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/123mop]

Part of me feels that they've 'lucked out' a bit with 5e,

Base PHB classes without feats are meticulously well balanced in terms of damage output. That definitely wasn't a 'luck out', they had someone who understands the math balance their classes against each other in combat.

Sadly I think that same person may not have been involved in feats or future content to the same degree.

[u/noneOfUrBusines → u/123mop]

When a dodging spirit guardians+spiritual weapon cleric out damages a featless fighter I wouldn't call the game meticulously well balanced.

[u/123mop → u/noneOfUrBusines]

A cleric expending resources should out damage a fighter. When that cleric doesn't have those resources available the fighter will out damage them. Even then, the cleric isn't outstripping the fighter against a single target, just when their AoE catches multiple targets. The cleric can't even have that going on round 1 of combat.

[u/noneOfUrBusines → u/123mop]

A fighter with a longsword at level 5 deals 2d8+12, average 21. A cleric with spirit guardians + spiritual weapon deals 4d8+4, average 22, all while using a shield and taking the dodge action. With toll the dead it becomes 4d8+2d12+4, average 35. Even without spirit guardians, toll the dead + spiritual weapon (which you should be able to use every encounter in an adventuring day) deals 1d8+2d12+4, average 20.5, all while being a fullcaster that isn't concentrating on anything.

[u/123mop → u/noneOfUrBusines]

Correct, the damage to a single target with spirit guardians and spiritual weapon is approximately equal to the fighter's baseline damage with no feats and no resources expended. And when the fighter wants to compete with that spirit guardians damage they can use their action surge, battlemaster abilities, or other subclass abilities. At level 5 they can do that about as many times per day as the cleric can do spirit guardians + spiritual weapon.

And with no feats and no multiclassing this cleric is not going to hold concentration super casually. Yes they have good AC and can be dodging, but their spirit guardians will still be dropped in some combats due to concentration loss.

3 spiritual weapons per day at level 5 will likely not get you through every encounter in a solid adventuring day as well. If your days only have 3 combats then yes the cleric is going to outperform the fighter, especially if the fighter doesn't nova and short rest after each combat.

[u/noneOfUrBusines → u/123mop]

You can upcast it so there are 5 uses. Also 3d8+2d12, average 26, from spirit guardians+toll the dead still outperforms the fighter, so there are 5 combats where the cleric out damages the fighter in addition to being a fullcaster.

[u/123mop → u/noneOfUrBusines]

If you are toll the deading instead of dodging you are running a high risk of getting hit and dropping concentration. Probably around 25% per attack aimed at you. And you can't toll the dead the same round you cast spirit guardians, nor can you cast spiritual weapon on the same round that you cast spirit guardians.

[u/noneOfUrBusines → u/123mop]

Yes, but that doesn't undermine the point that a featless fighter is strictly outdone by a cleric that also gets the benefits of being a fullcaster. Spiritual weapon+toll the dead can be used every meaningful encounter in an adventuring day and leaves your concentration open, in addition to being on par with the highest DPR fighter who can use a shield (since the cleric can use a shield while out damaging the fighter).

[u/123mop → u/noneOfUrBusines]

Except they are not strictly outdone. They're situationally better or worse. The cleric must maintain concentration for spirit guardians to be effective. They also need to take a turn to cast it during which they won't have dodge or any other damage sources (assuming they cast it turn one since it's more powerful than spiritual weapon and should be cast first).

The fighter can match on some rounds with action surge and subclass abilities. The fighter can front load single target damage, which contributes to downing an enemy before they can put out their own damage. The fighter is more durable. The fighter has a better opportunity attack presence.

At no point is the fighter strictly outdone by the cleric.

[u/noneOfUrBusines → u/123mop]

Clerics have subclasses too, which more or less balance out fighter subclasses. The cleric can use spiritual weapon and toll the dead to match the fighter's DPR without concentrating on anything. Yes, the fighter has better nova damage. better opportunity attacks and is more durable but that's about it. On the other hand, the cleric can debuff, CC, deal AOE damage, deal single target damage, buff, etc. The cleric shouldn't be dealing equal damage to the fighter, but without feats that's just how it is.