D&D 5E D&D Next Design Goals (Article)

[Incenjucar]

Again, you can put all of the inherently unbalanced stuff on top of a balanced system. You can even make that unbalanced version of the game the "true" expression of the game, so long as you make it easy to identify those parts so that they can be stripped out, either for a balanced game or for a game differently unbalanced.

And yes, if you want balance you can just play 4E - WotC doesn't want to LOSE the 4E crowd, however. 5E is supposed to get fans of all editions, not just the non-4E editions, and they won't do that without a balanced game being at least available.

 

[Incenjucar]

Seriously? The game was riddled with problems. They had to basically redesign monsters from scratch in MM3, release feats to solve higher scaling of monster defenses, changed the DCs of Skill Challenges multiple times, etc. etc.

Maybe the game is "balanced" now. I haven't played it in ages. But, when I was playing the game, there were numerous issues... From Day 1.

To-Hit and HP was an issue everyone had to put up regardless of character, so that was balanced, just bad. Skill DCs were more of a balance issue, sure.

This still doesn't begin to compare to the glaring flaws in 2E or 3E.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again, you can put all of the inherently unbalanced stuff on top of a balanced system. You can even make that unbalanced version of the game the "true" expression of the game, so long as you make it easy to identify those parts so that they can be stripped out, either for a balanced game or for a game differently unbalanced.

And yes, if you want balance you can just play 4E - WotC doesn't want to LOSE the 4E crowd, however. 5E is supposed to get fans of all editions, not just the non-4E editions, and they won't do that without a balanced game being at least available.

I think what people are saying is applying this rigid parity and balance to the core game would basically make it a 4E variant. You would lose the pre 4e crowd (who have said that isn't the kind of balance they are interested in----though they are interested in balance). It feels like people are saying make the core 4e and just allow people to strp out 4e elements to taste....i would rather these sors of things need to be put back in as options.

Dont get me wrong, i want a balanced core system...but i want it to be balanced across several aspects of the game and over the adventure (not the encounter).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Seriously? The game was riddled with problems. They had to basically redesign monsters from scratch in MM3, release feats to solve higher scaling of monster defenses, changed the DCs of Skill Challenges multiple times, etc. etc.

Maybe the game is "balanced" now. I haven't played it in ages. But, when I was playing the game, there were numerous issues... From Day 1.

4E at its worst was more balanced than any other edition of D&D or pretty much any tabletop RPG. On top of that, no other game has ever come close to the complexity of 4E with as many moving parts as it had and achieved anywhere near 4E's level of balance. 4E not only provided balance, it provided it the hard way.

 

[P1NBACK]

I think what people are saying is applying this rigid parity and balance to the core game would basically make it a 4E variant. You would lose the pre 4e crowd (who have said that isn't the kind of balance they are interested in----though they are interested in balance). It feels like people are saying make the core 4e and just allow people to strp out 4e elements to taste....i would rather these sors of things need to be put back in as options.

Dont get me wrong, i want a balanced core system...but i want it to be balanced across several aspects of the game and over the adventure (not the encounter).

Exactly. I want rules that make sense and provide a sense of fantasy adventure. Whether or not this requires balance is not important to me.

This is where I think Mearls is headed in the right direction.

 

[P1NBACK]

4E at its worst was more balanced than any other edition of D&D or pretty much any tabletop RPG. On top of that, no other game has ever come close to the complexity of 4E with as many moving parts as it had and achieved anywhere near 4E's level of balance. 4E not only provided balance, it provided it the hard way.

Can you explain to me how the Moldvay 1981 Basic set was "unbalanced"? I'd love to hear your thoughts on how 4E is more balanced.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I think what people are saying is applying this rigid parity and balance to the core game would basically make it a 4E variant. You would lose the pre 4e crowd (who have said that isn't the kind of balance they are interested in----though they are interested in balance). It feels like people are saying make the core 4e and just allow people to strp out 4e elements to taste....i would rather these sors of things need to be put back in as options.

Dont get me wrong, i want a balanced core system...but i want it to be balanced across several aspects of the game and over the adventure (not the encounter).

The adventure really isn't a useful measurement of balance. It just varies too much. I could see a mixture of encounter and adventure balance being able to work, but an adventure is variable enough that balancing solely on the adventure level is no balance at all.

 

[Incenjucar]

Again, easier to unbalanced a balanced system.

The whole "adventure" balance thing can't actually work in practice with a broad audience. People just aren't all going to play the same. But you can make a system that would hypothetically work IF people DID work that way on top of a balanced system, for those people who just happen to actually run games that way.

While you could, frankly, do that with 4E, 5E is clearly running under different rules. They may very well use a balanced system, and one balanced in the same way that 4E is balanced, but it won't be a variant of 4E any more than 4E is a variant of 3E.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The adventure really isn't a useful measurement of balance. It just varies too much. I could see a mixture of encounter and adventure balance being able to work, but an adventure is variable enough that balancing solely on the adventure level is no balance at all.

Sure it is. In fact I prefer it as a measure to the encounter (personally found 4e encounters very dull because of how they were balanced). Now if you balance over an adventure not every adventure will come yield the same results...and it may vary from group to group...but it produces a much more textured end product where choices matter (and tends to balance out over time). I dont want my thief to match e fighter in combat (i want him to shine in the cities and dungeons). I can accept that in some adventures or in some campaigns this will mean he is going to shine more or less---the trade off is worth it to me. Not everyone wants the extreme parity and balance 4e provided...i was certainly don't.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again, easier to unbalanced a balanced system.

The whole "adventure" balance thing can't actually work in practice with a broad audience. People just aren't all going to play the same. But you can make a system that would hypothetically work IF people DID work that way on top of a balanced system, for those people who just happen to actually run games that way.

.

Again, i dont want to have to work to remove the 4e parity from the core system.