D&D (2024) Can we have a discussion about the assumptions we make in terms of balance?

[Asisreo]

When we analyze classes and compare them to one another, we often make assumptions because we can't mathematically model everything to the minute detail. For small, isolated features, I think there's potential for sloppy assumptions, but when we make sweeping generalizations based on multiple assumptions, I think we should handle them with better scrutiny.

One such example I have is the assumption of Feats and Multiclassing. We assume feats and multiclassing is a valid assumption, and there's a few reasons why, but when we really think about them, there's some discrepancies like how they're likely undercooked and that's why they favor some classes better than others.

Another assumption is how often or little a character gets hit. There's ideas like "ranged characters rarely get targeted, melee characters always get targeted." But we're making assumptions on a specific enemy type that might not be consistent with play.

We don't have to be bogged down by these examples, if you have an assumption you see shared when discussing the game that you feel should be scrutinized more in-depth, you're more than welcome to add to this thread.

 

[mellored]

Actually play will beat assumption. But even then, different campaigns will show different results.

So we sort of need to make assumption to compare stuff. It may not be perfect, but it's better than not comparing them.

 

[Scribe]

Would certainly be nice to see without a bunch of unclear, or completely unstated assumptions, when talking about what should be a pretty simple exercise.

Are we talking damage?
Pure damage potential?
Damage in a specific scenario?
Social Pillar?
Opportunity Cost?
Feats vs No Feats?

On and on.

I frankly dont think I even care anymore unless its specifically stated that we are talking 'dump of damage in a round with zero conditions'.

Because everything else is 100% subjective and dictated way more by play style.

 

[CleverNickName]

The worst assumption that people make is that every character class must be balanced against all other character classes. It's best to just agree that, depending on the players at the table, and their style of play, there will always be different levels of complexity, power, and versatility. Fighters will always be better at stabbing things than a cleric, but the cleric will always be a better healer, and whether or not those things balance each other will depend on the people playing and the situations the DM puts them in.

But I know that's not why we're here. That's not what this thread is about. So with all that said: I think that if people are going to try to balance certain classes against certain others, they should try to eliminate variables as much as possible. So the best approach I can recommend is:

• Don't include multiclassing, and don't include feats. Those two things have a dramatic impact on character options, effectiveness, and ability...they cloud the waters, so to speak. A dwarf rogue with certain feats and levels of certain classes will be more powerful, complex, and versatile than a non-multiclassed fighter who only takes ASIs.
• Don't compare apples to oranges: spellcasters are not, and cannot be, equal to non-spellcasters. (For more information, click on any one of the dozen active threads discussing this topic.) So when you are balancing character classes with one another, make sure you are comparing half-casters to other half-casters, full-casters to other full-casters, non-casters to other non-casters. Things won't match otherwise.
• I realize that the point above is going to defeat the purpose of comparing classes in the first place for some readers. There are people who need apples to look and taste and feel like oranges. I don't really know what to say to that, other than "good luck."

Anyway, those are my two coppers.

 

[TheSword]

Assume that players want to enjoy the game rather than win a technical exercise.

Also assume that players aren’t actively trying to break the game. Cases that need that to be a reality aren’t worth worrying about. Folks that bring them, won’t see active gaming for long.

 

[Scott Christian]

The worst assumption that people make is that every character class must be balanced against all other character classes. It's best to just agree that, depending on the players at the table, and their style of play, there will always be different levels of complexity, power, and versatility. Fighters will always be better at stabbing things than a cleric, but the cleric will always be a better healer, and whether or not those things balance each other will depend on the people playing and the situations the DM puts them in.

But I know that's not why we're here. That's not what this thread is about. So with all that said: I think that if people are going to try to balance certain classes against certain others, they should try to eliminate variables as much as possible. So the best approach I can recommend is:

• Don't include multiclassing, and don't include feats. Those two things have a dramatic impact on character options, effectiveness, and ability...they cloud the waters, so to speak. A dwarf rogue with certain feats and levels of certain classes will be more powerful, complex, and versatile than a non-multiclassed fighter who only takes ASIs.
• Don't compare apples to oranges: spellcasters are not, and cannot be, equal to non-spellcasters. (For more information, click on any one of the dozen active threads discussing this topic.) So when you are balancing character classes with one another, make sure you are comparing half-casters to other half-casters, full-casters to other full-casters, non-casters to other non-casters. Things won't match otherwise.
• I realize that the point above is going to defeat the purpose of comparing classes in the first place for some readers. There are people who need apples to look and taste and feel like oranges. I don't really know what to say to that, other than "good luck."

Anyway, those are my two coppers.

This. Very well said.

 

[Vaalingrade]

• Don't compare apples to oranges: spellcasters are not, and cannot be, equal to non-spellcasters.

If you make this assumption remove spellcasters immediately.

 

[CleverNickName]

If you make this assumption remove spellcasters immediately.

Good luck!

 

[CreamCloud0]

nothing to say currently but interesting conversation topic.

 

[Leatherhead]

I'm waiting on the DMG UA coming out, but I need to get that monster math, things will become much more clear then.