Level Up (A5E) Strength vs Dexterity imbalance cannot be solved without addressing the Melee vs Ranged Imbalance.

[glass]

Or just don't blindly add them to your game without sanity checking them for balance across all of your other options first. There's only so much blame you can put on the designers, when you aren't using the rules as intended.

Can you explain this comment? What are people doing that you believe is unintended?

_
glass.

 

[NotAYakk]

Or just don't blindly add them to your game without sanity checking them for balance across all of your other options first. There's only so much blame you can put on the designers, when you aren't using the rules as intended.

It this a claim that 5e game designers should have no responsibility for the balance of 5e with feats or multiclassing?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Can you explain this comment? What are people doing that you believe is unintended?

The actual game which is sold, as the designers intended, has a lot of optional rules in it. Most of the game is optional rules, which are only supposed to be added to the game at the discretion of the DM. Feats and multi-classing are the obvious ones, but even individual classes and sub-classes are only supposed to be available at the discretion of the DM.

The main reason that they did this is because they couldn't be bothered to balance everything against everything else, so they only did a quick pass over some of the classes and races, and then slapped a warning label on the rest of it that it's up to the individual DM to decide what's appropriate for their own game. (It's hard to say why they thought that was a reasonable burden to put on individual DMs, but my best guess is that there was external pressure to release on some sort of schedule.) While that may seem like a cop out, at least they warned us.

Whenever someone complains about paladin+warlock, or battlemaster+sharpshooter, or cleric+goodberry, what they're really doing is complaining that their DM didn't spot a problem in time to intervene; or otherwise felt compelled to not intervene, regardless of what the game makes clear is their job.

If two specific feats are ruining your game, then some of the blame goes to the DM. The feats were never part of their game in the first place, until they specifically decided to add them. They made a bad decision. Even though a lot of blame also goes to the designers, for putting the DM in the situation where nothing was balanced or playtested, the DM was still the one who chose to go forward like that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It this a claim that 5e game designers should have no responsibility for the balance of 5e with feats or multiclassing?

If someone does a bad job building a staircase, but they warn you that there are some loose nails that you need to look out for, then both parties share the blame when you get stabbed in the foot.

The designers absolutely should have done a better job to balance feats and multi-classing (and everything else) in 5E, but given the fact that they didn't, what you choose to do with that knowledge is your own responsibility.

 

[tetrasodium]

If someone does a bad job building a staircase, but they warn you that there are some loose nails that you need to look out for, then both parties share the blame when you get stabbed in the foot.

The designers absolutely should have done a better job to balance feats and multi-classing (and everything else) in 5E, but given the fact that they didn't, what you choose to do with that knowledge is your own responsibility.

No the designers don't get to shed that much blame. d&d is a system of crunch & math that brings in serious cash with serious market power, WotC is not some guy who wrote a supplement or put together a fork of a well known system, they don't get to just say "it's optional" any more than ford got to say the same when defending themselves over cars that exploded when people chose to use it. These are a core part of the game that they keep adding to in multiple hardcover sourcebooks not Work in Progress things in a playtest or UA suppliment. The fact that they still do playtest UA content and have shown zero interest in providing a corrected version despite including new classes & feats in various UA releases makes it even more inexcusable. They don't even seem to be problems wotc acknowledges they could have done better on & wish they had the chance either... it's just straight up silence & implied "badwrongfun" if you don't like it.

 

[NotAYakk]

No, the reason they built 5e the way they did was to state that the base game was as simple as the OD&D style games out there.

The options that mimic'd a 3e like experience was to draw 3e/3.5e/Pathfinder people back to D&D.

That part of the structure of 5e was based on marketing considerations, not on balance or lack thereof.

 

[FrogReaver]

If someone does a bad job building a staircase, but they warn you that there are some loose nails that you need to look out for, then both parties share the blame when you get stabbed in the foot.

The designers absolutely should have done a better job to balance feats and multi-classing (and everything else) in 5E, but given the fact that they didn't, what you choose to do with that knowledge is your own responsibility.

There is no warning though. No where in the book does it say beware these options may be unbalanced.

 

[Stalker0]

These are a core part of the game that they keep adding to in multiple hardcover sourcebooks...

I think this is a good point. I can respect "optional rules" that are throwaway. We are going to put this here, and really never talk about it again, use it if you like it.

But Feats keep coming back up, there is new books, they are in new UA supplements. For a mechanic that is not meant to be used the majority of the time...they sure like to talk about them.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There is no warning though. No where in the book does it say beware these options may be unbalanced.

Maybe I am being a bit too lenient on them. Their warning isn't quite that clear. Perhaps it's more fair to say, optional rules should be implemented with discretion.

But the staircase analogy isn't entirely appropriate either, because a staircase requires the majority of its steps to be in place in order to function, and this game works just as well with only the basic rules.

 

[Minigiant]

I think this is a good point. I can respect "optional rules" that are throwaway. We are going to put this here, and really never talk about it again, use it if you like it.

But Feats keep coming back up, there is new books, they are in new UA supplements. For a mechanic that is not meant to be used the majority of the time...they sure like to talk about them.

Well it was a customization option from 2 editions plus a side game. So many fans coming from those editions and games were going to use them.

I think if there was a feat-like option from 0e, 1e, and 2e, feats would have more to complete with.

For example, if there was a Name Title system and a character could opt out of a ASI to go up ranks in a social class, world faction, or class organization, we'd see fewer people take feats.

Although I was flying with an optional system where you could trade your ASI for a magic item. "Doing a ritual to bind or infuse an item with the energy of your soul" was the justification. Since there are way more melee magic weapons that ranged, this would have been a bit of a balancer.