D&D (2024) Symmetric Balance vs Asymmetric Balance.

[Tony Vargas]

I also kinda despise minimalism and utilitarianism and adore gothic maximalism

OK, "Gothic Maximalism" just sounds cool.

 

[Reynard]

While this is what I prefer, it requires the game be balanced in a way to make all the various unbalanced (asymmetric) approaches equally valid and useful.

If the game is theoretically balanced around 3 pillars, and a class is intended to excel at 1 but suck in the rest, well if the game doesnt focus on that one pillar equally or at all, then that class sucks.

For example.

If there are three pillars of play, then each class should have 3 silo'd pools of resources on which to draw, one for each pillar.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I am largely in favor of asymmetrical balance because I am one of them.

But really I don't think we're few. And certainly, anyone can be a good DM.

Then our experiences differ. I not only think not everyone is suited to being a decent GM, that even people who are good at some parts of it are frequently mediocre or actively bad at others, and when making some particular thing work is dependent on their being of superior competence in one area, its going to fail-out more often than not.

 

[Aldarc]

If there are three pillars of play, then each class should have 3 silo'd pools of resources on which to draw, one for each pillar.

It may be easier to silo resources simply between combat encounters and non-combat encounters (e.g., social, exploration, downtime, etc.).

 

[Reynard]

It may be easier to silo resources simply between combat encounters and non-combat encounters (e.g., social, exploration, downtime, etc.).

I wasn't really clear. I meant in character generation/advancement.

 

[Charlaquin]

The definition of balance I've encountered that I've found the most useful, goes something like this: a game is better-balanced the more choices it presents to the player that are both viable and meaningful.

I'm afraid that sort of balance would tend to present a lot of less viable to non-viable choices, depending on context.

D&D has certainly tried for balancing that way a lot over the decades, and has consistently failed. You can look back over D&D discussions, and find the Martial/Caster Gap, LFQW, 5MWD, and Fighter SUX discussions longer than there's been an internet.


The danger here is that choices will turn out to be less meaningful. If you all ultimately just degrade the big bad's hp at the same rate, what difference does it make who is playing what?

D&D only really tried something that might have been classed as symmetric balance once, in 4e. Like 3e, 4e put all classes on the same exp level chart, and like, 5e BA, 4e put all characters on the same basic level progression as far as d20 bonuses were concerned. Where it really mattered tho, was resources, and for the first 2 years, at least, all classes had a rough parity in unlimited, n/day and n/encounter resources. 4e avoided making class choice meaningless only at a very high price in development effort (and retaining some asymmetry!). Each class had hundreds of unique powers - the fighter and wizard, each had more powers than 5e has spells, in total. And Source radically differentiated sorts of powers, the wizards spells were implement powers that attacked no-AC defenses, the fighters' exploits, weapon powers, that mostly attacked AC, and so forth...
But, arguably, even 4e had a deeply asymmetrical aspect in formalized Roles, that differentiated classes within a Source, as well - ironically, it wasn't anything new, D&D had always had distinct duties for the "Big 4" - fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, and thief - it had just never managed to make them more or less equally important before.

I think a huge part of the issue here is that spells give characters access to more tools to use in their creative planning. A fighter has only their character’s raw stats and the environment to utilize, whereas a wizard has those things, plus a huge list of spells they can use. The fighter is stuck using “my brains, his strength, and your steel, against 60 men,” while the wizard has conjure wheelbarrow and mage cloak.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The fighter is stuck using “my brains, his strength, and your steel, against 60 men,” while the wizard has conjure wheelbarrow and mage cloak.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

OK, "Gothic Maximalism" just sounds cool.

Hell yeah. I figured the words would get across what I mean, but also like…I want a modern architectural movement that merits that name.

I think a huge part of the issue here is that spells give characters access to more tools to use in their creative planning. A fighter has only their character’s raw stats and the environment to utilize, whereas a wizard has those things, plus a huge list of spells they can use. The fighter is stuck using “my brains, his strength, and your steel, against 60 men,” while the wizard has conjure wheelbarrow and mage cloak.

Tbf, if we imagine Wesley having conjured those things, I wouldn’t say he did more than the other two in that scene.

Still, it’s a good point.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

4e was great at giving the fighter meaningful ways to utilize their higher hp. With the marking mechanic. And the fighter implementation of that mechanic was very cool. I wished the fighter had retained a little bit more of that (although protection style mimics it, it fails, because it lacks the punishing mechanic of the opportunity attack).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Are Wizards actually overpowered mechanically-speaking... or is it just that they often get played by stronger players who have the creativity and ingenuity to use all the tools at the Wizard's disposal? Is that something that can really be measured or taken into account? And if you depower the Wizard because smart players can overwhelm a table... does that makes things worse when regular players play Wizards?

Wizards aren't better, it's just that better players play wizards!
That's a bold strategy, Defcon1. Let's see if it pays off for you!

Anyway, I think that we are missing two important things when it come to the question posed by @Asisreo above.

In terms of asymmetric class balance, there is one other way that should be considered-

Niche protection. One of the big issues with 5e, IMO, is that there has been a lessening of the barriers between classes. Through the feat system and the ubiquity of spellcasting, as well as the desire to harmonize DPR, there just isn't a lot to fully differentiate classes in the same way that there used to be.

To compare this to (American) football- if D&D is a team sport, you need players at different positions. You need a QB, sure, but you also need RBs, and WRs, and offensive lineman. And that's before you think about the defense.

The problem, such as it is, is that every player in D&D wants a QB. And maybe that's the best way to make the game! But it does lead to less differentiation between classes when every player wants their class to be equally good at all the things that other classes do.