BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
I try to balance D&D with eating healthy and getting plenty of sunlight, but . . .
Oh, who am I kidding? I've never tried to balance D&D.
I balance it with Whisky and Ginger Ale.
A fine balance it is.
I try to balance D&D with eating healthy and getting plenty of sunlight, but . . .
Oh, who am I kidding? I've never tried to balance D&D.
No, we can't agree on that, and the argument is dumb.
The fact that everyone has opinions on things is irrelevant to the question of "Can we balance this?" To which the answer is almost always "Yes." The fact that some people don't want to do what is necessary to achieve balance, don't believe balance is actually possible, don't believe balance itsself is necessary or just plum don't care remains completely 100% irrelevant.
This is like suggesting we can't have have a good car because people disagree on what makes a good vehicle. Obviously we've been able to build good cars. There are also ways to build objectively bad cars.
While yes, when someone posts a thread that says "Here's how to FIX D&D!" we should always assume what they are saying is "Here's how I THINK we should FIX D&D!" To this I have no disagreement. But to suggest that these suggestions are nothing more than opinion and therefore all equally valid and thus all equally worthless is absurdity. This is the same kind of un-logic that tricks people into the trap of thinking those who espouse genocide have equal opinions to those who want to treat all humans fairly.
There are objective non-opinion ways to improve D&D. To balance it in the encounter, to balance it over the campaign, to balance classes against classes, and to balance different possible options against each other. Sometimes people's suggestions contain these elements. Sometimes they don't.
4E for example dramatically balanced the game from 3.5 Both classes against classes, in the encounter and over the campaign. It was objectively a more balanced D&D. Problem? People didn't like it. I'm not saying we have to pull a 4E to balance D&D. But I am saying it is possible as it has been done.
No, we can't agree on that, and the argument is dumb.
.
Neither was I.I don't think the OP's post targets "This isn't working for my table, but this does" posts at all.
Which I just said.4E's example is a lesson that a good number people who like to spend money on D&D rate other things consider some things to be more important than balance.
Oh so the OP has an opinion that balance is not valuable so the OP is really just a post about how they don't think WOTC should bother with balancing because the OP personally does not care for it?Which I thought was the OP's point, that the desirability of balance would vary from table to table and as such should stay out of the realm of Official 5e products (but in theory could be supported by 3rd parties).
So he's an old man shaking his fist at the clouds?And that some one repeatedly trying to convince people of the forums that WotC should majorly readdress balance would be a fruitless post (or in this case posts).
No, you just prended I said something I didn't. Your disagreement with my post is irrelevant. Balance is possible from a mathematical standpoint. The fact that some people don't like what that outcome may look like is irrelevant to the fact that balance is indeed possible.Ironically, you saying this actually proves my point. My statement was that there can’t be any one true way to balance things. You disagree. Which means that there is in fact no one true way because myself and others disagree with your opinion.
So no, it’s not a dumb argument.
Please tell me you did not just seriously argue that "Some people ignore the rules and play the game differently, so that makes balance impossible."Look at it like this, the game is not played solely on the mechanics where every table plays the exact same way. Based on that alone, you can’t balance the game objectively. A group that plays almost all combat like an arena may find GWM and SS to be OP. A group that plays little combat but lots of exploration and puzzles may find the rogue to be OP with expertise.
Yes, "the game". No, you can't account for what people do at home. Anyone who thinks "the game" can balance for that is insane, or wants some kind of TTRPG Police State. I never argued that you can balance everyone's table.You’re making a critical flaw that always comes up on forums. The assumption that the game IS the mechanics, and ONLY the mechanics. When you have subjective play, you will have subjective ideas of balance.
Only street racers make this comparison, and you'll notice that among the various types of racing that are considered sports, that is: objective balanced games that can be judged and played in fairly, street racing is not one of them.To address your car anaology, it’s like racing. Some people view balance as every car having all of the same attributes (speed, handling, acceleration). Others view balance as each car ending up with the same # of races won over the course of a circuit, even though each car has different attributes, but each race track is different so each car has a chance to excel. Both are balanced. Neither is wrong. Because like D&D, the event takes place in ever changing environments and not just a set of numbers compared to another set in a white room.
Can we agree on this?
No, we can't agree on that, and the argument is dumb.
The fact that everyone has opinions on things is irrelevant to the question of "Can we balance this?" To which the answer is almost always "Yes." The fact that some people don't want to do what is necessary to achieve balance, don't believe balance is actually possible, don't believe balance itsself is necessary or just plum don't care remains completely 100% irrelevant.
This is like suggesting we can't have have a good car because people disagree on what makes a good vehicle. Obviously we've been able to build good cars. There are also ways to build objectively bad cars.
While yes, when someone posts a thread that says "Here's how to FIX D&D!" we should always assume what they are saying is "Here's how I THINK we should FIX D&D!" To this I have no disagreement. But to suggest that these suggestions are nothing more than opinion and therefore all equally valid and thus all equally worthless is absurdity. This is the same kind of un-logic that tricks people into the trap of thinking those who espouse genocide have equal opinions to those who want to treat all humans fairly.
There are objective non-opinion ways to improve D&D. To balance it in the encounter, to balance it over the campaign, to balance classes against classes, and to balance different possible options against each other. Sometimes people's suggestions contain these elements. Sometimes they don't.
4E for example dramatically balanced the game from 3.5 Both classes against classes, in the encounter and over the campaign. It was objectively a more balanced D&D. Problem? People didn't like it. I'm not saying we have to pull a 4E to balance D&D. But I am saying it is possible as it has been done.