D&D (2024) High tier Fighter − the mythic warrior

[Shardstone]

To be more power in one pillar and less powerful in an other pillar is to lack balance.

For example, in a game that focuses on combat encounters or social encounters, the players who have a subpar class are likely to enjoy D&D less.

That isnt objectivly true.

 

[Yaarel]

That isnt objectivly true.

If a class is subpar at combat, it is objectively true it will be subpar in a D&D campaign that mainly has combat encounters.

 

[FrogReaver]

To be more power in one pillar and less powerful in an other pillar is to lack balance.

For example, in a game that focuses on combat encounters or social encounters, the players who have a subpar class are likely to enjoy D&D less.

If you want to get pedantic anything that’s not exactly the same abilities for every character runs into that same issue. Because we can break the pillars down into sub pillars and those down until we reach individual scenarios and on this level it’s apparent that different abilities are stronger in different scenarios and short the DM trying to equalize out the scenarios for each PC and their abilities, there’s not your kind of balance here either.

In short, what you mean by balance isn’t what most of us mean by it. Balance for the rest of us is more of a close enough thing and based on a more stereotypical campaign. The further you are from the stereotypical campaign the less likely things remain balanced. And even that’s okay because we aren’t looking for perfect balance. Besides as long as we have some idea the campaign will be heavily social or exploration focused we can make our own evaluations about characters most suited to that campaign style and what we find fun.

 

[Yaarel]

If you want to get pedantic anything that’s not exactly the same abilities for every character runs into that same issue. Because we can break the pillars down into sub pillars and those down until we reach individual scenarios and on this level it’s apparent that different abilities are stronger in different scenarios and short the DM trying to equalize out the scenarios for each PC and their abilities, there’s not your kind of balance here either.

In short, what you mean by balance isn’t what most of us mean by it. Balance for the rest of us is more of a close enough thing and based on a more stereotypical campaign. The further you are from the stereotypical campaign the less likely things remain balanced. And even that’s okay because we aren’t looking for perfect balance. Besides as long as we have some idea the campaign will be heavily social or exploration focused we can make our own evaluations about characters most suited to that campaign style and what we find fun.

It is possible to have different combat features that are comparable to each other. In the aggregate players consider them about equally useful in combat. Char ops routinely assesses diverse combat features.

If it would be impossible to balance features, I would prioritize class balance above class diversity - for any core rules experience.

 

[kilpatds]

The usual way to measure balance out-of-combat is "screen time"? In a given pillar, how much TIME to you get to shine.

 

[FrogReaver]

If a class is subpar at combat, it is objectively true it will be subpar in a D&D campaign that mainly has combat encounters.

IMO. That’s not true either. Let’s say we have the king of the social pillar. He still contributes to combat but does objectively less there than the other PCs. Maybe 70% of their contributions. But he does social twice as good as them.

My money is on the social character being more fun and standing out more than all the other combat focused PCs even in a combat focused game.

 

[FrogReaver]

It is possible to have different combat features that are comparable to each other. In the aggregate players consider them about equally useful in combat. Char ops routinely assesses diverse combat features.

Usually the answer in true char op is it depends on the exact situation and the exact aggregation you expect to encounter.

There’s often rules of thumb for a stereotypical campaign but diverging from that even a little can lead to much different answers.

 

[Yaarel]

Usually the answer in true char op is it depends on the exact situation and the exact aggregation you expect to encounter.

There’s often rules of thumb for a stereotypical campaign but diverging from that even a little can lead to much different answers.

By aggregate, I mean most players in most situations. It is ok to have rare corner cases where a feature might imbalance wonkily. It helps to guard against corner cases, but one can expect surprises every now and then.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Yaarel

To keep fighters and wizards balanced do you add a bunch of Long rest abilities and resources to the fighter or do you remove most the long rest abilities and resources from the wizard.

Seems like one or the other is the only way to balance under your definition?

 

[FrogReaver]

By aggregate, I mean most players in most situations. It is ok to have rare corner cases where a feature might imbalance wonkily. It helps to guard against corner cases, but one can expect surprises every now and then.

But we don’t care about most players in most situations. We care about me and the situations in my campaign. Else, we are just balancing for a stereotypical campaign which you implicitly rejected by using the example of a mostly social campaign as the reason characters need equal features affecting all pillars.