Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How much should 5e aim at balance?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5985156" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>What it can render effectively are PCs that were tried in other editions and were quite simple concepts but failed because they were fighting the rules set every step of the way. I'm currently DMing a throwback - 4e Undermountain where three of the PCs played mostly the same characters in 2e Undermountain. Three of the PCs are meant to be matches. The thief about is. The 2e firemage has become a 4e elementalist sorceror - and that's the character the player was trying to play in the 2e era; a big simple firemage who felt magical in part because he never ran out of magic. And a smart warrior who was a fighter in 2e and it didn't mesh well. In 4e she's a Taclord, and it fits the character perfectly.</p><p> </p><p>So I have in a current party of four, two PCs who started off being played under 2e rules (or rather one who did and the other is the grandson of the original PC) - and the 4e rules fit the concept much much better than the 2e rules ever did in both cases.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>On the other hand they find themselves in a much better fleshed out design space. They find one with upwards of twenty five classes (it was 25 before Essentials completely muddied the count) that are written about archetypes and look, feel, and play distinctively (at least if you know how to play them).</p><p> </p><p>It's in my experience <em>only</em> players of historic versions of D&D that find the multiclassing rules and the AEDU box to be restrictive. Because they already have mechanics in mind when they start to build the character. If you go in as an actual beginner and start with a concept then 4e is IME most likely to satisfy you out of any edition (with the exception of people who want to play weird species).</p><p> </p><p>On the other hand the "casting is vancian only" box is something I've noticed beginners can find <em>hideously</em> restrictive. And even experienced players don't like much (the sorceror player I mentioned above started playing D&D in the late 1970s). "I can cast one spell per day, then get to be utterly mundane until the next morning". That's not what a beginner signed up to when they wanted to play a wizard. Instead they want something more like AEDU with cantrips.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>It's my contention that such problems are an inevitable result of someone with one of several mindsets including systemic and strategic thinking picking up 3.X. On the other hand INTJ (IME the Meyers Briggs type most likely to shatter 3.X) are only a few percent of the population, and many of us looked at high level spells and polymorph, winced, and decided to do something else even if we wanted to play mages.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Not at all. Perfect balance is almost impossible. The question is how unbalanced it is. 4e is in about the 8 or 9 ring. 2e is in about the 4 or 5 ring, as is E6. Full court 3.X SRD is lucky to hit the paper at all - and with all splatbooks it misses the wall.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>As a Wis 18 character worried for his life, I'd have in character gone for the Triton. And there being such an obvious loophole to me feels like I'm trying to make up for the game designer having <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />ed up in an extremely obvious way.</p><p> </p><p>Pun-Pun and the Omniscifer are one thing. But things used the way they are written with the intent they are written for</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>On the other hand the AEDU structure is fairly close to a decent narrative structure (normal, scene, episode), and unlike classic D&D the casters behave like something approaching casters in non-D&D fiction. Even the wizards from Jack Vance's novels don't have anything like Gygaxo-Vancian casting. And almost the whole of Appendix N (especially Vance and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser) is better played in 4e with its increased role for non-casters and teamwork focus than it was in any previous edition of D&D.</p><p> </p><p>4e may not be as much of a match for classic D&D as othe editions of D&D. But it's a much better match for almost any non-D&D heroic fiction than any other edition of D&D is. Vancian Casting is extremely narrow. So is the van Helsing based Cleric being almost essential for a party, and long bedrest. And the fighter not getting much cool stuff rather than being one of the more focal characters.</p><p> </p><p>Edit:</p><p></p><p> </p><p>You've never seen a well played bard then. Or one abusing the Glibness spell for another way into Social God Mode. (Seriously, that thing makes it too easy). As for the paladin, that's a playstyle issue.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5985156, member: 87792"] What it can render effectively are PCs that were tried in other editions and were quite simple concepts but failed because they were fighting the rules set every step of the way. I'm currently DMing a throwback - 4e Undermountain where three of the PCs played mostly the same characters in 2e Undermountain. Three of the PCs are meant to be matches. The thief about is. The 2e firemage has become a 4e elementalist sorceror - and that's the character the player was trying to play in the 2e era; a big simple firemage who felt magical in part because he never ran out of magic. And a smart warrior who was a fighter in 2e and it didn't mesh well. In 4e she's a Taclord, and it fits the character perfectly. So I have in a current party of four, two PCs who started off being played under 2e rules (or rather one who did and the other is the grandson of the original PC) - and the 4e rules fit the concept much much better than the 2e rules ever did in both cases. On the other hand they find themselves in a much better fleshed out design space. They find one with upwards of twenty five classes (it was 25 before Essentials completely muddied the count) that are written about archetypes and look, feel, and play distinctively (at least if you know how to play them). It's in my experience [I]only[/I] players of historic versions of D&D that find the multiclassing rules and the AEDU box to be restrictive. Because they already have mechanics in mind when they start to build the character. If you go in as an actual beginner and start with a concept then 4e is IME most likely to satisfy you out of any edition (with the exception of people who want to play weird species). On the other hand the "casting is vancian only" box is something I've noticed beginners can find [I]hideously[/I] restrictive. And even experienced players don't like much (the sorceror player I mentioned above started playing D&D in the late 1970s). "I can cast one spell per day, then get to be utterly mundane until the next morning". That's not what a beginner signed up to when they wanted to play a wizard. Instead they want something more like AEDU with cantrips. It's my contention that such problems are an inevitable result of someone with one of several mindsets including systemic and strategic thinking picking up 3.X. On the other hand INTJ (IME the Meyers Briggs type most likely to shatter 3.X) are only a few percent of the population, and many of us looked at high level spells and polymorph, winced, and decided to do something else even if we wanted to play mages. Not at all. Perfect balance is almost impossible. The question is how unbalanced it is. 4e is in about the 8 or 9 ring. 2e is in about the 4 or 5 ring, as is E6. Full court 3.X SRD is lucky to hit the paper at all - and with all splatbooks it misses the wall. As a Wis 18 character worried for his life, I'd have in character gone for the Triton. And there being such an obvious loophole to me feels like I'm trying to make up for the game designer having :):):):)ed up in an extremely obvious way. Pun-Pun and the Omniscifer are one thing. But things used the way they are written with the intent they are written for On the other hand the AEDU structure is fairly close to a decent narrative structure (normal, scene, episode), and unlike classic D&D the casters behave like something approaching casters in non-D&D fiction. Even the wizards from Jack Vance's novels don't have anything like Gygaxo-Vancian casting. And almost the whole of Appendix N (especially Vance and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser) is better played in 4e with its increased role for non-casters and teamwork focus than it was in any previous edition of D&D. 4e may not be as much of a match for classic D&D as othe editions of D&D. But it's a much better match for almost any non-D&D heroic fiction than any other edition of D&D is. Vancian Casting is extremely narrow. So is the van Helsing based Cleric being almost essential for a party, and long bedrest. And the fighter not getting much cool stuff rather than being one of the more focal characters. Edit: You've never seen a well played bard then. Or one abusing the Glibness spell for another way into Social God Mode. (Seriously, that thing makes it too easy). As for the paladin, that's a playstyle issue. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How much should 5e aim at balance?
Top