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

[Ichneumon]

You are looking at the latest open playtest documents, not the latest playtest documents.

Big difference there.

Also, as it has been mentioned and linked many times, they have confirmed tactical options. (See: Legends and Lore)

Keep open your judgements 'bout the state of 5e
For the documents, they are a-changing.

Speaking of desire, I have a strong one to play 5e, in its complete version, and this has nothing to do with whether it has a style of balance that would grace a spirit level. It's because the game runs quickly, is easy to play and DM, and already captures a good range of character concepts even in the truncated form most of us have been playing.

 

[Jester David]

No sorry. I'm not comparing 5E to any edition or insulting it. I'm pointing out its flaws which IS constructive criticism.

It CAN be constructive criticism. Or rather it's a part of constructive criticism. If all you do is point out flaws then it stops being constructive and starts being abusive.
This thread serves one purpose: to be negative. And it's not the old place you've voiced this. Every thread on D&D Next (almost) has a Lokiare post -on topic or off- brining up the exact same complaint you bring up here.
It's been noted. You've said it. We all know, and we all get it: you want a more complex fighter. You don't need to say it again.

But much less balanced than 4E.

And also a lot less finished than 4e.
But this sounds like a good thing. 3e was underbalanced while 4e was overbalanced, sacraficing signature elements of the game for balance. Somewhere in the middle sounds good.

Why does everyone assume that if someone wants a balanced game that they want a 4E clone? I'd be perfectly happy with a game that was nothing like 4E, but gave the players interesting balanced choices at level up and during play, something we aren't seeing in 5E.

Well... you don't want 5e, and seem to be pro-balance and want fighter options. So 4e sounds like a good option. You don't have to switch if you don't want to. And there are some advantages to sticking with a "finished" game system
Or 13th Age. Or maybe another of the hundred plus games on RPGNow.

Instead of filling your time on ENWorld hating a game, find something you love and spend your time writing about how awesome it is and creating content for it.

 

[Wyckedemus]

{sarcasm}You're totally right. 'Facing' is huge part of tactics and not at all tedius or pointless.{/sarcasm}

In order to add tactics to the game they would have to redesign each class and monster from the ground up along with a good chunk of the 'how to play' rules. I have no confidence based on what they've said that they'll be able to produce a decent tactical module.

Whoa whoa whoa... slow your roll there.

You think "tactics" means rewriting the game using squares and strictly defined jargon? That is an unrealistic expectation! And one that I adamantly oppose! My group and I love minis. We use a grid for set piece fights and theatre of the mind for small fast skirmishes. I like one ruleset that easily translates to either medium. I really enjoy the plainspeak they have been using in the rules, and it translates just fine to a grid.

They don't need to recreate the rules of an older edition, by reintroducing strictly defined jargon like Shift, Slide, Push, Pull, and Flank.

To introduce tactical grid-based play they just need to provide a list of rules for translation. For instance:

1. 5 feet = 1 square. If Thunderwave pushes your enemy 10 feet away, you know to move them 2 squares away (just like moving on a grid worked in 3E and many earlier editions.)

2. How does moving or counting distance diagonally work? What are the different ways (1-1-1, or 1-2-1, or 2-1-2) and how would they impact your game?

3. How to translate bursts and cones and other Area effects into grid templates. Perhaps explain that they might look like squares on a grid (like 4E) or they look more circular (like 3E) depending on the diagonal rule you choose.

4. Do you want to use facing? Here is a rule, and here are the benefits and drawbacks and how shields and flanking might work in this paradigm.

Stuff like that.

... in my opinion.

 

[Raith5]

The issue isn't how realistically complex fighting with a sword is, but how many interesting decisions the player gets to make each round. 4e gave fighter players many decisions. There were a lot of decisions even before you chose your at-wills or decided on which encounter or daily power you're using turn..

Good point and example.

I guess the point that I was trying to make is that non-magical abilities can do significant things and should be seen as such. I dont buy the criticism of 4th ed that fighters are only superhero powers and not realistic. Basket ballers in the NBA regularly force movement of their opponents with fakes and cross overs, football players shrug of injuries, boxers brutally wear down their opponents without landing direct hits etc.

If i had to choose to game with 4th ed and DDN I would go with 4th ed because of the meaningfulness of the decisions players make. But I guess the practical question for me is whether there are too many choices.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

If i had to choose to game with 4th ed and DDN I would go with 4th ed because of the meaningfulness of the decisions players make. But I guess the practical question for me is whether there are too many choices.

