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

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not really speaking to effectiveness in and of itself - rather, inter-class balance. (And, to be sure, I do think a better-balanced D&D would be a better-designed D&D, as per my remarks on another thread discussing a related topic.)

Contrary to your paraphrase ("players really don't care at all about effectiveness, only concept"), which I must point out is... not really related at all to what I wrote, I would expect that players who prioritise "realise a character concept that feels awesome in play" for their gameplay experience actually are going to be concerned with effectiveness, and are, of necessity, going to be unsatisfied if a character class or subclass that intuitively seems like it ought to be the correct choice for any given character concept is not up to the task. A character who is ineffective as a result of their subclass isn't going to feel very awesome in play, after all.

For instance, I expect, say, berserkers don't score poorly on player satisfaction surveys because clerics or druids or wizards have a wider breadth of capabilities. I expect they score poorly on such surveys because they can't even enable playing a berserker the way you would expect to play them - e.g. frenzying as often as possible and striking fear into the hearts of your enemies. (The berserker is notoriously terrible at that last option, being able to use an entire action to maybe make one creature frightened of them.)

So while I would agree inter-class balance matters, and for good reason, there is a certain extent to which it only matters if it matters to the player base writ large.

Alright. Sounds like I simply wasn't getting what you were trying to say.

That is: "feel awesome" is not simply someone saying, frex, "I feel like a berserker doing cool berserker things." It is not exclusively a subjective judgment--it has a component relating to actually achieving your goals, in addition to the look/appearance/"feel" of something: "I feel like a berserker doing cool berserker things that achieve my goals." Which is, of course, the only useful definition of "balance"--that something achieves both (a) the goals for which it was designed, and (b) the goals the player is told that it should fulfill.

Hence why, for example, I have made such a big deal of the fact that D&D is fundamentally a game of:

• fantasy fiction (it features magic, relaxation of physical limitations, impossible feats, etc.)
• cooperative (it can be played competitively, but that is not a goal it is designed for today)
• teamwork (not simply people happening to adventure together--people working with one another to succeed)
  role-playing (players will be expected, in some way, to act and/or think "as" their character)
• where players will
  • fight (central pillar 1: characters engage in interesting, meaningful conflict through force of arms and magic)
  • explore (central pillar 2: characters engage in interesting, meaningful travel, typically through wilderness, ruin, and city)
  • and socialize (central pillar 3: characters will act and react toward non-player entities in non-combat ways)

Each of these three is critical to the end result. I could spill a great deal of digital ink discussing them further, but perhaps that would be best left for a different discussion.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

View attachment 315096

Great meme!

Now sell me on why we shouldn't try to have a cooperative teamwork RPG actually make peers out of the class fantasies that it offers.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Great meme!

Now sell me on why we shouldn't try to have a cooperative teamwork RPG actually make peers out of the class fantasies that it offers.

You can.

But it wouldn't be D&D.

 

[mamba]

People play fighters because they want to play them

yes, that is why they choose to

and have fun doing so.

the satisfaction rating might tell a different story

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You can.

But it wouldn't be D&D.

So you keep saying--without any actual argument to back it up. Hence, I asked you to sell me on it.

 

[Minigiant]

For me, this is where the discussion kind of goes off the rails. I think the player should decide what his image of the character looks like and should pick the class that offers the mechanics that most closely align to that idea.

Suggesting game designers should create an image of what the PCs will look like at each tier is a big red flag for me in modern gaming. I think this idea ties to a bygone era that is not in line with modern player expectations.

There is also a rather large group of players that expect to get something at every level. Many are unsatified with a 1d8+con hps as the only boon for leveling up.

Umm...what?

The designers must have some sort of image of what the classes are when they design them. Or there won't be classes for the players to choose from. The fighter will cast spells and wizards swing axes.

The imbalance is just having a image for all levels of the class.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So you keep saying--without any actual argument to back it up. Hence, I asked you to sell me on it.

I don't need to make a case for the status quo. It's up to you to make the case for why you believe the classes in D&D should be balanced.

As opposed to playing a game which was actually designed with class parity in mind.

 

[Minigiant]

View attachment 315096

Why?

If I'm want to make a level 11 PC or level 1 PC, shouldn't I have an idea of what their capabilities are?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't need to make a case for the status quo. It's up to you to make the case for why you believe the classes in D&D should be balanced.

As opposed to playing a game which was actually designed with class parity in mind.

Because people are dissatisfied with the status quo. As WotC's own data shows.

There are plenty of other reasons--but that alone is enough. The status quo is a problem. If it weren't, we wouldn't have 5.5e.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Because people are dissatisfied with the status quo. As WotC's own data shows.

I don't see much evidence of that.

There are plenty of other reasons--but that alone is enough. The status quo is a problem. If it weren't, we wouldn't have 5.5e.

5e has lasted far longer than any other edition, and even now is only getting light changes. The main reason for introducing a new edition is to sell more copies of the core rules. In this case, there is also the factor of reflecting cultural changes. But that's only because 5e has stuck around for so long.

The only edition of D&D that did attempt to balance classes was the shortest lived of them all.