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

[Micah Sweet]

To be fair, I don't think any version of D&D, either TSR or WotC, has really done the attempt to shift to "domain level" play at higher levels right. The only game in the D&D-like family I can think of that successfully navigates it is ACKS.

That's true. Its a big reason why I just backed their new edition Kickstarter. Love ACKS!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's true. Its a big reason why I just backed their new edition Kickstarter. Love ACKS!

What's ACKS?

 

[Pedantic]

The treadmill idea is another one of those dogwhistles for balance.

I don't think that's supportable. The "treadmill" complaint is about the nature of the gameplay loop. Players deploying similar abilities to resolve problems in similar ways, thus that all that changes in the game is the magnitude of numbers and the kinds of description employed. The alternative is a game in which the actions available to players are transformative over time, thus that problems are not resolved the same way as they increase in level, and the kinds of narrative the game produces are different at different levels.

Yes, if you have class balance, encounter design becomes easier as party capability is more of a known quantity.

The easier encounter design becomes, the more readily a DM can design a challenge (combat in most eds, or skill challenge or out of combat task or whatever) that will be exactly as challenging to a high level character as a different, lower level challenge, was to the same character in the past.

Thing is, it also becomes easier to design a more or less challenging encounter than that. The treadmill assertion is that the DM must churn out exactly the same degree of challenge, every level, because balance makes it possible. But balance makes it possible to consistently design challenges close to the DMs intent more easily and consistently, regardless of whether that intent is high, low, reasonable, or, most likely, varies with the progress of the campaign.

The treadmill assertion, as you put it, is about the means by which that state is achieved, not about the idea of evaluating encounters. Or at least, it shouldn't be, the conflation of the two is a symptom of the same reification of 4eisms as definitional of "balance" I mentioned earlier. The issue becomes more obvious in the more anemic non-combat systems, which are mostly just "roll with a 70%ish chance of success, with some variance," and that gameplay loop never actually changes, just the description of what is causing the player to roll. The 4e approach to achieving encounter knowability is to set constraints on the range of numerical inputs and fix resolution to the same systems.

You don't have to do that, 4e chose to do that because it's consistent and easy to design for and if we're honestly, kind of the design ethos that's been present in D&D adventure products for a long time, just not one well supported by the assorted core systems.

 

[mamba]

The more people use something the more they will find flaws.

maybe, but we are still talking about satisfaction percentages here. If a lower rating were just an indicator for ‘it got played more’ then WotC can basically stop the whole playtest…

 

[Pedantic]

What's ACKS?

Adventurer, Conqueror, King, an OSR game that focuses specifically on a transition to domain management at higher levels. The designer of the game is mired in political controversy that's outside the bounds of discussion here, but probably worth investigating if you're considering the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What's ACKS?

Short for Adventurer Conqueror King System. An OSR game just getting its second edition via Kickstarter, which opened today and funded in less than 15 minutes. Emphasis is on a lot of modular systems and the re-introduction of the domain game, all of it meticulously researched and playtested. It is my absolute favorite RPG.

More details at the Kickstarter page:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/autarch/adventurer-conqueror-king-system-imperial-imprint-acks-ii

 

[Micah Sweet]

Adventurer, Conqueror, King, an OSR game that focuses specifically on a transition to domain management at higher levels. The designer of the game is mired in political controversy that's outside the bounds of discussion here, but probably worth investigating if you're considering the game.

Its an amazing game that does literally everything I want a D&D style game to do. I've spoken to the creator directly on a couple of occasions, and listened to his YouTube channel and read his blogs, and I don't see anything untoward there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think that's supportable. The "treadmill" complaint is about the nature of the gameplay loop. Players deploying similar abilities to resolve problems in similar ways, thus that all that changes in the game is the magnitude of numbers and the kinds of description employed. The alternative is a game in which the actions available to players are transformative over time, thus that problems are not resolved the same way as they increase in level, and the kinds of narrative the game produces are different at different levels.

The treadmill assertion, as you put it, is about the means by which that state is achieved, not about the idea of evaluating encounters. Or at least, it shouldn't be, the conflation of the two is a symptom of the same reification of 4eisms as definitional of "balance" I mentioned earlier. The issue becomes more obvious in the more anemic non-combat systems, which are mostly just "roll with a 70%ish chance of success, with some variance," and that gameplay loop never actually changes, just the description of what is causing the player to roll. The 4e approach to achieving encounter knowability is to set constraints on the range of numerical inputs and fix resolution to the same systems.

