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

[Micah Sweet]

If you take away the damage boost, most of the attacks are perfectly serviceable as At-Will abilities/techniques/whatever won't trigger people who don't like fighters getting "powers".

I was working on a version of the fighter that resembled something from 4E and I made up 12 "Weapon Techniques" for "regular fighter" subclass and 12 "Battle Tactics" for the Warlord subclass.



View attachment 260649



I mean, that people can continue on with classes that are flawed even by the tacit admission of WotC (Again, the Ranger) would kind of indicate it kind of does.

Has WotC ever actually stated that the ranger has problems?

 

[Justice and Rule]

Has WotC ever actually stated that the ranger has problems?

I feel like doing two UAs on the class that fundamentally changed it is pretty much an admission.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's ... not how it works. There is no "in spite of" when it's simply not an issue for many people.

for the purpose of the discussion assume there is an imbalance, one that some do not see... how does that effect your answer?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I feel like doing two UAs on the class that fundamentally changed it is pretty much an admission.

Maybe, but you could argue they were just responding to fan outcry. They never actually updated the class in the PH.

 

[Oofta]

...

I mean, that people can continue on with classes that are flawed even by the tacit admission of WotC (Again, the Ranger) would kind of indicate it kind of does.

They've never said much about any of the other classes. I can't speak much to the ranger, I've never played one nor have we had a player with one in our games.

On the other hand one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch.

 

[Oofta]

for the purpose of the discussion assume there is an imbalance, one that some do not see... how does that effect your answer?

Why would I bother answering a leading question when you've already stated that any honest response is incorrect?

 

[FrozenNorth]

They've never said much about any of the other classes. I can't speak much to the ranger, I've never played one nor have we had a player with one in our games.

On the other hand one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch.

Well, the expression is literally “One bad apple spoils the bunch”.

 

[Oofta]

Well, the expression is literally “One bad apple spoils the bunch”.

Call the idiom police I guess.

Point is that even if WOTC thinks the ranger needs adjustment (I don't pretend to know what they think), that says nothing about imbalance of any other classes.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Maybe, but you could argue they were just responding to fan outcry. They never actually updated the class in the PH.

I mean, how else are we supposed to judge it? There's no objective, publicly-notarized way of saying a class is trash, but the outcry against the Ranger occupied two UA articles (possibly three if you include modifying classes with the Spell-less Ranger).

I mean, while the response certainly drives it, in their introductions to those Unearthed Arcanas they pretty much say themselves that the Ranger is messed up.

UA08: Ranger Options

The ranger has been a part of Dungeons & Dragons since almost the beginning, and it remains one of the most popular classes in the game. However, feedback on fifth edition D&D has shown that the ranger lags behind the other classes in terms of power and player satisfaction.
In looking at the history of the ranger, the class is very much a victim of the game's changing core mechanics. In the early days, the ranger started with the basic chassis of the fighter, added elements of other classes, and introduced its own unique mechancis. Over time, though, the game's core rules have grown more comprehensive and flexible. And as they have, several key elements that set rangers apart - including fighting with two weapons, tracking, and stealth - became available to any character.
that change left the ranger leaning on a narrow selection of unique mechanics, most notably those that gave the character a set of benefits against a specific type of opponent. Such a mechanic works well if it augments an already strong foundation for a character class, such as a cleric's ability to turn undead. However, the kind of benefit is too situational to serve as the class's signature ability.
The ranger has also featured an animal companion in previous editions of the game, but giving a player what amounts to a second character to play is difficult to balance in a satisfying way. The feedback we received indicates that many players feel too restricted by the Beast Master ranger's companion. It doesn't feel logical or satisfying to have a companion that sits still unless a ranger actively commands it.

UA18: The Ranger, Revised

Over the past year, you’ve seen us try a number of new approaches to the ranger, all aimed at addressing the class’s high levels of player dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D’s weakest class by a significant margin.
Those two factors combined to put us on the path to this revision. We have classes that rate as weak, but which nonetheless have high levels of player satisfaction. That tells us people playing those classes are happy with how their characters’ abilities work and with their own experience at the table, even if those classes aren’t the strongest. After all, not every class can rank at the top.
Likewise, most issues we see with classes are confined to specific abilities that don’t play a big role in determining whether players like the class as a whole. In other words, no class is perfect, but each is close enough to the mark in its own way that players are happy.
As such, the ranger’s status as a sore spot for players has been a cause for concern for a while. And so, today we present a new revision of the ranger. Though it retains many of the elements of the existing class, a lot has changed, so it’s best to simply dig into the new material to get a sense of how it feels. But what I’d like to address here is how the D&D game will evolve in the future.

