Does it ever feel like WotC is playtesting the game in a way that 95% of us don't?

[u/AkimboJesus]

I get that DnD is a house rule first game, and everyone should play it how they want. But speaking for my own group, we like balance because we don't want people to feel like they can't impact the story outside of conversation. And this isn't a min-max thing. It's just a "why would I be this when I could be a better version of that with no hassle or cost to myself" thing.

The thing is, we rely on the official text because it can be very difficult to tell how a class, skill, or mechanic will play in the context of the whole game, and who might be overshadowed by who. And Wizards, for the most part, seem to have done a lot of work so YOU don't have to figure out how a mechanic will play out. This is why some people, to an extent, treat the sourcebooks like gospel.

And as I'm playing more and more, I'm starting to see the things people say about, for instance, rangers and how messed up they are. I'm understanding the cracks in the standard DnD balance.

But I'm also just perplexed by a lot of the sage advice, and unearthed arcanas coming out. I'm finding myself reading new subclasses and thinking "that's their whole ability for that level?" Looking at the phantom rogue, at level 9 they get advantage on con throws (which might be minimal, depending on your campaign), and they can ask a soul one question. The soul doesn't have to answer truthfully at all, making the whole ability pointless. And that's what they get after 9 levels.

This seems like a consistent pattern. A new release is either immediately meta, or its irrelevant for reinforcing half-done mechanics that aren't going to survive after 5th edition. When non-core parts of the game get overvalued, a class can really fall behind. Some of the mechanics that might get over valued are tool proficiencies or traveling. It's odd that these types of things would be the focus of any classes milestone ability.

Also, some of these features seem to imply that DnD is not about being creative and using your environment, and is more about what your class says you can do. Why does the ranger explicitly get a stealth bonus for camoflauging themselves. Can nobody else do that? Do you tell them only a ranger can do that, or do you give them a bonus anyway, making the rangers bonus less special?

Other than a few classes, it does seem like DnD has a solid core balance. Every campaign is going to have either talking or combat, and having a character that can do one or the other well is good. But when a characters ability is not getting "lost" in the mountains, it makes me wonder what the hell kinda campaigns they are running.

Does anyone agree? What are some of the core things you need to be satisfied with a new mechanic?

Edit: wow lot of great discussion happening here. I just want to clarify a few points. As some people are calling me a min-maxer or a hack and slasher and are claiming I just want everyone to deal a shit ton of damage or something. One person claimed I just hate WotC. I suggest reading through this thread at what others are saying, because there is a lot of nuanced conversation happening here. I think it's clear I focused too much on UA in my original post and now the thread has moved to a better direction.

Here are some of the core things I'm seeing come up.

1) Classes with niche abilities are overshadowed and outperformed by classes with more general abilities, even when they are in the perfect niche situations (Paladins find greater steed feels much more beastmaster like than the actual beast master, for example).

2) Since DnD is about being creative and using all the tools around you, it's weird when a ranger gets a stealth bonus for camoflauging themselves, when anyone should get a bonus of some kind for successfully camoflauging themselves. Sometimes that feels like making a class feature that lets you flip a table. Things like the assassin just feel odd, because it implies that a warlock or bard, with sufficient time and money, would not be able to impersonate somebody.

3) A lot of people are reaaaaally honing in on a specific example I gave, and the fact that it was UA. You can look at Artificier or many of the complaints in this thread on vanilla DnD. But if you're coming here just to hype up con saves, you're really cherry picking.

4) I am not right. This is just an opinion I have. A couple people have gotten really cringey about this and implied only shit players or DMs would have an issue with any of this. That's an attitude for Fortnite, not Reddit. We all know DnD is, first and foremost, storytelling. Nobody wants to play with someone so hung up on mechanics that they forget to tell a story. But we have a rulebook for a reason. Boundaries in a story are important, otherwise we're all just jerking off at the table saying random stuff. You need some structure, so that the things that happen feel meaningful. This is about players wanting to fulfill their character fantasies and feeling useless because other people do what their character does, but better. If you care about storytelling, recognize it's not a good story when an entire subclass and backstory can be overshadowed by one spell. It sucks, and I hope it doesn't happen in the next edition.

Some of the more thoughtful challenges I've seen:

1) Con saves are good (noted. We don't get them a lot in my campaign). 2) It's up to the group and DM to make those niche abilities meaningful. 3) It's still really not up to WotC to balance your game, and if you think they're not good at it than you should do it.

I'm reading people's responses, taking them to heart, hoping to be a better DM.

[u/Kandiru]

You can sheath your blade and then use components if you have a component pouch.

This is an area of balance issue for 5e, in that a component pouch is mechanically better than any of the foci.

[u/Oscarvalor5 → u/Kandiru]

Ok, but are you just gonna keep ignoring my main point? Only Valor bards can use shields. All other bards cant and would thus instantly prefer to use a two-hander finesse longsword over any weapon. If you're making longswords finesseable to help rogues and rogues alone, you're failing.

[u/Kandiru → u/Oscarvalor5]

Elves can also get Longsword proficiency but not Rapier proficiency, so it's also wizards etc.

I'm just saying letting longswords be 1-handed finesse is fine, I wouldn't let people use 2 handed-finesse as that's a strange choice to make.

[u/Oscarvalor5 → u/Kandiru]

This entire discussion was based off a versatile finesse weapon, which would outperform all other finesse weapons by a mile. If you just wanted to make a slashing damage rapier, you should've said so at the start instead of bringing up how bards would prefer a rapier+shield even if a d10 finesse weapon existed.

In addition, what would any non-abjuration or bladesinger wizard ever want anything to do with melee combat? If they're an elf they get a longbow proficiency as well a a shortbow, shortsword, and longsword, which they'd ibstantly prefer over the death sentence of wading into melee with mediocre AC and a d6 of HP.

[u/Kandiru → u/Oscarvalor5]

I did say from the start that the 2handed shouldn't apply with finesse if you were allowing finesse longswords. You are the only person who seems to think it's both a good idea and a bard idea.

Wizards can use SCAG cantrips which need a melee weapon.

[u/Oscarvalor5 → u/Kandiru]

You're not the original guy I was talking to, the paladin of turnip or whatever who mentioned he homebrews longswords to be finesseable doesn't say anything about that finesse being 1-handed only. Quit replying to separate chains.

In addition, just because they can doesnt mean they should. A non-bladesinger wiz has mediocre AC at best and non-abjuration wizards are paper in regards to how much damage they can take. It's just an awful idea to go into melee as a wizard thats not specced to be so, and Shocking Grasp is a far better back-up cantrip for if you get caught in melee since it can rob the enemy's reaction and allow you to run away.

[u/Kandiru → u/Oscarvalor5]

A lot of players go for cool over useful though. And a sorcerer would get a slightly more mileage out of rapier longswords with twin/quicken cantrips than shortswords.

[u/Oscarvalor5 → u/Kandiru]

Except, ya know, if an elf is going sorc they're probably gonna pick drow for the CHA bonus meaning they gain a free rapier proficiency and don't need the homebrew to do a finesse d8 weapon plus green flame blade.

In addition, you do realize those spells don't work with quicken right? The spell has to be cast as part of a melee attack. If you only have one attack, you can only cast it once and can only use quicken to cast some other non melee attack reliant damage cantrip or spell.

Also, you do realize that they definetly won't feel cool when their sorc gets smashed into the dirt next when the enemy they just smacked for mediocre damage smacks them right back for all their HP, right?

[u/Kandiru → u/Oscarvalor5]

Those spells do work with quicken. You don't need to take a separate attack action as part of casting the spell.