D&D General Balanced vs. Imbalanced vs. Today's D&D

[payn]

Lemon Curry.

 

[Aldarc]

I kinda agree here. Like, what does "predictable and linear" mean? I'm getting the feeling of "You can pick whatever classes and feats you want, but you'll always do 20 DPR, have 50 HP and an 18 AC at level 5" or something like that. Something where the choices are really just a different skin on the same output.

Even those of us who prefer balance are generally looking for "asymmetric balance", something like Starcraft or a MOBA or a fighting game. You can pick different characters or factions, and they play very differently, but all are useful and competitive.

This is a point that often gets lost in the discussion of balance IMHO. I think that a desire for "perfect balance" is something of a strawman, sometimes used to dismiss design problems. I have no problems with asymmetric balance. I even like asymmetric balance. Even in 4e, for example, balance tended to be more about the ability for a class to competitively perform a given role than a perfect symmetry between all classes.

 

[TwoSix]

Even in 4e, for example, balance tended to be more about the ability for a class to competitively perform a given role than a perfect symmetry between all classes.

Yep. A swordmage and a warden filled similar roles, and neither of them outshone the other, but they still had very different themes and tropes, as well as very different mechanics and playstyles. Whereas a swordmage and wizard shared a lot of themes and tropes, but fulfilled very different roles with very different playstyles.

If that would be more "linear and predictable", put me aboard the railroad.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That would require that different contexts get as much "screen time" as combat (per the rules) and that seems unlikely.

That's up to the DM and the players and, to a lesser extent, how the rules are designed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have zero desire to play any version of D&D without the ability to houserule.

 

[soviet]

I have zero desire to play any version of D&D without the ability to houserule.

How could any version of D&D possibly enforce that?

 

[Aldarc]

How could any version of D&D possibly enforce that?

But this forum poll would know!

 

[Stormonu]

I'll take what we have now. Defined enough to give you a good jumping off point and starting balance, but open enough to tell the story the players want to hear. You can tack on or rip off sections as you please and shore up balancing where you and your group feel it's off balanced, while still enjoying feeling that characters are "competent" and/or powerful.

I used to like zero to hero when I started this gig, but I'm much less enamored of it these days. It worked for introducing folks and easing them into how the game worked, but I'm far past that. There's many ways to still have interesting stories without having to undermine the character's abilities to get things done. Though, I do wish magic was a little less "everywhere" - but that goes to above in being able to remold the game to personal satisfaction with upending it entirely.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How could any version of D&D possibly enforce that?

The poll enforced that.

 

[aco175]

I voted for 5e as we have now as the default since the first two came out as either boring since I was thinking choices did not matter that much and picking classes and races were dressing on the linear paths where everyone would just succeed, even if they stumbled forward. Random and swingy felt too much the other way and more like 1e/2e where maybe too much was left up to the DM. I do not mind save or die spells or even level drains, but an assassin that hands the DM a note and suddenly the DM says you're dead is too much.

I did not pick the other options since feel a poll should force you to make choices and not have a squishy middle ground.