D&D 5E You Cant Fix The Class Imbalances IMHO

[Aldarc]

CEO of Milo Inc, that settles it for me right there. Even having a relationship with Milo in any form shows this (as I said, birds of a feather, esp. true in those circles…)

There seems to be more, but I do not really need more as far as I am concerned (and the whole topic might not be one tolerated around here, so I leave it at that)

From what I recall, he's also on good terms with alt-right activist Vox Day.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Haven't read the thread, so forgive me if this comment is redundant.

OP: You can't fix the Class imbalances.

Sure you can, it's called 4e. Unfortunately, that edition proved that you shouldn't fix the class imbalances. It's a mistake. That said, you need to make all the classes FEEL like they can do fun things at all levels without being drowned out by the others.

That's a bit tricky, and I don't think that 5e has found that kind of "perfect imbalance" yet. But it's better at it than (say) 3.x was. It needs work on a few classes - in particular at higher levels. Of course, barely anyone plays those levels, so it's not much of a priority for them.

It'll probably get there eventually. I wonder if this time around (2024+) we'll get some more support for higher-level play - if for no other reason than that it's work that hasn't been done yet. Otherwise we're stuck in a vicious cycle: No one plays it so it gets no support; it gets no support so no one plays it.

If they take a good hard look at it, and answer "What makes high-level play fun?" and then target THAT with some product, they will probably see an uptick in high-level play. Of course, they will likely find that high-level play is where the worst of the class imbalances lie.

 

[mamba]

From what I recall, he's also on good terms with alt-right activist Vox Day.

I believe that if you are on good terms with one, you are with all implicitly, and part of that ‘movement’ yourself. As I said, birds of a feather, esp. this plumage sticks together

 

[Zardnaar]

Haven't read the thread, so forgive me if this comment is redundant.

OP: You can't fix the Class imbalances.

Sure you can, it's called 4e. Unfortunately, that edition proved that you shouldn't fix the class imbalances. It's a mistake. That said, you need to make all the classes FEEL like they can do fun things at all levels without being drowned out by the others.

That's a bit tricky, and I don't think that 5e has found that kind of "perfect imbalance" yet. But it's better at it than (say) 3.x was. It needs work on a few classes - in particular at higher levels. Of course, barely anyone plays those levels, so it's not much of a priority for them.

It'll probably get there eventually. I wonder if this time around (2024+) we'll get some more support for higher-level play - if for no other reason than that it's work that hasn't been done yet. Otherwise we're stuck in a vicious cycle: No one plays it so it gets no support; it gets no support so no one plays it.

If they take a good hard look at it, and answer "What makes high-level play fun?" and then target THAT with some product, they will probably see an uptick in high-level play. Of course, they will likely find that high-level play is where the worst of the class imbalances lie.

I did say without a rewrite.

If you're willing to rewrite I still think 4E barked up the wrong tree stretching the sweet spot over 30 levels.

Dump daily powers just at will and encounters, level 1-10, BECMI ability modifiers (capped at 18/ +3).

Might not be called D&D though hypothetically even if wotc made it. To many severe changes regardless of what label they put on it.

4E solutions were kind of like shooting yourself in the foot to solve a bleeding toe.

 

[Gradine]

From what I recall, he's also on good terms with alt-right activist Vox Day.

We're talking about THE Vox Day, right? The guy that all the "there are too many books about black and brown and queer people" dudes were too afraid to be closely associated with?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sure you can, it's called 4e. Unfortunately, that edition proved that you shouldn't fix the class imbalances. It's a mistake.

Then we learned the exact wrong lessons.

 

[Zardnaar]

I just don't see anything he's said or done, especially in the decade since this stuff became a huge public thing, that would indicate he holds unsavory beliefs. How is it "established"?

I bought ACKs before I heard about his issues. Slavery in the books do not offend me and I haven't run ACKs in years. Almost did but switched to Castles and Crusades.

I'm running a classical Greece campaign modeled off Assassins Creed Odyssey slavery exists. I'm not focused on it though. It's in game and its R18.

I will not be buying ACKs II. I'll keep ACKs might even run it again one day. But yeah his comments F him.

Theoretically once you put a gp value on slaves in OSR games you can get xp via trading in them. Not really a game I want to run.

I've a minor in classics as I said his rules dont offend me they're consistent enough with what happened historically. And I'm running a fantasy version of Greece circa 430 BC.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure you can, it's called 4e. Unfortunately, that edition proved that you shouldn't fix the class imbalances. It's a mistake.

If you're willing to rewrite I still think 4E barked up the wrong tree stretching the sweet spot over 30 levels.

I mean, it was called the sweet spot because it was the range of levels where the game worked best, or, really, worked at all.

There's no way functionality is a bad thing to design in.

But, markets are funny, and human nature is even funnier. If for whatever reason, your customers would feelzbad if high level play actually worked or classes were actually balanced, well, you have to cater to it... You're a business, businesses cater to customers to make profits, within the limits of the law. If catering to one set of customers makes more money than catering to another, and catering to both is not an option, you pick the more lucrative market.
...it'd be interesting to dig into why (some) D&Ders hate balance, tho... is it just being accustomed to it's absence for so many years of the game's history? Is it the prospect of losing hard-won system mastery? Is it the 'revenge of the nerds' theory that gamers identify with bookish wizards and nurse school-days grudges against the 'jock' fighter?

....

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean, it was called the sweet spot because it was the range of levels where the game worked best, or, really, worked at all.

There's no way functionality is a bad thing to design in.

But, markets are funny, and human nature is even funnier. If for whatever reason, your customers would feelzbad if high level play actually worked or classes were actually balanced, well, you have to cater to it... You're a business, businesses cater to customers to make profits, within the limits of the law. If catering to one set of customers makes more money than catering to another, and catering to both is not an option, you pick the more lucrative market.
...it'd be interesting to dig into why (some) D&Ders hate balance, tho... is it just being accustomed to it's absence for so many years of the game's history? Is it the prospect of losing hard-won system mastery? Is it the 'revenge of the nerds' theory that gamers identify with bookish wizards and nurse school-days grudges against the 'jock' fighter?

....

It's bad because it consumes to many resources and game design space. The games won't generally reach level 20 let alone 30. It's also boring.

They could have fit in several missing classes level 1-20, level 1-10 all the missing classes and races.

If you're willing to burn down level 1-20 expectations whynot 10 or 15 levels?

 

[Pedantic]

I mean, it was called the sweet spot because it was the range of levels where the game worked best, or, really, worked at all.

There's no way functionality is a bad thing to design in.

But, markets are funny, and human nature is even funnier. If for whatever reason, your customers would feelzbad if high level play actually worked or classes were actually balanced, well, you have to cater to it...

Those are two separate things. You're arguing that removing the high level play experience is the same as rebalancing the game at high levels.

You're a business, businesses cater to customers to make profits, within the limits of the law. If catering to one set of customers makes more money than catering to another, and catering to both is not an option, you pick the more lucrative market.
...it'd be interesting to dig into why (some) D&Ders hate balance, tho... is it just being accustomed to it's absence for so many years of the game's history? Is it the prospect of losing hard-won system mastery? Is it the 'revenge of the nerds' theory that gamers identify with bookish wizards and nurse school-days grudges against the 'jock' fighter?

....

This is the same "4e was balanced, therefore balance equals 4e" argument I was pushing against earlier, but formed from the opposite side. It's reductive to summarize dislike of 4e down to an opposition to a balanced game, exactly in the same way it's reductive to argue that balance is inimical to D&D because 4e set it as a design goal.