You don't have to do that, 4e chose to do that because it's consistent and easy to design for and if we're honestly, kind of the design ethos that's been present in D&D adventure products for a long time, just not one well supported by the assorted core systems.

That is exactly what I'm talking about. The treadmill comes from the fact that the PCs basically do the same thing regardless of level.

 

[mamba]

So if you have a thread full of people whining about how Fighters don't get all kinds of special bells and whistles they can use every turn, and a site full of people who regularly and deeply play the Fighter, then which of these two is a more useful source of information?

this assumes that there is a lot of high level info available, but generally speaking always the hard data, if it gets you what you are looking for (which it might not here, it tells you how what is available is being played, but not what changes players would like)

And which do you feel a creator should be more willing to place their product direction in: people who regularly play and enjoy the game, or people who constantly complain about it and act like they're being persecuted and victimized when classes aren't as OP as they want them to be?

if you only listen to those that like it, then there is never a need / desire for change. You should listen to those interested in it imo

And the second half of the above is absolutely false from anything I have seen

WotC has their surveys, chances are they are mostly listening to people playing the game

 

[Tony Vargas]

Correct.
I am explicitly saying that I've come to the conclusion that the Wizard trope is a sacred cow of mainline D&D design.

That is an impediment to making the game better, yes.
I suppose your position is that it's an insurmountable one?

I can't really strongly disagree. The chance that WotC will try to make the game less terrible, when being terrible appears to be delivering revenue growth are nil.

But, how a game might be made better still strikes me as an engaging subject, no matter how academic

. The "treadmill" complaint is about the nature of the gameplay loop. Players deploying similar abilities to resolve problems in similar ways, thus that all that changes in the game is the magnitude of numbers and the kinds of description employed.

I mean, the 5e gameplay loop is the same at all levels (without much variability in the numbers, even), you don't hear "treadmill" too often (though Micah /did/ just say that about 5e & 3e, too, so I guess, I've heard it at least once). The classic D&D gameplay is resource management, you get more hp, spells, and items to manage, but that's as far as it goes.

The alternative is a game in which the actions available to players are transformative over time, thus that problems are not resolved the same way as they increase in level, and the kinds of narrative the game produces are different at different levels.

So, an example of a treadmill would be if the characters got some basic options in combat (attacks) and out (skills) that were numeric and rested on the same sorts of (d20) checks, and the bonuses and target numbers just edged up, perhaps you got to make the checks more often, but new options didn't open up.
So, for instance, the TSR era fighter or the 5e Champion fighter.

A not-treadmill would be if the characters gained new abilities as they advanced. Like all spellcasters in every edition, or 3e fighters gaining feats with new feats becoming available at higher level or with the acquisition of prerequisites, or 4e fighters gaining more and different exploits, which open up as they advance ... or 5e BM fighters if they had some better maneuvers that unlocked at higher level.

The treadmill assertion, as you put it, is about the means by which that state is achieved, not about the idea of evaluating encounters. Or at least, it shouldn't be

They certainly seem closely related. The treadmill assertion has always been that advancement is illusory, that the same moves and the same rolls will have the same results regadless of the level at which it's happening.
That speaks directly to how the DM calibrates challenges, and is not impossible in any version of D&D. A 5e DM, for instance, could, thanks to BA, very easily manipulate ACs, saves, and other DCs to make everything the PCs did have a 50/50 chance of success at every level. The better the tools the game gives the DM, the more easily the DM can set challenges to a desired level. In a game that leaves the DM to his own experience and creativity, the players will probably experience quite a range of challenges, even if the DM is trying to be consistent.

But, if you get more moves that do different things as you advance, that's less of an issue. 4e was only different from other editions that way, in not giving vastly more new moves to casters relative to non-casters.

The issue becomes more obvious in the more anemic non-combat systems, which are mostly just "roll with a 70%ish chance of success, with some variance," and that gameplay loop never actually changes, just the description of what is causing the player to roll.
... if we're honestly, kind of the design ethos that's been present in D&D adventure products for a long time, just not one well supported by the assorted core systems.

Non-combat has always been poorly supported in D&D relative to spellcasting and combat, usually boiling down to a single check to resolve a given task. Whether that was a Thief's % 'special' ability, or a WotC era d20 skill check, with modest exceptions like opposed checks, or the 3e complex (more than one success on the same skill required) skill checks, 4e skill challenges (multiple success on different skills from the whole party required), or 4e & 5e group checks (whole party rolls the same skill, half need to succeed).