Do one class feel better than the others? Questions about balance

23 posts / 0 new
Last post
Probabily the designers have better means to ask if one class, but just for people can have a bigger picture.
Do you think that one (or more) class(es) is broken?
Do you think that one or more classes is better than the others? Do one class feel overpowered?
Do you think that one or more classes is underpowered in relations to the others?
Depends on the level and the criteria. I think the fighter has broken durability at all levels, which makes him the king of combat at least until barbarians get their "can't die" features.  Yet other people insist that the barbarian or the monk are much more powerful than the fighter because they do more damage.  I think high level wizard spells are (surprise!) alternately broken awesome or just plain crap, while low level wizards are hugely underpowered - a complete waste of air until level 3 at the least.  I think the rogue is broken because of not only can he fill twice as much employment space but he can muscle anyone he chooses out of whatever scraps they try to lay stake to.  So by some criterion or another, every class is broken powerful.  Does that mean none of them are broken?  No, I don't think it does.  
Depends on the level and the criteria. I think the fighter has broken durability at all levels, which makes him the king of combat at least until barbarians get their "can't die" features.  Yet other people insist that the barbarian or the monk are much more powerful than the fighter because they do more damage.  I think high level wizard spells are (surprise!) alternately broken awesome or just plain crap, while low level wizards are hugely underpowered - a complete waste of air until level 3 at the least.  I think the rogue is broken because of not only can he fill twice as much employment space but he can muscle anyone he chooses out of whatever scraps they try to lay stake to.  So by some criterion or another, every class is broken powerful.  Does that mean none of them are broken?  No, I don't think it does.  



This

Depends on how you look at it, every class can be broken. The question is how?

Just remember, 5e is new and there still more classes, feats, and rules to add in the game
so there more ways to break it. There always be killer combos that can destroy an encounter. 


Probabily the designers have better means to ask if one class, but just for people can have a bigger picture.
Do you think that one (or more) class(es) is broken?
Do you think that one or more classes is better than the others? Do one class feel overpowered?
Do you think that one or more classes is underpowered in relations to the others?






Monks feel OP. They are almost as good as fighters without their Ki abilities. I really don’t care so much about the balance of the classes since none of them really pass the sniff test. The classes are the worse thing about Next… IMO

I'm struggling to answer the question - probably a good sign.


Broadly speaking I think all the classes "work" about as well as each other but as it's been mentioned there's a disparity depending on level range. This doesn't especially bother me as long as I don't have to go too far out of my way to make a player fit into the campaign by virtue of their class sucking or being too good.


A lot of folks here advocate that people should be free of considerations of how and when they're able to contribute based on class, and frankly I disagree. I think the system has to enable any character to function in any arena, but the class itself actually exists to narrow that down and give the character clear strengths and weaknesses beyond their attributes.


That's one place where the designers have cast their die largely against my view, and that's fine - they had to make a decision.



Anyway, based on my view I don't mind that one class is weaker (or even significantly weaker) than another in a given level range so long as these periods are experienced by everyone and the relative weakness isn't so much that the DM has to make broad allowances for that character to keep the game going.

Depends on the level and the criteria. I think the fighter has broken durability at all levels, which makes him the king of combat at least until barbarians get their "can't die" features.    


One on One in a series... he is a uber durable serial killer, but if he is perpetually facing multiple adversaries is that still true?
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Right now I think that the Cleric may be overpowered, especially in comparison to the Wizard. They have spells and Channel Divinity and weapons and deity... And I also don't think that the Traditions of Wizardry are not right yet.
Little tweaks are needed everywhere (spells like trap-the-soul need to be rewritten, fighter could probably use some minor out of combat utility--think a rewritten version of might exertion, sneak attack needs to be rewritten from the ground up), but all in all things are progressing fairly well. The game is fairly balanced. Like power noted, every class is broken in some area of the game. But, no class has it all, and each can contribute uniquely in their own way. 

The biggest offender, right now, in my opinion, is the wizard. It is HORRIBLY underpowered from levels 1-5/6ish. They need to fix that.

Feb 13, 2013 -- 9:00PM, powerroleplayer wrote:

Depends on the level and the criteria. I think the fighter has broken durability at all levels, which makes him the king of combat at least until barbarians get their "can't die" features.  Yet other people insist that the barbarian or the monk are much more powerful than the fighter because they do more damage.  I think high level wizard spells are (surprise!) alternately broken awesome or just plain crap, while low level wizards are hugely underpowered - a complete waste of air until level 3 at the least.  I think the rogue is broken because of not only can he fill twice as much employment space but he can muscle anyone he chooses out of whatever scraps they try to lay stake to.  So by some criterion or another, every class is broken powerful.  Does that mean none of them are broken?  No, I don't think it does.  




This

Depends on how you look at it, every class can be broken. The question is how?

Just remember, 5e is new and there still more classes, feats, and rules to add in the game
so there more ways to break it. There always be killer combos that can destroy an encounter. 




