D&D 5E Different classes, same theme

[Tony Vargas]

One of my favorite things about the 5E backgrounds is the randomized traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws.

Those are new to the final release, so I haven't gotten to see them in action. They looked like the kind of basic 'spark an RP idea' things you see in a lot of systems, at a glance, though. I'll have to give them another look and see if there's actually something to them.

4E builds were well balanced, but I'm not convinced that each one was very well considered in the context of the whole system. By the end there were builds that were only distinct by virtue of their power selection, and the system balance was too vulnerable to exploitative powers. What little we've seen of 5E seems to skirt that problem. (My opinion is that the Essentials classes were much better crafted than most of the early classes, for what it's worth.)

Balance is relative, of course. There were a couple of classes that were lost in the shuffle of the Essentials release and remained under-supported and thus a sub-par, though still viable. And, there were Essentials sub-classes that had marked balance issues. By the standards of the system as a whole, those classes and sub-classes weren't up to snuff - but not to the point of being non-viable.

More to the point (that 'builds' aren't really in the genealogy of sub-classes), as you point out, builds weren't single-point choices that constrained all further choices (which sub-classes are), most builds had a single choice of feature that was defining and synergized more with some subsequent choices than others, but a lot of choice and customizeability remained. You could stick to the emphasis of a build, or diversify it a little with power choice. In that sense, they're just like informal 3e builds - just less prone to wild variations in effectivenss.

The idea that 5e skirts any sort of balance problems relative to 4e, though, is laughable. Even in it's basic form 5e's balance is poor - it seems clear that balance simply isn't a priority. Rather than spend effort balancing the system in way some potential customers might object to, 5e leaves balance concerns to the DM, who can address them with 'Rulings, not Rules.'

The weren't particularly consistent though, neither with each other nor with the previous builds for each class. Ultimately they seemed like mulligans of the PH1 and PH2 classes.

Essentials sub-classes were inconsistent with the 4e parent classes because it was essentially (pi) a half-ed re-boot, pretending not to be a half-ed re-boot. Essentials abandoned a little of the balance emphasis, and a lot of the design discipline evident in 4e, and the result was, indeed, inconsistent.

5e continues that trend, with a much more traditional approach to class design.

Agreed. I'd actually argue that the high degree of balance and structure in 4E made optimization so much worse.

The 'rewards for system mastery' were, indeed, a lot lower than in 3e. An optimized character was noticeably more effective than a typical 'non-powergamed' one, but rarely to the point of disrupting the game. And class barely figured into it, there was no tier 1 / tier 6 gulf among classes (if you were to sort 4e/E classes into tiers, there'd probably be a tier 2 holding the Seeker, RunePriest, Esssentials martial classes, Binder, and Vampire, and a tier 1 holding everything else - and they'd be about equivalent to tiers 3 and 4 in 3e).

5e doesn't look to have intentional 'rewards' build into it, but, if all the options like MCing and feats are used, it certainly has a lot of potential for optimization, and, even if they aren't, DM decisions, like placing magic items, campaign pacing, types of challenges and so forth could easily lead to some pronounced imbalances within a party.

5e is just going for a much looser, through it out there & see what sticks, style of design; and, congruently, encouraging a much more empowered style of DMing to sort through and pick the best bits for a given group/campaign/style.