth playing.

 

[Undrave]

I mean, I'd debate that the fans would be up in arms over remaking the fighter. You could probably remake the fighter and ranger largely to a decent amount of approval, given that it feels like class critiques often focus on those two classes already. Nerfing magic... well, that might get a louder reaction, though I do think that at this point in the cycle you'd probably get more approval rather than less.

Right. So we're left with the same tired, frustrating stalemate. The same haves and have-nots. As was derisively said above, "wizards rule, fighters drool."

So here’s an idea:

First, you cut off 9th level spells from everybody’s spell list. No one gets those by level up and 9th level spell slots no longer exist. Now, you have 8 levels of spells to split evenly across 20 levels so that for every tier of 5 character levels you get access to 2 level of spells.

Then, all those 9th level spells get rebranded as ‘Legendary Spells’. They are no longer things to learn from level up, they become TREASURES you have to find. Maybe they are in a secret tome hidden in the fortress of the Arch-lich, maybe they are carved into the wall of a primordial cavern, maybe they are beamed directly into your brain by a Celestial as a reward… whatever the case, the DM now decides when they show up in their game. Rather than casting them by spending a level 9 slot, you’d have to sacrifice multiple spell slots at once to use them, up to a certain ‘value’ (which could mean fine tuning the values of certain spells).

I voted Accidental. The Fighter does not have anime fightan abilities because the designers cannot imagine the Fighter doing it. Its because they don't believe you can do amazing things without magic, or that incredible feats can only be achieved by magic.

I'd like if Fighters could at least break real world records...

In light of numerous points made on this thread, I'd like there to be a third option for the poll (unlikely, I know), and I'd vote for it: Many imbalances between the classes are known by developers, but regarded as not requiring a fix.

Hmm... can I even edit the poll?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why always the FIGHTER when the Barbarian is right there?!

I have literally been told that Rage is too hard to operate.