...


Overall, this approach captures our intent—fix what needs to be fixed when it’s necessary to do so, but in a way that minimizes disruption and maximizes player satisfaction. With that in mind, take a look at our new ranger and keep an eye out for the feedback survey to follow.

That WotC didn't end up implementing it doesn't say anything about this: like many companies, they likely made a cost-benefit analysis as to whether completing it was worth it. I suspect they didn't want a bunch of players to feel like their books were suddenly invalidated, even if they ended up fixing the Ranger for the better. The fact that they spent a good year or so looking to fix the class should say enough, whether or not they ended up implementing anything.

They've never said much about any of the other classes. I can't speak much to the ranger, I've never played one nor have we had a player with one in our games.

They never needed to because the Ranger was their testbed to see if it would be worth it to change something that was obviously broken at a fundamental level. Why start trying to fix a bunch of classes when it may not come to fruition and inadvertently reveal that other classes are looked at as being pretty broken as well?

The ranger was used because it was basically universally agreed upon to the point that it wouldn't be controversial to actually put that out there. You try fixing the fighter before that and you run into people who think the fighter should be the most no-frills class out there as well as getting people going "Wait, why are we not fixing the ranger first?" When they ended up not doing it

On the other hand one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch.

I mean, yeah, it does. That's the whole point of the saying.

Call the idiom police I guess.

I feel like you getting the idiom wrong and then being like "Whatever" is an amazing metaphor for the particular discussion we are having.

Point is that even if WOTC thinks the ranger needs adjustment (I don't pretend to know what they think), that says nothing about imbalance of any other classes.

It doesn't need to, it just shows that in a very obvious case where something needs to be fixed, they ended up not actually fixing anything, which goes against the argument that they haven't made any major fixes because they see no major imbalances. They came out about it with the ranger (because it was damn well obvious) but ended up doing nothing, to the chagrin of a bunch of us.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, how else are we supposed to judge it? There's no objective, publicly-notarized way of saying a class is trash, but the outcry against the Ranger occupied two UA articles (possibly three if you include modifying classes with the Spell-less Ranger).

I mean, while the response certainly drives it, in their introductions to those Unearthed Arcanas they pretty much say themselves that the Ranger is messed up.

UA08: Ranger Options


UA18: The Ranger, Revised


That WotC didn't end up implementing it doesn't say anything about this: like many companies, they likely made a cost-benefit analysis as to whether completing it was worth it. I suspect they didn't want a bunch of players to feel like their books were suddenly invalidated, even if they ended up fixing the Ranger for the better. The fact that they spent a good year or so looking to fix the class should say enough, whether or not they ended up implementing anything.




They never needed to because the Ranger was their testbed to see if it would be worth it to change something that was obviously broken at a fundamental level. Why start trying to fix a bunch of classes when it may not come to fruition and inadvertently reveal that other classes are looked at as being pretty broken as well?

The ranger was used because it was basically universally agreed upon to the point that it wouldn't be controversial to actually put that out there. You try fixing the fighter before that and you run into people who think the fighter should be the most no-frills class out there as well as getting people going "Wait, why are we not fixing the ranger first?" When they ended up not doing it



I mean, yeah, it does. That's the whole point of the saying.



I feel like you getting the idiom wrong and then being like "Whatever" is an amazing metaphor for the particular discussion we are having.

Yeah, heaven forbid anyone on the internet admits they make a mistake now and then.

It doesn't need to, it just shows that in a very obvious case where something needs to be fixed, they ended up not actually fixing anything, which goes against the argument that they haven't made any major fixes because they see no major imbalances. They came out about it with the ranger (because it was damn well obvious) but ended up doing nothing, to the chagrin of a bunch of us.

If there's a demand for "fixing" things I'm sure it will come out in the playtests for the 2024 release. Until then it's just unverifiable conjecture on your part.