I don't think anyone was calling it crap.
I think the main complaint was that WOTC refuse to update or change anything in the PHB despite low satisfaction in order to fluff PHB sales until they were ready to reprint the PHB ten years later.
D&D 5E You Cant Fix The Class Imbalances IMHO
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
I think the main complaint was that WOTC refuse to update or change anything in the PHB despite low satisfaction in order to fluff PHB sales until they were ready to reprint the PHB ten years later.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Sure we would, because 5.5e exists because of the anniversary, and WotC's desire to maximize profits.
The more people use something the more they will find flaws.
Really? Nobody? How many threads are there currently still on the front page about how terrible the fighter is and that it needs to be rewritten?
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
I think these things are true.
1) The large majority of the player base does not care about balance. Their concern is that the game rules reify recognizable and familiar tropes. The only balance concern is grossly obvious displays of power, especially if they are in contradiction with familiar tropes.
2) Again for the large majority, the wizard is the appropriate standard of power, especially at mid to high levels.
3) There is little desire to see complex subsystems outside of the already extant spellcasting system. Adding maneuvers to martials is a non starter.
4) People like buffs, and dislike nerfs. Since the wizard (and secondarily, other casters) set the baseline for expected power, the appropriate balance response is to increase power for classes that have less, while maintaining tropes (the primary goal) and not adding new systems (secondary goal).
So the correct thing to advocate for within the context of changing mainline 5e via the 2024 ruleset is more and better buffs to concepts that already exist within the noncaster 5e classes.
Fighter: The EK getting bladesinger cantrip attack is a nice start. Ideally, more action surges, more and better versions of indomitable, stronger and more frequent second winds, should be the fighter goals. Make the fighter strong by making it hard hitting and nearly unkillable. Social and exploration ability can be added by subclass (theoretically) or diegetic progression and magic items.
Rogue: Those at-will abilities that cost some sneak attack dice are the way to go. More of them, and stronger, improved versions of uncanny dodge and evasion, and stronger subclass features, especially in the single digit levels. I'd also follow (but tweak) BG3's lead and give them a 2nd bonus action as their 5th level class ability.
Barbarian: What they are now, but more. 3rd attack sometime in the early teen levels should be standard. Rage as a reaction should be standard.
Ranger: Lean into their archer/dual-wield identity. Give them archery and dual-wield fighting style, and ability to dual-wield non-light as a default. Much like wild shape, make a scouting pet the default, and strong attacker pet a subclass option.
1) The large majority of the player base does not care about balance. Their concern is that the game rules reify recognizable and familiar tropes. The only balance concern is grossly obvious displays of power, especially if they are in contradiction with familiar tropes.
2) Again for the large majority, the wizard is the appropriate standard of power, especially at mid to high levels.
3) There is little desire to see complex subsystems outside of the already extant spellcasting system. Adding maneuvers to martials is a non starter.
4) People like buffs, and dislike nerfs. Since the wizard (and secondarily, other casters) set the baseline for expected power, the appropriate balance response is to increase power for classes that have less, while maintaining tropes (the primary goal) and not adding new systems (secondary goal).
So the correct thing to advocate for within the context of changing mainline 5e via the 2024 ruleset is more and better buffs to concepts that already exist within the noncaster 5e classes.
Fighter: The EK getting bladesinger cantrip attack is a nice start. Ideally, more action surges, more and better versions of indomitable, stronger and more frequent second winds, should be the fighter goals. Make the fighter strong by making it hard hitting and nearly unkillable. Social and exploration ability can be added by subclass (theoretically) or diegetic progression and magic items.
Rogue: Those at-will abilities that cost some sneak attack dice are the way to go. More of them, and stronger, improved versions of uncanny dodge and evasion, and stronger subclass features, especially in the single digit levels. I'd also follow (but tweak) BG3's lead and give them a 2nd bonus action as their 5th level class ability.
Barbarian: What they are now, but more. 3rd attack sometime in the early teen levels should be standard. Rage as a reaction should be standard.
Ranger: Lean into their archer/dual-wield identity. Give them archery and dual-wield fighting style, and ability to dual-wield non-light as a default. Much like wild shape, make a scouting pet the default, and strong attacker pet a subclass option.
Last edited:
Vaalingrade
Legend
Well that puts wizard right the hell out.
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Only outside of D&D itself; if you're familiar with the tropes of Dungeons & Dragons, then the Wizard is quite recognizable.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
Exactly. It needs to reify the tropes that exist within the framework of 50 years of D&D and the myriad properties it has influenced.
SteveC
Doing the best imitation of myself
It's interesting that you say this. I'm not calling out WotC for wanting money or doing a new edition. I think that the 50th anniversary makes for a great time for a new set of books and a new edition. I think people have been talking about that for years. I think it really makes sense. I had expected there to be changes akin to previous editions with the goal of addressing some of the common complaints in the game. I really think it makes sense to put out a new edition that showcases where the game comes from along its long history.
I don't think the new edition comes from a dissatisfied customer base, but it can work in conjunction with it, to clean up issues that have come up. I think that the biggest problem we're experiencing with all of the playtests is how many people who are playing D&D right now are largely satisfied with the game, so when you survey ideas for changes, you're going to have a large part of responses that don't want any changes.
I'd say that most people who are playing 5E don't like something about it, but there isn't that magical consensus on what specifically needs to change. And that's the problem to my mind about relying on surveys to design with. I very much prefer the strong vision of a designer, even though it might make a game I'm not interested in. And I suppose that's exactly the reason the design is coming from survey results and not from the mind of a designer: 4E was a strong vision and quite different, and that split the hobby.
