Don't sweat it too much. There's not really a hint of balance in the core we've seen of 5e so far, nothing like 4e's AEDU-based class balance, at all. Not even a vague suggestion. The 'balance' part is vaporware at this point.
I covered all your points later in that same post. But...
If balance is the true goal then it is one in-line with 4e and along with a number of other things he said, it contributes to a picture of him WANTING 5e to be a 4e game with some changes.
Well, a minor part of tactical combat, which was a major feature of 3e and 4e, yeah. And, it's entirely absent from the playtest. Just more vague promises that the core doesn't seem capable of supporting.
I don't recall 3e having creatures who could slide if you hit them, or better yet if you missed, as an immediate action after the attack was rolled.
It seemed like all attacks in 4e did damage and then shoved the target back 2 squares, or made them prone or something.
The only time such things showed up in my long running 3.5 games was when I foolishly allowed book of nine swords. After seeing the classes and feeling the abuse I quickly disallowed the entire book after 3-4 characters from it were introduced.
You have remarkable eyesight. 5e monsters, so far, are just bags of hit points, meant to be fought by PC of any level, just fought longer by lower level PCs, with the danger that the monster might kill you first. Solos have more powers, multi-target attacks, action-preservation, and other features that make them appropriate to take on a party single-handed, not /just/ a bigger bale of hps. Minions are one-hit-kill monsters, but misses don't kill them. There are very-low-hp monsters in the playtest, but misses /can/ kill them, they're just low-hp, there's nothing 'miniony' about them.
On the internet, I do have remarkable eyesight. Starting here you go onto actual playtest issues instead of his perceptions.
Have you looked at the playtest monsters? Namely the Ogre and Kobolds?
The ogre has 88hp, far more than the math would suggest it should.
The kobolds have 2hp, far less than the math would suggest they should.
It has been suggested that old school kobolds had as many hp so that makes it okay. But when PCs have more than they used to I don't see why the kobolds should be the same as they used to be.
Also, with magic missile being able to kill them, without a roll and without a chance of missing and the slayer ability killing them on a miss. Yes, they feel very miniony. They get 1 extra hp but they're still minions.
What they're talking about and what they've actually delivered so far are two very different things.
Very true, and once again you have quoted the part where I was talking about his expectations and preferences for 5e. Not the actual mechanics. That came later... where I talked about the mechanics.
The playtest has Vancian casters, clerical healing, open-ended skills (more like AD&D secondary skills or non-weapon proficiencies than 3e ranks, too), hard-hitting optionless fighters, sleep-casting magic-users, semi-competent trap-finding thieves, and pop-target evil humanoids by the score, all milling about killing eachother in an extensive cavern complex. It couldn't be much more AD&D in feel without being an actual re-print.
So to clarify, it has the essence of 2e's non-weapon proficiencies but not the codification of 3e's skills. Vancian is 3e, but it is also earlier. So unless the primary reason you LIKE 3e was because you like vancian it doesn't seem to offer much. Same with optionless fighters and everything else you are spouting as being 3e. Those are aspects of 3e but they aren't what made 3e good. In fact, I would argue, that many things the designers are trying to incorporate that they think are "3e" are the things they remember of 3e as opposed to what we liked of 3e.
Now, unlike you Tony, I'm not arguing the game shouldn't try to incorporate aspects to suit us all. I'm also not advocating them try to exclude anyone or exclude a certain aspect of design for the game.
I am advocating that they work a little harder at addressing the issues in what I and others dislike instead of just trying to convince me that I'll like it later. If something is a sticking point now, it doesn't matter how many other layers they tack on it is still going to be a sticking point later. If they want my money then they might want to put some effort into working on what I care about.
Also, I am perfectly aware this is a playtest so it will have limited options. I am also aware that this playtest is VERY limited and has ALMOST NO options. It has pregen characters that can be played with or without backgrounds/themes. If you want anything else it isn't there.
I'm willing to wait for them to come up with more but all I can give them is feedback on the material they have given me so far. That feedback isn't glowing or happy, it is the opposite.
And finally, Tony, to tie this all back together. My question was "what about the playtest makes you think it will be good." The response I got was "I like X,Y,Z" to which I responded that "X,Y,Z seem to be VERY 4e" as far as design goals go.
Then somehow you criticized me, because what I said wasn't actually in the playtest.. which happens to be what I said.
My concern is that if the shining reviews WotC is going to get are going to be from people who say they like something else but really just like 4e-esk material then it is going to turn out poorly for those who feel the way I do.
