D&D 5E Is the imbalance between classes in 5e accidental or by design?

[Vaalingrade]

Not panicking, just observing what already happened.

 

[Undrave]

The poll is also begging the question. Imbalance (however you define it) is a foregone conclusion based on the wording. I can't give my real answer which is that it doesn't apply, at least not consistently across all levels and groups.

If you consider the system balanced within a tolerable margin, then it would be logical to think that any imbalance perceived by others is simply the result of a difference in play style, human error, or a different level of tolerance. In that case, the imbalance would be accidental, or emergent, rather than baked in.

 

[Oofta]

If you consider the system balanced within a tolerable margin, then it would be logical to think that any imbalance perceived by others is simply the result of a difference in play style, human error, or a different level of tolerance. In that case, the imbalance would be accidental, or emergent, rather than baked in.

Unless all classes (and players) are 100% identical in all aspects there is going to be a difference. Calling that difference an "imbalance" gives it a negative connotation.

 

[lingual]

I thought Quickleaf's point here was a very simple one: the average amount of damage done by a Big, Fat Spell versus a Big, Bad Fighter has largely flipped over the decades, and this likely is not accidental. And, I mean, just from the numbers on his chart, that does seem true, doesn't it?

I have no experience with 2e-4e and therefore am not competent to speak about them: I only know 1e and 5e. But one thing I vividly remember about 1e is that wizards--even at higher levels--were supposed to spend a lot of their time hanging in back and avoiding getting hit while perhaps achieving a few helpful things in combat, but then also making that One Really Big Move with a clutch spell when it was sorely needed. We had no cantrips in 1e (hardly anyone back then even knew UA existed) and certainly had no damage-dealing cantrips and could not regain spell slots except through a long rest. Spells were used sparingly.

Today?? Pfft! Fuhgeddabouddit.

In 1e, magic-users were real glass cannons. At higher levels, it was very easy to disrupt a spell. All you have to do is land a hit and the spell slot would be lost. The AC would have any Dexterity bonus removed. The spell caster basically had to win initiative by the level of spell. Initiative as a d6 so basically to get that fireball off, you would have to hope the enemy rolled a 2 or less on initiative - or else a simple arrow would dissolve the spell. Actions were prior to declared prior to initiative rolls. Fighters would absolutely destroy magic-users in 1v1 combat. The magic user would probably have to luck out and get a Blink, Mirror Image, or something like that off to stand a chance. A 15th lvl wizard would probably have around 30 to 40 hit points. Wizards were reliant on magic items to consistently get spell effects off.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Tell me you never played 4e without telling me you never.played 4e

Yeah okay dude. Played it for years until I finally dropped it out of.... boredom. If you enjoy it, good for you.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The poll is also begging the question. Imbalance (however you define it) is a foregone conclusion based on the wording. I can't give my real answer which is that it doesn't apply, at least not consistently across all levels and groups.

you read the poll, you read the thread title, you chose to come to a discussion and disregard the topic and instead try to disprove a part of it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

you read the poll, you read the thread title, you chose to come to a discussion and disregard the topic and instead try to disprove a part of it.

Such is the way of the Fighter thread.

 

[Undrave]

Unless all classes (and players) are 100% identical in all aspects there is going to be a difference. Calling that difference an "imbalance" gives it a negative connotation.

If I consider that a class has less abilities to impact the game than another, I don’t know why I wouldn’t call it negative? I’m not like ECMO3, I don’t think having a class superior to others in a class-based game is a good design or, somehow, fun.

In 1e, magic-users were real glass cannons. At higher levels, it was very easy to disrupt a spell. All you have to do is land a hit and the spell slot would be lost. The AC would have any Dexterity bonus removed. The spell caster basically had to win initiative by the level of spell. Initiative as a d6 so basically to get that fireball off, you would have to hope the enemy rolled a 2 or less on initiative - or else a simple arrow would dissolve the spell. Actions were prior to declared prior to initiative rolls. Fighters would absolutely destroy magic-users in 1v1 combat. The magic user would probably have to luck out and get a Blink, Mirror Image, or something like that off to stand a chance. A 15th lvl wizard would probably have around 30 to 40 hit points. Wizards were reliant on magic items to consistently get spell effects off.

Spellcasting should not be instantaneous. It'd be a lot more strategic to use if you had to wait for the start of your next turn for your (levelled) spell effect to go off.

 

[Haplo781]

.Spellcasting should be instantaneous. It'd be a lot more strategic to use if you had to wait for the start of your next turn for your (levelled) spell effect to go off.

Assuming you meant "shouldn't."

I'm all for this. Also bring back spellcasting provoking OAs.

 

[MichaelSomething]

So instead of balancing the rules, WOTC should focus on excluding people who don't like imbalanced rules/tends towards imbalanced play styles???

Need another choice :
imbalance between the classes is created by table play style