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

[Micah Sweet]

It means we're just going to get a name change and no declarations of a full-on new edition. Sorry, I thought the Pawnstars meme was well-known enough to carry the joke.

Know of, but have never seen the show.

I'll accept a name change, but I don't see WotC being brave enough to even go that far in the final product.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Know of, but have never seen the show.

I'll accept a name change, but I don't see WotC being brave enough to even go that far in the final product.

I'd wager you're probably right, which is sad. But I can still hope.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

4E was not perfectly balanced in my experience.

1: I didn't say it was. It's a very well-balanced game, not perfect, because nothing is perfect.
2: Demanding perfection is arguing in bad faith; characterizing another as demanding it is a strawman.

In addition, the way they achieved balance was also one of it's drawbacks for many people.

I'm aware that's what the haters like to rag on, yes. Whether that was actually anywhere near as big a problem as people claim it was is a matter of furious and irresolvable debate, which almost always devolves into the "it wasn't popular enough so it isn't an example" response.

That didn't make it a good or bad game, but it did mean that if you didn't like the pattern then you were just SOL. Much of 5E's perceived imbalance comes from giving people different styles of play.

I disagree. Much of 5e's imbalance comes from spells being free to do whatever the authors think spellcasters could want to do, while non-spellcasting characters (and even some partial casters) are unable to replicate even things that real people IRL can achieve, let alone what fantastical or mythic heroes like Hercules, Beowulf, Mwindo, or Liu Bu could achieve.

*I don't count essentials

Interesting. Why not? Those books are as much 4e as any others published for it. Their design expanded in some new (and unfortunately, somewhat underpowered) directions, but they're not somehow "less" 4e than any other part.

Wow... basically 40% of the people believe D&D is defective by design, but are still happy to buy another iteration of it?

Alternatives include: some of them disagree it is a defect; some agree but believe it can be papered over; some simply don't care; some agree and it will be enough to turn them off it; some think, like I do, that it was "accidentally on purpose," that is, done with intent but not trying to make an imbalanced game; etc.

The worst of all worlds is magic item shops (or equivalent, wish lists or whatever), providing a full shopping list of magic items that the Players can pick and choose over for their character's build.

Heaven forbid we ever allow players to just have cool things without completing the Fantasy world Ninja Warrior Obstacle Course first...

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).

And my experience is exactly the reverse. Unoptimized characters in 5e die.

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

Oh, you can be sure anyone you ask that question will dodge it or deny it without ever actually refuting it.

Do they like it because of the imbalance, or in spite of it?

Ignoring the possibility that they simply don't see a major imbalance?

Denying something which can be mathematically demonstrated does not actually cause it to cease to be. Much to my chagrin. If this were true it would make debt significantly easier to manage!

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

There is a world of difference between "there is no imbalance in this" and "the imbalance present in this is not a problem." Which are you claiming?

Has WotC ever actually stated that the ranger has problems?

Are you going to demand that literal exact phrase? If so, the no, they have not used that phrase. But repeated UA articles, with analysis, talking about issues players are facing and what might be done to resolve them, is a pretty clear admission that....there are problems that need resolution. Are you truly intending to take us to task because WotC has never explicitly said, in theses exact words, "The ranger has problems"?

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.

It is absolutely not so. Again, just look at the Ranger UA. Or how WotC (foolishly) responded to the backlash against the original Storm Sorcerer. Originally, that subclass got bloodline spells known. People rightly said, "Hey! That's not cool. Shouldn't non-Storm Sorcerers get extra spells known too?" WotC responded, "Ah, we hear you loud and clear gamers! We'll take away those nasty bloodline spells you don't like!" And people were quite dismayed and frustrated because that was exactly the opposite of what people wanted. They wanted Dragon and Chaos Sorcerers to get their own bloodline spells, because Sorcerers are somewhat below part for full casters. (Still better than Fighters or Barbarians, mind, but the flaws are known.)

What do you want me to say? I don't see a major issue. Different classes have different strengths and weaknesses.

Again, there is a difference between "there is imbalance but it isn't big enough for me to care" and "there isn't any imbalance at all." Which are you claiming?

What would you say if this was reversed? I can only express my opinion and thoughts on the subject, that's how people usually have a discussion.

