Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 9061728" data-attributes="member: 7030563">I think classes were well balanced in 4E.&nbsp; I do not believe balancing classes is a central design theme of 5E, do not believe it should be, and if it is in fact a central design theme they did a very poor job of it.They purposefully undid many of the things in 4E that provided balance.That is my opinion on this.&nbsp; To be &quot;unquestionably&quot; wrong would require irrefutable evidence to the contrary and I have not seen that.&nbsp; What evidence I have seen, both in play and in the expansion of 5E material, actually strengthens my opinion on this.I would say that it is an unpopular position certainly.&nbsp; However, while it is unpopular, I do not believe any empirical evidence actually supports the idea that balance is good.4E was by far the most balanced version of D&amp;D, it was also the least popular version.&nbsp; While that is anecdotal, I don't know of any evidence to the contrary.Tashas and SCAG undoubtedly made the game more unbalanced, the first with subclasses that are OP compared to other subclasses in a class and the second with mostly subclasses that were objectively weaker.&nbsp; Yet I think both of these publications improved the game and made it more fun and the elements that made it more unbalanced are some of the most popular parts of those publications.Finally, I will offer the fighter paradigm.&nbsp; Fighter is overwhelmingly the most popular class and people playing fighters generally have fun and continue playing fighters when other objectively more powerful classes are available.I recognize that most players believe balance is good, but I respectfully disagree with them and have yet to see any evidence that makes me believe this is actually true.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ECMO3, post: 9061728, member: 7030563"] I think classes were well balanced in 4E. I do not believe balancing classes is a central design theme of 5E, do not believe it should be, and if it is in fact a central design theme they did a very poor job of it. They purposefully undid many of the things in 4E that provided balance. That is my opinion on this. To be "unquestionably" wrong would require irrefutable evidence to the contrary and I have not seen that. What evidence I have seen, both in play and in the expansion of 5E material, actually strengthens my opinion on this. I would say that it is an unpopular position certainly. However, while it is unpopular, I do not believe any empirical evidence actually supports the idea that balance is good. 4E was by far the most balanced version of D&D, it was also the least popular version. While that is anecdotal, I don't know of any evidence to the contrary. Tashas and SCAG undoubtedly made the game more unbalanced, the first with subclasses that are OP compared to other subclasses in a class and the second with mostly subclasses that were objectively weaker. Yet I think both of these publications improved the game and made it more fun and the elements that made it more unbalanced are some of the most popular parts of those publications. Finally, I will offer the fighter paradigm. Fighter is overwhelmingly the most popular class and people playing fighters generally have fun and continue playing fighters when other objectively more powerful classes are available. I recognize that most players believe balance is good, but I respectfully disagree with them and have yet to see any evidence that makes me believe this is actually true. [/QUOTE]

Verification