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

[Minigiant]

I'm saying that the tropes of modern D&D demand that the Wizard be THE top-tier class at the highest levels (with other casters nearly as good, although less versatile), the single best class at solving non-combat obstacles, but have more fragility and a weaker starting point to compensate.

However, there is no such demand that a Fighter can't be a near unkillable wrecking ball that even a Wizard would only face with extensive preparation. Maintaining D&D tropes demands that a gap remains, but it doesn't mean it can't be shrunken even further and only really relevant at the highest levels.

Not fulfilling the trope of the fighter being the near unlikable and unkillable ball of death or many of the other D&D tropes of other classes is the source of imbalance.

At some part WOTC was unwilling to take a stance. In others they took a trope which is outdated to their current demographics.

Edit: and unkillable

 

[Scribe]

I'm saying that the tropes of modern D&D demand that the Wizard be THE top-tier class at the highest levels (with other casters nearly as good, although less versatile), the single best class at solving non-combat obstacles, but have more fragility and a weaker starting point to compensate.

However, there is no such demand that a Fighter can't be a near unkillable wrecking ball that even a Wizard would only face with extensive preparation. Maintaining D&D tropes demands that a gap remains, but it doesn't mean it can't be shrunken even further and only really relevant at the highest levels.

I...

I reject that this is a trope of D&D.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I can't really strongly disagree. The chance that WotC will try to make the game less terrible, when being terrible appears to be delivering revenue growth are nil.

Have you considered the possibility that the game, in fact, is not terrible, that it might be just fine, or even good, and that it just doesn't match your personal tastes?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Have you considered the possibility that the game, in fact, is not terrible, that it might be just fine, or even good, and that it just doesn't match your personal tastes?

A good question to consider, and this is coming from someone who makes serious modifications to vanilla 5e to meet their personal taste.

 

[Oofta]

A good question to consider, and this is coming from someone who makes serious modifications to vanilla 5e to meet their personal taste.

No product can be right for everyone. I really like my car but it has a small back seat and the gas mileage isn't all that great (my wife and I call it our zoom zoom car). Meanwhile my brother-in-law really likes his pickup and there's no way I'd want one. My other brother-in-law loves his Tesla but I don't care for their quality control or the way the interface works. Who's right on what a good vehicle is? All three of us are. A pickup would be terrible for me and I value quality control and simplistic interface more than some people. D&D might be terrible for some people, it's a good game for other people.

 

[Oofta]

There's a lot of assumptions masquerading as facts, opinions being applied to the broader public on this thread. All we really know is that based on the current playtest is that the 2024 edition is going to have very minor tweaks to the fighter.

Another example of things that are questionable floating around is how terrible two weapon fighting (TWF) is for a fighter. It's not as far as I can tell. If you look at average monster AC compared to average PC level and assume the fighter the appropriate fighting style and then GWM or Dual Wielder at 4th level, GWM does less than a point of damage extra up to level 11, and then it's still less than 2 (dropping back down to less than 1 at higher than 15). Meanwhile the 2WF can more easily spread damage around by hitting multiple thereby having less chance of overkill on a single target. They also get a +1 to AC.

Depending on assumptions and what you value the 2WF is superior despite vehement attestations that they're terrible. Of course you can always buff the GWM so they're more likely to hit but if you apply those buffs to one you have to apply to both. Throw in the options of the 2WF adding elemental damage to their attacks from both weapons and it leans it even more in the 2WF favor. Hand out +3 weapons or have bless every combat and the calculation goes in the GWM favor at levels above 10. Spend most of your time below level 11? Then 2WF is probably better.

Is my spreadsheet analysis correct? It just depends. There's not a simple one-size fits all answer to this or many other things where people make broad assertions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Have you considered the possibility that the game, in fact, is not terrible

yes, very carefully, for many years ... indeed, I started out with the assumption that it was just as good as a game could reasonably be, and had been carefully balanced...
...and, y'know, it had been, carefully, just not successfully... then I tried some games other than 1e AD&D... ...still, I used lots of variants and ran AD&D from '85 to '95 until 2e just lost me, I was at the point where what I was running was too different from what 2e had become to use new stuff as it came out, there was just no point... 3.0 brought me back, and going open source was inspiring, and it had lots of good ideas - which somehow led to the whole RAW-uber-alles zietgeist and really kinda wrecked things... IDK what went wrong, exactly, I can point to lots of issues, of course, but also lots of ways to have coped with them ... 4e did the impossible and balanced the classes, which, I guess doing the impossible can really annoy people... and 5e just, reflexively stepped back from that and gave up a lot of design ground when not that much had been gained over the preceding 40 years.

...so, yeah, D&D has mostly been pretty terrible, and 5e is pretty terrible, on purpose, which bites...
...doesn't stop me from liking it or playing it, tho.
And discussing how it might be less terrible is potentially interesting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

yes, very carefully, for many years ... indeed, I started out with the assumption that it was just as good as a game could reasonably be, and had been carefully balanced...
...and, y'know, it had been, carefully, just not successfully... then I tried some games other than 1e AD&D... ...still, I used lots of variants and ran AD&D from '85 to '95 until 2e just lost me, I was at the point where what I was running was too different from what 2e had become to use new stuff as it came out, there was just no point... 3.0 brought me back, and going open source was inspiring, and it had lots of good ideas - which somehow led to the whole RAW-uber-alles zietgeist and really kinda wrecked things... IDK what went wrong, exactly, I can point to lots of issues, of course, but also lots of ways to have coped with them ... 4e did the impossible and balanced the classes, which, I guess doing the impossible can really annoy people... and 5e just, reflexively stepped back from that and gave up a lot of design ground when not that much had been gained over the preceding 40 years.

...so, yeah, D&D has mostly been pretty terrible, and 5e is pretty terrible, on purpose, which bites...
...doesn't stop me from liking it or playing it, tho.
And discussing how it might be less terrible is potentially interesting.

Is 4e your favorite D&D then? Because IME folks who prefer 4e over other versions have a different perspective on RPGs in general, and have a different definition of "terrible" than other D&D players, no matter what non-4e D&D those players prefer.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is 4e your favorite D&D then? Because IME folks who prefer 4e over other versions have a different perspective on RPGs in general, and have a different definition of "terrible" than other D&D players, no matter what non-4e D&D those players prefer.

1e has always been my favorite for reasons that nostalgia figure into strongly. I do find echoes of 1e in 4e, and 4e is, like, peak (not)D&D in terms of being the easiest to run, having the narrowest martial/caster gap, and having some structure going on outside of combat.

"easiest to run" has been a more important consideration the last... sheesh, 5 years, now...

The commonality I find in my edition preferences is that I appreciate an ed that tried to do something well. 1e tried hard to be a complete, balanced game in what was still a very new hobby, 3.0 was saving the game and tried making it less proscriptive, 4e balanced the game. In contrast 2e and 5e seemed to more worried about mollifying the games' critics in the Satanic Panic and Edition War, respectively.

If I wanted to play a game just because it's good, rather than because I have a history with it and an emotional attachment to it, I wouldn't play any version of D&D.

Not fulfilling the trope of the fighter being the near unlikable ball of death or many of the other D&D tropes of other classes is the source of imbalance.

Unlikable? Don't dump CHA.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Adventurer, Conqueror, King, an OSR game that focuses specifically on a transition to domain management at higher levels. The designer of the game is mired in political controversy that's outside the bounds of discussion here, but probably worth investigating if you're considering the game.

Thank you for the information, and especially about the warning. I did some reading, and whilst the concept of the game seems interesting, due the person behind it I wouldn't touch this with a ten feet pole.