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

[Jester David]

My criticism is valid and well-reasoned. I use math to back it up as well as explaining in detail why I do or do not like something. I make positive comments to back up the positive aspects I see. I make negative comments to back up the negative aspects I see. I also do this in a friendly manner. I do not use crude language, insults, personal attacks or anything that can be construed as 'unfriendly'. Its simply that people assume my direct manner means I'm some kind of hate filled poster. Instead of doing that they should read the ideas I present and refute them directly. It works much better than attacking me personally and trying to construe everything I say in a super negative manner.

If you can link me the post you made that I didn't respond to, I'll respond to it. Its entirely likely that the shotgun approach used on modern forums left me without enough time to respond to every post. Its also likely that I responded but didn't quote your post directly to save time.

It'd be here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...t-want-to-play-it/page5&p=6261573#post6261573
(also found under "View Forum Posts" if you click on my profile name)

 

[Lokiare]

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.

I didn't originally respond to this because I agreed with someone else's analysis. The problem as mentioned by another poster is that combat in a turn based game is a snap shot. If a Rogue can get a backstab by attacking from the back, there will be very few rounds when they don't get a back stab. mechanical bonuses based on facing will almost always be applied since you can literally walk around a target without any penalties (unlike 3E and 4E where you would get an OA to the face for trying it).

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.

As I showed above without altering the base combat rules, a tactics module with facing would not really add much to the game, you would almost always get the bonuses from your preferred attack position because of the way combat is structured. You would encourage movement, but it would end up being "move behind your target for the best bonus." every round and every character and creature in the combat would almost always have the 'best' bonus. In short it really doesn't add much to the game and just complicates things up.

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.

For the most part things like trip and bull rush are very situational and most of the time not worth using. Daze is extremely powerful and would turn into a replacement for your normal attacks. None of them so far would promote any kind of 'tactical' thinking or play.

The Wizard and other casters can already add conditions with their spells without sacrificing any damage at all, so it would only allow other classes to play catch up. Not really a tactical option because they would have to give up damage which would reduce their effectiveness. It would turn into a non-choice most of the time. It also doesn't promote any reason to play a specific class or race. You end up with the class or race being an afterthought because everyone can do the same thing.

Roles aren't really tactics, they are more like jobs that you fulfill. Tactics is more the idea of choosing from different options each round to work toward a goal. You can give a knight an aura that forces enemies to attack them, without it being a choice at all.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Lokiare, your whole premise is that 5e contains 'imbalances' that make you not want to play it.

All I've heard so far are system differences, not imbalances. Just becuase D&D Next has things that are different from 4e, does not mean they are imbalanced. I'd love to hear and discuss some actual imbalances you percieve are in the game. Things like classes doing too much damage, spells that are too powerful, builds or combinations that are abusive and overpowered, etc.

 

[Wulfgar76]

You also seem to be assuming 4th Edition contained no 'imbalances'

4th Edition was rife with powers that were clearly overpowered 'A+' choices.
And as a DM, I consider combat grind, impotent monsters, indestructable characters, and near limitless in-combat healing to be quite imbalanced.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Double post.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

What are some of the imbalances in 5E that leave you with the desire not to convert or play it?

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.

The imbalance is somewhere between 3.5E and 4E. Its more balanced than 3.5E, but much less balanced than 4E.

What are some of the imbalances in 5E that leave you with the desire not to covert or play it?

What does complexity have to do with imbalance?

Also, when comparing control of the cosmic forces of nature to the hard training of becoming a melee/ranged combatant, there should be a higher level of complexity. I don't want power riddled fighters that act like wizards unless they are a fighter/mage type. I want fighters who fight.

 

[Obryn]

Apropos of maybe something here, I don't like facing in D&D because it's redundant with flanking.

 

[Gadget]

What does complexity have to do with imbalance?

Also, when comparing control of the cosmic forces of nature to the hard training of becoming a melee/ranged combatant, there should be a higher level of complexity. I don't want power riddled fighters that act like wizards unless they are a fighter/mage type. I want fighters who fight.

I think his point may be he wants the option to play a complex (or more tactical) martial type, and to play a more simple caster type (i.e. the 3.5 warlock or some such). Even though we have been assured that such options will be forthcoming, the lack of examples has evidently shaken the original poster faith in WOTC's ability to produce something satisfying in this area. This does not have to be anything like 'power riddled fighters that act like wizards', but having a greater level of tactical choice and options to change the outcome of an encounter. Furthermore, people who 'control forces of nature' do not have to be overly complex to the player of the game, however complex it is to the character in the fiction. The 3.5 warlock, as I previously mentioned, may be one example. At least, that is how I interpret the original posters points, yet I would also like to agree with Wulfgar76 upthread that it would be nice to discuss some of these 'problems' in a bit more detail.

Personally, I like what they have done so far to limit casters, but I'm by no means sure that it is sufficient or even if they went overboard. I'm also not sure that 'balancing' the martial classes with spell casters by making the fighters hit things really really hard or being really really tough is going to work, I would like to see more macro level options for fighters such as the Warlord's inspirational effects and/or followers and a reputation score.

 

[Cybit]

As for the tactical melee fighters & simplistic casters, I will posit the following.

I have two groups that I play the playtest with - one is full of brand new to D&D (never rolled a d20-new) younger players, the other group is full of very intelligent adult coworkers (they all have engineering degrees, and two of them are die-hard warhammer players) who have been playing D&D since at least 3E.

For group A (younger group) I will veto anything too complex for them - when we recently rebuilt the characters, in the group lies a sorcerer, a wizard, a druid, and a cleric (also have a paladin & a monk). Two of the players switched away from fighters and to spellcasters (druid & cleric) because the spellcaster options I presented without modification from the rules were less tactically complex than the fighters they had. The warhammer players in my second group, tactical players to a fault, when presented with the classes, picked the fighter, for they were the tactically most combat-complex class (most choices per combat) in the game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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 the playtest docs were the published product, you might have a point.

It's like you're looking at a caterpillar and saying that your problem with it is the fact that it doesn't have beautiful butterfly wings.

Even if you're right, you're dismissing out-of-hand the idea that it can and will change. Since the playtest documents are explicitly made to develop the eventual game, you should expect changes, even changes you haven't heard about. Maybe this will be one of them!