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

[Oofta]

Do we really need another "Wizards rule, fighters drool" thread? Can't people just play the classes they enjoy and not give a furry rat's derriere about perceived issues with balance? Because by quite a bit people choose to play fighters over other classes, from a "What people actually want to play" fighter is doing just fine.

If in your personal campaign fighters aren't working, so what? They work for others. They work in every game I've played over the past 9 years. You still have a plenty of options if they don't happen to work for you. We are never going back to a 4E style game, they are never going to implement the type of play some people are yearning for. That sucks if you happen to be a fan of 4E but the reality is that there is no way WOTC is going to kill the golden goose to go back to a style of game that had significantly less success.

I like playing fighters, they're one of my favorite classes. I also like to play other classes. One of the biggest advantages of 5E (and non-4E versions of D&D) is that the classes feel different in play. The structure of abilities, the types of resources you have to track, the variety of options (official or improvised) is part of the appeal. If that can lead to imbalance based on how the campaign is played, so be it. I'm still having fun.

 

[Oofta]

The 5E dual wielder is fine up to level 10. Assuming you go dex based.

Why dex based? I mean, there are reasons to do so for saves and skills, but you'll lose a bit on defense which people underrate.

In my analysis GWM is overrated. People tend to overlook defense in their calculations. Even the +1 to AC from two weapon feat matters. I wrote a fight simulator a while back, doing cage matches with fighter of different styles and types I ranked PCs on how long they survived and won combat. Ranking was between 2 weapon fighter, sword and board (depending on how you rule shield bash from the shield master feat) with 2 handed weapon at the bottom.

Like all white room analysis the results should be taken with a grain of salt because it's all very dependent on the table. In addition the difference was likely small enough that people wouldn't notice at the table.

 

[Zardnaar]

Do we really need another "Wizards rule, fighters drool" thread? Can't people just play the classes they enjoy and not give a furry rat's derriere about perceived issues with balance? Because by quite a bit people choose to play fighters over other classes, from a "What people actually want to play" fighter is doing just fine.

If in your personal campaign fighters aren't working, so what? They work for others. They work in every game I've played over the past 9 years. You still have a plenty of options if they don't happen to work for you. We are never going back to a 4E style game, they are never going to implement the type of play some people are yearning for. That sucks if you happen to be a fan of 4E but the reality is that there is no way WOTC is going to kill the golden goose to go back to a style of game that had significantly less success.

I like playing fighters, they're one of my favorite classes. I also like to play other classes. One of the biggest advantages of 5E (and non-4E versions of D&D) is that the classes feel different in play. The structure of abilities, the types of resources you have to track, the variety of options (official or improvised) is part of the appeal. If that can lead to imbalance based on how the campaign is played, so be it. I'm still having fun.

My problem with fighters isn't so much vs primary casters more Paladins and hloomstalker Rangers.

The ingredients are there the secret sauce isn't.

 

[Zardnaar]

Why dex based? I mean, there are reasons to do so for saves and skills, but you'll lose a bit on defense which people underrate.

In my analysis GWM is overrated. People tend to overlook defense in their calculations. Even the +1 to AC from two weapon feat matters. I wrote a fight simulator a while back, doing cage matches with fighter of different styles and types I ranked PCs on how long they survived and won combat. Ranking was between 2 weapon fighter, sword and board (depending on how you rule shield bash from the shield master feat) with 2 handed weapon at the bottom.

Like all white room analysis the results should be taken with a grain of salt because it's all very dependent on the table. In addition the difference was likely small enough that people wouldn't notice at the table.

Dex is a lot better for skills, initial and ranged. It's one less AC (mitigated with feat) and if you wander around a dungeon you can carry one weapon and draw another or switch to bow if required.

Versatility see a lot of melee fighters blow chunks when they have to resort to throwing 1 spear a round.

I've had dex based fighter go rogue like stealth builds surprise round win sort of thing.

One of the few characters I played in 5E was rat's a dex based halfling fighter.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Look at the success of BG3, which implemented 5e rules in a way that was even more wildly unbalanced than the PnP game. Bonus action shoving people into pits and casting three fireballs per round in FUN. And that's what people play for.

i haven't played BG3 myself but from what i've picked up don't you basically play as an entire party by yourself? you get to be the Fighter and the Wizard at the same time, so any disparity between them doesn't really matter because you're not being forced to choose between the two options you're getting both so it's all just positives to your capabilities.

but in DnD you only get to be controlling one of those characters (most of the time, i'm aware that some games play with multiple PCs per player but that's the exception rather than the rule), and if you're only getting the choice to be one thing then all the choices should be more-or-less equal, if not in what they can do then in the worth of what they can do.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

i haven't played BG3 myself but from what i've picked up don't you basically play as an entire party by yourself?

There is nothing stopping you playing a party of all the same class.

 

[mamba]

You think the majority are even aware of 4e? Of 3e? That Elf used to be a class?

yes, yes, and no. Given that it is called fifth edition, should make you aware that there was a fourth and third edition before it, even if you know nothing else about it

 

[mamba]

WotCs own surveys apparently suggest that the majority of 5e fans don't play at all

how do they suggest that? By what reaches the 70% threshold vs what doesn’t, or is there some other measure?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My opinion is that D&D classes do not need to be balanced. The imbalance is part of the game's charm. The concept of "class balance" did not exist when D&D was invented, and classes where largely modelled on fantasy fiction. Trying to balance them was the reason why 4e was not broadly popular. "fair" and "fun" are competing objectives.

Look at the success of BG3, which implemented 5e rules in a way that was even more wildly unbalanced than the PnP game. Bonus action shoving people into pits and casting three fireballs per round in FUN. And that's what people play for.

You do realize that BG3 goes out of its way to add a whole bunch of things which are only useful to non-spellcasters, right? Equipment actions and passive buffs linked to armor make for a pretty significant divergence.

 

[TwoSix]

My opinion is that D&D classes do not need to be balanced. The imbalance is part of the game's charm. The concept of "class balance" did not exist when D&D was invented, and classes where largely modelled on fantasy fiction. Trying to balance them was the reason why 4e was not broadly popular. "fair" and "fun" are competing objectives.

Look at the success of BG3, which implemented 5e rules in a way that was even more wildly unbalanced than the PnP game. Bonus action shoving people into pits and casting three fireballs per round in FUN. And that's what people play for.

Balance doesn't matter because modern D&D, specifically 5e, is a neotrad game (with strong trad leanings). The point of the game is not defeating challenge; the point is evocative performance of your character's concept and tropes. D&D has moved on from the challenge based play of classic styles.

Individual fights may be "difficult", and your character might die, but that's simply the loss of a particular narrative path. You make a new character at the same level and you keep playing.

This is in no way a judgment, it's a fine and fun method of play I often engage in. But it's not a playstyle in which "balance" is something that is really necessary.