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

[FrogReaver]

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.

I had a similar reaction when I brought up Gritty Realism so that I could stretch encounters out over a week instead of a single day. It doesn't actually impact them much at all, just makes things more realistic.

IMO. They might be complaining more against the annoyance than the power.

 

[Xenolith234]

IMO. They might be complaining more against the annoyance than the power.

I think there's a lot of crossover in "annoyance" and power gain. Things that are inconvenient are annoying, but taking them away also can make things absurd. I don't like quantum quivers where ammo is infinite because it's not realistic, but tracking ammunition for players is annoying. I think that's a line that I have to say I'm not concerned that it's annoying for them. It's not like I'm making them track their expenses and submit them to their adventuring company at the end of the year for tax purposes.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

When I played TOA about 7 years ago, I multiclassed my Rogue into a Ranger solely because we were spending most of our time lost and the guide we hired was awful at being a guide. I was the only PC with both a 13 Dex and Wisdom who could do it, so I picked up a level of Ranger just for the ability to never be lost in favored terrain.

Unfortunately the new 2024 Ranger is much more of a combat-oriented and does not have abilities like Primeval Awareness or the old Natural Explorer.

Yeah I miss the old lore/social/exploration features of the 2014 ranger. They were weak and situational that you barely have to consider them in a power budget! You could have made a very combat focused 2024 ranger and tacked on those features and it would not have changed anything in terms of power balance.

 

[Oofta]

I strongly object to your characterization of my view as "wanting to slaughter PCs left and right" or I can't have fun. Wanting to challenge PCs is not the same as being a jerk. Maybe cut out the hyperbole so many people use to present their opponent's opinions as ridiculous?

And it's frustrating because my enjoyment of the hobby is about more than making sure other people are enjoying themselves. It includes that, but just facilitating the fun of others isn't enough for me. Sue me.

"Slaughter PCs left and right" wasn't serious and it was a bit of an exaggeration, sorry if it came off as serious. But from what you stated, if death isn't regularly on the table it's frustrating to you. But there is no way that every DM will be a perfect fit for every player and vice versa. As DMs we always have to decide where to draw the line and where to compromise. If you don't want to run a game where permanent PC death is rare you should tell that to potential players.

The important thing is that you discuss various aspects of the game ahead of time. I include things in my invite to new players, my restrictions and what kind of game I run, so they have a decent idea before they even join. So that means that if a player wants to run an evil PC, I'm not the right DM for them. For some people replacing a PC isn't as simple as "just make another one"(1) and if you want to have a higher lethality game like @Lanefan (more power to them, I don't think I'd want them as a long term DM), then you have to be up front with players about it. That may mean you have difficulty finding players or have current players who don't want to play in your game in which case you have to decide what's most important to you.

I tell people up front that death is never completely off the table in my game and we go from there when discussing how lethal we want the game to be. But it's up to you to set what your expectations are and up to the players to decide if they're okay with it. As always, my advice is to have a frank and open discussion with players offline or outside of the game session if something isn't working for you and try to work it out. But personally? I just accept that I'm not going to be the right DM for everyone.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To be fair. This thread is tagged 2024 d&d. Or is that term being taken by games other than 2024 d&d?

There are many topics that apply to multiple versions of 5e. Do you really think "do players care about balance" is a topic exclusive to 5.5? Or should we have multiple threads on every topic to make sure we don't cross the streams?

That is ridiculous, not to mention impractical. If your topic applies to more than your tag, maybe you should have used a different tag. Or at least been clear in the OP that you don't want to hear about anything but 5.5 in your thread.

 

[Xenolith234]

Yeah I miss the old lore/social/exploration features of the 2014 ranger. They were weak and situational that you barely have to consider them in a power budget! You could have made a very combat focused 2024 ranger and tacked on those features and it would not have changed anything in terms of power balance.

I think each feature (including potential weapon damage and potential spells) and downside should be balanced on a point scale for characters at each level as a whole, where players end up ~60:40 advantaged. For example, ability scores used to (mostly) balance out - you'd get a +2 in one score and a -2 in another, leaving you with a 0 actual overall point change.

