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

[Xenolith234]

When?

In 3e when their niche was "Fighting Specific Enemies" (that may not show up in the game) and "Moving in Specific Terrain" (that may not be where the game takes place)?

Or in 2e when their role was to be slightly worse fighters and slightly worse rogues but decent at both in the wilderness?

In 4e they had a kind of niche, more or less, as a martial/primal striker/controller. Though their narrative niche became muddier than ever as both tried to get reconciled in three different ways (two of which were hybrids in a system where discrete categories were the soup du jour)

Rangers have kind of always been trapped between pillars because the game is built largely around specific character classes holding up specific pillars rather than everyone partaking in every pillar equally.

I can't think of an edition where they had a clear narrative role and mechanical niche, in D&D and Pathfinder, that wasn't ham-handed at best.

The best versions I've seen are in A5e and Tales of the Valiant. And I honestly kinda give ToV the edge on it, even without martial maneuvers.

Out of curiosity, why do you give ToV the edge? I haven’t gotten the Player’s Guide (only the GMG and the Monster Vault) as I heard it was mostly more of the same.

 

[Distracted DM]

Out of curiosity, why do you give ToV the edge? I haven’t gotten the Player book as I heard it was mostly more of the same.

I won't speak to the Ranger specifically, but it's "more of the same" as far as 5e design goes; as in, they didn't try to change the core system assumptions. But the actual content was a great improvement over the then-current 5e classes and such.

I am curious about her thoughts on why the ToV Ranger > the A5E ranger! I have a player that would love a "better ranger" but who wasn't overly taken with the A5E version.

 

[Xenolith234]

I won't speak to the Ranger specifically, but it's "more of the same" as far as 5e design goes; as in, they didn't try to change the core system assumptions. But the actual content was a great improvement over the then-current 5e classes and such.

I am curious about her thoughts on why the ToV Ranger > the A5E ranger! I have a player that would love a "better ranger" but who wasn't overly taken with the A5E version.

I’ve been considering starting up a 5e game (or going with Swords & Wizardry) and was thinking I’d roll with Laserllama classes for all of the core classes, but if that’s the wrong direction, I’d love to know as well.

 

[tetrasodium]

When?

In 3e when their niche was "Fighting Specific Enemies" (that may not show up in the game) and "Moving in Specific Terrain" (that may not be where the game takes place)?

Shortsighted. Look deeper.
They also got 6+int mod skill points with the following class skills
The ranger’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Climb (Str), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Hide (Dex), Jump (Str), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (nature) (Int),

and a bunch of the +4 attrib 2nd level spells just & other goodies like barkskin or first level resist energy as the casters normally responsible for distributing those to PCs who could notably benefit from them as those casters had need to slot other spells into those slots now that CL made them worthy.

Then you have the endless specialization paths PrCs allowed. Quite a few of them allowed a ranger to avoid the "trapped between pillars" complaint you make later as well.

Or in 2e when their role was to be slightly worse fighters and slightly worse rogues but decent at both in the wilderness?

There are so many mechanical differences it becomes almost impossible to make a meaningful comparison.

In 4e they had a kind of niche, more or less, as a martial/primal striker/controller. Though their narrative niche became muddier than ever as both tried to get reconciled in three different ways (two of which were hybrids in a system where discrete categories were the soup du jour)

Rangers have kind of always been trapped between pillars because the game is built largely around specific character classes holding up specific pillars rather than everyone partaking in every pillar equally.

I can't think of an edition where they had a clear narrative role and mechanical niche, in D&D and Pathfinder, that wasn't ham-handed at best.

The best versions I've seen are in A5e and Tales of the Valiant. And I honestly kinda give ToV the edge on it, even without martial maneuvers.

 

[Steampunkette]

Out of curiosity, why do you give ToV the edge? I haven’t gotten the Player’s Guide (only the GMG and the Monster Vault) as I heard it was mostly more of the same.

I won't speak to the Ranger specifically, but it's "more of the same" as far as 5e design goes; as in, they didn't try to change the core system assumptions. But the actual content was a great improvement over the then-current 5e classes and such.

I am curious about her thoughts on why the ToV Ranger > the A5E ranger! I have a player that would love a "better ranger" but who wasn't overly taken with the A5E version.

Simplicity.

The ToV Ranger gets "Mystic Mark" which is basically a d4 Hunter's Mark baked into the class. 2 uses per long rest at level 1, increased damage die type along the same path as Bardic Inspiration, more uses per rest as your proficiency goes up.

A5e does Stride and Seek>Hunter's Target (+1 attack, +1d6 damage) once per short rest for 1 hour, bonus action to bounce target if the enemy hits 0 (or you can get a speed bonus which is a weird choice-trade if you ask me, but whatever) and then Trained Accuracy so you can throw out up to 5d6 extra damage once per long rest if your Wisdom Mod is 3 or higher. Also if you don't move you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls.

