Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Olrox17" data-source="post: 8007894" data-attributes="member: 6801397">All you've said is true. Chess is an almost perfectly balanced game, because each player has exactly the same pieces; the only unbalancing factor in chess is who moves first. The more moving parts and disparity a game has, the less balance. Also, as you correctly pointed out, system mastery is also a factor.So yeah, removing some power from base class progressions, giving it to subclasses instead, is bound to increase disparity. No argument.I feel like it would be worth it, though. 5e is, overall, a balanced, well crafted game.It has, of course, its sick, crazy overpowered combos, but those are usually the result of multiclassing, feats, poorly worded spells, or all of the above. MCing and feats, at least, are optional, so a worried DM can easily remove them or rework them without messing up the core game.Right now, after playing the edition for years, balance is not my main concern with 5e: I personally fixed everything I considered broken in a couple pages of houserules, no big deal.My main concern, is that I'm starting to see a bit of sameyness in character options. I'm starting to see the boundaries of the 5e class system. I think a power shift between core class power and subclass power would do wonders for that. I want subclasses to feel and play really different from each other, but it feels like the need to maintain balance, paired with very powerful base class features, is really a heavy burden on the devs, and might be stifling their creativity.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Olrox17, post: 8007894, member: 6801397"] All you've said is true. Chess is an almost perfectly balanced game, because each player has exactly the same pieces; the only unbalancing factor in chess is who moves first. The more moving parts and disparity a game has, the less balance. Also, as you correctly pointed out, system mastery is also a factor. So yeah, removing some power from base class progressions, giving it to subclasses instead, is bound to increase disparity. No argument. I feel like it would be worth it, though. 5e is, overall, a balanced, well crafted game. It has, of course, its sick, crazy overpowered combos, but those are usually the result of multiclassing, feats, poorly worded spells, or all of the above. MCing and feats, at least, are optional, so a worried DM can easily remove them or rework them without messing up the core game. Right now, after playing the edition for years, balance is not my main concern with 5e: I personally fixed everything I considered broken in a couple pages of houserules, no big deal. My main concern, is that I'm starting to see a bit of sameyness in character options. I'm starting to see the boundaries of the 5e class system. I think a power shift between core class power and subclass power would do wonders for that. I want subclasses to feel and play really different from each other, but it feels like the need to maintain balance, paired with very powerful base class features, is really a heavy burden on the devs, and might be stifling their creativity. [/QUOTE]

Verification