A recurring theme I've seen in a number of threads is how important class/race/role balance is too many players. I'm not here to argue against any of those. Instead I would like to give voice to the value of an unbalanced party and how it can make for more interesting plot, tactical situations, roleplaying, etc . . .
Consider your favourite movies and literature. Very often some of the best stories involve groups of protagonists of wildly differing abilities. Merry and Pippen are not valued assets on a battle map (more likely a liability), but the story and the drama is heightened by their inclusion. C3P0 has no combat skills but is great for a laugh. Riggs is much more combat skilled than Murtaugh (Lethal Weapon for those that don’t get the reference) but they have a great buddy dynamic and Riggs still needs Murtaugh to watch his back.
My experience is that many of these imbalances are a defining flavour of D&D.
- The lowly 1st level wizard with their 1/day Magic Missle (1d4 + 1 dmg) needing to be defended by the fighters and slowly paying their dues until they become more powerful.
- The skulking thief who steals information but avoiding stand up fights and dies failing his disarm traps roll (all my thieves die petty inglorious deaths)
- The unreasonably bold but weak Halfling fighter picking unnecessary fights at inns that are wretched hives of scum and villainy when then exhausted party desperate needs 8 hours rest
Apologies now for expressing my personal opinion: If 5E doesn’t have a rule set option that embodies the classic D&D imbalances then it won’t feel like D&D to me. It may be a very admirable and fun gaming system but in my heart I won’t be able to call it D&D.
When I want to play D&D I want to play these classic roles. There are other well balanced game systems out there. I can use those when I want that. I don't want balance when I play D&D.