D&D 5E 5E imbalance: Don't want to play it

[Mark CMG]

This thread feels a little close to edition warring: complaining without offering constructive criticism or useful feedback.

I think it is too limiting to require all complaints to have an accompanying solution or even work toward one.


That said, imbalance isn't an issue, IMO, for most rules sets. I've seen too many that wind up squeezing the freeform nature from RPGs in an effort to impose balance. In the end, a GM steers toward the balance at any given game table and the gathered RPGers play within that framework or even push the envelope a bit. A more balanced ruleset can become imbalanced while a very loose set of rules can seem perfectly fine during play. It's up to the designers to give good advice in a GM's Guide as to how important balance might be and help a GM decide what needs emphasis with an individual group.

 

[Mistwell]

There is so far nothing about 5e that even comes close to making me not want to play it. I've enjoyed the play-test immensely and I am on board.

That said, there are some things that bother me about the game - not bother me to the extent I wouldn't play, just mildly annoy.

Most of those issues involve healing rates. I don't like being able to gain all your hit points back during a short rest through hit dice (I would prefer to keep that at max half your total hit points can be healed that way, to simulate actual physical injury), and I would have preferred if there was at least a chance you carried forward some damage from the prior day from a long rest (maybe roll your hit dice for that, rather than full heal).

 

[Dausuul]

I think it's way too early for me to gauge the options for the game and their "perceived imbalance" by just looking at the early playtest materials. The game is not even published. So I'll wait and see.

Yeah, this. I do hope we get some more-complex options for warrior types and some less-complex options for the casters, but if we don't have them in the first release, it's not likely to be a dealbreaker for me.

 

[Dausuul]

Not true - there are now complex fighters & simple mages.

Please drop this idle speculation unless you're looking at the latest documents.

Just curious, by "latest documents" do you mean the current private playtest, or the final public one?

 

[Mistwell]

less-complex options for the casters

Other than a desire for a sorcerer and warlock (both arguably less complex), I have yet to see a single playtest report that complained that in actual play they found the mage or cleric too complex. Have your seen such playtest report complaints?

 

[MerricB]

For me its the flexibility of casters over non-casters and if you want to play a complex character you are forced to play a caster. If you want to play a simple character you are forced to grab a non-caster.

Your title is appropriate: "5E imbalance: Don't want to play it".

Now you've said that, you can go away. You don't want to play 5E. Please stop flooding the board with posts about it.

Mod Note: Folks, please don't try to tell others what they may, or may not, say on the boards. If you feel someone's engaging in needless bashing, please report the post, and we'll take a look and see what we can do about it. Thanks! ~Umbran

 

[Dausuul]

Other than a desire for a sorcerer and warlock (both arguably less complex), I have yet to see a single playtest report that complained that in actual play they found the mage or cleric too complex. Have your seen such playtest report complaints?

No. And as I think about it, I'm not sure "complex" is the right word. "Versatile," maybe. I would like fighters with a wider array of (mechanically defined) tactical options, and more highly specialized casters.

One of the things that bugs me about traditional wizards in D&D is that they all feel kind of the same. Because they all pull from the same pool of spells, they all seem to end up as arcane handymen, mixing bomby combat spells with a standard kit of utility magic. The exact contents of the kit vary, but there's a substantial core of spells that most wizards end up taking--invisibility, some form of flight or teleportation, dispelling, and so forth. Even if you specialize, it doesn't make a big difference.

While there's nothing wrong with having arcane handymen around, I also want some casters with a better-defined focus. I was a big fan of the themed casters from late 3.5 (warmage, beguiler, dread necromancer) and would like to see something along those lines.

 

[Cybit]

Just curious, by "latest documents" do you mean the current private playtest, or the final public one?

Private.

 

[Melhaic]

Eh, couldn't care less about class balance in the terms you put forward. Occupies about the same level of interest as "typeface used in table of contents" and "is the bec de corbin a viable weapon for halfling bards?" The thing that folks overlook when making the "complexity disparity" argument is that hitting things with pointy bits of metal is an inherently simpler task than utilizing esoteric knowledge to affect the basic laws of physics in a localized fashion. Unless you want martial characters that are essentially fantasy superheroes; in that case we are playing different games.

 

[Dausuul]

Private.

Fishing for confirmation of news about private playtest: Achieved.

Seriously, though, that's great news. Can't wait to see the end result.