Probably the designers have better data, but I wanted to have some idea of people's opinions about balance. I am basically if one class (or more) is broken, overpowered or underpowered. Right now I think that the Cleric may be overpowered, especially in comparison to the Wizard. I've already heard that the Cleric with the Arcanist deity is a better wizard than the Wizard.
Do you think that one (or more) class(es) is broken?
Do you think that one or more classes is better than the others? Do one class feel overpowered?
Do you think that one or more classes is underpowered in relations to the others?

Right now I don't think any class is totally broken. The fighter is over powered, the rogue is too weighted towards non-combat skills, the wizard under powered at low levels, and the cleric plays wierdly but that is all matters of tweaking the classes. The problem with the cleric right now is that he is generally good as a mixed character who can do a bit of everything, but his choice of deity doesn't make a lot of difference in how they play and the melee oriented ones look bad right now because the fighter is so OP in melee.

One on One in a series... he is a uber durable serial killer, but if he is perpetually facing multiple adversaries is that still true?

In theory he should be weaker against groups since he only gets one parry per round. In practice most monsters are so bad at hitting that the limitation of parry isn't huge. The fighter might be in trouble if surrounded by 6 monsters when he could take 10 or 12 one on one in a row, but the rest of the party is in trouble if they face more then 1 or 2, so the difference doesn't matter in practice.


One on One in a series... he is a uber durable serial killer, but if he is perpetually facing multiple adversaries is that still true?

In theory he should be weaker against groups since he only gets one parry per round. In practice most monsters are so bad at hitting that the limitation of parry isn't huge. The fighter might be in trouble if surrounded by 6 monsters when he could take 10 or 12 one on one in a row, but the rest of the party is in trouble if they face more then 1 or 2, so the difference doesn't matter in practice.

The fighter gets one parry per turn, not round.




One on One in a series... he is a uber durable serial killer, but if he is perpetually facing multiple adversaries is that still true?

In theory he should be weaker against groups since he only gets one parry per round. In practice most monsters are so bad at hitting that the limitation of parry isn't huge. The fighter might be in trouble if surrounded by 6 monsters when he could take 10 or 12 one on one in a row, but the rest of the party is in trouble if they face more then 1 or 2, so the difference doesn't matter in practice.

The fighter gets one parry per turn, not round.







Not true. 
The problem with the cleric right now is that he is generally good as a mixed character who can do a bit of everything, but his choice of deity doesn't make a lot of difference in how they play and the melee oriented ones look bad right now because the fighter is so OP in melee.




That is the problem. This Next Cleric the worse class in the history of D&D not because its worse than previous editions but that it teases with a drop of brilliance.

One on One in a series... he is a uber durable serial killer, but if he is perpetually facing multiple adversaries is that still true?

In theory he should be weaker against groups since he only gets one parry per round. In practice most monsters are so bad at hitting that the limitation of parry isn't huge. The fighter might be in trouble if surrounded by 6 monsters when he could take 10 or 12 one on one in a row, but the rest of the party is in trouble if they face more then 1 or 2, so the difference doesn't matter in practice.

The fighter gets one parry per turn, not round.







How many reactions does he get?
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

The classes are the worse thing about Next… IMO




That's exactly me and my buddy's deal: "...5th Ed rocks...shame about the classes..."

Please remove any class features tied to such optional things as Feats and Skills.
The problem with the cleric right now is that he is generally good as a mixed character who can do a bit of everything, but his choice of deity doesn't make a lot of difference in how they play and the melee oriented ones look bad right now because the fighter is so OP in melee.




That is the problem. This Next Cleric the worse class in the history of D&D not because its worse than previous editions but that it teases with a drop of brilliance.





Also, the class entry is way too long.
The fighter gets one parry per turn, not round.




My one big hope is they drop Parry as a class feature, I do not want Fighters pigeonholed into melee defender.


Also, the class entry is way too long.




To be fair I don’t think the vanilla cleric makes any sense in a setting with a large pantheon. Creating a cleric that really represents its deity probably should take more pages than the other classes. The pages just seem wasted when the cleric gets every spell anyway.



Also, the class entry is way too long.




To be fair I don’t think the vanilla cleric makes any sense in a setting with a large pantheon. Creating a cleric that really represents its deity probably should take more pages than the other classes. The pages just seem wasted when the cleric gets every spell anyway.





I think the cleric should be more generic.
The classes are the worse thing about Next… IMO

While I agree the classes have a ways to go, I'm still putting the races (especially humans) in last place by a fair margin.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
The classes are the worse thing about Next… IMO

While I agree the classes have a ways to go, I'm still putting the races (especially humans) in last place by a fair margin.




I dig races, just want more, I mean, it's been 8 months, they could have tossed us another race or two.

How many reactions does he get?



One a round. He can gain a second one, which can only be used to make opportunity attacks, with a feat. 

And I love the way the DDN classes are turning out so far.  

The classes are the worse thing about Next… IMO

While I agree the classes have a ways to go, I'm still putting the races (especially humans) in last place by a fair margin.




I'd say humans are the only problematic ones.  I literally had players set on being humans, see the human bonuses as opposed to the other races and were just like meh thats boring as heck I'm gunna be a dwarf instead. Literally the only human is the DM PC monk.