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

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, how else are we supposed to judge it? There's no objective, publicly-notarized way of saying a class is trash, but the outcry against the Ranger occupied two UA articles (possibly three if you include modifying classes with the Spell-less Ranger).

I mean, while the response certainly drives it, in their introductions to those Unearthed Arcanas they pretty much say themselves that the Ranger is messed up.

UA08: Ranger Options


UA18: The Ranger, Revised


That WotC didn't end up implementing it doesn't say anything about this: like many companies, they likely made a cost-benefit analysis as to whether completing it was worth it. I suspect they didn't want a bunch of players to feel like their books were suddenly invalidated, even if they ended up fixing the Ranger for the better. The fact that they spent a good year or so looking to fix the class should say enough, whether or not they ended up implementing anything.




They never needed to because the Ranger was their testbed to see if it would be worth it to change something that was obviously broken at a fundamental level. Why start trying to fix a bunch of classes when it may not come to fruition and inadvertently reveal that other classes are looked at as being pretty broken as well?

The ranger was used because it was basically universally agreed upon to the point that it wouldn't be controversial to actually put that out there. You try fixing the fighter before that and you run into people who think the fighter should be the most no-frills class out there as well as getting people going "Wait, why are we not fixing the ranger first?" When they ended up not doing it



I mean, yeah, it does. That's the whole point of the saying.



I feel like you getting the idiom wrong and then being like "Whatever" is an amazing metaphor for the particular discussion we are having.



It doesn't need to, it just shows that in a very obvious case where something needs to be fixed, they ended up not actually fixing anything, which goes against the argument that they haven't made any major fixes because they see no major imbalances. They came out about it with the ranger (because it was damn well obvious) but ended up doing nothing, to the chagrin of a bunch of us.

Of course, now they feel they  can invalidate people's books, with 6e.

 

[Seramus]

Accidentally on purpose!

They intentionally went back to a game structure that is unbalanced, and tried to make them as close as possible, but could not escape that fundamental imbalance.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Yeah, heaven forbid anyone on the internet admits they make a mistake now and then.

Ah, c'mon. It was too well-timed to pass up on.

If there's a demand for "fixing" things I'm sure it will come out in the playtests for the 2024 release. Until then it's just unverifiable conjecture on your part.

It wasn't on me to verify anything, my point was the lack of fixing did not mean that things were not broken. That was the whole point of the looking at the ranger: it was something they admitted wasn't working, put a good amount of effort into trying to find a solution, and then dropped it. I was refuting the idea that there in not trying to fix something it showed that there wasn't a major imbalance by pointing to the time they admitted there was a major imbalance and ended up not fixing it.

Of course, now they feel they  can invalidate people's books, with 6e.

I hope they are brave enough to. This is the moment.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If you take away the damage boost, most of the attacks are perfectly serviceable as At-Will abilities/techniques/whatever won't trigger people who don't like fighters getting "powers".

I was working on a version of the fighter that resembled something from 4E and I made up 12 "Weapon Techniques" for "regular fighter" subclass and 12 "Battle Tactics" for the Warlord subclass.

Please pardon the dust as the website is ugly as hell and incomplete right now but from my floor-up redesign:

Combatant Techniques

 

[Ancalagon]

Why are you comparing it to 3e instead of comparing it to 4e which was the immediate predecessor of the current edition?

Compared to it's 4e version, they have clearly tried to give the wizard back at least a portion of it's power to alter reality and dramatically change the state of the game.

Because I haven't played enough 4e to comment?

And now that I think about it, why not compare it to Troika! or Warhammer frpg 2nd ed? The D&D wizard is a particular thing, not all gaming systems do it the way D&D does.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ah, c'mon. It was too well-timed to pass up on.



It wasn't on me to verify anything, my point was the lack of fixing did not mean that things were not broken. That was the whole point of the looking at the ranger: it was something they admitted wasn't working, put a good amount of effort into trying to find a solution, and then dropped it. I was refuting the idea that there in not trying to fix something it showed that there wasn't a major imbalance by pointing to the time they admitted there was a major imbalance and ended up not fixing it.



I hope they are brave enough to. This is the moment.

If they admit to it being a new edition, I'm all for it.

 

[Undrave]

Magic item distribution is a tool the DM has to control how PCs interact with the world. The scope this permits the DM is large enough to handle almost all imbalance between PC capabilities.

Again: tools are not worth squat if the person using them isn't properly trained to use them.

Yeah, people are very much underestimating the burgeoning subculture of 'balance is bad' in D&D and basically only D&D.

I found that a ton of people have a problem thinking of this GAME as a GAME and thus don't like to engage with concepts of GAME DESIGN. Like not polluting your game with bad options.

Ah, that's a neat (if small) way of customizing your character.

It had to be small, seeing has you had all your powers to pick from and all the feats to further customize your character. But it meant that, even without a massive impact from a subclass, you could have two Wizard played completely differently and had different visual aesthetic because of their implement. A Wizard swinging a delicate wand and one holding a staff with both hands evoke different look.

As a side note regarding the Staff Wizard: AC in 4e could be calculated with INT instead of DEX as a default, so a high INT, high CON Wizard with a feat invested into Armor prof could be much harder to hit than his 5e compatriot.

Hahaha... So PF2E did this with the Oracle, but it ended up pretty complicated because when you use your Oracle powers you have a "curse" that activates and gives you both a boon and a bane with it, and the more you activate the more severe both get. That's the simplest way of putting it and it could definitely use a bit of simplification and elegance.

That sort of thing would be very novel for 5E and I'd absolutely like to see how it plays out, especially for a Wild Mage. The idea that using more magic would make more random things happen is a great way to implement that sort of crazy magic.

Yeah I wouldn't want to make it TOO complicated. I really wish the Wild Mage had been a 'push your luck' system instead, where the more you use its special ability, the more likely you are of triggering something bad.

when many--no doubt returning to the fold from 3.x or Pathfinder--complained bitterly about how wizards were "nerfed" and no longer worth playing.

Augh... Wizard fans.

I have literally been told that Rage is too hard to operate.

HOW?!

 

[Justice and Rule]

If they admit to it being a new edition, I'm all for it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Why would I bother answering a leading question when you've already stated that any honest response is incorrect?

to be part of the conversation... again, take part by not trying to dissect the premise.

 

[Haplo781]

That's ... not how it works. There is no "in spite of" when it's simply not an issue for many people.

Failure to acknowledge a problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

It's in spite of.