D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[Vaalingrade]

Write that game then if it is so easy.

Dude.

Already playtesting and commissioning art. Been talking about the process here for months.

It's really funny when people decide to bust out the 'then why don't you do it if it's so easy' on someone who is, but really other people shouldn't be expected to put in the time effort and money these things require to prove something to you. That kind of rhetoric needs to chill.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Dude.

Already playtesting and commissioning art. Been talking about the process here for months.

I genuinely wish the best of luck with that.

It's really funny when people decide to bust out the 'then why don't you do it if it's so easy' on someone who is, but really other people shouldn't be expected to put in the time effort and money these things require to prove something to you. That kind of rhetoric needs to chill.

You don't need to prove it to me, but there are obvious reasons why what you suggest won't work for a mass market game like D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

It's been 35 years. There's been dozens of designers working on D&D since then. And most of them played 1e AD&D 'cause they're older than me.

And 1e's Ranger Niche wasn't enough to give them a consistent long term vision even within a single revision of the rules to make it work.

Like... The people who made 2e made 1e and went "We need to redo the Ranger." I guess their level as bonus damage on 24 different types of "Giant Kin" wasn't enough of a niche.

The people who made 2e decided to model the Ranger on Drizz't. Big mistake.

The 1e Ranger never needed a wholesale makeover. A bit of tweaking, sure, but trying to turn what was originally a good solid tank class into a two-weapon swashbuckler (which they should have done to Thieves instead) was just plain dumb.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You don't need to prove it to me,

Then your demand was rude and uncessary.

 

[Lanefan]

I want to remove Darkvision from most ancestries and add Concentration to the Light spell to balance out the efficacy of it, and make the dark threatening again. I know for certain that my players will balk against this because it's weakening them. Is this such a significant balance change that it's really a problem? I don't believe so.

But it does highlight a very basic underlying problem with the direction of 5e's design: the DM is too often stuck in the role of the bad guy when she tries to tweak the rules to make the game more challenging.

Ideally it should go the other way around: that the game be designed and written as highly challenging-deadly-nasty and then options are given in the DMG as to how to ease off on this to varying degrees. This puts the DM in a much more pleasant role.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But it does highlight a very basic underlying problem with the direction of 5e's design: the DM is too often stuck in the role of the bad guy when she tries to tweak the rules to make the game more challenging.

I'd ask why the DM is not asking the players what level of challenge the players actually want to interact with and then driving themselves nuts trying to do something that might not matter.

 

[Lanefan]

This one was tagged as exclusively a topic for 2024 d&d.

(edited for typo)

Given the title of the thread is a very general-sounding "Do players really want balance?", tagging it as specific to D&D2024 seems odd in that D&D2024 (in its full form) doesn't yet have any players to ask; and won't - and can't - until both the '24 DMG and '24 MM are out.

General question --> general discussion, regarless of tag.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Given the title of the thread is a very general-sounding "Do players really want balance?", tagging it as specific to D&D2024 seems odd in that D&D2024 (in its full form) doesn't yet have any players to ask; and won't - and can't - until both the '24 SMG and '24 MM are out.

General question --> general discussion, regarless of tag.

This is literally what I'm talking about.

 

[Oofta]

But it does highlight a very basic underlying problem with the direction of 5e's design: the DM is too often stuck in the role of the bad guy when she tries to tweak the rules to make the game more challenging.

If the DM is running a game the players don't want, then yes I do blame the DM for not listening to their players.

Ideally it should go the other way around: that the game be designed and written as highly challenging-deadly-nasty and then options are given in the DMG as to how to ease off on this to varying degrees.

I disagree. A newbie DM wouldn't know to back off which turns off new players. Meanwhile an experienced DM has plenty of way to make the game more difficult if it's what the players want.

 

[Zardnaar]

Where would I find a listing of those in general?

I watched the Dungeon Dudes tier ranking. I don't agree with everything but generally only 1 off. Eg I might rate a class as B they might go C or A.

Very few are D it's generally barbarian ones eg Berzerker and things like Purple Dragon Knight.

Ideally I would ban D and S tier but I generally only do the worst offenders eh Twilight clerics or anti social stuff.

An exampke. 2014 Sorcerers I lean towards BG3 or 2024 buffing. If someone picked a 4 element monk I would probably give them a free ASI (not feat). Magic items are another one.

Eg someone takes the -5/+10 feats. They find a magic +0 glowing sword. The person using a short sword finds a flaming one.