What choices are you looking to avoid? I like to say the knight is simpler, and I'd love to play one (I've made and used several as NPCs, and my players hate them), but that might not be to your taste.

 

[Jester David]

{sarcasm}You're totally right. 'Facing' is huge part of tactics and not at all tedius or pointless.{/sarcasm}

In order to add tactics to the game they would have to redesign each class and monster from the ground up along with a good chunk of the 'how to play' rules. I have no confidence based on what they've said that they'll be able to produce a decent tactical module.

Facing is a pretty big part of most other tactical miniature games. If making a rules module just for serious fans of tactical miniature combat having elements like Facing are actually a good idea. Rather than just getting a bonus for having two allies on either side of an enemy you have to be attacking from the side.

Facing adds instant tactical options. You can just move beside an enemy or to the side to hope for a flank or dash around and strike from behind to get a solo bonus. This encourages movement without having extra powers that induce movement. On your own turn you might have to decide which enemy to face.

I also don't see why they need to rewrite the rules.
Instead, they could easily just add universal options. The fighter can attack and burn superiority dice to do certain stunts. So it'd be possible to give everyone the ability to trip or daze or bull rush in place of an attack. That dramatically increases everyone's tactical options. Or, alternatively, they could replace a dice of damage to add certain options (prone, daze, push) to attacks (or spells). While this is cool, it doesn't devalue the fighter who can do the same and do full damage.
This increases the number of options for each round but keeps them manageable as everyone has the same rough options.

There could also be roles, which you could add to a character to allow them to tank, lead, or control by granting additional powers. Which are potentially usable without the miniature module.

There. Easy. (A lot of work, but easy.) And I don't have years of practical game design experience.

 

[Umbran]

No sorry. I'm not comparing 5E to any edition or insulting it. I'm pointing out its flaws which IS constructive criticism.

Pointing out flaws is just criticism.

Constructive criticism is a slightly different beast. It includes giving both positive and negative feedback, and calls for doing so in a friendly, rather than a confrontational manner. They key word is "constructive" - the point is to try to be an active help in the process, not just a source of data that happens to be negative. The difference can be illustrated thusly:

Criticism: This is bad! This sucks! This doesn't work at all!

Constructive criticism: It might be better if you did this instead, because.... But I found this other bit to be really good, and would love to see more of it!

I have to say that starting with, "This is so bad I won't play it!" rather fails to be constructive due to its confrontational tone. It doesn't really come across as trying to be helpful.

 

[Mistwell]

They are plastered all over the WotC forums asking what the rules mean for casters and how spell preparation works and things like that.

I am frequently on those forums and I have not seen that. And since you said it's "plastered all over" those forums, it shouldn't be hard at all to provide some links to several such complaints that they don't like the level of complexity for the mage? I mean, this is not a matter of opinion - either such complaints are, or are not, plastered all over those forums.

And I don't mean, "Have people asked rules questions?" Because obviously people ask rules questions about every new game, almost every aspect of that game, regardless of complexity of the actual class structure. I mean, show me someone complaining the mage is "too complex" a class. I've never seen that complaint. Show me several links to that complaint.

 

[Raith5]

What choices are you looking to avoid? I like to say the knight is simpler, and I'd love to play one (I've made and used several as NPCs, and my players hate them), but that might not be to your taste.

I have not played Essentials, just original 4th ed D&D and I find the core mechanics (static defences, the save mechanism, power system, skill system the most elegant of the various editions of D&D). I also find mechanics like marking and quarrying to be fine. But I just think there are too many powers and feats. Personally I would like simpler choices by having a smaller number of PC powers for all classes. That said most people in my group like the large number of choices and the complexity of 4th ed.

I would also be tempted to play game that has no daily resources at all - but that would require quite a radical rethinking of spellcasters in D&D.

 

[MerricB]

I have not played Essentials, just original 4th ed D&D and I find the core mechanics (static defences, the save mechanism, power system, skill system the most elegant of the various editions of D&D). I also find mechanics like marking and quarrying to be fine. But I just think there are too many powers and feats. Personally I would like simpler choices by having a smaller number of PC powers for all classes. That said most people in my group like the large number of choices and the complexity of 4th ed.

I would also be tempted to play game that has no daily resources at all - but that would require quite a radical rethinking of spellcasters in D&D.

Essentials had the martial classes with no daily powers (and balanced against regular classes); it doesn't seem unlikely that getting rid of dailies for spellcasters would be possible.