Presuming the question was asked in good faith, as stated there are two possible directions. One is, "Assume there is imbalance but not large enough to really matter. What can we say about the reasons people like it?" In which case, I would say that yes, they must either like it because of that minor imbalance, or despite it. The other is, "Assume there is no imbalance whatsoever. What can we say about the reasons people like it?" In which case, the answer becomes flipped on its head: players must either like it for its balance, or in spite of its balance. I would then, naturally, assert that that answer is not particularly informative because I have the math to back me up on several of the balance issues.

Repeatedly insisting that there is a problem does not make it so.

And repeatedly denying a problem that can be mathematically demonstrated does not wish it away.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What do you want me to say? I don't see a major issue.

interact with the premise without taking a dump on it.

Different classes have different strengths and weaknesses.

and if you feel there is no imbalance why enter a thread ABOUT SOMETHING YOU DON"T BELIVE IN?

What would you say if this was reversed?

nothing, in general I don't enter threads for no reason.

I can only express my opinion and thoughts on the subject, that's how people usually have a discussion.

or... you could go to threads that are asking IF and give your opinion there

 

[NotAYakk]

Heaven forbid we ever allow players to just have cool things without completing the Fantasy world Ninja Warrior Obstacle Course first...

Huh? Who hurt you?

Characters have plenty of cool things. Feats, class levels, etc.

And my experience is exactly the reverse. Unoptimized characters in 5e die.

Sure they do, if the DM throws deadly encounters at the party and/or plays enemies like a tactical rpg.

But encounter difficulty in 5e is really easy to scale. PCs that are 2x as powerful or 0.5x as powerful can be made to die with a slightly different encounter mix. The deadliness has almost nothing to do with how optimized the PCs are, but how deadly the encounters are compared to how optimized the characters are.

Which is only a function of optimization if the DM doesn't do their job.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But the true issue is that fans want their casters to have magic versatility, power, control,AND stamina and dislike the rules restrictions needed for that to work. Few games and media give spellcasters Versatility, Power, Control, and Stamina for a reason

I don't know about that. Myself and a lot of wizard fans I know preferred it when magic was harder, rarer, less powerful, etc. as a balancing factor.

In most media, caster gas after a few spells, know few spells, have control issues, fear backlash, are easily disarmed, or have to work hard to power spells.

Yeah, WoTC just needs to bring back such restrictions back. In our Mod, full casters are limited to 30 spell levels a day at 20th level (as opposed to 90 or so RAW) and can only cast a single spell of 6th level and higher. They also take longer to reach higher level spells.

Making magic something can can truly alter the course of an encounter, but not allow so much to do so all the time, works wonders towards bringing balance back.

A thought I just had: what if spells took a number of rounds to cast equal to their spell level? So, you can cast fireball in the middle of combat, but it takes 3 rounds to finish so you better be well protected while you're casting it.

 

[Oofta]

1: I didn't say it was. It's a very well-balanced game, not perfect, because nothing is perfect.
2: Demanding perfection is arguing in bad faith; characterizing another as demanding it is a strawman.


I'm aware that's what the haters like to rag on, yes. Whether that was actually anywhere near as big a problem as people claim it was is a matter of furious and irresolvable debate, which almost always devolves into the "it wasn't popular enough so it isn't an example" response.



I disagree. Much of 5e's imbalance comes from spells being free to do whatever the authors think spellcasters could want to do, while non-spellcasting characters (and even some partial casters) are unable to replicate even things that real people IRL can achieve, let alone what fantastical or mythic heroes like Hercules, Beowulf, Mwindo, or Liu Bu could achieve.


Interesting. Why not? Those books are as much 4e as any others published for it. Their design expanded in some new (and unfortunately, somewhat underpowered) directions, but they're not somehow "less" 4e than any other part.

Because at that point [when essentials was released] we just wanted to wrap up current campaigns and nobody in the groups that I played with ever bothered with essentials so I can't speak to it.

What I was talking about with 4E was that having the same structure meant fewer options to have a different style of character.

Alternatives include: some of them disagree it is a defect; some agree but believe it can be papered over; some simply don't care; some agree and it will be enough to turn them off it; some think, like I do, that it was "accidentally on purpose," that is, done with intent but not trying to make an imbalanced game; etc.


