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

[Justice and Rule]

That real issue just isn't fixable without either down-powering magic in general or completely remaking the fighter. Either would have fans up in arms, and WotC wants a simple fighter anyway.

I mean, I'd debate that the fans would be up in arms over remaking the fighter. You could probably remake the fighter and ranger largely to a decent amount of approval, given that it feels like class critiques often focus on those two classes already. Nerfing magic... well, that might get a louder reaction, though I do think that at this point in the cycle you'd probably get more approval rather than less.

Can you provide an example that isn't a video game?

I've refrained from mentioning it more and I won't go too much more in-depth because it's the wrong forum, but Pathfinder 2E is way more solidly-balanced in its classes, and all of them have their own solid niches and distinctions. There are a bunch of lessons 1D&D could take from it (and even seem to have with how they are moving with Race/Ancestry) while putting their own spin.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That real issue just isn't fixable without either down-powering magic in general or completely remaking the fighter. Either would have fans up in arms, and WotC wants a simple fighter anyway.

Right. So we're left with the same tired, frustrating stalemate. The same haves and have-nots. As was derisively said above, "wizards rule, fighters drool."

But there is something different about 5e now, isn't there? We've got a lot of new blood. By all accounts, dramatically more than the oldbies, even those who started with 3e or 4e or PF. Perhaps outnumbering us nine to one. There's no telling whether they'll accept the long-standing impasse. Perhaps they will because it was coded into 5e; perhaps they won't, because they have experience with MMOs and video games and media that didn't exist 25 years ago, like the incredible popularity of the Harry Potter franchise. I certainly don't know. But I wouldn't be surprised to see some major design changes motivated by the fact that the player base has absorbed a LOT of people with zero connection to the "old" ways.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, 4e. People tend to make all sorts of reasons why that's not acceptable. 13th Age is also very well-balanced, but it's often disqualified for not being as popular. I hear good things about PF2e, but haven't played it, and it also gets the "not popular enough" disqualifier.

Well, I didn't care for 4e, or 13th Age (too much like 4e), so I can see your problem there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right. So we're left with the same tired, frustrating stalemate. The same haves and have-nots. As was derisively said above, "wizards rule, fighters drool."

But there is something different about 5e now, isn't there? We've got a lot of new blood. By all accounts, dramatically more than the oldbies, even those who started with 3e or 4e or PF. Perhaps outnumbering us nine to one. There's no telling whether they'll accept the long-standing impasse. Perhaps they will because it was coded into 5e; perhaps they won't, because they have experience with MMOs and video games and media that didn't exist 25 years ago, like the incredible popularity of the Harry Potter franchise. I certainly don't know. But I wouldn't be surprised to see some major design changes motivated by the fact that the player base has absorbed a LOT of people with zero connection to the "old" ways.

People say that, but a whole lot of new players are playing 5e right now, and liking it. Making big changes to the system they've adopted and greatly enjoy is by no means going to keep them.

 

[Justice and Rule]

People say that, but a whole lot of new players are playing 5e right now, and liking it. Making big changes to the system they've adopted and greatly enjoy is by no means going to keep them.

That's a bad argument: a lot of people are playing 5E simply because it's where people are at, and just because they are playing it doesn't mean they love or even endorse every aspect of it. Plenty of people play games that have obvious flaws because they can look past them. I've seen more Ranger and Fighter homebrew reduxes than... well, any other class because I'm not sure I've seen a redux of any other class. Who cares if some people are outraged: any change will generate outrage, but that's not a good reason to not improve something that a good portion of the fanbase seems to think needs improvement.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

People say that, but a whole lot of new players are playing 5e right now, and liking it. Making big changes to the system they've adopted and greatly enjoy is by no means going to keep them.

You're doing a thing here that a lot of people do when talking about this sort of thing: Presuming that playing a game means being absolutely 100% happy with literally every single part of it.

That's not necessarily true; in fact, it's almost certainly not true, there are almost certainly things people don't care for about 5e but which aren't considered dealbreakers. And it seems pretty clear that WotC is quite happy to make changes in "One D&D," like replacing aasimar with ardlings, or making every character start with a background feat by default.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

well, any other class because I'm not sure I've seen a redux of any other class.

Monk, Sorcerer, and occasionally Warlock also get such attention. Nowhere near as much as Fighter and Ranger though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You're doing a thing here that a lot of people do when talking about this sort of thing: Presuming that playing a game means being absolutely 100% happy with literally every single part of it.

That's not necessarily true; in fact, it's almost certainly not true, there are almost certainly things people don't care for about 5e but which aren't considered dealbreakers. And it seems pretty clear that WotC is quite happy to make changes in "One D&D," like replacing aasimar with ardlings, or making every character start with a background feat by default.

Well, none of 6e's proposed changes have yet affected the issue at hand. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Monk, Sorcerer, and occasionally Warlock also get such attention. Nowhere near as much as Fighter and Ranger though.

Ah, I've seen Sorcerer a few times, though most of that involves adding a spell list to the bloodlines. I've made fixes to the Monk myself, but most of that involves giving them more ki. I'm guessing Warlock is mostly making the Bladelock better?

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's a bad argument: a lot of people are playing 5E simply because it's where people are at, and just because they are playing it doesn't mean they love or even endorse every aspect of it. Plenty of people play games that have obvious flaws because they can look past them. I've seen more Ranger and Fighter homebrew reduxes than... well, any other class because I'm not sure I've seen a redux of any other class. Who cares if some people are outraged: any change will generate outrage, but that's not a good reason to not improve something that a good portion of the fanbase seems to think needs improvement.

That's a bad argument, as it can be said about the fan base of literally every edition of D&D while it was current.

I would love to know how many of these reduxes were written by the new players WotC is courting, and how many by players who started with previous editions.