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

[UngeheuerLich]

I think one thing holding the fighter down is people asking for customization choice and different builds.

I say, subclasses are enough to differentiate different fighters. We don't need a fighting style choice. IIRC the 4e fighter got every base class ability at first level. The only difference lied in the powers. And I think, even that was too much.
A wizard can learn all spells and chose which one to utilize.
A fighter should have all fighting styles at their hand and should just decide which weapon to use on the get go.

Thos "build" choices (including feats) introduced in 3e was not giving access to better abilities. It was restricting abilities behind a paywall.

It also shifted the game from being played at the table towards the drawing board.
It also shifted the optimization from what is best in a certain situation to a wgite room.

/rant over

 

[DEFCON 1]

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

Disagree? Heh heh... whatever floats your boat. But I wonder just how many of our most tactically savvy D&D players out there jump at the chance at playing Champion Fighters then?

 

[Reynard]

A wizard can learn all spells and chose which one to utilize.

This underscores what I think is the driving force behind concerns about the power and utility of the wizard compared to other classes, particularly the fighter: the edition by edition erosion of basic limits on the wizard. From much shorter spell lists to limits of spells known and chance of failure to learn spells, to a relatively small number of spells per day, the wizard has historically been subject to a lot of limitations on their power. Most of those limitations have been stripped away in the name of fun and playability, and the result is a class whose only weakness is a slightly lower hp total. To be fair, 5E did concentration right, but bring back a few of those other limitations and wizards won't look so good.

Now fix the cleric and druid: full casters that are also better fighters than the fighter...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Disagree? Heh heh... whatever floats your boat. But I wonder just how many of our most tactically savvy D&D players out there jump at the chance at playing Champion Fighters then?

Truly tactically savvy players play monks, because any player can be a great wizard, but it takes a genius to make a good monk.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Truly tactically savvy players play monks, because any player can be a great wizard, but it takes a genius to make a good monk.

Actually, what I like about the monk and the rogue is that they have access to all their abilities. No restricting choice. Need a weapon, use one. Otherwise use fists.
The only problem with the monk is that they pay with a way too low baseline. But hopefully in a few weeks that will change. Same as the rogue.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Actually, what I like about the monk and the rogue is that they have access to all their abilities. No restricting choice. Need a weapon, use one. Otherwise use fists.
The only problem with the monk is that they pay with a way too low baseline. But hopefully in a few weeks that will change. Same as the rogue.

I would have a lot more confidence in that if I thought that WoTC was treating the monk as anything more than an afterthought.

Based upon the fact that it was the last class released for playtesting, and we still haven't seen the second iteration (with the actual release of the game just around the corner) ... I do not share your optimism.

Plus I was not impressed, at all, by the first package.

 

[Horwath]

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.

I see this as an improvement and it should be more of it.

That is, less fixed class features and more feats and more feat slots in 20 levels to pick from.

Also, decouple ASIs from feats.
Even better, remove ASIs from levels completely.
What you get at 1st level is what you have, maybe exception to Class capstones, Epic boons and magic items.

 

[Reynard]

I would have a lot more confidence in that if I thought that WoTC was treating the monk as anything more than an afterthought.

Based upon the fact that it was the last class released for playtesting, and we still haven't seen the second iteration (with the actual release of the game just around the corner) ... I do not share your optimism.

Plus I was not impressed, at all, by the first package.

Really they should get rid of the monk and give most of its abilities to the fighter: more attacks, an increasing minimum baseline amount of damage, some cool effects on impact, etc... All of those things are common in the kind of modern anime/super heroic/action movie inspirational media, even for otherwise "mundane" fighters.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

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.

I have used the very same analogy.

In 1e we did not traipse through dungeons without fighters. Spells can be interrupted and a few orcs can jack a magic user up if they get initiative and that sleep spell does not get cast.

Note too that a d6 averages only 2 hit points less per die…throw in some armor or toughness and the wizard is not as squishy as you think.

The balance I would prefer is not really balance at all but complementary abilities that makes the addition of different skill sets favorable for team survival and success, period.

I am happy cleric are not healbot I suppose but if we all self heal and pop up no problem is that what I want?

I love 5e so I am not complaining bitterly…just musing and thinking about how I can tweak my own games

 

[Emberashh]

A lot of concerns people have for balance tend to not actually be about balance specifically, but just bad gameplay.

Caster's having a pile of buttons to turn off entire gameplay mechanics and challenges with practically no meaningful cost, for example, results in bad gameplay that deemphasizes anything but the most optimal and uninteresting solution.

This is frankly why I felt moving to sliding 99% of utility magic into improv in my own system was the right move, alongside a chance of failure and more meaningful resource costs relative to the system.

Having to improvise solutions, even if magical, levels the playing field but also, in tandem with other game elements, deemphasizes magic as a solve all. Even in combat.