There's a lot more to remember and layering mechanics to do "Gain bonus damage on a target" on top of the martial maneuvers. It's so -busy-.

It is effective, don't get me wrong... but there's just so much required.

ToV's bonus damage on a hit plus the Martial Actions is "Good Enough" at getting them a solid niche in combat, especially with Quick Strike at low levels (at level 2 you can dual wield d6 weapons for 3d6+3d4+Str each turn) but you have -very- limited uses so you'd better pick a hard target, y'know?

Personally I'd give it a -bit- more weight (have it last 24 hours, be usable on finding a trail or with an image of the target like a wanted poster, give bonuses to tracking, able to have multiple targets simultaneously with each target consuming a use, etc. But that's just my design goals on it.

 

[Steampunkette]

Shortsighted. Look deeper.
They also got 6+int mod skill points with the following class skills
The ranger’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Climb (Str), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Hide (Dex), Jump (Str), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (nature) (Int),

Ah, yes. The ability to have both Spot and Listen as separate skills. VERY BIG DIFFERENCE.

The ability to have more skills than a Fighter was great, but also depended on how your DM ran the game and how often they relied on "Knowledge Geography" checks.

For the record I don't recall ever asking for a Geography check and can't really imagine many situations where it would be useful, but go off, I guess.

The others? More useful. Particularly Hide, Move Silently, Listen, and Spot. Which were, of course, collapsed into 2 skills instead of 4.

Huh. And the 5e Fighter has 2 skills known... while the Ranger has 3. Almost like they're still more skilled than the Fighter and with a shorter list of duplicate skills. (Also Backgrounds come with more skills known to offset that a bit but we don't care about things like that, right? Gotta get Knowledge Geography!)

and a bunch of the +4 attrib 2nd level spells just & other goodies like barkskin or first level resist energy as the casters normally responsible for distributing those to PCs who could notably benefit from them as those casters had need to slot other spells into those slots now that CL made them worthy.

Titanic "Meh". 3e relied on massive bonus stacking, 5e doesn't. So not having massive bonus stacking isn't a thing that really matters.

Then you have the endless specialization paths PrCs allowed. Quite a few of them allowed a ranger to avoid the "trapped between pillars" complaint you make later as well.

Ah yes. The correct way to fix a class's poor design: Take levels in OTHER classes. Surely the game's designers are geniuses.

There are so many mechanical differences it becomes almost impossible to make a meaningful comparison.

Yyyyyyyyup.

 

[OptionalRule]

I ask this because of a some changes that were tried in UA and rejected and one change that was made and is unliked by many.

The things I am thinking about are:

Sneak Attack on your turn only (tried in UA and rejected)
No doubling critical Sneak Dice or Smite dice or other damage riders (tried in UA and rejected)
Paladin smite using a bonus action which effectively limits it to once a round on your turn (implemented but disliked)
Changing Warlock mechanics to a long rest (tried in UA and rejected)
Using statblocks for Wildshape (tried in UA and rejected)
Using statblocks for familiars (tried in UA and rejected)

Me personally I like the Paladin change and did not like any of the others, but I also don't think balance is important and I am not sure it is even good.

People have enjoyed DnD since the 70s at all different power levels.

If you ask a player what they want, the answer will always be more. What's actually fun though isn't the same thing.

The real question to ask is "Does WotC really want balance?" and I think the answer is clearly no. The execs laid out a strategy some time ago that DnD is undermonitized. Heavily implying that the tradition of mostly DMs buying material was at least part of the problem. So to get players to buy more directly access, they are creating content aimed at them. Along with online subscriptions to access that content, it's a strategy get purchaes from more than just the DM.

It's not accurate to say that WotC wants an imbalanced game, but balance isn't their priority. Sales are.

 

[LordEntrails]

As both a player and a DM balance of options and between characters is important. For me balance become more important with experience or age. I tend to think of it as a type of maturity, but that is not to say those who do not value balance are not mature. For me, balance, and really the desire for all characters to be equally as effective and enjoyable has been something that has become more important to me as I've aged.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'd like to ask a question of the thread at large.

Does "balanced" mean that things must be exactly precise? As you see it, of course. In other words, do you think "balanced" implies perfection or an expectation of perfection?

 

[Zardnaar]

I'd like to ask a question of the thread at large.

Does "balanced" mean that things must be exactly precise? As you see it, of course. In other words, do you think "balanced" implies perfection or an expectation of perfection?

Nope precise doesn't matter.

Everyone has fun and as long as you're good at something and that sonething cones up often enough shrig.

And no one's getting over shadowed constantly.