 

[Micah Sweet]

IMO. They might be complaining more against the annoyance than the power.

It's the same thing in this case. The simplicity of darkvision is power to the PCs.

 

[Oofta]

I agree with you! Capabilities should be weighed across the whole of the game, not just combat. It needs social and exploration tiers to balance the characters appropriately. If the fighter could be best in combat and the bard is balanced to not be combat-focused, that's fine with me - to some that might mean that their bard is "useless", but in my opinion the bard should excel in the social situations and mostly sit back in combat. That would mean that enemies would likely have to have less HP so that the combat would end in a somewhat-reasonable time if only a couple characters were truly engaged in the fight, and then we're getting in the realm of either another edition, another game, or significant houserules...

But unfortunately, combat is the only tool in the toolbox that WotC seems to want to balance characters against, and the characters that would be more flavorful in other situations (ranger) are just meh. Why hunt/gather for resources when Conjure Food and Water exists? Or create shelter in the wild when there's Tiny Hut?

I disagree with there being no support for things outside of combat. If that were true we wouldn't have most of the skills, basically none of the tools and several of the feats. It may not be as encoded and rules heavy as you like but it also doesn't require heavy handed house rules. It just need you to set up situations that make sense to you as a DM that establish goals and obstacles.

The 2024 DMG will hopefully have better advice on that but the official rules are hardly the last place to look for that kind of stuff if you aren't comfortable running it more free form. For me, I like having a lot of freedom outside of combat because if I have a transparent point or influence system then people tend to focus on gaming the system, not playing their PC.

 

[Xenolith234]

I disagree with there being no support for things outside of combat. If that were true we wouldn't have most of the skills, basically none of the tools and several of the feats. It may not be as encoded and rules heavy as you like but it also doesn't require heavy handed house rules. It just need you to set up situations that make sense to you as a DM that establish goals and obstacles.

The 2024 DMG will hopefully have better advice on that but the official rules are hardly the last place to look for that kind of stuff if you aren't comfortable running it more free form. For me, I like having a lot of freedom outside of combat because if I have a transparent point or influence system then people tend to focus on gaming the system, not playing their PC.

I don't particularly care for influence systems or point systems when it comes to social interactions (I value roleplay at the table over rollplay), but I really do wish there was more around exploration. It doesn't necessarily need to be tables and tables of hard rules, but if it's provided and I can choose to eschew it if I like, that's fine - but if it's not provided and I have no idea how to run interesting exploration, then the game is very much missing something.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"Slaughter PCs left and right" wasn't serious and it was a bit of an exaggeration, sorry if it came off as serious. But from what you stated, if death isn't regularly on the table it's frustrating to you. But there is no way that every DM will be a perfect fit for every player and vice versa. As DMs we always have to decide where to draw the line and where to compromise. If you don't want to run a game where permanent PC death is rare you should tell that to potential players.

The important thing is that you discuss various aspects of the game ahead of time. I include things in my invite to new players, my restrictions and what kind of game I run, so they have a decent idea before they even join. So that means that if a player wants to run an evil PC, I'm not the right DM for them. For some people replacing a PC isn't as simple as "just make another one"(1) and if you want to have a higher lethality game like @Lanefan (more power to them, I don't think I'd want them as a long term DM), then you have to be up front with players about it. That may mean you have difficulty finding players or have current players who don't want to play in your game in which case you have to decide what's most important to you.

I tell people up front that death is never completely off the table in my game and we go from there when discussing how lethal we want the game to be. But it's up to you to set what your expectations are and up to the players to decide if they're okay with it. As always, my advice is to have a frank and open discussion with players offline or outside of the game session if something isn't working for you and try to work it out. But personally? I just accept that I'm not going to be the right DM for everyone.

I play with my wife and my long-term friend (as I've said before my best friend passed away years ago, and he shared my favored style when neither of the above do). I also play with new people whom my wife recruits (she's much more social than I am). I compromise on what I want out of play all the time, and compensate as best I can when I can, because I have no choice.

In short, social dynamics keep me from playing the game I really want, so I do the best I can.