Heaven forbid we ever allow players to just have cool things without completing the Fantasy world Ninja Warrior Obstacle Course first...


And my experience is exactly the reverse. Unoptimized characters in 5e die.


Oh, you can be sure anyone you ask that question will dodge it or deny it without ever actually refuting it.



Denying something which can be mathematically demonstrated does not actually cause it to cease to be. Much to my chagrin. If this were true it would make debt significantly easier to manage!


There is a world of difference between "there is no imbalance in this" and "the imbalance present in this is not a problem." Which are you claiming?


Are you going to demand that literal exact phrase? If so, the no, they have not used that phrase. But repeated UA articles, with analysis, talking about issues players are facing and what might be done to resolve them, is a pretty clear admission that....there are problems that need resolution. Are you truly intending to take us to task because WotC has never explicitly said, in theses exact words, "The ranger has problems"?


It is absolutely not so. Again, just look at the Ranger UA. Or how WotC (foolishly) responded to the backlash against the original Storm Sorcerer. Originally, that subclass got bloodline spells known. People rightly said, "Hey! That's not cool. Shouldn't non-Storm Sorcerers get extra spells known too?" WotC responded, "Ah, we hear you loud and clear gamers! We'll take away those nasty bloodline spells you don't like!" And people were quite dismayed and frustrated because that was exactly the opposite of what people wanted. They wanted Dragon and Chaos Sorcerers to get their own bloodline spells, because Sorcerers are somewhat below part for full casters. (Still better than Fighters or Barbarians, mind, but the flaws are known.)


Again, there is a difference between "there is imbalance but it isn't big enough for me to care" and "there isn't any imbalance at all." Which are you claiming?


Presuming the question was asked in good faith, as stated there are two possible directions. One is, "Assume there is imbalance but not large enough to really matter. What can we say about the reasons people like it?" In which case, I would say that yes, they must either like it because of that minor imbalance, or despite it. The other is, "Assume there is no imbalance whatsoever. What can we say about the reasons people like it?" In which case, the answer becomes flipped on its head: players must either like it for its balance, or in spite of its balance. I would then, naturally, assert that that answer is not particularly informative because I have the math to back me up on several of the balance issues.


And repeatedly denying a problem that can be mathematically demonstrated does not wish it away.

There has been no uncontested mathematical "proof". Besides, there is no one way to measure effectiveness. Is the bard less effective than the barbarian because they talked their way out of an encounter instead of just bashing in heads? Does it matter that in a D&D video game I've played (Solarus) that tracks total damage over the course of multiple levels that on average fighters come out ahead on total damage?

I've said before: I don't see significant imbalance. At some levels under some circumstances some players will shine. Some players will be more effective at whatever role they choose. The classes are different, their design goals are different, their role in the game is different, people play them for different reasons. Hand two players exactly the same PC and one will be more effective in the roll than the other.

But this is turning into just another extension of "Wizards rule, fighters drool".

 

[Umbran]

Huh? Who hurt you?

Mod Note:
Hey, can we not use language related to actual real-world abuse to lightly dismiss opinions about how we pretend to be elves, please?

I mean, we'd rather not dismiss people at all. But, if you must, maybe don't borrow someone's real problems to do it? Thanks.

 

[Oofta]

interact with the premise without taking a dump on it.

I acknowledge there are differences between the classes. I just don't think it's necessarily a problem that needs fixing. I'm not "taking a dump on it" by saying that I disagree that it's an issue or even one that could be fixed.

and if you feel there is no imbalance why enter a thread ABOUT SOMETHING YOU DON"T BELIVE IN?

This isn't a [+] thread. If it were I would have ignored it, depending on how the title was worded.

nothing, in general I don't enter threads for no reason.

or... you could go to threads that are asking IF and give your opinion there

Obviously we disagree. That's fine! But just because we disagree it doesn't mean that you get to decide what thread I can or cannot post to.

 

[Garthanos]

Which is only a function of optimization if the DM doesn't do their job.

You have seen the tool called CR that most consider terrible... the DM job in 5e sounds like fixing the game