D&D 5E Final playtest packet due in mid September.

[Manbearcat]

To some extent, certainly. However, you seem to be making some false equivalencies. For instance, "exactly equal overall usefulness" is not equivalent to "play exactly the same" nor is "balanced". I doubt that anyone here is arguing for a type of balance where all characters are equivalent and identical in all ways. What I think we would be arguing for is a game where all the players and character types within the genre have a reasonable expectation of being commensurately competent contributors toward concluding the adventures and stories within the game. Although I think we would all object to a game where the Barbarian (to use the example du jour) is objectively superior and dominates the other classes a priori.

Just a drive-by + 1. Carry on.

 

[Hussar]

Balance is simply a separate agenda, essentially a callback to the tactical wargame roots of D&D, and an attempt to recreate said wargame in a different context. I tend to see D&D as the standard bearer for rpgs, rather than as being specific to any one tradition. My opinion is that those roots just aren't all that important, and that trying to create it falls under the "fine, but not essential" category, along with other legacy issues and specialized playstyles.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ket-due-in-mid-September/page42#ixzz2eRhQWVd0

Umm, what?

Every single edition of D&D has focused very strongly on balance. The difference between the editions has to do with evolving views on how to achieve balance, not that one edition is more or less concerned with balance. Starting with Gygax and moving forward, D&D has always put balance ahead of all considerations.

Why do you think that paladins used to need more XP than fighters? What pseudo-natural physics is being represented there?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Every single edition of D&D has focused very strongly on balance.

Well, strongly is rather subjective, but wasn't that my point anyway?

Starting with Gygax and moving forward, D&D has always put balance ahead of all considerations.

All? Really? I don't think so. If it had, it would have really sucked. I think it's pretty clearly behind several other more important considerations no matter who you ask.

Why do you think that paladins used to need more XP than fighters? What pseudo-natural physics is being represented there?

Probably that a level in paladin represents more advanced knowledge, and thus takes longer to learn.

 

[Mistwell]

Every single edition of D&D has focused very strongly on balance...Starting with Gygax and moving forward, D&D has always put balance ahead of all considerations.

LOLwut?

No. The word "disagree" does not do enough of a job to articulate just the degree to which I think you're woefully wrong. Fortunately, it's not a useful debate. The 5e writers acknowledge that balance is not as important as some other issues, and are drafting the rules accordingly, and being told by the majority of feedback providers that they're going in the right direction with that strategy.

 

[sidonunspa]

Anyone want to take bets on when we will get the last packet?

it's the 10th... I predict on the 20th

 

[Warbringer]

Eddie G said the 15th

 

[Hussar]

LOLwut?

No. The word "disagree" does not do enough of a job to articulate just the degree to which I think you're woefully wrong. Fortunately, it's not a useful debate. The 5e writers acknowledge that balance is not as important as some other issues, and are drafting the rules accordingly, and being told by the majority of feedback providers that they're going in the right direction with that strategy.

Really? Gygax outlines the importance of balance numerous times in the AD&D DMG. Most of the changes from AD&D to 3e D&D were made because of balance issues. Why do you think we got concrete rules for just about every typical action in 3e? Because leaving it up to ad hoc DM fiat resulted in all sorts of balance issues is the primary reason that was given.

Everything in D&D has always been balance and gameplay first, with realism and whatnot a secondary consideration. The only difference is that as time has gone on, we've become much better at crafting rules that come out balanced in the end.

No, I am not completely mistaken on this. Balance and game play has always been the primary motivator behind rules. This is why we don't get critical attack and fumble rules. This is why we use hit points and not a more complicated system. This is why we use an initiative system that takes only Dex into consideration when determining who goes first. This is why fighters start with more gold than clerics. On and on and on.

 

[Ichneumon]

I think that we will see one more L&L article before the packet appears.

 

[jodyjohnson]

The original target was Mid-Sept. Ed Greenwood said 9/15 because that is the exact middle of Sept. But also a Sunday. Ed also said he doesn't expect a release until 2015.

During the Friday Live Lich Queen play they said it was pushed back to integrate feedback from the last set of surveys.

Currently that is an unknown delay. Likely at least 2 weeks so end of the month is most likely.

 

[N'raac]

Really? Gygax outlines the importance of balance numerous times in the AD&D DMG. Most of the changes from AD&D to 3e D&D were made because of balance issues. Why do you think we got concrete rules for just about every typical action in 3e? Because leaving it up to ad hoc DM fiat resulted in all sorts of balance issues is the primary reason that was given.

Everything in D&D has always been balance and gameplay first, with realism and whatnot a secondary consideration. The only difference is that as time has gone on, we've become much better at crafting rules that come out balanced in the end.

Emphasis added. Where balance has been compromised, this has largely been to facilitate gameplay. I would not say balance has ben the only consideration, or even that it has always been the most important consideration. I would say it has always been a priority. Now, 1e relied a lot on "balance over entire campaign", which meant wizards started off very weak and grew very powerful, not really balance at most points in time with the fighter, but viewed as balanced overall. Similarly, nonhumans got a bunch of advantages offset by a fixed cap on how far they could progress. Some classes were "balance" by the difficulty in achieving the required attributes to play them.

3e changed the playing field, to me, in two ways. First, it refined balance to "balance across all levels", so balance was no longer achieve by starting weak and finishing strong (wizards) or vice versa (nonhumans), or by minimum attributes (which were eliminated), point buy introduced and variable xp per level removed. Second, it unified the mechanics and worked to reduce GM judgement calls by expanding what was covered by specific rules. But both still aimed at gameplay and balance (and, actually, heavily unbalanced games have been a turnoff for many gamers and potential gamers over the years, so balance does tend to make for better gameplay, all other things being equal).

No, I am not completely mistaken on this. Balance and game play has always been the primary motivator behind rules. This is why we don't get critical attack and fumble rules. This is why we use hit points and not a more complicated system. This is why we use an initiative system that takes only Dex into consideration when determining who goes first. This is why fighters start with more gold than clerics. On and on and on.

Agreed - I also agree balance is not the sole, or even principal, motivator - game play has always been equal or greater in importance. However, I'm hard pressed to think of anything other than playability which has commonly overridden balance in the design and redesigns.