D&D 5E You Cant Fix The Class Imbalances IMHO

[Zardnaar]

4e did three Tiers over 30 levels, and it worked through all of them.
Balance helps with that.

TBF, the highest possible hp 4e character would top out at 257 hp at 30th (182 at 20th), 5e, I'd be 340, at 20th. Both are highly improbable, ironically sub-optimal builds, of course.

I'm aware but the changes over 30 levels were so minor it's essentially 10 levels stretched over 30.

Basically you start roughly level 3 and finish around 13. But stretched over 30 levels. You cantrips scale level 21 iirc big whoop.

They cut all the hard to rate stuff and not of it was damage or less damage plus rider.

SWSE was more fun no straight jacket 4E engine.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm aware but the changes over 30 levels were so minor it's essentially 10 levels stretched over 30.

Basically you start roughly level 3 and finish around 13. But stretched over 30 levels. You cantrips scale level 21 iirc big whoop.

They cut all the hard to rate stuff and not of it was damage or less damage plus rider.

SWSE was more fun no straight jacket 4E engine.

[citation needed]

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm aware but the changes over 30 levels were so minor it's essentially 10 levels stretched over 30..

You go from fighting goblins to fighting gods. Nothing new for D&D, really. Well, in 4e you could officially be a Demigod, like Heracles.
What doesn't change over 30 levels is that the game remains playable.
Because balance.

In 5e, you can fight goblins at 20th - and lose.

It's 5e BA that stretches 4 levels of advancement over 20 levels.
....for fighters, combat in general, and skills.
For wizards it's still Sleep to Wish.
And breaks in Tier 3.
Because class imbalance.

Which, we've established, is what makes it D&D.

 

[Zardnaar]

You go from fighting goblins to fighting gods. Nothing new for D&D, really. Well, in 4e you could officially be a Demigod, like Heracles.
What doesn't change over 30 levels is that the game remains playable.
Because balance.

In 5e, you can fight goblins at 20th - and lose.

It's 5e BA that stretches 4 levels of advancement over 20 levels.
....for fighters and skills.
For wizards it's still Sleep to Wish.
And breaks in Tier 3.
Because class imbalance.

Which, we've established, is what makes it D&D.

You could fight gods level 8 in 1E. It's just a number.

Junkies the paradigm isn't an option wotc isn't financially suicidal.

High level fighters were still useful in AD&D for example. 90% MR was exactly that in 2E.

It's the defenses are big problem 3E inwards, 4E was mostly just samage and a rider (middling damage at that).

 

[Incenjucar]

It can be done, but WotC won't do it and the effort by a 3P would be better spent on their own new system.

 

[Tony Vargas]

[citation needed]

Compared to 5e, 4e starts with basically realized character concepts, which can take thru 3rd in 5e due to multiclassing and sub-classes. So on the low end, sure.

I think the high end is based on lack of broken spells like Simulacrum or Wish.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It very much could be done, you dont have to ruin the game's feel either.

The question is, would the changes to the game be appealing to those playing it or put another way.

Do 5e players even care?

The question is malformed.

Do absolutely all, literally 100%, care? Hell no. Certainly not. It's incredibly rare to find anything that 100% of a large population (say, 100k+) feels the same way about.

Do some care? Hell yes. We wouldn't have these threads--nor things like PF2e or 5.5e--if nobody cared ever.

And distinguishing the difference is extremely hard without actual, well-made surveys (something even WotC struggles mightily with...) and serious statistical analysis (something I am skeptical at best that WotC ever does, given their total lack of STEM-trained staff.) But even with those serious setbacks, WotC knows quite keenly that there are plenty of classes which are "popular" yet "unpopular"--because "popular" is a squishy term that means different things in different contexts. The Champion and Berserker are widely-played ("popular") subclasses, but they both have abysmal player satisfaction ratings ("unpopular.") Ranger is a "popular" (widely-played) "unpopular" (low satisfaction) class.

Given these (sub)classes are well known for being on the weaker side? Yes, I think we can say with reasonable confidence that players DO care. They may not always know why; they may not always be able to point to the specific thing that is wrong and say "fix that. That is what I don't like." But they do have a sense for whether something actually fits within a reasonable balance range--and they've pretty clearly indicated there's a problem to be fixed.

Which is why I maintain that many, many problems with "too much balance" are a matter of presentation, not practice. Things that look familiar, and 5.0 was very very conscious about looking as familiar as possible aka as close to 3.x as possible, will get a good initial reception, even if there are underlying problems that simmer below the surface and require surveys to reveal. Things that look unfamiliar, even if they are well-made, will get at best a chilly response and at worst outright hostility, so you never get the chance to see the long-term response.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

[citation needed]

Completely agreed. Wizards don't need wish and simulacrum to feel like Wizards. The vast majority of utility spells were still present via rituals--and Wizards were the undisputed masters of ritual casting in 4e, able to cast them without spending resources (IIRC multiple times a day at higher levels?) and learning free rituals on the regular.

So, @Zardnaar, name me, say, three things that got cut in 4e that you think were the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. I'm genuinely curious what these things were that were such a "straightjacket."

 

[Zardnaar]

Compared to 5e, 4e starts with basically realized character concepts, which can take thru 3rd in 5e due to multiclassing and sub-classes. So on the low end, sure.

I think the high end is based on lack of broken spells like Simulacrum or Wish.

The spell effects top out around level 5 in 3.5/5E terms.

PHB anyway.

 

[Zardnaar]

Completely agreed. Wizards don't need wish and simulacrum to feel like Wizards. The vast majority of utility spells were still present via rituals--and Wizards were the undisputed masters of ritual casting in 4e, able to cast them without spending resources (IIRC multiple times a day at higher levels?) and learning free rituals on the regular.

So, @Zardnaar, name me, say, three things that got cut in 4e that you think were the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. I'm genuinely curious what these things were that were such a "straightjacket."

1. Enforced roles. You are a defender or leader etc.

2. Ranger design. You're basically a 3.5 Scout. Only Rangers can dual wield effectively.

3. Class design in general PHB. You essentially have one of 2 obvious paths.

You xan pretty much look at a spreadsheet. XYZ damage at ABC level mobsters sonething similar.

Side effect slow, grind (broken in a different way), anemic damage (10 levels stretched over 30). Level 21+ is anemic as well.