D&D (2024) What Should D&D 2024 Have Been +

[ECMO3]

what archetype has as one of its themes to be particularly overpowered or underpowered?

Wizard has as its theme to be OP, there are numperous builds online about building the "God Wizard". That is a real desire for many who play Wizards. I don't play those kinds of Wizards personally, but many others do.

Monk has as its theme being underpowered (although it is not in play at high level). This dates to the 1E original Monk that was pathetically weak. This is one thing I hate about the playtest Monk, I pe

I’d say get it right and make sure it is balanced with the others

But you have to prioritize one over the other and you can't have a God Wizard if you can't build a character that is a God compared to others.

why is this an either or?

Because historically every attempt to balance classes has made the game far less fun.

They want both (as much as possible), play the archetype and be of close to the same power level as everyone else

Some people want this, others don't. I have no desire at all to have classes balanced to the same power level. Personally I would say that is less fun even if they got all the thematics right (which they won't).

Players should have the option to choose strong or weak classes.

And if you are only happy if you are stronger than the rest, so they all have to pick weaker ones, well, then screw you…

So you are saying screw anyone who does not feel the same as you about this?

so archetype or power level? You kinda said both

It is both. On the Archtype peice it is not due to the power, it is due to the lack of polearm and Longsword proficiency.

 

[mamba]

Wizard has as its theme to be OP, there are numperous builds online about building the "God Wizard". That is a real desire for many who play Wizards. I don't play those kinds of Wizards personally, but many others do.

Monk has as its theme being underpowered

I question whether that is part of its theme or a side effect of its implementation though

Because historically every attempt to balance classes has made the game far less fun.

how many attempts were there? 4e? there might have been other changes that made the game less fun, regardless of balance

Some people want this, others don't. I have no desire at all to have classes balanced to the same power level.

interesting, I definitely would consider that an improvement

Players should have the option to choose strong or weak classes.

not sure anyone intentionally picks a weak class because it is weak rather than tolerating that for some other reason

So you are saying screw anyone who does not feel the same as you about this?

no, I am saying if you can only enjoy the game when you play a stronger class than everybody else, then…

 

[TwoSix]

not sure anyone intentionally picks a weak class because it is weak rather than tolerating that for some other class

I absolutely know players that have made characters precisely because they were weaker. I remember one guy who made a 3.5 monk focused on maximizing his Jump skill, and would spend most combats just jumping over enemies.

I used to think balance mattered, but I’ve grown to realize it really doesn’t in 5e, because 5e isn’t an actual challenge based game. It’s a game of expression.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If you delete the Wizard you would not have a class to fill the Wizard theme, which is pretty essential to high fantasy.

Sorcerer, Bard, Warlock

And those three actually resemble their pop culture counterparts on some level.

 

[ECMO3]

I question whether that is part of its theme or a side effect of its implementation though

No because you don't get that on other classes (sorcerer or cleric) that are as good a platform for it. Also in 1E I regularly had people complaining that magic-user was not powerful enough, even at high level when they were better balanced. On the other hand I have never had any players in games I am playing complain about their class being too weak.

In 5E a Sorcerer will actually make for a more powerful caster at high level than a Wizard will.

how many attempts were there? 4e? there might have been other changes that made the game less fun, regardless of balance

4E was the most successful attempt at balance, the least successful commercially, the least popular and arguably the least fun for the most people.

If balance mattered 4E would have been more popular I think

Interesting, I definitely would consider that an improvement

I think you are in the minority of players that care about balance. Perhaps not the minority of people posting on internet forums, but the minority of people playing I think. I have had very few people I play with actually talk about imbalance at all and I have had no one who I played 5E with complain about it.

no, I am saying if you can only enjoy the game when you play a stronger class than everybody else, then…

Then what? I enjoy the game when I am the most powerful PC at the table and the least powerful PC at the table. IME players MUCH prefer rolling abilities to other methods (DMs prefer PB) and this leads to all kinds of power imbalance, even on an identical build.

You know what I don't enjoy as a player - Barbarians and Druids, and I am not too keen on Artificers. So I never play aBarbarian or Druid and I rarely play and Artificer. I play Rangers and Rogues the most. I play lots of Wizards, lots of Fighters and lots of Monks and I have played these three at every level of the game. I play other classes occasionally and I've been playing a lot of Bards lately after playing only 1 in the first 8 years of 5E.

I don't "only enjoy the game when I play a stronger class" but when I am playing a Wizard (or a Sorcerer or a Cleric) in a campaign covering many levels, I do like the fact that it is a powerful class, more powerful than most, and that is often part of the build or theme I am using with that character. That does not mean I don't play weaker classes or enjoy the game more when playing a weaker class.

 

[ECMO3]

Sorcerer, Bard, Warlock

And those three actually resemble their pop culture counterparts on some level.

I don't know why you are arguing with me now, you are the one who said initially that Wizard as the only class was a viable solution.

"Wizard is the only untouchable class." Now you are going back on that?

 

[Lanefan]

I think you are in the minority of players that care about balance.

Truth be told, I think everyone, DM and player alike, cares about balance to a limited extent; but the point at which they stop caring is reached and exceeded long before anything like 4e's all balance all the time design rears its head.

As long as players fell that what they're playing is playable most of the time, that's good enough.

I have had very few people I play with actually talk about imbalance at all and I have had no one who I played 5E with complain about it.

As a DM I do pay some attention to overall long-term balance between classes, in order that they're all vaguely of the same appeal to players.

 

[mamba]

Then what?

then screw you, did not think it needed repeating

I enjoy the game when I am the most powerful PC at the table and the least powerful PC at the table

so you are fine then, notice the only in the sentence

You know what I don't enjoy as a player - Barbarians and Druids, and I am not too keen on Artificers. S

because of their playstyle / theme, not because of them being too weak or too strong... it is perfectly ok to not like an archetype

 

[cbwjm]

One bit of imbalance that many people (online at least) seem to, be against is rolling stat's, they like to have everyone have the same array or number of points. What I find when I play with friends though is that we like rolling for stat's and the relative power differences don't really matter. For instance, starting at level 2, my wizard has 16 intelligence, my friend's gnome wizard has 20, this doesn't bother me since we both still easily contribute to the game. I get that for some people set stats are important, but I just don't seem to see it in real life, it's always one of those "online" opinions.

 

[Cadence]

One bit of imbalance that many people (online at least) seem to, be against is rolling stat's, they like to have everyone have the same array or number of points. What I find when I play with friends though is that we like rolling for stat's and the relative power differences don't really matter. For instance, starting at level 2, my wizard has 16 intelligence, my friend's gnome wizard has 20, this doesn't bother me since we both still easily contribute to the game. I get that for some people set stats are important, but I just don't seem to see it in real life, it's always one of those "online" opinions.

To me it feels like there is a range where it doesn't matter, but at some point it's painful?

If that wasn't true for a lot of people I don't think there would be so many things about what to do if the person rolling thinks the stats are too low.

(Are you good if you have no stats greater than 8 and your friend has none less than 16? )